Planning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE COHOES PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD ON JUNE 11, 2012 AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chairman Clarence Badgley Mr. Edward Carboni Ms. Sharon Gariepy ABSENT: Mr. Jake Dumesnil Chairman Joseph Moloughney Mr. Mark DeFruscio CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MAY 14th, 2012 MEETINGS Member Carboni moved to approve the minutes conditioned on amending the motion to adjourn. Member Gariepy seconded the motion which passed unanimously. YES NO Joseph Moloughney ABSENT Leo Badgley X Edward Carboni X Jake Dumesnil ABSENT Sharon Gariepy X Mark DeFruscio ABSENT CONSIDERATION OF A POOL AT 293 CENTRAL AVE The applicant did not attend the meeting. Therefore Member Carboni moved to table the item. Member Gariepy seconded the motion which passed unanimously. YES NO Joseph Moloughney ABSENT Leo Badgley X Edward Carboni X Jake Dumesnil ABSENT Sharon Gariepy X Mark DeFruscio ABSENT CONSIDERATION OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF 28 PEACH STREET Wayne Lajeunesse owns property at 28 Peach Street he proposes subdividing into three lots. On two resulting vacant lots he would like to install a modular duplex. Each unit would be sold individually. Member Carboni asked if the applicant proposes any off-street parking. Mr. Lajeunesse does not intend to construct a garage or install a driveway as these would be the only homes on the end of Peach Street. He proposes on-street parking instead, for which he would need a variance. He also needs a variance from lot width for parcel “A” which is only 32’ wide when the code requires 40’. Member Gariepy moved to approve the subdivision conditioned on obtaining a variance from lot width and parking. Member Carboni seconded the motion which passed unanimously. YES NO Joseph Moloughney ABSENT Leo Badgley X Edward Carboni X Jake Dumesnil ABSENT Sharon Gariepy X Mark DeFruscio ABSENT CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN FOR DORMITORY HOUSING AT 65 CONGRESS STREET Dan O’Neill purchased 65 Congress Street – the former St. Joseph’s. He proposes using the existing dormitory style rectory rooms as suites for college students. Acting Chairman Badgley pointed out he will need a variance for the number of units. Mr. O’Neill proposes eleven units while the code limits the number of units to a maximum of three. In the future he would also like to rent out the church to either a caterer, a restaurant or a banquet hall. Parking for those uses under the code would be 1 per 100 sq ft. He does not have measurements yet, but will need adequate parking for the church as well as the dorm rooms. Member Gariepy asked which college students the applicant thinks will occupy the structure and whether he discussed the opportunity with the administration. Mr. O’Neill spoke with students from RPI and Sage who expressed an interest in living in the structure. Member Gariepy asked what management the applicant proposes. He intends to hire an RA or residential advisor to supervise the building and occupants. Alternatively, if 22 students cooperatively decide to rent he would let them self-manage. Member Carboni then asked about parking requirements. The Code is silent on Boarding House requirements, but lists residential units which require two parking spaces and hotel rooms which require one parking space per room. Member Gariepy favored two parking spaces per room since the applicant is hoping to rent to two students per dorm room. In addition, those visiting hotel rooms travel in one vehicle whereas the occupants live in the boarding rooms for at least nine months. Mr. O’Neill countered that some students will not have a vehicle. He has a total of 61 parking spaces: 45 regular paved spaces and 16 overflow spaces on a grassy area that cannot be paved. The grassy area caves in periodically due to rotting wood that was placed under the fill. The land will require additional fill until all the material decomposes. Acting Chairman Badgley pointed out that on-street parking is congested for residents, so the applicant could not rely on using the street parking. Member Gariepy asked if the applicant would install a dumpster. She indicated that the nature of the use is a concern but that the Zoning Board of Appeals would need to consider whether to permit 11 rooms when the code limits use to three rooms. The area is congested and high traffic would add to the existing loitering, traffic and parking problems. Mr. O’Neill plans to use City cans and hire County Waste to pick-up additional cans. He would use the grassy areas for snow storage. He installed security cameras and found that young children sometimes use the lot for playing, but he has not had any problems with vandalism or criminal behavior. Acting Chairman Badgley asked if the garages would also be used for parking, which the applicant confirmed would provide three spaces. Member Gariepy asked what lighting the applicant would install. Mr. O’Neill intends to install lighting on the building and in the parking lot for safety. As a result, Member Gariepy moved to approve the application conditioned on obtaining Zoning Board of Appeals variances from the number of units and parking requirements; and provision of a private garbage service. Member Carboni seconded the motion which passed unanimously. YES NO Joseph Moloughney ABSENT Leo Badgley X Edward Carboni X Jake Dumesnil ABSENT Sharon Gariepy X Mark DeFruscio ABSENT CONSIDERATION OF AN ADDITION AT 421 COLUMBIA STREET Dan Sanders, Architect for Northeast Eddy, presented an addition proposed for the Marjorie Doyle building at 421 Columbia Street. The addition will provide 320 sq ft of interior space to divide a multi-occupant room into two single occupant rooms. Private rooms are more marketable. The proposal will include relocation of a waterline. However, the addition is an otherwise minor change. Member Carboni asked if the applicant would extend the sidewalk, which Mr. Sanders confirmed. The applicant will extend the 4’ wide walkway to the rear. Finally, the addition will have the same windows, siding and roofing material as the existing structure. Member Carboni moved to approve the application. Member Gariepy seconded the motion which passed unanimously. YES NO Joseph Moloughney ABSENT Leo Badgley X Edward Carboni X Jake Dumesnil ABSENT Sharon Gariepy X Mark DeFruscio ABSENT DISCUSSION OF A SIX FAMILY NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 15-17 GARNER STREET Robert Warland proposes constructing a six unit multi-family structure on vacant land at 15-17 Garner Street. The lots are adjacent to School 4 between where Worth and Vliet Streets cross Garner Street. Acting Chairman Badgley pointed out that proposal will require area variances from parking and for lot width. Mr. Warland is scheduled to appear at the June 27th, 2012 ZBA meeting. He will also pay for garbage pick-up through County Waste. Member Gariepy asked for more information on the project. The Board is also accustomed to more review time. Mr. Warland provided a site plan at the beginning of the meeting. Member Gariepy asked the height of the three story structure as well as details on garbage storage, snow storage, lighting, recreation area and parking accessibility in the neighborhood. Mr. Warland explained that the basement floor is 4’ above grade and each floor above is 8’ high. The roof peak adds another 12’. Therefore the total height of the building is 32’ while the code allows a maximum of 35’. Snow storage would be placed on the 20’ between the house and the parking lot. Finally, he does not see many cars parked on-street. Regardless, Member Gariepy moved to table the item until next month pending submission of details in writing. Member Carboni seconded the motion which passed unanimously. YES NO Joseph Moloughney ABSENT Leo Badgley X Edward Carboni X Jake Dumesnil ABSENT Sharon Gariepy X Mark DeFruscio ABSENT CONSIDERATION OF SEQR AND A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FOR A MULTI- FAMILY OFF WILLIAMS STREET Tom Andress, design engineer for the project, described the proposal as the same number of units as a single and twin family home project approved several years ago on the same parcel. However, in this instance the proposal is on a smaller footprint. In addition, the instant proposal improves the William Street extension by crossing Cohoes Housing Authority (CHA) lands rather than grip the edge of the ravine. Member Gariepy asked whether the issues with CHA had been resolved. Developer Larry Regan assured the Board that he and CHA were coming to an agreement. He is offering right of first refusal to CHA for both management of the development and eventual sale in 40 years. The right of first refusal is consideration for access across CHA land to extend William Street. Mr. Regan has met with, received a positive response from and is willing to work with the full CHA Board. CHA would like the City to approve the project prior to their involvement. Mr. Andress added that CHA approved the prior project, so he does not foresee any large obstacles in the negotiations. Member Carboni asked the applicant to explain “workforce housing.” Mr. Regan explained that he can rent units to families making up to $50,000 annually depending on family size. Doing so allows the property owner – an entity owned by Mr. Regan and his brother – to claim certain tax credits. Member Gariepy asked if payments would still be made to the School District. Mr. Regan explained that those tax credits can be handled in one of three ways: a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT), a 581A agreement or based on income of residents. The City benefits most from a PILOT. The City has the option of dividing the funds as it sees fit; however the administration has wisely decided to divide funds according to the current percentages. Member Carboni asked if the tax credit impacted water and sewer. Mr. Regan explained that all special taxing districts are paid the full amount due – there isn’t a credit or relief from water or sewer payments. Mr. Regan further described the plan to manage the site for 40 years in order to garner more credits. After 40 years the project can be sold. He is offering CHA right of first refusal on the sale and the management of the site. Member Carboni asked who would manage the site if CHA refuses. Mr. Regan hires Interstate, a subdivision of the Michaels Group, to manage all of his developments. Acting Chairman Badgley asked about street plowing and secondary access. Mr. Regan described the development as entirely private, so he would pay CHA to plow the streets. A secondary access point is available but would remain gated on a daily basis until needed for emergency. The buildings are fully sprinkled. Member Gariepy asked why the project is so close to the cliff and how the applicant would protect children from entering the ravine. Mr. Andress asserted that the previous proposal was closer to the ravine. He intends to install fencing in the wooded area so it isn’t visible but still provides protection. Member Gariepy asked about drainage and when the project would be reviewed by the Planning Board Engineer, Thomas McGrath. Mr. Andress showed how the topography would force water to drain south into the ravine. In addition, the project involves less impervious surface due to the smaller footprint. Even so, Mr. McGrath would begin review once the developer felt certain that the City would approve the project which would be apparent after the Zoning Board meeting on June 27th, 2012. Member Gariepy asked about a traffic study. Mr. Andress stated that the previous approval did not warrant a traffic study. However, in the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) engineers described the peak traffic as 45 cars. Councilwoman April Kennedy also wanted to see a traffic study due to increased traffic resulting from a new convenience store and other development in the City since the last proposal was approved. Mr. Andress explained that the purpose of a traffic study is to mitigate traffic problems. Given the existing layout he did not see any changes that would improve existing conditions. He is also concerned that the instant project isn’t the cause of the traffic problems and therefore would be unable to improve the situation. Councilwoman Kennedy is also concerned about water pressure due to the additional draw on resources. She wants to ensure that the project does not reduce the amount of available water during peak hours. Mr. Andress reminded the Board that engineers worked with the City to test flow. The instant project would connect directly to the Manor Ave main line. Therefore, the additional usage would not impact neighboring homes. Finally, Councilwoman Kennedy expressed concern about the visual impact of the buildings’ three story height. Mr. Regan explained that the project takes up a smaller footprint and viewshed with the 3 story height. Mr. Andress added that given the location of the proposed two story as opposed to the proposed location of the three story buildings, the three story will appear less intrusive. The two story structure would have been 48’ above grade whereas the three story will appear 35’ above grade. Board members chose to save any site plan approvals for next month’s meeting. However, Member Gariepy moved to make a negative declaration for SEQR purposes on the project. Member Carboni seconded the motion which passed unanimously. YES NO Joseph Moloughney ABSENT Leo Badgley X Edward Carboni X Jake Dumesnil ABSENT Sharon Gariepy X Mark DeFruscio ABSENT Member Carboni moved to adjourn at 8:40pm. Member Gariepy seconded the motion which passed unanimously.