Planning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE COHOES PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 15, 2018 AT 6:30 PM IN THE COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Mark DeFruscio Mr. Bob Bucher Mr. Joseph Nadeau ABSENT: Vice Chairperson Jack Carroll Ms. Stephanie Couture ALSO PRESENT: Robyn Reynolds, Deputy Director of Economic Development and Planning CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 MEETING Chairperson DeFruscio opened the meeting at 6:33 pm and asked if any of the Planning Board members had any comments on the proposed minutes. There being no questions, Member Nadeau made a motion to approve the minutes, which was seconded by Member Bucher and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll Stephanie Couture CONSIDERATION OF DECLARING LEAD AGENCY FOR SEQR FOR A SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT AT 218 COLUMBIA STREET R. Reynolds noted that all involved agencies had been notified, and there was no comment received. That being the case, Chairperson DeFruscio made a motion to declare lead agency for SEQR purposes for the site plan and special use permit for a neighborhood gasoline station at 218 Columbia Street, which was seconded by Member Nadeau and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll Stephanie Couture CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD GASOLINE STATION AT 218 COLUMBIA STREET Chairperson DeFruscio noted that this is a consideration of a site plan and special use permit for a neighborhood gasoline station at 218 Columbia Street and that there were comments delivered at the last meeting and requests to be addressed by the applicant. Mr. William Hennessey, representing Mr. Uday Patel, noted that this is a reconstruction of Gerard’s Autoshop which was a service station with 2 service bays. Mr. Hennessey explained that they are planning on installing three gasoline dispensers capable of dispensing gasoline as well as diesel and building a small store on-site to sell small items. Mr. Hennessey clarified that this is a small site and the building is proposed to be a hip roof style building and that the canopy above the gasoline pumps will be roughly 14 feet and 6 inches above grade with the building occupying 1,850 square feet which requires 5 parking spaces with four planned adjacent the building and the remainder at the gasoline pumps. In his presentation, Mr. Hennessey discussed the adjustments made to the site plan to address feedback from the public, Planning Board, and Zoning Board including shielding equipment using the mansard roof, additional plantings of trees to shield neighboring properties, addition of snow storage, moving the sign farther off of Mann Avenue to comply with zoning requirements, using dimmable lighting technologies for the sign, and also adjusting the ADA compliant sidewalks. Chairperson DeFruscio inquired about the ingress and egress on Columbia Street – whether this was one-way, to which Mr. Hennessey noted it would be two-way as an entrance closer to the corner was eliminated as it was felt that this as too close. Chairperson DeFruscio asked about the tank placement and remediation after removal of the previous tanks, to which Mr. Hennessey and Mr. Patel responded noting that there was a clean closure report issued by the DEC meaning that there was no further action required. Chairperson DeFruscio asked if there were any significant comments from the Traffic Engineer, which R. Reynolds noted that the Traffic Engineer saw this as a replacement of a pre-existing business and therefore no traffic study was needed. After comments from the audience, Chairperson DeFruscio noted that this is a replacement of one gasoline station with a new gasoline station. Mr. Hennessey pointed out that this is an environmental improvement. Chairperson DeFruscio asked about lighting improvements to address previous comments, to which Mr. Hennessey pointed out that they would be installing cut off fixtures to preclude dark sky illumination and that they are angling down lighting to illuminate only the site and not surrounding properties. Member Nadeau asked how many vehicles could use the station at one time, to which Mr. Hennessey noted 6. Member Nadeau noted concerns over site drainage that were raised at the previous meeting, and asked if the City Engineer had any significant concerns. R. Reynolds clarified that as this occupies the same footprint, there weren’t too many concerns. Member Nadeau noted the quantity of asphalt and impervious surfaces on the site, to which Mr. Hennessey noted that the site occupied less than an acre, so it is not as significant in terms of the environmental review as other sites. Mr. Nicholas Costa, also involved in the project, noted that not all the flow goes into one catch basin, some of this goes down Mann Avenue to pick up the flow and mitigate the issue. Chairperson DeFruscio, after no further questions by the Board, opened a public hearing at 6:54 pm. A neighbor noted that they are fine with the idea of the gas station, but not with the mini-mart as there are concerns with green space being taken away and that there are already traffic issues on Mann Avenue. Another audience member stated that they were not sure there was a need for another gas stations as there were other options in the City. A third audience member who lived on Mann Avenue noted that she felt there would be impacts to their lives in terms of foot traffic, distraction, and eliminating green space. She stated that there’s no need for an additional gas station given that Stewart’s is down the street and there were concerns over Sirajco being put out of business in addition to traffic concerns. She noted that she felt that the property could be put to better use. Chairperson DeFruscio clarified that the Planning Board’s role is to review projects that are presented by applicants that meet the City’s zoning requirements and also to try and make sure that the projects being proposed accommodate requests made by the community. Chairperson DeFruscio noted that the location of the neighborhood gasoline station on that exact parcel is a business decision and the Planning Board does not have the authority to make those kinds of business decisions. Chairperson DeFruscio asked if the audience had any other questions. One audience member asked how the project would impact other neighbors, to which Member Nadeau noted that there was a strong community presence at last month’s meeting. Chairperson DeFruscio pointed out some of the comments that were addressed including moving the sign, dimmable LEDs, and outdoor lights being shut off after business hours. Member Nadeau pointed out the condenser units being relocated to the roof of the building and Member Bucher pointed out the recessed condenser units and lighting. Member Bucher went on to note that the engineers on the project have responded to requests, and we want to ensure equity as a City in terms of development opportunities. Chairperson DeFruscio went on to note that project meets City zoning requirements and that the site was previously a gas station, but that the variance is being requested for the sign, which is being processed by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Hennessey clarified the dimensions of the sign. Chairperson DeFruscio asked if there were any other comments, and there being none, closed the public hearing at 7:03 pm. Member Nadeau, seeing the public hearing closed, asked about the delivery of fuel and inquired as to whether or not the delivery schedule could take into account normal business hours. Mr. Patel confirmed that the delivery schedule was flexible and could be coordinated to meet neighborhood concerns. It was suggested by the Board that the delivery schedule be kept somewhere in the range of 8 am to 8 pm, although business hours are from 5 am to 11 pm. Chairperson DeFruscio asked about deliveries coming through the front door, and Mr. Hennessey confirmed that all of the deliveries would be in the front of the building, but that there may be a back door in the building. Member Bucher asked about enclosing the dumpster as per the request of a neighbor and Mr. Hennessey noted that he believed it couldn’t fit based on the new design. Member Bucher suggested that a CMU enclosure be installed on two sides of the dumpster for size considerations, and to install a chain link on the front to accommodate the neighbor request and still be able to fit the dumpster adjacent to the building. Member Bucher also noted that it’s a good idea not to have a second egress on the back or side of the building. R. Reynolds clarified no vote could be made at the meeting, and that the County would be reviewing this plan at their November 15th meeting. The Board noted that they were looking forward to moving this proposal along and seeing additional comments made by neighbors addressed prior to final approval. CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN AT 41 EUCLID STREET Chairperson DeFruscio asked the applicant to explain the project. Mr. Costa, representing the applicant, stepped forward to note that the site is primarily used for recycling and recovery of metal objects. He explained that there was some damage to a building as a result of a fire which has been taken care of, and this project aims to construct a 12,000 SF warehouse on the site to enclose operations adjacent to existing buildings. Chairperson DeFruscio clarified that this was to cover pre-existing operations, and Mr. Costa confirmed that this is to bring in an area that is stockpiled, close it, and use the space for bailing and compacting the materials that are taken away by tractor-trailers. This is already happening on site, and the building to enclose these operations would be similar to what’s already on-site which is a pre-fab metal building. Members asked if it was a pole-barn or steel frame structure, which Mr. Costa noted that it would have a large opening door where materials would come in, and four doors where materials will be taken away. Mr. Costa noted that this use has been grandfathered as this site has existed prior to 787 being constructed. Member Nadeau asked if Mr. Costa had a chance to review the Engineering Department comments, which Mr. Costa read aloud during the meeting and noted he would address. Chairperson DeFruscio asked about the stormwater implications of the project given that the stormwater would be consolidated on the roof of the new building. Mr. Costa indicated that this could be dissipated through design. Member Bucher asked about the level of hazard for the building, which Mr. Costa noted he did not know, but could ask the architect. Member Bucher also noted an interest in stormwater management being addressed. CONSIDERATION OF SEQR FOR A SITE PLAN AT 41 EUCLID STREET R. Reynolds noted that no other agencies were involved in permitting for this project, and the Planning Board could move forward with an uncoordinated review as this is an Unlisted Action. Member Bucher made a motion to declare lead agency for SEQR purposes, which Member Nadeau seconded and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll Stephanie Couture CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO A RESOLUTION FOR A SITE PLAN AT 385 SARATOGA STREET R. Reynolds explained that the County re-reviewed the site plan after The Community Builders submitted an updated site plan angling the building, which the Planning Board approved. The County Planning Board had some additional recommendations pertaining to the stormwater review process during the re-review which should be incorporated into the final resolution. There being no questions, Member Nadeau made a motion to approve the amended resolution with the additional recommendations from the County Planning Board, which was seconded by Member Bucher and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll Stephanie Couture ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairperson DeFruscio made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:33 pm. Member Nadeau seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.