Planning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE COHOES PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 12, 2018 AT 6:30 PM IN THE COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bob Bucher Ms. Stephanie Couture Mr. Joseph Nadeau ABSENT: Chairperson Mark DeFruscio Vice Chairperson Jack Carroll ALSO PRESENT: Robyn Reynolds, Deputy Director of Economic Development and Planning CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 15, 2018 MEETING Member Bucher, acting as Chair, opened the meeting at 6:31 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 Couture and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio Absent Jack Carroll Absent Stephanie Couture X CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOME OCCUPATION AT 14 MANOR SITES R. Reynolds noted that it appeared the applicant was not present, but had been notified of the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL AT 35 CARLTON AVENUE The applicant, Thomas Lagage, appeared to help explain the proposal. Member Boucher noted the proposal was for an in-ground swimming pool which would sit 14’ from the side property line, 14’ from the back property line and would be a roughly 12’ by 25’ ovular shape. Member Boucher asked if the neighbors were aware, which Mr. Lagage confirmed. Member Boucher asked if the steps were inside or outside of the shape of the pool, which Mr. Lagage noted they would be inside the pool. Member Boucher asked if any of the other Board members had any comments. Member Nadeau asked if the pool is fenced in, which Mr. Lagage noted it will be in the future. Member Nadeau commented that the Board likes to confirm that the pool will be up to the electrical code, but with an in-ground pool this is a little different. Member Boucher asked if the work was being done by a professional installer, which Mr. Lagage confirmed. Member Couture noted that the concern over water spilling into a neighbor’s yard was not relevant given it would be an in-ground pool. There being no further questions or comments, Member Couture made a motion to approve the special use permit, which was seconded by Member Nadeau and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio Absent Jack Carroll Absent Stephanie Couture X CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A MICROBREWERY/WINERY AT 65 CONGRESS STREET Dan O’Neill approached the Board an explained that he and his wife own 65 Congress Street, known as The Venue and that brides and grooms have noted that they would like to be able to come in and make their own beer and wine for their weddings, but that in order to do this, State Liquor Authority requires public hours. Mr. O’Neill noted that they were considering hours on Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, and potentially Mondays but that the specific hours need to be reviewed and approved by the State Liquor Authority. Member Couture asked if there will be additional events and Mr. O’Neill noted that they do special events on occasion, but that they need to re-apply to the State Liquor Authority for the microbrewery/microwinery. Member Bucher asked if the wine and beer would be made in-house by the owners, to which Mr. O’Neill noted that they have partial equipment and they are looking for outside consultants for the wine and beer which would be in a limited scale with no canning and bottling on-site. Member Bucher asked if they were planning on distributing, which Mr. O’Neill noted they would not, and it would only be for on-site events. Member Bucher asked about the hours and Mr. O’Neill noted that per State Liquor Authority they would need to be open to the public and would be open at the City’s convenience. Mr. O’Neill noted that they would not be looking to be open more than 4 days per week. Member Boucher asked if certain hours had been considered, to which Mr. O’Neill noted likely 5 or 6 pm until 10 pm. Member Couture noted that she thought it was an interesting concept and confirmed that no events would be over 400 people. Mr. O’Neill noted that most weddings are 100 people or less, and he does not expect to have more than that on any given night, but that they would like to have an outdoor space for people to be able to enjoy. Member Nadeau noted that it’s in the middle of a residential neighborhood, he would like to see some specific times noted so that events and hours are not too late. Mr. O’Neill noted that they currently do not run any events past midnight, he would be happy to have hours that end at 11 pm. Member Bucher noted that in the original approvals for the site plan, ending at midnight on the weekend was a condition, which Mr. O’Neill noted is sufficient as events don’t go past 11 pm. Member Nadeau noted that 11 pm seems a bit late and asked if any neighbors were present or were made aware. Mr. O’Neill pointed out that they plan on installing a privacy fence but that they don’t have loud events and have not had any complaints. Member Bucher asked if there were any audience members who appeared on the project, to which there were none. Member Nadeau noted that an approval could be contingent upon the lateness of the hours, either 10 pm or 11 pm and that they could work the neighbors if there were any complaints. Mr. O’Neill noted that he had no issue with either 10 pm or 11 pm as the Board saw fit, but that the extra hour of 11 pm would be convenient for cleaning staff. Member Nadeau noted he would like the contingency of changing the scope if there were any complaints from the neighbors. Member Bucher noted that 11 pm seemed like the time most agreeable and Member Nadeau noted that the days could be Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday to which Mr. O’Neill noted that may need to change based on feedback from the State Liquor Authority. Member Nadeau asked about the fence, to which Mr. O’Neill noted he was still considering different styles, but that they wanted a classic look and this would help shield against some issues that guests have brought up. There being no further questions, Member Nadeau made a motion to grant the special use permit, which was seconded by Member Couture and Member Bucher clarified that this was for hours to end at 11 pm on Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays and if there were any issues the hours would be revisited. The motion passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio Absent Jack Carroll Absent Stephanie Couture X CONSIDERATION OF SEQR FOR A SITE PLAN AT 41 EUCLID STREET Mr. Nicholas Costa made a brief presentation on the project noting that they had been operating a compactor on-site in the open, but that the proposed structure would enclose those operations and make them not seasonally dependent. Mr. Costa pointed out that they have addressed comments from the City Engineer and the Board including drainage issues, updating the lighting plan, and noting the hazard level. Member Bucher asked if new installations of surface would be porous, to which Mr. Costa confirmed that it would be all porous material in paving operations and up to code. There being no further questions on SEQR, Member Bucher made a motion for a negative declaration for SEQR purposes, which was seconded by Member Nadeau and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio Absent Jack Carroll Absent Stephanie Couture X CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN AT 41 EUCLID STREET There being no further questions on the site plan, Member Couture made a motion for an approval of the site plan conditional upon the review by the Albany County Planning Board and their recommendations, which was seconded by Member Nadeau and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio Absent Jack Carroll Absent Stephanie Couture X CONSIDERATION OF SEQR FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD GASOLINE STATION AT 218 COLUMBIA STREET Mr. William Hennessey made a brief presentation on the project and noted that it was for the renovation and re-establishment of a gasoline station on the site of the former Gerard’s Autoshop with a 1875 square foot store for small items, a 3-pump canopy, and a new sign on the corner which needed variances from the setback off of Columbia Street and lower sign height. Mr. Hennessey pointed out that they had modified landscaping plans and had modified the construction of the dumpster. Member Bucher asked if there were comments from any of the Board Members, to which Member Nadeau noted that it seemed like they had been addressed. Member Couture asked if the applicant was planning on maintaining the sidewalks and crosswalks, which Mr. Hennessey confirmed that they would. Member Bucher asked how high they were planning on constructing the dumpster enclosure, which Mr. Hennessey noted 5-6 feet roughly and Member Bucher asked for a minimum of 6’. Member Bucher asked if any of the audience members would like to comment. City Councilperson William McCarthy noted that he had concerns with snow removal and asked if they could pay special attention to managing snow on-site. Mr. Hennessey noted that they increased snow storage area and they will remove snow if necessary. Ms. Decker of 108 Simmons Avenue noted that she preferred a 6 foot dumpster enclosure and asked for the installation of additional arbor vitae to shield her property. Mr. Hennessey noted that they were giving space to allow them to grow out, but Member Couture pointed out they could plant additional trees next to the cement enclosure. Member Bucher noted that there’s space for 1- 2 additional arbor vitae along the back property line and suggests this be addressed. Ms. Decker asked about the sign height, to which Mr. Hennessey responded that it would be 20’ high and the lower height would be 12’, but that NYS DOT asks only for 7’ at the lower sign height. Ms. Decker asked what the hours would be, to which Mr. Hennessey noted from 5 am to 11 pm. Member Bucher asked if there were any other comments from the audience. A neighbor asked if there were set hours for the timing of the sign, to which Mr. Hennessey noted they were automatic. The neighbor asked if the sign was going to impact the trash trucks and noted a concern over increased traffic and the children visiting the site which may be a hazard. Mr. Hennessey noted that in terms of visibility, the sign is up to NYSDOT standards and that the sight distance would not be an issue. The neighbor noted that in the past, visibility on this corner has been an issue. Mr. Hennessey noted that these types of operations serve drive-by customers and that this doesn’t generate a lot of traffic and that the pedestrian infrastructure would be upgraded as a result of this project. The neighbor questioned the safety of children walking around the site and noted a concern about the business hours. Member Bucher pointed out some of the design elements that would mitigate neighbor impacts such as lighting, the dimmable sign, that light is not directed towards any of the neighbors. There being no further questions, Member Nadeau made a motion for a negative declaration for SEQR purposes for the project, which Member Couture seconded. The motion passed unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF SEQR FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD GASOLINE STATION AT 218 COLUMBIA STREET There being no further questions on the site plan, Member Couture made a motion to conditionally approve the site plan, upon the conditions that there would be a 6 foot high dumpster enclosure, addition of arbor vitae plantings on the rear property line, no lighting on the back of the building, a dimmable LED sign that would be dark after operating hours, maintenance of sidewalks, and snow removal, approval of the sign variance, and review by the Albany County Planning Board. Member Nadeau seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio Absent Jack Carroll Absent Stephanie Couture X CONSIDERATION OF SEQR FOR A SITE PLAN AT 70 DELAWARE AVENUE FOR RETAIL AND MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS Mr. Peter Lilholt, the City Designated Engineer gave a brief overview of the project which has already obtained variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Lilholt noted that CHA and the City have been working with the applicant to review the project, and CHA delivered a letter with comments on October 31st. Mr. Lilholt reviewed some of the comments in letter which touched upon SEQR, City Code considerations, fire code and fire department considerations, landscaping and wayfinding considerations, engineering and traffic considerations, and site layout considerations. Jamie Easton of MJ Engineering, representing Prime Companies, LLC, noted that he had been working with City staff and others on the project and that they had considered many different layouts before proposing this specific site design as there are some difficulties with the site. Mr. Easton noted that they were looking forward to working with everyone on the project and to addressing comments thusfar. R. Reynolds noted that City staff were planning on holding a meeting with the applicant and CHA to review comments and to come up with means to address them. Member Bucher noted that at this meeting, the Planning Board could pass a resolution for intent to declare lead agency. Member Couture made a motion for the Planning Board’s intent to declare lead agency for SEQR purposes for the project, which was seconded by Member Nadeau and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio Absent Jack Carroll Absent Stephanie Couture X ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Member Couture made a motion to adjourn at 7:46 pm which was seconded by Member Nadeau and the motion passed unanimously.