Planning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE COHOES PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD ON MARCH 11, 2019 AT 6:30 PM IN THE COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Mark DeFruscio Vice Chairperson Jack Carroll Mr. Bob Bucher Mr. Joseph Nadeau Ms. Stephanie Couture ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Robyn King, Deputy Director of Economic Development and Planning CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM THE FEBURARY 11, 2019 MEETING Chairperson Mark DeFruscio called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm and asked if any of the Planning Board members had any comments on the proposed minutes from the January meeting. There being no questions, Vice Chairperson Carroll made a motion to approve the minutes, which was seconded by Member Nadeau and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture X CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN AT 151 SARATOGA STREET FOR RETAIL SERVICES After Chairperson DeFruscio gave a brief introduction, Andrea Hancock approached the Board and noted that they are planning on opening a “doggie daycare” business at the location at 151 Saratoga Street where they would be offering services for dogs, kenneling, bathing, and grooming. Chairperson DeFruscio asked about the nature of the kenneling and Andrea confirmed that she meant overnight services. Chairperson DeFruscio asked if this meant that they would be open every day for twenty four hours and if so, would there be staff on hand to monitor the dogs during that time. Ms. Hancock noted that after research, it was found that other operations such as these typically have closed-circuit televisions to monitor the animals, but that they planned on staying into the late hours and opening early to let them out. Chairperson DeFruscio asked where they would be let out as it’s an indoor site, and Ms. Hancock noted they have outdoor space they are renting adjacent to the site. Vice Chairperson Carroll asked if they were planning on four by eight foot enclosures inside the building, and Mr. Hancock noted that there were four separate six by eight kennels. Vice Chairperson Carroll noted it looked like a good amount of space and asked how many animals they were considering taking at a time. Ms. Hancock noted they were planning on accepting 25 animals comfortably, depending on the size of the dogs, but it may be 10 to 15 if larger dogs. Chairperson DeFruscio asked if they were planning on using the first floor of the space only, and Ms. Hancock noted it would all be on street level. Member Nadeau asked if there were floorplans that they could review, and R. Reynolds noted it wasn’t submitted as part of the application. Ms. Hancock noted that they had been sent to the Director of Economic Development and described some of the features they were including in the plan. Member Nadeau asked if they knew how much square footage they were occupying, and noted his concern for understanding how much space was left in case the building owner was planning on renting to others. Chairperson DeFruscio noted that there’s not a lot of space for additional parking and Vice Chairperson Carroll noted that this wouldn’t be an issue based off of the proposed use but would like to know dimensions for future uses. Mr. Hancock noted that they have the entire parking lot to use and it would be all drop-off for their customers. Chairperson DeFruscio asked where employees would park, and Ms. Hancock noted it would just be the two of them for the time being and noted the south-side parking lot. Chairperson DeFruscio asked that they submit a revised application as they incorrectly noted their address as 151 Saratoga Street. Member Couture asked if they had proposed business hours, and Ms. Hancock noted they would be open from 6 am to 6 pm and that during initial operations they would get a feel for whether weekends or extended hours are needed. Chairperson DeFruscio asked if there were any other questions, R. King noted she would send along site plan and Mr. Hancock showed a rough drawing. Chairperson DeFruscio suggested a conditional approval upon reviewing the floor plan and the county review. Ms. Hancock noted they have been getting good feedback and distributing materials to residents, businesses, and the school district. Vice Chairperson Carroll asked if there were any additional county or state regulations, and Ms. Hancock noted that there are no regulations in NYS for kenneling but that she has been taking classes on Doggie CPR and first-aid and that she was becoming a licensed bather in NYS as well as taking classes through the red cross so that she can keep up-to-date on other first-aid skills. Chairperson DeFruscio asked if anyone was interested in making a motion to approve the site plan, conditional upon the review of the floor plan and recommendations of the Albany County Planning Board. A motion was made by Vice Chairperson Carroll and seconded by Member Couture and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture X CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AT 70 DELAWARE AVENUE Chairperson DeFruscio noted that this was an update presentation as SEQR had not yet been closed out and there were outstanding comments. Peter Lilholt from CHA made a brief presentation and noted that he was representing CHA who is the City-designated engineer. Mr. Lilholt explained that there had been a meaningful back and forth between the City, CHA, and the Project Engineer (MJ Engineering) to address items that need clarification. In the most recent review letter, items that stood out pertained to the SEQR review, code comments on traffic items, design standards for parking and loading spaces, traffic volume, access management and circulation, aesthetic considerations of the site, layout at the front of the buildings as they relate to the City right-of-way, and stormwater management practices. Vice Chairperson Carroll asked if the first floor of the building was below the 100-year floodplain and Mr. Jamie Easton of MJ Engineering noted that they were 2 feet above the 100-year floodplain. Mr. Lilholt continued to point out that the buildings are above the floodplain but the stormwater system would be below the floodplain and there were limited options in how to handle this. Mr. Lilholt noted that there should be a barrier around the stormwater system, that there were some comments on the water plans, more information requested on the lighting, and more information or corrections on the storm sewers and stormwater elements. Mr. Lilholt concluded noting that this back-and-forth has been ongoing over the past couple of months and that they are making great progress. Chairperson DeFruscio invited Mr. Jamie Easton to approach the Board and Mr. Easton noted that they are working on providing additional information to address the most recent round of comments. He also noted that most changes moving forward are minor and he would be reviewing the changes from the last time that they were present to what they see now. He pointed out the multi-use path proposed for being on the other side of the 112th Street Bridge to redirect pedestrian traffic, and that they are moving the elements in the City right-of-way. Mr. Easton discussed the timeline on producing renderings, acknowledging that this is a gateway project and that the architect had been working on these to submit during the next round, but that the Planning Board would see that the dumpsters had been moved behind the building to move them from sight. Mr. Easton noted that during the City-held workshop meeting that there would be a dry hydrant installed. Mr. Easton noted that they are trying to provide adequate information to get to the end of the review process. Chairperson DeFruscio noted the importance of fire access and waste management access on-site, and that he understood that a lot of these elements were being reviewed by the City Engineer. Vice Chairperson Carroll noted that he appreciated the continued appearances. Member Bucher noted that it was a dense site with a lot of development. Chairperson DeFruscio noted that building in a loading area for the commercial space would likely make this more attractive to an end-user but that he understands an end-user has not yet been identified. Mr. Easton noted that he does not envision a highly trafficked fast-food restaurant in this location and as such, high-frequency deliveries would not be needed. Mr. Easton also pointed out that a box truck could fulfill the needs of this space and that a national chain may not be interested but that they can take a look at these scenarios to come up with rough measurements. Chairperson DeFruscio noted he was glad to see progress being made and that he hasn’t seen anything in the comments that hasn’t been addressed or is not being worked on. Member Bucher noted that he understands that the applicant and MJ Engineering is giving consideration with regards to this site as a gateway site and noted that he is concerned with the loading dock and would like to see three sides of the building elevation on the northeast corner as it should be thoughtfully designed. Mr. Easton noted that he understood and provided some landscaping and correspondence from NYSDOT and sent the proposed site plans to NYSDOT to review but they had no comment as they do own this area of land, but the City maintains it and they defer jurisdiction to the City. Member Couture asked what if they had partitioned off certain parking for the waterfront park. Mr. Easton noted that with the 92 units, there were 151 parking stalls and that traffic patterns will differ in terms of the usage on site and there is no expectation of conflict or that there won’t be sufficient parking. Member Couture clarified that there would be no demarcation of parking for visitors to the waterfront park and Mr. Easton confirmed at this point there would not be. Member Bucher asked for clarification on the waterfront amenities and Mr. Easton noted that they are showing a multi-use path, picnic areas, a kayak rental facility, and that for a boat launch they were considering City-use only as it may be difficult to manage if open to the public. R. King pointed out that the City received a grant from NYSDOS to produce construction and design documents for the waterfront park so this is not entirely in MJ’s scope for the site plan at this point. Mr. Easton noted the need for continual review and development as the waterfront park takes more shape as certain elements may need to be modified and that they have not gotten to the nuts and bolts of design of the park as of yet. Chairperson DeFruscio noted that he appreciated the update and looks forward to the additional information on how to mitigate the outstanding issues. Mr. Easton noted he hoped to get revisions back to the City in time for the next Planning Board meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Member Bucher made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:05 pm, which was seconded by Member Nadeau and the motion passed unanimously.