Planning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COHOES PLANNING BOARD HELD VIRTUALLY ON MAY 11, 2020 at 6:30PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Mark DeFruscio, Chairperson Mr. Jack Carroll, Vice Chairperson Ms. Stephanie Couture Mr. Bob Bucher Mr. Joseph Nadeau ABSENT: All members present ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Seman-Graves, City Planner Chairperson DeFruscio called the meeting to order at 6:34 pm. Roll Call: ALL MEMBERS PRESENT CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 9, 2020 MEETING Chairperson DeFruscio: has everyone had an opportunity to review the minutes and are there any questions about the meeting minute from the March 9, 2020, meeting. I also understand that one of the applicants has submitted subtractions/additions to the meetings that we will let them speak on. Joseph Seman-Graves: I did give a draft of the meeting minutes to the members of Community Builders and they had some additions and corrections they offered. I will say however I did confer with two of our planning board members as well as the person taking the notes and myself. While we were not really looking for edits at this point it was just more of a draft for you to understand what the public comments were in order to be prepared for this meeting. In the edits that you provided there was a grammatical error and we thank you for identifying that and it was corrected. We did not make any other changes as there was a determination by the board and myself that what we heard and what is in the meeting minutes is accurate of what was said by the applicant. Does the representative for Community Builders want to speak now- it will be recorded in this meetings minutes. Jesse Batus: Hi, this is Jesse Batus from Community Builders, I’m the senior project manager associated with the project. I think that for the most part the comments were just points of clarification or grammatical changes. I think the biggest issue we had was just there was a statement that was very affirmative that we would move forward. If we did or didn't get approval of this site. I think that that was still being reviewed we did clarify that with Joe Graves previously and beyond that there was a reference attributed to Kelly regarding a project in Malta and we weren't sure what that reference was in regards to. Beyond that I think the minutes were pretty accurate Chairperson DeFruscio: Okay. So now since we've discussed that item, I'm looking for a motion to accept the minutes as revised and someone a second. Member Bucher makes a motion that was seconded by Member Couture. The motion passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture X CONSIDERATION OF A DECLERATION OF LEAD AGENCY REGARDING 378 SARATOGA STREET. Chairperson DeFruscio: The second item on the agenda is the consideration of a declaration of lead agency regarding SEQR for 378 Saratoga Street, the Hoffman Carwash project. The applicant is proposing the construction of car wash with exterior carwash services on the site. It's in an mu1 mixed-use zone. Last meeting we talked about becoming lead agency and we're now looking to wrap that up. We've sent a letter to all agencies about us becoming lead agency. We've gotten responses back from them and at this point in time we're looking for a motion to declare ourselves lead Agency for the SEQR process from the board members. Member Couture: I’ll make a motion. Member Nadeau seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture X Joseph Seman-Graves: The applicant is present and would like to comment on the shared access point that was brought up at the last meeting. Chairperson DeFruscio: They can speak, but we are only here today to discuss the lead agency for SEQR, nothing more nothing less. Frank Palumbo: This is Frank from CT Male Associates. I know also I did see Tom Hoffman jr. When we started out the meeting and I think Marty Andrews maybe on as well both representing Hoffman Car Wash and thank you for the opportunity to say a few things we and thank you for making the motion on the lead agency. What we wanted to update the board on when we last met the board had indicated fairly strongly that the subdivision had been conditioned on the shared access between our lot and the lot next door and Joe had done some research on that and we just wanted to make sure that the board. what was discovered in that research so that we're all on the same page and then how that's going to affect us moving forward. So Joe. Do you want to update the board or would you like me to? Joseph Seman-Graves: from what so you know what we discovered and we went back to you know, the actual subdivision language legal language that was submitted by Fred Metzger who I believe is also on here, so Fred if you want to chime in at any point, if you hear me saying something wrong feel free. What we discovered was the legal language did not have any bearing through a shared access point. The thing that was highlighted is actually still visible in this map here, it was a prior road. The planning board did say several times in the minute meetings that shared access would be required. Unfortunately, the resolution for the planning board did not highlight that when the subdivision was made. So, with respect to both the planning board and the applicant, we're kind of in a little bit of a unique situation because while the planning board did grant shared access there was no documentation showing that after the minutes. The other aspect that I'm currently looking into and when I get back into the office, I will hold be able to follow up the site plan that was proposed for the adjacent lot, it did have from what I saw two access points. This is something that I need to clarify before making my next statement because I could be off base here. With respect to everything going on I can hand it back over to the applicants to kind of speak on this more but what I'm trying to get at is where we have some information but not anything substantial to say that there is a shared access point that was built in with the subdivision environments. Frank Palumbo: Thank you Joe for the summary and we just wanted to have that on the record because as we said at the meeting Hoffman's doesn't have an issue with investigating and looking at the design of a shared access, but Hoffman can't wait forever on this on this site and the board, you know, there's direction that we could go with looking at the access as we have it solely on our property now, but as I had a conversation with Joe it wouldn't really make a lot of sense for us to move forward with doing a traffic analysis. If the board's opinion is that they want a shared access between the two lots that would be a little foolhardy to progress in that manner the but the second point being is that we know that this lot is owned by someone else. We want to proceed but we can't necessarily wait until there's a resolution on the property adjacent to us, independent of us and we know that what our understanding of it is, and I don't know the details, but that right now Community Builders is looking at a different site and this site is in a hold pattern. So, we want to proceed but we really need some input from the board if they are likely to require us to get a shared access. Chairperson DeFruscio: We will do everything we can to make sure that we impact your timeline as little as possible and moving forward because we want you to move forward as well. So Joe and I will work together this week to see what we can come up with to see if there is anything substantial in writing to confirm what the board had required. If not, then we'll have to go under the assumption that you don't have to provide shared access to that lot. CONSIDERATION OF A DECLERATION OF LEAD AGENCY REGARDING 178-182 ONTARIO STREET. Chairperson DeFruscio: The next item on the agenda is the consideration of a declaration of lead agency regarding SEQR for 178 through 182 Ontario Street, which is Community Builders. It's a Mixed Use Transit Corridor. The applicant is proposing the redevelopment of land between 178 and 182 Ontario. The development will consist of a building housing 36 apartments, 34 off-street parking stalls, playgrounds and green space. We have sent letters to all other interested agencies and none of them have shown interest in becoming lead agency. The only thing we're looking for at the moment is a motion to become lead agency, unless there are any public comments. Member Carroll: Motion Member Bucher seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture X Jesse Batus: Thank you for entertaining this motion and we look forward to the next meeting and we will be in touch regarding the many issues that were brought up at the last meeting. Joseph Seman-Graves: So the public understands this, Community Builders are going to try to address and modify their plans in order to address the public comments that were provided at the last meeting. The SEQR process is a bit confusing so please feel free to reach out to me if you have questions. It should be noted that a determination cannot be made by the board until the SEQR process is closed out. So there will be several public meetings that will need to take place and the public will have their chance to review the updated plans and provide their input. Once a determination of significance has been made by the Planning Board, we will be creating a scope of issues that we will work on back and forth with the applicant to identify what they will be conducting further research on for the public and the board to review. We will keep the public informed as we progress with this process. CONSIDERATION OF A NEW BUSINESS APPLICATION AT 92 ONTARIO STREET Chairperson DeFruscio: So the next item on the agenda is consideration of a new business application at 93 Ontario Street, which used to be island liquor. The applicant is seeking to do business there - It's going to be Lebanese American restaurant and will provide eating and take out options with breakfast lunch and dinner. From 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. seven days a week which is an ambitious time frame. Joe has the property highlighted on Ontario Street in the green that you just had the arrow there and you can also see the proposed floor plan. It is the applicant present? Brenda Hage: Yes, I’m here. Chairperson DeFruscio: So, board members do you have questions right now that you're looking at the plan? One issue is parking. This applicant has got the same commitment that previous applicant had. She has parking available for her at the new island liquor store on the other side of Park Avenue. I think we may need to consider requiring some kind of signage directing people to park over there in the liquor store parking lot because there's only one 15-minute parking spot out front of this building. Member Nadeau: That doesn't affect Island Liquors current parking requirements, right? Joseph Seman-Graves: They still have sufficient parking without the seven spots. Tim Fredette: Hello, I am the owner of Island Spirit and Liquor. I have donated seven spots to the applicant’s business. We are trying to get another business in there as the last one was short on funds and it didn’t work out. Chairperson DeFruscio: Thank you Tim. Member Couture: Hi Brenda, will you be changing the signage – you had mentioned that in the application. Brenda Hage: Yeah, we're not going to change any structure to the sign. It's already attached to the building from previous businesses. So, it's just basically the slide out of the plexiglass which will stay our business logo on it. Member Nadeau: Will there be seating at the countertop? Brenda Hage: We originally wanted to have three to five tables with the counter being available for passersby to sit down and have their meals, but I am going to drop that down to about two to three tables as I will need more space for the kitchen. So the initial plan will now exclude two tables. Member Bucher: Your deliveries are going to be in the rear exit and not in the front? Brenda Hage: The deliveries will come out through the rear of the building and the delivery driver will be parked over at the liquor store. I'll designate one area just for the delivery person so that way there's no double-parking obstruction of any traffic. Chairperson DeFruscio: I think Bob was talking about deliveries of raw materials like supplies for the restaurant. Brenda Hage: We will be buying directly from the wholesaler, so we will pick up the supplies ourselves in our personal vehicles. Chairperson DeFruscio: Are there any other comments from the board or the public? If not can I get a motion to accept the business application? Member Couture: I’ll make a motion. Member Nadeau seconds the motion and it passes unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X  Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture X CONSIDERATION OF A SKETCH PLAN CONFERENCE AND PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 39 N. ERIE STREET Chairperson DeFruscio: The next item on the agenda is the sketch plan conference and consideration of a subdivision at 39 North Erie Street. As you know, this plan has changed significantly since the last time we looked at it. I believe Fred Metzger's on the line to explain to us what the new proposal is going forward. So Fred, I'd like to give you an opportunity to explain this project. Fred Metzger: Originally, we came in with the larger development. They're looking for several more units than what we have now, but then after speaking with Anthony and knowing the time and the cost and what it was going to take to get the approvals and so on and so forth, plus also taken into consideration what you know with some of the neighboring people were concerned with and worried about and so on and so forth and then you throw in what we have going on currently today with covid and everything else and just everything is a little uncertain. So he's like, you know what let's just part back. He did meet the folks over there. He spoke with them at length and in detail and said, hey look instead of going what we originally had would you guys be ok if we were cutting it back to having three two families home facing North Erie Street. Obviously the back portion to be left vacant for now, maybe something that future maybe not, but right now like I said after he spoke with them they were happy with that. So we figured this way we'll keep the community happy and at least the existing residents happy by scaling it down to just three two-family units over here. We would request to change the zoning to an R-2 so we can build three duplexes that would front on North Erie Street with each of the lots to meet most of the zoning requirements. We would need a couple variances and I think size wise because I originally size these up for an MFR zone that only needed 6,000 square feet. Thus the reason for the size that they are now, we would need area variances for the sizes. One variance is for the front for the one that's closest to Manor Avenue because of that kind of funky jog it has in the back. Putting a unit over there I couldn't meet the rear setback and the front set back, so being that the unit so far off the road we suggest, you know, we decided to keep the rear set back at the minimum and then request the variance of the front portion. Obviously again family units. They're going to match the one that he's already put up as assuming everyone's seen as work there over on Park Avenue and again, Joe's got some elevations here and we may be changing some of the colors with them but that’s basically it. I can answer any questions you have. Chairperson DeFruscio: Ok, so you are going to go with the subdivision you presented here today and request variances if the subdivision is approved. You will not be changing the proposed subdivision boundaries, correct? . Fred Metzger: No, we want would like to keep them this way. I mean, he does have some additional land that we could use to jump to 7500 sf, but especially with that lot down in the bottom because it's only 30 feet wide at the rear because of that funky angle. So we could push it back and make another 50 feet in order to pick up the square footage, but it was kind of one of those things where we didn't want to have to cut into that back parcel any more than we already have. Chairperson DeFruscio: Ok, that’s good. I think that was one of Joe’s concerns so I wanted to make sure that we got that ironed out. I will speak for myself and let the rest of the board chime in, but this is a much more palatable proposal with just the (3) two-family buildings there. I assume you have sufficient parking? Fred Metzger: Yes Sir. Chairperson DeFruscio: Do any of the board members have questions for the applicant? Member Nadeau: I have a question about the future drainage for Lot 1. Once you’ve established buildings along North Erie where there seems to be a pretty good slope towards North Erie, will you be prepared for a future development? Fred Metzger: Yes right now currently it kind of like you said it flows from one side to the other. It doesn't quite make it to North Erie. There is a small kind of drainage roughly to where the rear of these lands are going to be established where under large amounts of rainfall it collects there and then heads North along the rear of all those lots towards North Erie until it hits a dump point, which is a one of the large culverts that eventually runs over to the river. Member Nadeau: Ok. I just want to make sure that with any future development you do not box yourself in. Going forward you are going to provide us with a new site plan for review with all of that information in it. Fred Metzger: What additional information would that be? Joseph Seman-Graves: I spoke with the applicant a few days ago. The last application that we were looking at was for a multi-family development which would require a full site plan approval from the Planning Board – and for that I provided the applicant with a full list of information that we would be looking for in the site plan, including drainage. Even though the new proposal is technically three developments on three separate lots, it will still be three buildings being developed in close proximity at the same time. While some of the site plan requirements may no longer apply, the board will still need to review some aspects such as drainage. I think the scope of this meeting, and Mark correct me if I am wrong, but we are here today to determine if the proposed subdivision boundaries will change again before the applicant goes to the ZBA. The applicant needs to confirm the boundaries before going to the Zoning Board in order for him to know what variances (if any) he will need to apply for. I think it would be in the applicant’s best interest to get a confirmation on the boundaries and then go to the ZBA and request a use variance – after a use variance is granted (if it is granted) then the applicant can invest more time into developing a more complete site plan which I can work with them on in order for the Planning Board to make a final determination. Chairperson DeFruscio: That is acceptable to the board as long as the applicant is ok with that process. So we will just be looking at the proposed subdivision boundaries right now. Does the board have any questions or comments? Member Couture: I just want to make a comment that I think MillTown goes out of their way to do a very good job to ensure that the community is happy and that the development fits the character of the neighborhood and they make sure that all the neighbors are happy and comfortable with it. So, I think they did a good job scaling it back quite a bit the way they did. Chairperson DeFruscio: I agree, the scale is much more friendly to that of the street and the neighborhood. Are there any comments from the public? John Hogan: I live at 47 North Erie Street. My question is what is the distance between the road and the buildings? Fred Metzger: I will give you an average because it varies a bit between the houses. They are about 30’ from the road. John Hogan: I know the creek runs directly in back and goes from there to my property. Fred Metzger: Correct, that was the one I was talking about earlier where the existing drainage basically for the front portion of North Erie goes to that and then the rear portion from Williams Street also runs to that and I believe it runs behind you. Chairperson DeFruscio: I would like to mention to the public that we are just talking about the subdivision of the property. We are not talking about the building of the houses at this point in time, but you will have an opportunity to comment on that when if the Zoning Board approves a use variance and the applicant returns to the Planning Board with a site plan that includes items such as the drainage which is a concern to you. We understand that drainage is a big issue, but the applicant has yet to address that in the site plan – so this conversation while important is a bit premature. I apologize for stopping you Sir, but is there any other comments you have today. John Hogan: No, thank you Sir. Chairperson DeFruscio: Is there any other comments? Ms. Drouin: I live at 43 North Erie. How far is the house going to be from the fire hydrant? Fred Metzger: The closest point will be about 18’ away. Ms. Drouin: Ok, so you put three two-family houses in, seems like an awful lot of cars if each of them has two cars. Chairperson DeFruscio: Once again, today we are looking at a subdivision. The parking drainage the lighting all of those things will be addressed but generally speaking. Mr. Metzger can answer. Is there sufficient parking for vehicles on boths ides of the building? Fred Metzger: There is. Ms. Drouin: You’re sticking a bunch of cars and people into three units on this road without enough parking spots. Joseph Seman-Graves: Excuse me Mam, if I could interject. I heard you say three unit and I just want to clarify in case that is causing some confusion. What is being proposed is (3) two units homes, each two-unit home will have four parking spaces, so two spots per unit. So you are actually looking at 12 parking spaces between all of the buildings. While I understand your concern with the other properties in the area that may not have enough parking, unfortunately we can only look at the proposal in front of us today. In the past if these projects were given the same scrutiny as this one in front of the board today, we may not have these issues with the surrounding properties. The applicant is definitely doing their due diligence, you know, they've been in front of the board several times now with several more to come so I think through this process will be take care of issues such as drainage and parking where that might not have been a priority in the past and that's causing some of the issues that you're seeing now. Ms. Drouin: Well when will we talk about parking? Joseph Seman-Graves: Miss, your voice sounds familiar, so I can assume that I have sent you letters for meetings in the past. You will be receiving another letter for the zoning board. This is where I highly implore you to come out and speak about the concerns you have because that board will be able to listen to you and make a determination while taking into consideration your concerns. It’s not that they're not valid, they just don't really pertain to the vote as much today. I don't want to exclude you, I just want to encourage you to come forth and speak again and I'm sorry that it's taken several times . Once again that's part of the due diligence we're trying to have in the city. We're trying to give as much public input as we can here and that kind of leads to more people having to come to more meetings, unfortunately, but that's the only way we know how to get your comments at this point. Ms. Drouin: I'm just glad you didn't exclude us in this whole thing and do this all secretly behind everybody's back. Joseph Seman-Graves: We are making a very big effort, you know, and you can see by what's happening here to hold these meetings in a way where the public has an input and the fact that we can have this kind of dialogue. I think it was some sort of a success and I hope to carry that into the future and make you guys just a hundred percent knowledgeable on what's happening not only your neighborhood but the whole city. Ms. Drouin: My biggest concern is we don't need to turn this into a downtown Cohoes up here because it's a nice quiet little area It's very residential and you know small families and we just don't want to becoming a big conglomerate of all these houses that they're building because I know downtown Cohoes is you know, it's a good place down there. It's got a lot of area and stuff. But up here is a little bit quieter than that and my big concern is, you know, we're going to start turning into this into the big conglomerate like behind us Lionheart, you know manner sites and all that. Chairperson DeFruscio: Thank you for you input and I think your input shows – look at how much the scale of this project has already come down. If there are no other public comments I will now be looking for a motion to approve a subdivision at 39 North Erie Street from one parcel to four parcels. Member Carroll: I will make a motion. The motion was seconded by Member Couture and it passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture X Chairperson DeFruscio asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting, motion by Vice Chair Carroll and 2nd by Member Nadeau meeting adjourned at 7:35 PM.