Planning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COHOES PLANNING BOARD HELD VIRTUALLY ON JULY 13, 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 6:30 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 May 11, 2020, meeting? We did note that there are a few grammatical errors on the first page of the meeting minutes, I have sent along those corrections to Joe. At this point I am looking for a motion from the board to approve the minutes. Joe Nadeau: I will make a motion to approve the minutes. Stephanie Couture seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture X CONSIDERATION OF A SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW AT 39 NORTH ERIE STREET Chairperson DeFruscio: Next on the agenda is the consideration of a subdivision and site plan review at 39 North Erie Street. Previously this project was submitted as a large development and since then it has been scaled down significantly. The applicant had requested a subdivision which was contingent upon zoning approval as the lots were under 7,500 sf. The Zoning Board denied that variance and the applicant has submitted new subdivision plans that meet the 7,500 sf requirement. Our first item for this is to review the subdivision, do any of the board members have any questions regarding the subdivision? Bob Bucher: I have no questions at this point. It looks like everything that we had asked for after the last submission has been accounted for and reflected in these plans. Chairperson DeFruscio: At this point we can take any public comments if there are any. Mr. Kalyn Thorpe: Hello, what is the process that the property owner has to go through to get full approvals on their building. We have already changed the zoning and we are subdividing the lots. Presumably they will have to provide sewer and traffic studies, when do they get considered and what other steps need to take place before construction has to begin? Joseph Seman-Graves: There is a big distinction between what was originally proposed as compared to what is currently in front of us. The current proposal is three separate two-family buildings on three separate lots. The original plan would have disturbed more than an acre and would have required the applicant to complete a storm water pollution prevention plan as well as several other items relating to the environmental review. At this point the applicant does not need to do that since the project has been significantly reduced in scope and scale. At this point the applicant needs to adjust the lot lines to represent the area variances that were not granted. After that the applicant will work with the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer to address any final issues that need to be addressed. So this will potentially be the last time this project comes in front of this board. It should also be noted that the storm water information that was provided by the applicant has been reviewed by our City Engineer and he has no comments at this time. The traffic concerns are still being reviewed by the Traffic Commissioner, however, I will say that this should be looked at comprehensively by the City. The developer will only be responsible for so much, the rest of the work will require the City and possibly the Canal Authority to take a look at possible treatments/road improvements in the area. Mr. Kalyn Thorpe: Will construction be conditional on those improvements? Joseph Seman-Graves: Well there are improvements that have to be made as a result of the development. Other work would have to be included in our normal schedule of road improvements that is reviewed and approved by the City Council on a yearly basis. Those items will not be contingent on the developers actions, they will be reviewed separately - but one would hope holistically as well. Mr. Kalyn Thorpe: Will there be public comments for those items? Joseph Seman-Graves: Yes, so the City Council reviews and approves the roads that will be improved once a year. Those meetings are always open to the public and I encourage the public to participate in those conversations. Chairperson DeFruscio: At this point I am looking to the board members to either approve or deny the subdivision as submitted. Joe Nadeau: I make a motion to approve the proposal as submitted. Jack Carroll 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 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE REGARDING SEQR AT 178-182 ONTARIO STREET. Chairperson DeFruscio: Next on the agenda is a determination of significance regarding SEQR at 178-182 Ontario Street. This project initially received allot of public input which we incorporated into the review for the SEQR process. The applicant has made changes based on those comments which they will be presenting tonight. One thing I want to make clear is that the SEQR process and the Planning Board have nothing to do with any PILOT or reduction of taxes. So on that note I'd like to turn it over to Joe so he can review with you what's happened on the SEQR process and the items that we have identified as significant items that have been discussed with the applicant. Joseph Seman-Graves: We had completed the first few steps of the process in March and May. In May we declared lead agency, saying they would be in-charge of the review. The Planning Board has completed steps two and three of the environmental assessment form and these do take into account public comments as well as what they have seen in the site plan. At this point the board will be determining the significance of the project. Before we go any further it is important to mention that a determination on the site plan cannot be made until the SEQR process is closed out. Today we can make a positive declaration, negative declaration, or negative declaration with conditions. Parts two and three of the environmental assessment form review the following eighteen items. The Board has determined that the highlighted areas all required further information to be provided by the applicant. The applicant has provided information on all of the highlighted topics ahead of the determination of significance. Mr. Jesse Batus: Thank you. TCB has taken into account all of the public comments that cam out from the first meeting. What we have tried to do with this is to make it much more traditional and in line with the historic character of Cohoes. In general there are some things that we’ve done here as you can see from the original design. That includes squaring off the building corner so it has a more traditional look. We also selected a historic color from the Cohoes approved historic color pallet. We’ve added a cornice to the top of the building, again in line with the Dutch architecture in the neighborhood and community. We also have changed much of the façade to a brick and a flat panel and eliminated some of the other designs that had been a little more incongruent with what you’re used to seeing in the neighborhood. I am hopeful that these changes will be well received by the public and by the board. Chairperson DeFruscio: How many one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments will there be? Mr. Jesse Batus: I don’t have that in front of me, but I will get that for you momentarily. Joseph Seman-Graves: Among other items that the applicant has responded to were the traffic concerns. Would the applicant like to speak on this? Mr. Jesse Batus: Sure, so we provided a traffic study that was performed by a local firm that does a lot of traffic studies here in the Capital District. The traffic study resulted in showing that there would be 13 new trips around the peak am hour and 17 new trips during the peak pm hour. The magnitude of new trips generated by this site would be significantly less than what is required by the DOT threshold. The site driveways were consistent with the local neighborhood. There were recommendations for no parking signs in order to clear up the site line when pulling out. This was provided for consideration to your Traffic Commissioner and I have not seen a follow-up until this point. Joseph Seman-Graves: Our Traffic Engineer reviewed this and provided the following comments. “CME is a good traffic engineering consultant that has provided us with past engineering studies. If they followed the latest edition of the ITE manual and DOT standards as they said they did, I have no problem with their conclusions. I don't have access to the ITE manual to verify the assumptions. Their estimated site generated vehicle numbers are minimal compared to the minimal required trips of 100 by DOT & ITE requirements to require further intersection analysis. They have made some recommendations regarding sight distance and how to improve it that I would like to see incorporated into the final design. i.e. no parking in front of the building and 50' east and west on the south side of Ontario Street, no plantings that restrict sight distance”. The next topic was in regards to consistency with community plans. Would the applicant also like to speak on this? Mr. Jesse Batus: We went through with some detail the corridor study and comprehensive plan. It was our finding that the proposal is consistent with the community plans. Some examples of that that are noted here are both housing choice and ensuring affordability in transit corridors. We also reviewed the compact growth, which we are providing. Transit Oriented Development, we are certainly providing that as we are on the bus route. We are open to incorporating a CDTA bike share pilot if this site is chose. Sustainable infrastructure, we are providing not just energy efficiency but also smart storm water management. Compatible land-use, we are providing moderate to high-density development within the transit corridor along the new BRT line. It is certainly, we understand there is a preference for neighborhood scale retail. With this it is important to understand that we receive almost all of our funding from the state. So it is very difficult for us to incorporate retail since it was not supported by a local market study that we had made. The market study pulled a survey of rents that would be suitable here and that shows that only $8.oo per square foot would be available here and frankly that doesn’t pay for itself. Further, the state had a program to support that kind of a project but their funds have been depleted. Finally, I do not that the site has been vacant for almost 15 years and the neighborhood retail has not generated yet. We are aware that there is a development on Van Schaik Island that does provide commercial development. We reached out to that developer and found that they do not have a tenant for the commercial space as of yet and is still conceptual. We believe that providing more space here for residential development will create the density required to support commercial businesses along the 470 corridor. Chairperson DeFruscio: Thank you. Are there any comments from the public? Mrs. Jacqueline DeChiaro: Please take this email as my objection to the proposal of 178-182 Ontario St. that is being discussed on Monday, July 13th. VS Island has seen the addition of 6 multi apartment complex buildings in the past 20 years. This has added 1200 apartments to our small part of the city. Since then the traffic on Ontario St. and Bridge Ave. has increased exponentially. In the morning it is a long wait to get from Delaware ave. to 787. The light at Park and Ontario was changed to aid the traffic flow on the street. This helps traffic from Troy and cars coming in from Delaware once on Ontario, what about the property owners coming off Continental and Park? It is an every day sight to see cars in a line for several blocks on Ontario st. Bridge AVe is no different with lines of cars. Drivers who don't want to wait on Ontario find their way through our side streets, racing through, barely stopping at stop signs as they clammer to get to 787. There have been several accidents on the corner of Third and Van Schaick alone. We cannot keep adding apartments and traffic to this area. Van Schaick Island had a population of approximately 1500 people in 2000, the city has added nearly that many in apartments in the last 20 years. The city has changed the small community of Van Schaick Island. There is an impact to our schools with all these apartments. VSGS is the smallest elementary school in the city. It was built to educate the children of the island. It was built to accommodate 1 section of each grade k-5. The other 2 elementary schools have 3 sections of each. This has been a problem in recent years as enrollment has increased. The second grade class had 28 students in it. There was no other classroom space to split this cohort into 2 sections so the class stayed as 1 group, meanwhile HH's 2nd grades each had approximately 13 students in them because they have multiple sections and the classroom spaces dedicated to that number of sections. We also had 26 kindergarten students. Again, we could not split the class, meanwhile ALS and HH students enjoyed being in classes of less than 15. This leads to an inequity of an educational experience for our students on the island. The islanders pay the same taxes as the property owners on the hill and their children are stuck in bigger class sizes because the building wasn't built to have multiple sections of a grade level. Finally, if we ( the city, the tax payers) are going to allow development in our city it should enhance our community, there should be a positive in it for the property owners. There is no enhancement for the community or the property owners. Yes there is a vacant lot and 2 houses on that property, the city could sell the houses as individual lots and let someone rehab the properties as 2 family homes. Mr. Dan DeChiaro: Hi my name is Dan DeChiaro at 114 Washington avenue, I am against the development at 178-182 Ontario St. for the reasons listed below: It is my understanding this project is going to see a 50% reduction in taxes over a 30 year pilot, unacceptable to a tax payer in this city. I would like to point back to a project unfortunately that is already approved on Delaware Ave in which a 96 unit building that will be built on riverfront property is going to pay less than 3 homes in some of our single family developments in this city, not to mention 40 times the services the city and school district will have to provide. I would please ask the members of this board, regardless of the community turn out in any project, to please do the responsible thing for the city and the community. If you do not know what the responsible thing is please privately question your participation on the board. It was always my belief that the council and these appointed boards were in the place to protect the citizens and tax payers of our community, that means the projects I mention above on face value should be denied. - I don't care if this development is for tenants that have a billion dollars, low income, or no income, the developers in terms of their tax rate should pay their fair share like every other tax payer in this city. I have been tuned out for a bit raising a family, working and living my life, but recently I realize that it is not the fault of the school district in terms of their high tax rate. It is the city being irresponsible granting these PILOTS. Five generations of my family have lived on this island, me being the 4th, we have never had public access to the Hudson River. We are running out of opportunities and the door will soon be closed, this should be a priority. Ms. Kathryn Twiss: I feel we have enough of housing on the island and construction of new low income housing on Ontario St. will take away from this area. We cannot afford to have more children at Van Schaick because they are filled to capacity. The traffic on Ontario St. is awful and the motorists get very angry because the lights on 787 affect them. Most of the time when traveling on Ontario St. you hear the blaring of car horns because of the angry drivers. We just have more than we can handle of new development on the Island. Mr. Roman Rakoczy: My name is Roman Rakoczy, I am President of the Ukrainian American Citizens Club located at 1 Pulaski Avenue, just south of the proposed development site. In March I submitted a formal statement for the record on behalf of our organization regarding the proposed development. My main concern pertained to the traffic problem that will arise with this project unless significant provisions are incorporated into the final design. I am pleased that the consultant has looked into the increased traffic that the project will generate, however, my issue pertains more to the flow of traffic and the need to have a strict parking plan in place then the number of new trips generated. As I stated in March our organization does not oppose the proposed project provided that it does not add to the existing traffic problems. I do not view the estimated 13 new AM traffic trips or the 17 PM traffic trips in themselves as a problem but coupled with the existing parking conditions I see a major problem. I have provided two (2) photos taken Friday July10, 2020 at approximately 2:00 PM for the Board’s review. Analyzing the photos one can see a Jeep Cherokee and a mobile home parked along the east side of Pulaski Avenue in the vicinity of the intersection with Ontario Street. Along the west side one can see a pick-up truck with a dumpster attached to it. At the time I witnessed a car trying to turn south onto Pulaski, the individual had to swing out into the west bound lane of Ontario Street to negotiate the turn onto Pulaski Avenue. Meanwhile I had to put my vehicle in reverse so as to let the individual pass since the pick-up and the mobile home would not facilitate 2 way traffic. It will not be the new generated traffic trips that creates a major problem but the trips generated combined with the existing parking conditions that will create problems. Envision fire apparatus and snow removal equipment trying to navigate onto Pulaski Avenue without a solid traffic plan. A nightmarish traffic flow problem currently exists at the intersection of Ontario Street and Pulaski Avenue. Traffic along Ontario Street has increased with every residential project that has been constructed on Van Schaick Island. Ontario Street links Cohoes Blvd. (787 Extension) with North Troy. Depending on the time of day it is virtually impossible to enter Ontario Street from Pulaski Avenue. Making a left turn (west) onto Ontario is a challenge due to the heavy volume of traffic flow in the direction of Van Schaick Island and North Troy. Traffic backs up, from east to west, due to the traffic light at St. Michael’s Church. Unless a courteous driver allows one to make the left (west turn) onto Ontario one may have to wait three to four minutes to enter Ontario Street. Making a right (east turn) from Pulaski onto Ontario is also a major challenge. It is my understanding that the complex will have parking for upwards of 36 vehicles? I am concerned that residents will depend on Pulaski Avenue as their main mean to access Ontario Street. This should be a major concern to the City since emergency and snow removal equipment will experience difficulty entering Pulaski Avenue. Emergency and snow removal equipment may have to wait for vehicles to enter Ontario before entering Pulaski since there is no practical way to pull over and allow the equipment to enter Pulaski Avenue. I am a licensed engineer in the State of New York, I worked for the New York State Department of Transportation Region One for several years in the Specification and Plans Review Section. One of my responsibilities was to review traffic flow patterns unless some significant conditions are incorporated into the final plan, a serious traffic problem will be created. I would request the Board to have the consultant analyze my concerns, I personally would like to suggest several alternatives to be evaluated. They are as follows: 1.) That entry to the parking area be from Pershing and egress be to Pulaski with Pulaski converted to a one way street running north to south to Kosciusko and Kosciusko be one way running south to north. Assuming this proposal is viable the traffic light at St. Michael’s should be relocated to the intersection of Ontario and Kosciusko. If this is not an acceptable alternative a traffic light needs to be installed at the intersection of Ontario and Pulaski. 2.) Parking must be prohibited along Ontario Street fronting the development and along a portion of Pulaski. A no parking zone on both the east and west sides of Pulaski from Ontario Street to a point south of the development must be designated if two (2) way traffic is permitted Recognizing that a traffic problem already exists on Ontario Street on Simmons Island it would be totally irresponsible to approve a plan that does not address the traffic issues that the proposed development project will bring. I will be more than happy to discuss the matter with the Traffic Commission and Engineering Department. I also would like to bring up another important item. I am concerned about a potential problem related to the water supply line that runs along Pulaski Avenue. The line terminates at the fire hydrant immediately in front of our building. In the past we have experienced significant “water hammering” problems; this is due to the line not being connected to the supply line that feeds Kosciusko. One can anticipate problems anytime water is shut-off above the Ukrainian Club. Either a pressure relief system needs to be installed or the two (2) supply lines (Pulaski and Kosciusko) need to be connected and additional shut-off valves installed. Ms. Rachel King: I am reaching out to you today against the proposal of the housing unit development at the Golden Krust site. Below I’ve shared some of the reasons why I am against this proposal and some questions to be considered during the board meeting this evening. The island is already over populating AND over developing with all of these large apartment complexes which are overpriced and still have vacancies. Our classrooms sizes are already overloaded and our school has no more “empty classrooms” to split even one class to a smaller size. Not to mention the backed up traffic daily on Ontario street. You can hardly ever make a left hand turn on to Ontario Street. I used to live on the corner of Kosciusko and Ontario and there would be a bumper to bumper accident every 2-3 months in front of our house. Like clockwork. Also, the city’s plumbing infrastructure.... multiple homes on the island have experienced overflow from the recent storms because our storm water systems are backing up. As well as sewer systems need work on the island. But let’s add more apartments instead, that house 100s of people, it will be fine right? Do we not need to work hard to fix these things that are out of sight until they become a problem? I’m not even a home-owner and this PILOT plan for this development is unfair to our community. I believe it’s 30 years this development won’t have to pay taxes. But this will come out of homeowner’s pockets for sure. How that even fair to the families and community is you already have here Cohoes? Why aren’t you working with one of these other developments that have many vacancies for affordable housing? Why aren’t you opening the doors to a family who wants to put down roots on a lot instead of 100x too many people for our little island? Why aren’t you opening the doors for businesses to develop and flourish on the island? The island would be wonderful with flourishing businesses ... why are you so focused on making Remsen street the hot spot? Why can’t the island have business revenue and support people’s dreams of opening their small businesses? Why doesn’t the island have a waterfront park like our surrounding towns and cities along the Hudson? Instead of densely populating further an area that is already too populated for our space why aren’t you pursuing other avenues of revenue for the city? Thank you for your time. I sincerely hope my concerns as well as others’ will be taken into serious account during this evenings board meeting in regards to this proposal. Give the island more than just more families! Mr. Peter Kusaywa: Good evening, I wanted to convey a few issues regarding tomorrows Planning Board meeting regarding Community Builders and the old Golden Krust site. First, unrelated to development itself, I thought this meeting was to be held on July 22nd? Additionally, why isn’t the meeting open to the public, since Common Council meetings have resumed allowing the public to attend? I am just hoping that the Planning Board realizes that many residents still do not approve of this project. And I’m hoping their lack of participation in a Zoom meeting or submitting questions via email for the meeting doesn’t give the Planning Board a false impression. Also, why weren’t letters sent out, as with the first meeting, regarding this upcoming one? I would like to mention that the information I obtained was from Facebook. Many times, unreliable but Jacqueline Dechairo, the principle of Van Schaick School has been very vocal on the Van Schaick Island Neighborhood Watch Facebook page regarding this development and has seemed to have credible information. Traffic Study: It has been said the Traffic Study came back favorable. I am just curious when this traffic study was done? If in the last 4-5 months, how convenient for the developer. First, we are in the middle of a pandemic. Unemployment is currently at 11%. It’s been higher in the previous months. Secondly, almost everything in the last few months has been closed. People staying indoors and not traveling. Of course, the volume of traffic on Ontario St was favorable to the study. What happens when we are fully open again and what if the unemployment rate drops again to 3%. I have firsthand seen traffic backed up from St. Michaels to 787 headed west and the same in the other direction due to the light at St. Michaels backing up traffic sometimes to St. Peter & Paul. And I shouldn’t have to remind the Planning Board, there is a fire station right in the middle of all this. I would also like to point out that at the traffic light at St. Michaels, traffic heading west is stopped back before Kosciusko Ave. This is due to the difficulty in making a left hand turn out of Kosciusko. How is this developer or the city going to assist residents of this development exiting Pulaski or Pershing? Also, since this development only offers one (1) parking spot per resident, the possibility is there that residents will park additional cars along Ontario. Both in front of this development and U-Haul across the street, further adding to traffic congestion. Mixed Use: A rendering was recently posted, again on Facebook, where the design looks identical to the one presented earlier in the year. I am hoping the developer is not trying to insinuate that what appears to be 2 nonresidential areas is the commercial areas they are offering. In their original plan, that was supposed to be a rental office and some sort of exercise room. Simmons Island and Quality of Life Issues: Simmons Island mostly consists of single and 2 family homes, a few that directly abut this development. This development is totally in direct contrast to that neighborhood and what is also a relatively crime free neighborhood. The introduction of a development such as this has the potential to disrupt the quality of life of the residents of that area. It could be argued that the “Island” has seen many rental developments. True, but these developments provided a substantial buffer between themselves and homes in the vicinity. The only maybe exception is Waters View, which directly abuts the properties at the end of Continental. But their traffic and residents don’t encroach on those properties, in fact, there is a fence separating the two. Schools and Neighborhood Improvements: I don’t think the Planning Board considers this when rendering a decision but I would like to mention them anyway. First, our schools. According to Ms. Dechairo, our school is currently at capacity. With no plans for expansion, what happens to those children’s learning environment? It is rumored that this project is receiving a 30 year PILOT! As with other PILOT developments, what improvements to the community is this developer offering? Obviously, from a favorable traffic study, not a signal light or even a system to stop traffic when our emergency vehicles need to respond to an emergency or return to the station (Now, a fireman has to jump off the truck to stop traffic so the vehicle can back in when returning from a call). In closing, we have all seen neighborhoods in our city change, many for the worst. How they got that way is up for argument. But many were working family, great place to grow up neighborhoods. This project has the potential to change this neighborhood for the worst forever! As someone mentioned towards the end of the last meeting but may have not been heard… What happens when St. Peter & Paul School is next? Or, with church closings as they many times do, the parking lot across from St. Michaels Church or the church grounds itself. I am hoping the Planning Board will consider the impact on the residents of Simmons Island (including Van Schaick Island), their quality of life, and homes that they worked their whole life for, possibly slowly depreciating. Mr. Edward Conlan: I live at 184 Beacon Avenue. I understand the developer said that there was a traffic study completed. I wonder what the environment surrounding that study was, considering that we are in the midst of a pandemic. I just ask the open question, how was the study conducted and did it take into account the lack of traffic right now? Chairperson DeFruscio: The traffic study focused on the number of additional cars that would be generated. The existing traffic models were provided by DOT’s website of standard traffic counts over the past few years. So not just over the past few months. Mr. Dan DeChiaro: First I want to comment about PILOTS in regards to boards, planning boards. Chairperson DeFruscio: Dan let me stop you. Mr. Dan DeChiaro: Mark, no. This is the time for public comments and I am the public and I respectfully would like to comment. If we do not mention PILOTS and we are not responsible, then what you are going to get is what we have on the corner of Ontario and Delaware. That is the biggest insult to me as a taxpayer and I have been here a long time. These people do not pay their fair share and it should be mentioned at all of the board meetings. I walked down third stree the other night during that storm and we have a disaster down there with flooding and we just keep adding buildings. So every opportunity that I have to mention PILOTS and developments that are fair to the community and not a drain, well I am going to mention it. Chairperson DeFruscio: My comment to you Dan is that we want to tell you the right place to go to mention that. We have no control over the PILOTS and as far as we know there may not even be an application for a PILOT at this point. I want you and everyone else to know that you need to contact the IDA and really object to this. Mr. Ralph Signoracci: I live at 34 Kosciousko Ave. I live a block away from where the proposed development will be. I do have a concern with the traffic, but to touch base on the IDA issue, I wound up going to a meeting way back when and they gave me a chance to speak as a courtesy of being a past chair of the IDA. I brought up a lot of issues and then they went into executive session and they were talking about TCB possible suing because the project on the JUNCTA site was not going to receive a PILOT. So I do encourage everyone to go to an IDA meeting and also speak to your Counsel members as they choose who is ultimately on the IDA. Before I get to traffic let me talk about waste and what street that is going to? One of the main lines does go in front of my house, will there be more of a strain on the sewer? As far as traffic I didn’t get the amount of single and two-family units, so please repeat that. At no point did anyone from TCB reach out to me or my neighbors who may be impacted. Joseph Seman-Graves: For the record, the applicant proposes 27 one-bedroom apartments and 9 two-bedroom apartments. Mr. Ralph Signoracci: What is the planning on the amount of vehicles and the spots set aside for parking? Joseph Seman-Graves: Currently there are thirty-six spots and according to the FBC overlay district that was approved in 2018, the applicant can only have a maximum of one space per unit in order to encourage higher density development. Mr. Kyle Clemens: That’s a joke. My property borders the proposed project and I have already had issues with people coming to survey the land and using my shovels as they did not have the proper equipment. This is also proposed to be constructed over an 18-24 month period, I am going to have a problem getting out of my driveway for that long? This street is already poorly taken care of and we are trying to double the size of the island with this complex and there is no care to the island. What steps will be taken going forward? Mr. Ralph Signoracci: Also, if we are putting in a new traffic light, the one at Paige and Ontario is old and antiquated. If you remember, when they built the new development on the island the developer was supposed to put in a new light to the tune of $400,000 to bring it up to MUTCD standards. So that would be something the developer has to do as it is our tax payer dollars that would have to be spent if they don’t do it. Mr. Jack Jones: I live on Forest Avenue. I have been on the island for 40 years and with the traffic we have here it is impossible to get on and off the island. It just gets worse every year, we are totally over populated and I don’t want this to happen here. Why not give the tax payer a break? Mr. Ralph Signoracci: The proposed development is in a floodway, is Planning taking that into consideration? Will they allow that? I can provide a map that shows both sections of the Mohawk River being in a floodway. What are the thoughts on that and when are the questions going to be answered that we are asking? Also what are the next steps with the Planning Board and when would the IDA have a public hearing? Joseph Seman-Graves: To answer you sir, I am not privy to the IDA happening in the past, and I am not aware of any future meetings that they will have regarding TCB. As far as the next steps the Planning Board is taking, I am not sure if you can see the image on the screen but I can describe it to you. Mr. Ralph Signoracci: I cannot Joe, can you provide that to me. Joseph Seman-Graves: Sure, so the power point is actually provided on our website under this month’s agenda. In that you will be able to see the steps of the SEQR process. Now depending on the board’s determination tonight, that will dictate next steps. A positive determination will lead the applicant down a path of more reviews, public hearings, and several more months of work. The Board can also declare a negative declaration or a negative declaration with conditions, both of those will have a different time frames associated with them. Ultimately the decision tonight will dictate the time frame going forward. Mr. Ralph Signoracci: Thank you, and obviously I am opposed to the project as well as everyone else here on the Island. Chairperson DeFruscio: Thank you Ralph. Do we have any other comments from the public? If not, we can move along to comments and questions from the Board. Bob Bucher: I have a questions regarding the site plan. I am looking at the C200 site plans, are those the most accurate and up to date? It appears that it still shows a curved element on the corner and it doesn’t reflect the design renderings that have been provided tonight. Maybe the applicant can describe a bit more what is going on at the ground floor level, is there still an exercise room? I don’t agree with the $8/sqft rent that is being cited by the applicant, I know that it would be on the lower end and somewhat lower than Remsen Street. However, at the very least I think the integration of a community room would be a helpful addition to the project. Mr. Jesse Batus: I understand that there are a lot of concerns with the design and the project in general. On the current plan we did provide, it is squared off with the post. I will make sure you have the most up to date site plan that reflects that. We are still maintaining a community room in the corner, as well as a management office a little further down the road. One thing I want to be clear about is that we would like to provide some community benefits. If there is a need top upgrade infrastructure or provide a new traffic light, we would need to look at the cost impacts but they are all things that we would be looking at. If that is something that the board would like to put in place as a condition then we would be happy to look into that. Chairperson DeFruscio: Thank you. So at this point I will be looking for additional comments from the Board. Stephanie Couture: I do believe that Community Builders would like to be a good neighbor. This is a large project that will have a considerable impact on the Island residents and as a Board member and a citizen we are taking all of your comments into consideration. I am really happy to see that the public is actually participating because there’s a lot of projects where we don’t have public input. I think this is a nice dialogue and it is good to see, whether it gets contentious or not. I think we need to all work together that benefits the livelihood of our current citizens as well as the future of the City. If you want my input Mark, I suggest that we go for a positive declaration for a full environmental study. Joe Nadeau: I have a problem with the traffic study in that it doesn’t really address the back log or queuing up of the 50 – 80 cars at the light. So the fact that we are not satisfying the mixed-use we are looking for in that corridor, and for the record I do not think that the $8/sqft is factual. So at this point I would agree with Stephanie that a full study is required. Chairperson DeFruscio: Ok, so at this point I will be looking for a motion from the Board. Stephanie Couture: I will make the motion for a positive declaration. Joe 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 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE REGARDING SEQR AT 378 SARATOGA STREET Chairperson DeFruscio: Next on the agenda is the consideration of a determination of significance regarding SEQR at 378 Saratoga Street. Joseph Seman-Graves: For the record we are at the same spot in the SEQR process with this applicant as we were the last. So we will be looking for the same type of determination regarding SEQR today. The applicant was given several conditions that they have tried to address ahead of tonight’s meeting. Those conditions are (1) to receive a use variance from the Cohoes Zoning Board of Appeals; (2) the complete the appropriate stormwater plans; (3) to complete a traffic study and identify appropriate treatments to enhance pedestrian and vehicular safety between the proposed curb cut and the intersection of Spring and Saratoga Streets; and (4) identify methods if possible to honor the history of the location. Mr. Frank Palumbo: Hello, this is Frank Palumbo from CT Male. So in regards to stormwwater, this site is very unique as it was previously developed with much of it being impervious. So we are actually making the site more permeable through this process. I believe that Garry Nathan has reviewed the stormwater documentation. I think the facts that we have presented classifies us under this category of redevelopment so we do not have to take part in the full SWPP. I think we have provided all of the necessary technical information for the City Engineer to review and Joe, I am not sure if you have any follow-up information regarding that? Joseph Seman-Graves: Yes, Garry Nathan did review the documentation you provided and had no comments to provide at this time. Mr. Frank Palumbo: We think we have met all of the State conditions and we think we have taken the measures to mitigate any negative effects that may be caused as a result of the project. Next is traffic. We went out to the site to watch the intersection and ask what the nature of it is. That property next to us to was supposed to have joint access and unfortunately, it's kind of locked up right now. So we went and proceeded with the access point that we had initially proposed that you see on the site plans and we were looking for the overall levels of service. What kind of gaps are available for vehicles turning in and out of the site and then also most and I would say at the end of the study most importantly the removal of some overgrown vegetation to allow for additional sight distance. So just going through each of those briefly we found that the intersection works very well the volume of traffic that is presently going through the intersection and I cannot attest to how it was before some of the improvements were made at 787 and Dyke have but it really it runs as a parallel Street. I’ve also talked with Joe about the possibility of restriping or adding a turn lane which may be helpful as well. Regarding the history of the area. I have talked with Joe and we are looking into the possibility of a historic plaque to complement the marker that is nearby and currently covered with brush. And as far as he zoning variance goes, we will be going in front of the zoning board of appeals next Wednesday. Joseph Seman-Graves: I also wanted to add that the Traffic Engineer has not had the ability to review these plans yet. That will be happening this upcoming week. Chairperson DeFruscio: Thank you. Do we have any comments, questions, or concerns from the board? Joe Nadeau: I would like to make a motion for a negative declaration with conditions of the completion of the Traffic Engineers review of the traffic study along with the proposed striping, the zoning use variance being approved, and coming to a determination on the historic signage. Jack Carroll seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture X Chairperson DeFruscio: Now regarding the site plan, are there any comments or concerns that the Board has for the applicant? Jack Carroll: I’m good with it. Bob Bucher: I think we spoke about the issues we have with lot 2, but short of that being resolved I think that all of ty previous questions have been answered. Stephanie Couture: I am fine with the site plan. Chairperson DeFruscio: If there are no comments I would be looking for a motion to approve the site plan. Joseph Seman-Graves: I would just hold off on a final approval until the conditions of the negative declaration are resolved. Joe Nadeau: I will make the motion for a preliminary site plan approval with the same conditions as were placed on the negative declaration. Jack Carroll 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 SITE PLAN REVIEW AT 201 COLUMBIA STREET Chairperson DeFruscio: Next on the agenda is the consideration of a site plan review for 201 Columbia Street. Jack Carroll: Is this one of those asking for permission after the fact, because it is already built. Chairperson DeFruscio: Well, it is a little bit of both. Mr. Durrant had a plan that was partially approved and he made changes/expanded the scope of work as he was in the midst of construction. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it looks like you had a better idea after you got started. Can you explain to us what you have done here? Mr. Thomas Durrant: Sure. So the original plans had a small overhang to prevent rain and it had some steps as well. I needed an area to put my BBQ smokers so they could be protected in the winter time. I didn’t think of going through the process again. I didn’t try to slide past anything, I just didn’t think of coming back before the board. Chairperson DeFruscio: Understood, however, the problem we now have is that the building required 12 off-street parking spaces and with the changes that you have made you have provided a new plan with nine off –street parking spaces that are not sized to code. They are much smaller than what the state requires. Now correct me if I am wrong Joe, but the issue at hand is not as much about the addition, but rather the impact on parking. Mr. Thomas Durrant: Sure, so I did an application with Joe and you are not looking at the one I revised. The revised version has six parking spaces in the back along with three on Masten Avenue. That brings me to nine, and I think you can easily get three more in the front. Joseph Seman-Graves: I did receive a new version of the site plan on Friday, at which point I asked for revisions. I have yet to receive a new version. Joe Nadeau: At this point it seems obvious that the applicant will need to go for a variance, is that correct? Joseph Seman-Graves: That is correct. Additionally, we are looking at the overhang, service windows, and outdoor seating. Stephanie Couture: Joe I have a question. What weight if any does the approved parking plan from 2008 hold? Joseph Seman-Graves: I added that as a reference as there has been a precedent set to approve ten, rather than twelve spots at this location. Chairperson DeFruscio: Yes, and if you look at that plan you will also see designated space for snow storage and a handicap parking location. We did have a significant issue with the previous owner and parking. Tom, how did the windows get changed? Will you be serving ice cream or a full menu from the window? Mr. Thomas Durrant: Once I am up and running I feel like I could use this as a way to do takeout. Not a walk-up and order, but more of a call-in and online orders. Chairperson DeFruscio: Is the kitchen area in the main building still being retained? Mr. Thomas Durrant: That is now my dish washing room. Joe Nadeau: So what are we looking for now, an updated site plan? Joe Seman-Graves: At this point I would ask for recommendations from the board that can be incorporated into a new site plan. Chairperson DeFruscio: Tom, is there any changes with the signing? Also, what are we doing for lighting in that area? Mr. Thomas Durrant: It is already lit up, there is lighting up to the sidewalk on Columbia and Masten. There is no new signage other than beer signs on my fence and maybe putting in a handicap sign. Chairperson DeFruscio: For lighting, we will need your outdoor lighting incorporated on a plan. As far as the parking lot goes, we will need to know which one of the spaces will be declared as handicapped. Also, what are your plans for snow storage and the location of garbage? Bob Bucher: That drawing has to be professionally done to scale. Mr. Thomas Durrant: So I need an engineer to draw that up and have t stamped? Bob Bucher: Yes. The site plan has to be to scale. This presentation is not to scale. The previous one that we are looking at is professionally done, to scale. Mr. Thomas Durrant: Sure thing. Stephanie Couture: I would be comfortable with a preliminary approval with conditions. Bob Bucher: I agree. I would like to see a scaled professional site plan that indicates lighting, any dumpster/trash location and a fire rating demarcation. I would like to see the delineation of where the demarcation is at the property line. Also, snow removal and handicap space. I will make a motion on that. Stephanie Couture 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 SITE PLAN REVIEW AT 220 REMSEN STREET Chairperson DeFruscio: The next item on the agenda is the consideration of a site plan review at 220 Remsen Street. The applicant has already constructed a fence with lattice that exceeds the 6’ height limitations. That has triggered a Planning Board review that also encompasses a patio and pergola that was constructed on the property. Is the applicant on the line with us? Joseph Seman-Graves: I don’t see him on the line just yet. We can circle back around if you would like me to read the public comments first. Chairperson DeFruscio: Sure, please. Mr. Timothy Thibodeau: The city planner has stated that the language regarding fence installations is ambiguous and until there is a very clear understanding or unambiguous language, how can the planning board grant a use variance? Furthermore, the fence is NOT installed on earthen ground. The fence is simply inserted into a single re-bar rod so the fence is not supported well, and additionally, the concrete base that was poured should be of 3500 compressionable concrete for an outdoor slab. Has Mr. Russell provided a copy of the receipts from the concrete supplier listing the type of concrete that was poured? Has code enforcement determined if the concrete slab(s) are in compliance with city code? The planning board should issue a decision based upon facts presented by code enforcement as to the overall project. The fence has horizontal board over 6' high and the lattice above it brings the fence to 8' high. Does the planning board consider the lattice NOT part of the fencing? The lattice is attached to the same vertical wooden post that the fence is attached to. The code says a fence is measured from the grade level on the ground to the highest point of the fence. Is the highest point the 6' wooden wall placed horizontally on the post, topped with Lattice? I want to ensure we fully understand what is being considered here, because if Mr. Russell can built something like this, we don't need a planning board or zoning board. Since this was all done after the fact, without clear permits stating what he was building. Mr. Russell stated he was repairing or replacing an existing fence, but there was no existing fence 8' high. The city planner informed me my comments for the historical board would be read during the meeting of that board. It did not happen. My comments were read by the HPARC board prior to opening up the formal meeting and that violated open meetings law. I want a clear record of what will happen to the property of 220 Remsen st because it will be the new way to go in Cohoes, Build first, appeal later. Everyone is watching this decision by the planning board, especially since it very likely has no information regarding the type of concrete the fence is on, the pergola is on the city planner or code providing unambiguous language as the new guide regarding fence installations I expect the photos and text be part of the public record regarding the use variance for 220 Remsen St. Mr. Donald Russell: Hello I am online now, sorry about that. So this was all part of the original plan for the property, we always intended to have outdoor dining. I was not aware that our City permits actually expire and after talking with people in the City it seems like many people didn’t know that the permits actually expired. We were given a CO for the building so we could open back in November of last year. At that point the patio was not built due to the weather changing. Our permit expired over the winter time so we ended up applying for a new permit for the fence and the concrete which is what we did. The pergola which was also built in the back is a landscaping feature that we decided to put in. This whole thing was triggered because we have 16” of lattice above the 6’ mark. So that’s why we need a variance and that is where the issue really stemmed from. Chairperson DeFruscio: Well, there is another issue that the board should be aware of. The side of the fence that you see depicted here is facing outwards, while the other two sides are facing inward. Mr. Donald Russell: We are not complete with our project. The rest of the fence, the posts will be capped so they look like pillars. Stephanie Couture: Why wouldn’t there be a level of consistency with the posts on the inside? Mr. Donald Russell: That’s just how we designed it. Chairperson DeFruscio: I have a question about the 2”x3” ‘s running across the top of the pergola. What is that for? Mr. Donald Russell: Our goal is to grow hops and grape vines across the top, so that is what they will grow through. Our intention will be to plant them in the fall and have them grow in the spring. So long-term it will be covered in greenery. Chairperson DeFruscio: I am trying to figure out if that changes this from a garden element to something else. I don’t know if in that instance you consider snow load. Stephanie Couture: To Mark’s point, the snow that rests upon the pergola beams and vines may not have the opportunity to fall through, thus causing added weight to the pergola roof. Bob Bucher: If I can interject here. One of the things I try hard to not do on this board is to sway my architectural opinion. I have designed several of these types of structures. Those furring strips add lateral bracing to the pergola joists and the vining and greenery off-season with any snow load will not retain any water or snow of significance of any kind. The fence when you do a heavy timber type of look which the applicant is doing there, in my opinion there is no good side. Both sides of the fence look virtually the same, so I try very hard to look at items like this that fall under the code/zoning purview rather than the planning purview. Chairperson DeFruscio: Well the code is very clear when it refers to the “good side” of the fence that side should be pointed out. If the person installing the fence wants both sides to be finished then they need to finish both sides. Bob Bucher: Correct, an in my opinion the fence is finished on both sides since the planks, baton and lattice are the same on each side. The only difference is that the posts are on the inside, which visually match the style of the pergola. Chairperson DeFruscio: Respectfully, I do not agree that they are the same. Joe Nadeau: Is there a structural issue with it just sitting on the ground? Bob Bucher: Yes. Joe Nadeau: Are their structural requirements for that? Bob Bucher: Yes, there are anchorage requirements for it and again I would have to step back and let the building department address that. Chairperson DeFruscio: I was thinking more along the lines of how the fence posts are there. They are not into the concrete in any way, rather they seem to be suspended using rebar. Can the applicant speak to that? Mr. Donald Russell: The fence posts have rebar going up through the posts about 24”. There will be anchoring at the bottom of the posts, however we are not done with the project. There will be corner brackets that get anchored into the concrete and anchored into the posts themselves. Chairperson DeFruscio: DO you have any architectural drawings that show the completed work, a site plan with the completed elements? Mr. Donald Russell: No. when we applied for this two years ago we were not asked for it, so we have never done it. We have already been through planning and zoning for the entire project and one of the only reasons we are coming before you is because I let the permit expired, which I would have renewed if I knew it was going to expire. Chairperson DeFruscio: Joe, do you have what was approved two years ago? I don’t remember approving anything. Joseph Seman-Graves: Nothing that we are looking at needed to go through planning until the lattice was added to the fence. That triggered the planning board review. Chairperson DeFruscio: Thank you. Ok, let’s open the floor for public comments. Mr. Timothy Thibodeau: To the board members, I do not believe that you have good candor from the applicant here. What happened was, back in August of 2019 this was an application for a renovation and restoration of the building. That permit expired on January 30. Now when you get your application it says that it’s valid for 6 months. All he had to do was extend the existing permit by 6 months. What happened is, he started working in mid-April with the concrete pad. He did it in two sections and he never had a permit for that, at least until May 7th. That permit had two handwritings and two different inks. So the question is this, was there footings and stone? I just listened to this board ell Mr. Durrant that he needed to have approved architectural drawings. There was never a permit to build the pergola. He posted on social media that he would be building an 8’ fence and a pergola. All of the wooden posts all the way around are simply sitting on concrete, on top of rebar. I also agree with Mark that you have to put the attractive side of the fence facing your neighbor. Secondly, how does all of these new outdoor tables affect parking? Once he extended the bar past the original are you have to provide the state liquor authority to approve that. This whole project was done in such a way to avoid telling the City what was actually being done. Mr. Russell has a history of building first and then coming before the board, and that is just what he has done here. As far as a use variance as it is vague about the setback, that shouldn’t be voted on until we figure this out. Mr. Edward Conlan: My only comment here is as a resident and tax payer of the City I would think that it is incumbent upon a councilman to verify information if something is unclear with planning, historic, or code. He should simply ask and inquire. Elected officials should be held to a higher standard, or at the minimum the same standard. The bottom line is that he should have come to you beforehand and not after the fact. I don’t know if it is a cavalier attitude or not and I have no problem with him trying to make money, but he is a councilman. Chairperson DeFruscio: From my perspective, it is my opinion that if Mr. Russell wants the finished side of the fence on the inside then he will have to finish both sides. Whether it is going into an alley or facing a building, both sides would have to be finished if the inside will be finished. Mr. Donald Russell: As I have stated, the posts will be capped to look like pillars. They will not be posts anymore. Chairperson DeFruscio: Again, I am looking for the finished side of the fence to be on the outside. I think we will need an updated site plan that reflects the total scope of work, otherwise how do we know when the project is finished. Mr. Donald Russell: Well code will be the ones to finalize it when it is done, I wouldn’t get a CO otherwise. Is that correct? Chairperson DeFruscio: Well we have no plans to determine when it is done. So I am asking other board members as to what their opinions are. Joe Nadeau: I think that code needed to know what was happening to start with. They should have had something in their hand at the forefront. Now they will have to determine what a post looks like if it is changed into a column. Who makes that determination, will code look at the aesthetics and make that decision? Specifically, I want to know that code is satisfied with the anchorage of everything in place. Chairperson DeFruscio: If we had a site plan that showed all of those things then we would be ok with that. Stephanie Couture: I think we need to be consistent with our rulings. We did ask for Tommy Durant for his business to provide a professional site plan and I think we need to have that level of consistency with all of our applicants. How do we know what a finished product is? We could bring multiple issues to the table just for the applicant to say it’s not done yet, and how do we know? Jack Carroll: I agree. Bob Bucher: I agree, except in this case where a site plan will not determine any decorative elements or columns. I totally agree that code has to be satisfied. In the Durant case we are asking for the fire rating and in this case I think it has to be the same with the anchorage of the elements. I voiced my opinion of the decorative elements of the fence and I understand what the code says, so I would be happy to see a sketch of the posts. I don’t know Joe, is that something we make the determination on? Joseph Seman-Graves: Well it can go to zoning, I just wrapped it up into this discussion since the full planning board review was triggered. Also for the record with the parking requirements. The applicant is 300’ from the Smith’s parking lot and according to code your parking restrictions are waived if you are within 500’ of a municipal parking lot. Chairperson DeFruscio: I am now looking for a motion from the board. Bob Bucher: I would like to make a motion for site plan approval contingent upon a professional design that shows the anchorage of the finished fence posts, what the applicant is going to do for the two other sides of the fence or what the proposed finished is, and where the lighting locations will be. Joe 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 SITE PLAN REVIEW AT 156 BRIDGE AVNUE Chairperson DeFruscio: Next on the agenda is a site plan review for 156 Bridge Avenue. Is the applicant on the line with us? Mr. Fred Metzger: Yes sir, I am here. Chairperson DeFruscio: So essentially you are looking at a vacant lot where (2) two-family homes once existed and is currently occupied by a vacant garage. The person you represent is looking to build a four-unit apartment building here. Jack Carroll: Will it be the same style as the one over on North Erie? Mr. Fred Metzger: Very similar, what they did was took that design and melded it together to make a four-unit. So the floorplan will be very similar. Chairperson DeFruscio: It fits in with the neighborhood construction. Mr. Fred Metzger: Yea it really does. So the parcel is 7,500 sq ft and is located in an MU-NC corridor which allows for multifamily units here. What Anthony is proposing is (4) two-bedroom apartments with roughly 1,200 sq/ft a piece, two on the lower level and two on the upper. We will have vegetative swales on both sides as well as vegetation in the front. There is an existing fence in the front that will be removed along with a small bit of concrete. We will have walkways from the front to the rear of the building where you will have six off-street parking spaces which will be accessed from the alley. There will be a small (4’6”x10’) garbage enclosure surrounded by a chain link fence at the SouthWest corner. There is also a proposed recreational area between the parking lot and the buildings. As far as the front goes we will put some low lying evergreen and hydrangeas. We will also be removing some large trees on the property which we will compensate with vegetative swales. That will also be the location of our snow storage in the winter. Chairperson DeFruscio: Thank you. Are there any public comments regarding this project? If not I will be looking for comments from the board. Joe Nadeau: Fred, do you see any issues with drainage off of the back parking area? Mr. Fred Metzger: Well the alley slopes West to East as you can see with the existing contours there and like I said, we are going to try and keep most of the water on-site with the vegetative swales, as best we can. Obviously in a big storm we would have the water flowing towards the roads. Even with the gutters we are proposing to empty the gutters into the recreational areas. The areas upfront we will put two feet of crushed stone around the downspouts to try and capture as much runoff as possible. Joe Nadeau: Is the common alley paved? Mr. Fred Metzger: Yes it is. Bob Bucher: So Fred, you are ok with the stormwater calculations? Everything from that area will absorb the rainwater, everything is ok with that tight site? Mr. Fred Metzger: Yes. I mean we can’t expect to account for a 100-year storm, but a normal storm definitely has enough. We are proposing 33% of greenspace and adding vegetative swales with an under layer of crushed stone. Bob Bucher: Well I like it, I think this will be a very nice addition to the neighborhood. Joseph Seman-Graves: Also as an addition, the City Engineer reviewed the site plan as it relates to stormwater and had no comments or questions at this time. Another thing to note with the MU-NC corridor, there is a maximum of one space per unit allowed. So if the applicant wants to have the proposed six spaces then he will need a special use permit from the board as well. Stephanie Couture: Quick question. What are we looking at for exterior lighting? Mr. Fred Metzger: So if you look at the site plan you can see that there is lighting at all of the corners of the building minus the front left as there is no walking in that area. We figured downward pointed motion sensing lights. Bob Bucher: And probably porch lights as well? Mr. Fred Metzger: Yes, for the front and back porches. Jack Carroll: This is a nice looking project that fits well here. Stephanie Couture: I would like to make a motion to approve a special use permit for the two additional off-street parking spaces. Joe 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 Bob Bucher: I would like to make a motion for final site plan approval. Jack Carroll seconds the motion and it passes 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 10:11 PM.