Planning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COHOES PLANNING BOARD HELD AT 97 MOHAWK STREET COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS JULY 11, 2022 at 6:30PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Jack Carroll, Vice Chair Mr. Bob Bucher Mr. Joe Nadeau Ms. Kizzy Williams ABSENT: Mr. Mark DeFruscio, Chair Ms. Stephanie Couture ALSO PRESENT: Sharon Butler, Administrative Assistant Josh Giller, Assistant Planner Vice Chair Carroll called the meeting to order at 6:31 pm and asked for roll call. Roll Call; Chairperson DeFruscio and Member Couture were absent CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 13, 2022 MEETING Vice Chair Carroll; first item is the meeting minutes from June 13th are there any questions or changes? Member Nadeau stated he would like to make sure in the minutes for 211 Columbia Street that it states specifically to keep the sidewalks on Mann Avenue clear Sharon Butler noted the correction Member Nadeau made a motion to accept the minutes with the correction 2nd by Member Bucher motion carried YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio ABSENT Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture ABSENT Kizzy Williams ABSTAIN CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 127 CANVASS STREET Vice Chair Carroll; next on the agenda is Site Plan for 127 Canvass Street he asked the applicant to approach the board and tell them what they wanted to do Mr. Dan DiTursi approached the board and gave an overview of the project stating that it is going to be a pediatric practice and they are renovating the building and doing some improvements to the exterior; green space, grass, stripping the parking lot and putting in a small concrete pad for the trash container. Vice Chair Carroll stated that there was a question about the lighting, what type of lighting they were going to be putting in Mr. DiTursi replied it was just going to be 3-2 on the outside of the main door and one over the other door, being lantern style lights. He stated that the Historic board had quite a few questions about the lighting Vice Chair Carroll aske the board members if they had any questions or comments. Member Bucher asked if he had been before the historic board Mr. DiTursi stated that they had, they wanted to hear more from them because they didn’t have the full plans Josh Giller explained to the board that the historic board needed more information regarding the project so they tabled it until they could receive complete renderings Member Bucher stated that assures the colors, type of siding, windows, window frame locations, infills etc. Member Nadeau had a question regarding the back entrance being open, Mr. DiTursi approached and explained it on the drawing stating that he is not allowed to close that up There was a discussion regarding the accessibility at the rear of the property and egress and ingress Vice Chair Carroll asked how many people come through that area in a day Mr. DiTursi asked if he meant to the practice once they were open Vice Chair Carroll stated once you are open how many vehicles will go through there a day, trying to get an idea of traffic flow. Mr. DiTursi stated it would be at the highest 30 patients a day, but most of their patients do not drive there, they walk to the practice Member Williams asked when they expected to be finished and open Mr. DiTursi stated by the end of August beginning of September as their current lease is up in September so that would be the absolute deadline. Vice Chair Carroll then opened it up to public comments. Being none he asked for approval of the site plan as submitted and asked for a motion to approve the site plan as presented Member Bucher made the motion 2nd by Member Williams motion carried YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio ABSENT Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture ABSENT Kizzy Williams X CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR 0 BROADWAY Vice Chair Carroll next is 0 Broadway and asked for the applicant to approach the board Mr. Peter Frangie approached and explained that 0 Broadway is a plot of land that is 75 x 100 and he is looking to put 2 single bedroom 560 sq. ft. homes on the property, they will sit on Alaskan slabs. They will be one bedroom, one bath open space with kitchen and living space. Each unit will be built with 3—20-foot Conex containers put together, the exterior is framed, they are spray foam insulated, it’ll have trusses, it’ll have siding Vice Chair Carroll asked if it would be prepared off site and then brought in Mr. Frangie stated no there will be 3 containers dropped at the site, they’ll be framed and constructed there onsite. Member Williams stated that she would like to see the real pictures of what it will look like, she wants to see the real thing and what it will look like in the neighborhood. Mr. Frangie acknowledged what Member Williams is asking for. He then went on to tell the board that they are also putting in on Broadway 4 parking spaces, he stated that it is an elevated lot, so they would put a retaining wall in approximately 18 to 20 feet to accept the off-street parking and install a retaining wall and a staircase that would go up to the homes Member Williams again stated that she would like to see what it will look like, wants to see real pictures of when it’s done, she wants to see what it will look like in the community. She stated to the applicant that it is a family-oriented community so she wants to see how it will look in the community, so she would like to see real pictures of what they will look like. Vice Chair Carroll asked for clarification—you are going to put 3 containers for each housing unit Mr. Frangie confirmed that yes that is what they were looking to do, it would be a total of 6 containers. He approached Vice Chair Carroll and clarified on the drawing exactly what they were looking to do by pointing it out on the drawing, stating that they would be side by side and two buildings. Member Nadeau asked the applicant about the retaining wall and that there wasn’t going to be anything there. Mr. Frangie approached Member Nadeau and pointed out on the drawing stating that it would be the long wall Member Bucher asked about the roof Mr. Frangie approached Member Bucher and pointed out on the drawing and explained the roof system Member Williams asked how long it would take to complete these units. Mr. Frangie explained it will be a rather quick time, as they don’t have to wait 21 days for the concrete to cure, they will pour it, they could probably drop the containers 10 to 12 days after that, then do the insulation with spray foam, siding and then the work inside, it would be between 45 and 60 days. That’s what they are expecting but this is their first one so they’ll know more as they get into it. He stated that the hope here is the lost space in municipalities especially in the City of Cohoes, this will put this on the tax rolls and it is an energy efficient single family small space that will be desirable, it will be well built, near zero maintenance, with net zero energy Vice Chair Carroll asked about the color of it Mr. Frangie stated it will be brown, beige brown as it is not a traditional siding that will be on it Member Williams asked how much the rent would be Mr. Frangie explained that they looked at several approaches, that they wanted to make this affordable. They want people to be able to live this way and it be affordable, he stated that with 560 sq. ft. the rent wouldn’t be more than $1,000 a month. Vice Chair Carroll then asked if there were any more concerns or considerations from the board Member Bucher asked about the reverse roof showing the gutter, and that they would have an entry door roof type for both sides and then the storm water chamber you are going to reverse and the gutters will stay in the same location with a down spout. He also stated that he agrees with what Kizzy said that she wants to see a color rendering of it, he too would like to see it colored and combined, what it would look like and asked if there was any thought to landscaping Mr. Frangie stated that the original thought was elevated gardens, as they want to give the tenants the option of elevated gardens and the gutters would be to rain gardens. He stated that the driveway would be crushed and not paved because they want that to accept any flow as well Member Nadeau asked about the 5-foot retaining wall if he has given any thought to a safety rail on the wall. Mr. Frangie stated that they would have safety rails on the stairs and he was not aware of any code that requires safety rails on the wall Member Williams asked how much they would sell the property for if they decided to sell. Mr. Frangie replied that they would be in the $100,000 range. Member Williams asked if it would be each unit at $100,000 range Mr. Frangie stated yes Member Williams asked how long they would last Mr. Frangie stated they would last a very long time and if they (members) had the opportunity to see them they should. He stated that they are in the port of Albany, any job site Vice Chair Carroll asked the applicant, you’re talking about the container itself, I believe Member Williams is asking about the finished product. Member Williams stated again that she would like to see the beginning to the end and see the final product. It seems like a good project but she would like to see actual pictures of the finished product Vice Chair Carroll asked if there were any other questions or comments Member Nadeau asked the applicant if he had any concerns about the 5’ drop off on the retaining wall Mr. Frangie responded that he wasn’t aware of any codes but if he had to do something Member Nadeau stated that wasn’t the question, he wanted to know if he had any concerns about that drop off Mr. Frangie approached Member Nadeau and showed on the drawing the retaining wall, they discussed the retaining wall and the way it turns to the stairs. Member Nadeau also asked if the garbage cans could be in a location less visible and not out on the street stating anything that can be done aesthetically to hide them would be good. Mr. Frangie stated that maybe they could carve out at either end of the wall and do a poured slab and wall for the cans to be Vice Chair Carroll asked if the board had any more comments, being none he asked if there were any public comments being none he asked for a motion to accept as is with a contingency of the showing of what the building looks like or table it until we get the requested information. Member Williams made a motion to TABLE the application until the information requested is provided to the board 2nd by Member Nadeau motion carried to TABLE the application Motion carried  YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio ABSENT Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture ABSENT Kizzy Williams X DISCUSSION ON THE PHASE II FOR LEXINGTON HILLS Vice Chair Carroll next is Lexington Hills, who do we have representing Lexington Hills, and to clarify this is just a presentation on Phase II and what it is going to look like and there are no approvals needed tonight. Mr. Bill Hoblock owner, developer, and operator of Lexington Hills here to discuss Phase II of the Lexington Hills project. This project was fully approved as a PDD and fully approved as site plan dated back years, building and planning asked us to come to give an update when we were ready to start Phase II and answer any questions. The Common council adopted the PDD back in 2009, this consists of 408 units, club house, pool and maintenance building. This board approved the site plan documents back in 2013. It is a mix of 10, 12 and 6 plex buildings, all 2 stories in height. Phase I is a total of 138 units which was started 2014 completed in 2016 early 2017. Phase II started in spring of 2020 then construction stopped because of the pandemic. We are now ready to start construction on Phase II later this summer. Phase II is a total of 120 units, so Phase I is 138 units, Phase II is 120 units that is going to be 10, 12 plexuses so that will leave 150 units to be built in Phase III. Our goal is to finish Phase II and go right into Phase III and finish the community. He suggested if members haven’t seen it to call him and schedule a tour. He stated that it is market rate units. That’s the overview if you have any questions we can answer them. Member Williams stated that she would like to take a tour because then she can let people she knows about what they are offering there. Member Bucher asked if the buildings and units were going to be the same Mr. Hoblock stated yes that there are 2 building types there now. When you drive in you have one building type that is 10 plexuses from the main road to the Salt Kill, he showed Member Bucher on the drawing. He also stated that when you get to the back there are already 4 built and those are 12 plexus and that is the building type that is approved for the rest of the plan and that is what they will be building There was a discussion about site work and what would be taking place Vice Chair Carroll asked about the water source and asked if the design was for the full three phase project Mr. Hoblock stated yes it also included the sewer plan that was for all phases of the project Vice Chair Carroll asked if there were any more questions from the board Member Bucher asked about the roads if they were city roads Mr. Hoblock stated no they are private roads that they own them Vice Chair Carroll asked if there were any public comments, there were no public comments CONSIDERATION OF A SUBDIVISION AT 60 EDWARD STREET Vice Chair Carroll next is the subdivision for 60 Edward Street Mr. Fred Metzger approached the board regarding 60 Edward Street for the approval of a subdivision. He told the board what they were looking to do is subdivide the property into 2 lots. They are looking to renovate the existing house on the property and build a new 2-unit house on the newly subdivided lot. They are proposing renovations of the existing house with a garage in the rear and combined parking if funds allowed or it might just end up being parking on the side and it would be similar on the other side with the new 2 family. He stated that they don’t have an actual plan they were looking to just get the approval for the subdivision and the special use permit to build the 2-family home. Joe Nadeau asked about the big tree if it had to come down for parking Mr. Metzger stated yes it would have to come down. Member Williams asked when they were looking to start this project Mr. Metzger stated that after the subdivision they are looking to start the renovations first then upon completion of that move to the other side. In the meantime they will put together the plans for the proposed new 2 family so they would have exactly what they plan on doing to present to the board so they can see it. Member Williams asked what the rent would be Mr. Metzger stated that in this area 2 – 2 family wood construction probably 2-bedroom, bath and a half would be looking at $1,300 to $1,500 a month. Vice Chair Carroll asked if there were any more questions from the board members being none he opened it up for public comments on the subdivision of this property Mr. Darwak approached stating that he wanted to see exactly what they were going to do and he doesn’t like the parking lot next to his house Mr. Darwak was looking at the drawing and he and Mr. Metzger discussed where the proposed new dwelling would be located and where the parking would be Mr. Darwak asked if the parking could be moved somewhere else Vice Chair Carroll stated to Mr. Metzger that right now the parking is right on the property line and said Mr. Darwak preferred the parking be in front of the house instead of along the side Member Bucher asked how difficult it would be to move the parking to a different spot Mr. Metzger stated that he would talk to the owner about relocating the parking, he stated that there is plenty of room to perhaps do something different and not have issues with snow removal Vice Chair Carroll do I have a motion to accept the application to subdivide the property Motion made by Member Nadeau 2nd by Member Williams Motion carried YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio ABSENT Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture ABSENT Kizzy Williams X CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 2 FAMILY HOME AT 60 EDWARD STREET Vice Chair Carroll now on to the special use permit Mr. Metzger gave an overview of the proposed rehabilitation of the existing house and the construction of the new dwelling, he stated that there are single- and two-family homes on the block, but in the R-2 zone there is a requirement to obtain a special use permit for a two-family home. We would like to request a special use permit to construct a two-family home there and as stated previously there is enough parking for off street parking to eliminate congestion. Member Bucher stated to the applicant his concern about addressing the gentleman’s concerns with parking next to his house. I would propose the special use permit with contingency of site plan approval for parking in the back similar to the existing. And it would be good for snow removal being in the back and it addresses his concern with parking on the side next to his house Member Bucher I will make a motion to approve the special use permit with the condition that parking will be in the rear like the existing house Vice Chair Carroll asked if the topography of the lot would allow that Mr. Metzger replied yes it would Josh Giller asked the board if they wanted the applicant to return or have him send it to the planning office and we can send it to the board Vice Chair Carroll stated that if the change is made they would want something official for the record, showing where the new parking is going to be Member Bucher stated to the applicant that he is to submit the new drawing (site plan) to the planning office then it would be on file. Vice Chair Carroll we can do an approval with that contingency that the plans update that. It is the same special use permit Member Bucher motion stays with contingency that the applicant submit new site plans to show where parking will be on the property 2nd by Member Nadeau Josh Giller stated to the board that procedurally there are 2 special use permits one for each property because although the first property there is an existing 2 family it has been vacant for more than a year, it would require a new special use permit approval Vice Chair Carroll we will make the motion to include both properties with the contingency on the one property regarding the parking Motion carried for the special use permit granted for both properties with the contingency that the applicant submit to the planning office the new site plan regarding the parking YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio ABSENT Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture ABSENT Kizzy Williams X Vice Chair Carroll asked for a motion to adjourn; motion made by Member Bucher 2nd by Member Nadeau meeting adjourned at 7:26PM