Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES WEDNESDAY , MAY 27 , 2009 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Clifford Van Wagner, Chair; Jamin Totino, Vice-Chair; Amy Durland, Michael Perkins, Laura Rappaport, Philip Klein, Dan Gaba ABSENT: No one STAFF: Jaclyn Hakes, Principal Planner ALSO PRESENT : Mark Schachner, Counsel (arrived at 8:11 P.M.); Stuart Mesinger, Consultant CALL TO ORDER Chair Clifford Van Wagner called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING Clifford Van Wagner said the proceedings of this meeting are being taped for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. REPORT ON ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS BY THE CHAIR Wesley Health Care Center Lot Line Adjustment, approved by Jamin Totino on May 13, 2009. POSTPONED: 09.025 Weibel Avenue Retail/Office, 72-74 Weibel Avenue, withdrawn for tonight’s meeting by the applicant. There is no date rescheduled. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR June 30, 2009, there is a joint land use boards meeting in the Music Hall. There will be a presentation, which is open to the public. June 4, 2009, the Capital District Regional Planning Committee Local Government Planning and Zoning Workshop will take place at Hudson Valley Community College from 8:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Clifford Van Wagner gave this opportunity to allow citizens to address planning issues not on the scheduled agenda. Hearing none. APPLICATIONS  09.028 KDI Properties, LLC Zoning Amendment, 82 Franklin Street This is an advisory opinion to the City Council for a zoning code amendment to change the parcel from Urban Residential-3 to Transect-6 Urban Core in the Urban Residential-3 District. Jaclyn Hakes said this parcel is surrounded by a T-6 District and it does appear that it was an oversight when the T-6 District was applied to that area. It is not within an Architectural or Historic Review Overlay, so no review by the Design Review Commission is required; however, if it is changed to T-6 zoning, DRC approval would be required for any changes that would occur there. Appearing before the Board was Michael Toohey, representing KDI Properties, LLC, who indicated that the lot is 2,338 square feet, which is 35.5% less than the single-family lot requirement for the property, it is 46% less than the standard width requirement, and the buildable portion of the lot would be 561 square feet. He said in looking at the map, the way that the road’s name was written across it, no one recognized that this lot was left outside of the zone. It has no useful purpose within the UR-3 zone. He said it was part of the site plan that was presented when the building where the West Side Stadium Café was converted from the S&M Market. The applicant would like to merge this lot into the Transect-6 zone and then come back to this Board for alterations to the west side of the property. Clifford Van Wagner stated that the two issues the Board should consider is whether this is or is not contrary to the general purposes and intent of zoning and is it or is it not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Jamin Totino indicated that if the applicant wants to add outside seating on this parcel, they would have to come back to the Planning Board for approval. Jaclyn Hakes said they would also need DRC approval. She said the applicant would be allowed to add up to 50% of the total number of indoor seating without having to come back before the Planning Board; otherwise, they would need additional approvals. What would also trigger Site Plan review would be if that area would exceed 2% of the current impervious surface, or 1,200 square feet. Jamin said he would be concerned about what the impact would be on the residential lots that are adjacent. Jackie said the DRC would look at buffering to be able to reduce the impact on the residences. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hearing none. DECISION: Philip Klein made a motion that this is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Dan Gaba seconded. Vote: Jamin Totino, in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Michael Perkins, in favor; Laura Rappaport, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor, City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 27, 2009 - Page 2 of 14  Clifford Van Wagner, in favor Motion carries 7-0.  09.027 Darley Stud Management Zoning Amendment, 36 Nelson Avenue This is an advisory opinion to the City Council for a zoning code amendment to change the parcel from Rural Residential-1 to an Institutional Horse Track Related District. Jaclyn Hakes said the amendment request is to change from an RR-1 District to an Institutional Horse Track Related District, to add text to the use table that includes a horse training facility and that that be a permitted use upon site plan review, to add text to the use table for a heliport to be permitted upon special use and site plan, and to add a definition for a horse training facility and living facility in the Zoning Ordinance. This parcel is not included in the City Overlay District and does not require DRC review. The Comprehensive Plan map identifies this parcel as Track and Related Facilities. There are no principal permitted uses in the Institutional Horse Track Related District, so all uses require either a site plan or a special use permit and site plan. Clifford Van Wagner reiterated that the Weibel Avenue item has been withdrawn by the applicant. Appearing before the Board was Michael Toohey, who said this property was always used as a horse track related property, even before zoning was put in place, according to the Sanborn map. When the current owners bought the property, their intention was to make it a world class horse training facility. He said the existing barns need to be replaced in order to be up to the standards in the industry today. He said the RR-1 District allows for single-family homes, which does allow for barns, but it does not allow for enhancement of the other things that the applicant desires, including a dormitory for the people who would be working at the facility. He said the most appropriate way to accomplish this is to ask the legislative body to change the zoning. He said the Institutional Horse Track Related zone relates to racing tracks. The applicant has no desire to have a race track or anything listed for this zone. The proposal is to create a new classification within the Institutional Horse Track Related zone, which is defined as, “a horse training facility”. The owners have said they are willing to give up the single-family utilization of the property if they can do the things they bought the property for. Mike Toohey indicated that he has sent letters to Yaddo and Alan and Charlotte Justin, adjacent property owners. He has had a positive response from the Justins, but has not had a response back from Yaddo, which seems to indicate that they do not have a significant concern with regard to the proposal. Jaclyn Hakes stated that by adding “horse training facility” as a permitted use in the Institutional Horse Track Related Facility, as well as to define that, would permit that use in addition to the existing permitted uses in the district. The applicant is only looking for that use; however, the only way to limit it to just that use would be to create a new district. She said from a larger planning perspective, the City has 31 zoning districts already and 10 plus PUDS that exist, which is a significant number. The reverse is true if this were approved by the City Council, any existing Institutional Horse Track Related District would then also have the ability to incorporate a horse training facility. Mike Toohey said creating a new zone would be fine with the applicant. Amy Durland said she is wary of changing a zone for one property that will also potentially affect other properties in the same zoning district. She said her reading of the permitted uses chart is that the Institutional Horse Track Related District that exists now refers to horse racing facilities under the site plan review column, which are restricted to the NYRA properties and the Racino. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 27, 2009 - Page 3 of 14 However, the special use column, in addition to the site plan review column, would apply to any property within the Institutional Horse Track Related zone, including Fasig-Tipton and the other smaller properties as well as the Darley property. Mike Toohey said they are attempting to define two different categories of uses and to define very specifically what a horse training facility is within the city. Amy said those would, with appropriate review, be allowed on the Darley property if the amendment passes. Mike Toohey said he relates that back over to the horse racing facilities. Amy said she disagrees and thinks the horse racing facilities appear to relate to the other column. Jackie said the special use permit and site plan review column does refer to horse race track and/or horse track training; however, a horse race training track currently is not defined. She said part of this application is to define a horse training facility and if there is some concern that the listed uses would also apply to a training facility, the wording could be changed. Mike Toohey said they could put at the top of that “for a horse racing facility”. He said in his definition, the word “race” is never used, which is a huge distinction. One is a facility at which horses are trained, but they don’t race, there is no paramutual wagering, there is no grandstand, etc. Amy said the intensity of the Institutional Horse Track Related District could be 4 times greater than in the RR-1 District. Mike Toohey said you need to consider that there is a track in the middle of the property, and you should look at the nature of the property the way it is used. Amy said she is not arguing that this should be retained as a RR-1, but the intensity of use would increase according to what is allowed. She said her main concern is that the uses that would be allowed on the Darley property would also apply to all other entities within the city that could be defined as horse training facilities, so she would like to pin down what those properties are. Mike Toohey said what they are asking for as a definition of the primary use would be: barns, stables for horses, offices associated with a horse training facility, an equine track, paddocks, dormitories/living quarters for on-premise employees, employee single-family residences, living facilities including rooms or suites owned by the property owner within which business related customers can carry on on-premise business activities without payment for up to a 90-day period, physical plant and maintenance, boarding of horses, training of horses, veterinary clinic for on-premise stabled horses, and a heliport. Amy Durland asked what the vision is for this property in terms of the dormitories and single-family residences and the rooms and suites for business related customers. Mike said there already exists sub-standard housing and dining facilities, but the owners would like to enhance that. He said a new building with suites would not be needed for a large number of people, but there may be adequate housing already on the facility. He said the new building would not be a high-rise, it would be consistent with the nature of the use. Amy said in the Institutional Horse Track Related zone a building height of 60 feet is allowed, so the intensity of use is concerning to her. Clifford Van Wagner asked what happens during the winter. Mike said it is closed down. He said the use would follow the same pattern as the Oklahoma Track. He said the wording proposed was chosen so as to limit the use of those suites in the most obvious of ways: you can’t get paid for them and they are limited as to time. The people using the suites are guests of the owners, who are there for business purposes. Phil Klein said we might want to consider another zone, because Mr. Toohey has narrowed it down so finely to this property. Jackie Hakes stated that the staff is not in favor of creating another zone. Laura Rappaport said it might be useful to have an outline of all the parcels that are Institutional Track Related in order to see how these uses would apply to those parcels. (Mark Schachner arrived at 8:11 P.M.) City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 27, 2009 - Page 4 of 14 Mike Toohey said he understands what staff’s reluctance is, so they will define this as a wholly different zone so that it doesn’t affect any other properties, and allows the introduction of a new industry into the City. Clifford Van Wagner said that making a new zone that is labeled distinctly and that clearly says what you can do and clearly says what you can’t do makes sense. This would take away height and rental, or any wiggle room. Jackie said it is not advised by staff. Laura Rappaport asked if this is considered spot zoning. Mike Toohey said it is zoning that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the introduction of a utilization that is beneficial to the City. Jackie said that if there are specific items within the horse training facility uses that this Board does have concerns about with regard to the intensity of use, that is currently permitted under the column for site plan review. One suggestion could be to move that under the column that is related to special use permit and site plan, so the Planning Board has the ability to examine that intensity of use and the impact on the community. Mike Toohey asked if she is saying talking about the things that are already in the Institutional Horse Track Related zone or the things the applicant is proposing. Jackie said the things they are proposing. Mike Toohey said he would be opposed to that, it doesn’t make sense to have to get a special use permit to put up a barn. He suggested taking all the uses that already exist and say that those are for horse racing facilities. He said he is perfectly fine to go to a new zone. Clifford Van Wagner said there is a distinct difference between horse racing and horse training, horse racing is entertainment, and horse training has a different intensity of use. He said the Board needs to find a way to facilitate this so that horse racing and all its associated items are non-existent in a horse training facility. Mike Toohey suggested that a horse training facility says you can’t do all those things. Amy Durland said the ambiguity comes under the site plan review column, which does refer to horse racing facility very distinctly, but the special use permit and site plan column says, “uses will be permitted where horse race track and/or horse race training track”. Mike Toohey said this would not be a horse race training track, it is a horse training facility that has a track on it. There is a difference between racing a horse and training a horse. Jackie said the City doesn’t currently define a horse race training facility, so one recommendation would be to define that that distinguishes it from a horse training facility. Mike Toohey said he would work with staff to define both. Cliff recommended stating what is not allowed in a horse training facility, in addition to what there will be. He said a new zone would not be needed if the definitions are changed. Jamin Totino said perhaps the definition should also address building height. Jackie said staff would respond more positively to this than a new zone. She said with regard to the discussion of having the horse training facility be more focused, in the use table there is a list of prohibited uses and perhaps what could be included in that column are all uses not defined under horse training facilities. Amy Durland asked what the phrase, “for up to a 90-day period” means. Mike Toohey said the concept is to eliminate people from utilizing this as a substitute condo or hotel room. He said his vision would be a structure that would have more than one unit in it. Jaclyn Hakes said the Public Hearing will occur at the City Council level. Dan Neary sent an e- mail with concerns that the existing structures would be non-conforming as a result of an approval of this proposal. Jackie said she thinks he was referring to something separate from this. Within the RR-1 District the ordinance allows for more than one principal structure. Also within the Institutional District, more than one principal structure is permitted; so, with different zoning more than one principal structure is allowed, as it is now. The applicant will return in 2 weeks with additional information. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 27, 2009 - Page 5 of 14 Clifford Van Wagner repeated for the audience that the Weibel Avenue application is withdrawn from the agenda tonight.  09.004.1 Fallon Zoning Amendment Change Modification, 69 Lake Avenue This is an advisory opinion to the City Council on a proposed modification to a zoning change in an Urban Residential-4 District to an NCUD-3 (Neighborhood Complimentary Use) District. Clifford Van Wagner said originally the applicant was requesting a change from Urban Residential-4 to Transect-5, now the request is to change it to the NCUD-3. Jaclyn Hakes said the differences between UR-4 and NCUD-3 are the front and side yard setbacks, the UR-4 front yard setback is 25 feet and side yard setback is 45 feet total; the NCUD-3 front yard setback is 10 feet with a total side yard setback of 12 feet. The uses for both allow a two-family and a multi-family residence, the UR-4 with site plan allows for multi-family residences and senior assisted facilities; with site plan and special use permit what is allowed are senior housing, residential recreational facilities, private schools, churches, neighborhood bed and breakfast, neighborhood convenience stores and neighborhood rooming house. The NCUD-3 has no allowed uses with site plan, but does allow for multi-family residences with special use permit and site plan review, as well as art galleries and artist’s studios if they are less than 1,000 square feet, business and professional office if they are less than 1,800 square feet. To the west and east of this parcel is currently UR-4. Appearing before the Board was James Doyle, applicant. He said he sought to purchase the property to the west, which is owned by the Military Museum, who had no interest in joining his efforts to try and make it a Transect-5 District. He said the Museum is a State agency, so they can do whatever they want with their property. He said, therefore, he is not really between two UR-4 zones, but he would be extending the Military Museum and their powers and making it a good transitional zone. He said there are some height concerns with the Hampton Inn and the other in the gut, so it was felt going from residential to the NCUD would be more palatable than going to a T-5. He said the lot is only 50 feet wide, so the side yard setbacks would be better at 12 feet. He said if this request is granted, he will talk to the Zoning Board of Appeals, depending on what type of facility he can put there. He said it is his intention to put an office there, which is permitted in the NCUD with special use permit and site plan. He said he is open to suggestions from the Planning Board as to what they would like to see on this parcel to bridge the UR-4 District and the Military Museum. Michael Perkins said perhaps the Military Museum should also be rezoned. Jim Doyle said he approached the Military Museum about purchasing the lot to the west, but they do have expansion plans. Clifford Van Wagner asked Mr. Doyle what his plans are for the building. Jim Doyle said he wants to build an office and residence, he will probably use the 50-foot height limit, although he doesn’t have a plan designed yet. Clifford Van Wagner said this Board will base it's advisory opinion based on what he wants to do there. Jim Doyle said he previously had renovated some rowhouses, which came out nice, then worked on the renovations on Beekman Street, and then worked on properties on Jefferson Street, which were also very nice, so he has a good track record. He said the most he can build there is a two-family, and is envisioning one with an office. He said there is access from the alley in back. He said one thing he doesn’t think would work well is to have a setback there. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 27, 2009 - Page 6 of 14 Clifford Van Wagner said he is unhappy with the height, because east of it is a small residence. Jim Doyle said this is a bridge thing between there and the museum. Cliff said the museum is at a much lower grade, so he is worried about the house that it will be within 6 feet of. Phil Klein asked Mr. Doyle if he can include 8 to 10 parking spots. Jim Doyle said yes because you can drive under the building for 3 or 4 spots, and the lot goes back 165 feet. Clifford Van Wagner stated that the Planning Board can give a favorable advisory opinion only if the revision is not contrary to the general purposes and intent of this chapter; and the revision is accordant with the Comprehensive Plan. He said he doesn’t think this is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance because it is spot zoning. Michael Perkins said he thinks the zone is a complimentary use and can co-exist without the negatives of spot zoning, the NCUD-3 zone would reduce the height, and the Planning Board has a lot of latitude when it comes to site plan and special use permits. Phil Klein said you have to look at the fact that there is a massive building next to it, which is in the wrong zone. Jackie Hakes said the parcel that the museum sits on is a T-5 District, the lot to the east, which is about the same size as the parcel in question, is in a UR-4 District. Phil said there is information that they want to construct something there. Amy Durland said the principal permitted uses are exactly the same in the UR-4 and the NCUD-3, the UR-4 allows with only site plan review a number of uses and no uses are allowed with the NCUD-3 District. Even though the setbacks are less, the height is substantially less in the NCUD, so in general it is a less intensive use than what is allowed now. Jamin Totino said he agrees with Amy’s comments. He said the other NCUD districts are few, but they all see to be surrounded by UR-1 areas. He also agrees that the site plan gives the Planning Board a lot of control. Laura Rappaport read the intent of the NCUD-3 District: “To accommodate some select and limited non-residential uses that are not intrusive, and compliment existing residential use, while ensuring that the character of the neighborhood will be retained”, which sounds like a blending of the districts there and fits there. Jaclyn Hakes asked the Planning Board if they would want to ask the City Council if they think UR-4 is appropriate in this area. She said there are 6 parcels included in the UR-4 District along that portion of Lake Avenue and there is one parcel that hooks around onto Circular Street. DECISION: Michael Perkins moved to give a favorable advisory opinion to the requested zone change to a Neighborhood Complimentary Use District, because it is not contrary to the general purposes and intent of Article XV of the Code, and the revision is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Amy Durland requested that the advisory opinion to the City Council also include that the principal uses are the same as what exists now, but this would be a less intensive use with a lower height and more residential emphasis in terms of the permitted uses. She said this is her reason for voting for it. Clifford Van Wagner said the advisory opinion will include the permitted uses with special use permit and site plan in the two districts. Philip Klein seconded. Vote: Jamin Totino, in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Michael Perkins, in favor; City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 27, 2009 - Page 7 of 14  Laura Rappaport, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor. Motion carries 7-0.  09.017 Lands of Hearthstone Development, Route 9N (Church Street) This is an extension of a subdivision in an Urban Residential-1 District. Clifford Van Wagner explained that the subdivision was approved on April 9, 2008. This was originally classified as an unlisted action and did not and does not exceed any Type I threshold. Subsequent to this decision, it was brought to applicant’s attention that the New York State Department of Health established its own Type I action list, and this project falls into the DOH Type I action, so the applicant is back. In April the Planning Board received a letter from the DOH deferring lead agency. On May 18 the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation deferred lead agency. The public hearing is continued from April 16, 2009. Jaclyn Hakes stated that Part 2 of the application is an extension of the subdivision. Appearing before the Board was Marissa Coppola, attorney for the applicant, who requested a reaffirmation of the SEQR Negative Declaration that was established in April of 2008. She said nothing regarding SEQR has changed. She said the second part is a request to extend the subdivision approval, the applicant is waiting for approval for a Special Assessment District. SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Jaclyn Hakes said the letter from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, in addition to deferring lead agency, did indicate that there was a disturbance of more than 1 acre, requiring a SWPPP. She said the storm water was addressed as part of the original subdivision review. The Board has the Long Environmental Assessment Form Part I that was completed by the applicant as part of the original approval, and Part II which is as it was reviewed by the Board as part of the original negative declaration. Mark Schachner stated that because the Planning Board had issued a negative declaration, it can reaffirm it, as long as nothing has changed. PUBLIC HEARING: Hearing none. SEQR DECISION: Michael Perkins moved to reaffirm the SEQR Negative Declaration, noting that no changes have occurred in the vicinity of the project since the original vote was taken. Jamin Totino seconded. Amy Durland stated that originally she voted against both the SEQR and the subdivision application because of concerns about the curb cuts, so she will be voting no on those items again. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 27, 2009 - Page 8 of 14 Vote: Jamin Totino, in favor; Amy Durland, opposed; Michael Perkins, in favor; Laura Rappaport, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor ; Dan Gaba, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor. Motion carries 6-1. SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING: Hearing none. SUBDIVISION DECISION: Clifford Van Wagner moved to extend the subdivision approval, noting that the conditions of the original approval shall apply and the extension will be valid for a period of one year, to expire on April 9, 2010. Jamin Totino seconded. Vote: Jamin Totino, in favor; Amy Durland, opposed; Michael Perkins, in favor; Laura Rappaport, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor ; Dan Gaba, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor. Motion carries 6-1. Clifford Van Wagner stated for the audience that the Weibel Avenue application is off the agenda.  09.026 Saratoga Hospital Parking Expansion, 35 Myrtle Street This is a site plan review for parking expansion in the Saratoga Hospital PUD District. Jaclyn Hakes said the Planning Board previously reviewed an amendment to the hospital PUD that included the parcel that is in question. The amendment was adopted April 7, 2009. The applicant is now before the Board to develop the parking area on the Myrtle Street parcel that was added to the PUD. DISCLOSURES: Michael Perkins and Clifford Van Wagner both disclosed that their wives are employed at Saratoga Hospital. Appearing before the Board were Mike Ingersol, Matthew Brobston, and Kevin Ronayne Mike Ingersol said this application proposes to take the existing building down and construct a parking lot containing 45 spots. The existing building is 5,000 square feet, there are 30 existing parking spots, so they will be reducing the impervious area by 12%. The only entrance proposed will be opposite the primary handicapped accessible route to the emergency room. They will be reducing the curb cuts to 1, which won’t conflict with the golf and polo club curb cut. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 27, 2009 - Page 9 of 14 They will replace the curbing, adding decorative lights, and a hedge with a decorative fence to screen the front of the cars. The storm water runoff will sheet flow into to a center rain garden, which will also clean the storm water. The drainage will discharge to the existing storm water system, which will be reduced by 20%. Mike said that in Al Flick’s comments, said he was unaware that the existing property had connections, but once he understood that, he didn’t think there was a problem, although he wants to look at it again. Mike said that Al Flick wanted him to tell the Board that he didn’t have a problem with the project, he was pointing out observations in his comments. Another comment he made was that there were more lights than needed. Mike said they want them because this is where people will cross the street in the evening. Mike Ingersol said the plans for Myrtle Street and Church Street were sent to the City Engineer and Creighton-Manning, who had no comments. The turn lanes will be enhanced and will be out of where the conflict zone is. The lights will be cut-off fixtures, with a couple of decorative lights on the street for pedestrian usage. There will be a crosswalk. In the winter, they will lose 6 parking spots for snow storage. In extreme conditions, snow will be hauled away. Kevin Ronayne said signage will denote where Emergency Room parking and where employee parking will be. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hearing none. The Board reviewed Part II of the SEQR Short Form. SEQR DECISION: Motion by Jamin Totino: Based on the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEQR Short Environmental Assessment Form and the analysis of the information provided and presented in Part II of the SEQR Short Environmental Assessment Form, I find this project will not result in any large and important impacts and, therefore, is one that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based on this, I move to issue a negative declaration. Laura Rappaport seconded. Vote: Jamin Totino, in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Michael Perkins, in favor; Laura Rappaport, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor ; Dan Gaba, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor. Motion carries 7-0. SITE PLAN City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 27, 2009 - Page 10 of 14 Clifford Van Wagner said the applicant has answered all the questions and concerns that the Board had regarding traffic flow, appropriate signage, drainage. All technical items must be addressed to the satisfaction of City Engineer and staff. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hearing none. Philip Klein asked what the anticipated time frame is. Kevin Ronayne, Vice-President at Saratoga Hospital, said they plan to close on the purchase of the building at the end of June. In order to make room for the physicians currently using the building, offices are being constructed above the Saratoga Surgery Center, which will be done around the end of August. The plan is to move as quickly as possible to demolish the building and get the parking lot done before the asphalt plants close in the fall. He said they will be done by November. SITE PLAN DECISION: Phil Klein moved to approve the site plan for the proposed parking lot expansion for the Saratoga Hospital PUD. Amy Durland seconded. Vote: Jamin Totino, in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Michael Perkins, in favor; Laura Rappaport, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor ; Dan Gaba, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Clifford Van Wagner stated that the Weibel Avenue application is off the agenda. The Board recessed from 9:47 P.M. to 9:57 P.M.  05.057 Beaver Pond Village, 98 Geyser Road This is a review of an 85-lot preliminary subdivision application in an Urban Residential-1 District and a Rural Residential-1 District. RECUSAL: Michael Perkins recused and left the room. DISCLOSURE: Dan Gaba owns rental property on Quevic Drive. Clifford Van Wagner stated that at the last meeting he read the entire background and all the dates and all the meetings that this project has taken up. He said the consulting attorney also gave some dates and times of public hearings and items that the Planning Board held that were not required and more than one scoping session. He said the positive Findings Statement was issued on May 13, and now the application in front of the Planning Board is the consideration of a preliminary plat application. The application states that that application shall contain a density City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 27, 2009 - Page 11 of 14 calculation, a conservation analysis, a schematic diagram, and additional requirements available from the Planning Department. Chazen Companies has had an opportunity to make some comments on that, which the Planning Board has received. Clifford Van Wagner stated his dissatisfaction with the letter that was submitted to the Planning Board at the workshop last night. He said he had indicated back when he became Chair and one of the applicants chose to have part of his comments in the paper, as though the Saratogian was going to have comment and vote on this, and here we are again a year and a half later having this letter presented at the workshop and then finding it in the newspaper today. He said it was not solicited, it was unnecessary and inappropriate. He said it frustrates him that we have to deal with this again. He said upon consultation with the Planning Board’s attorney, if the applicant wants this letter to be considered a part of the application for review, then it appears that the public hearing would have to be re-opened and have the neighbors have the ability to comment on this. According to Mr. Schachner, the applicant can withdraw that letter for consideration by this Board and that issue should go away. He said he saw no reason for that comment a year and a half ago, and he sees no reason for that which was done yesterday. He asked the applicant if he would like to withdraw the letter from consideration. Mark Sweeney, from Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna, representing the applicant, said they would have no objection to withdrawing that letter. Mark Schachner said he shares the Chairman’s concerns, but in a stronger term. He said it isn’t appropriate for the applicant to state that they don’t object to withdrawing the letter, it is up to the applicant. If the applicant wants the letter to be part of the record for the Planning Board’s review and consideration, the Planning Board will include it as part of its review and consideration. He said his advice under that circumstance to the Planning Board would be to re-open the public hearing to allow the public the opportunity to comment on the letter, which was apparently a voluntary additional submittal by the applicant to bolster the application, unsolicited by the Planning Board, as a submittal that no members of the public have had any opportunity to comment on. He said he doesn’t think this is a situation where the Board is saying, do you object to something that the Board is asking, the question is if he wants this to be part of the record for review or not. Mark Sweeney said no, they do not want it. He said it was never intended to be part of the record for the Planning Board itself, it was in response to the public criticism in the papers and was intended solely for that purpose. The Board was provided copies for their reference and so they would understand what was being put into the paper, but it was not intended to be part of the record nor to re-open the application at this point. Mark Schachner said this letter appeared to each Board member with their individual names on top of it, so he does not find it that credible to suggest that it was not intended to be submitted to the Planning Board. In fact, the letters were submitted to each and every one of the Planning Board members individually with their names on the envelope. Mark Sweeney said it was intended to be provided as a copy to the Planning Board as a courtesy copy, it wasn’t in a format with a standard CC at the bottom of the letter, but it is his understanding that that was the manner in which it was to be submitted. He said it was intended to be a letter to be placed in the Saratogian as an ad in response to the public comments that had been received, and they wanted to make sure that the Planning Board had it in the event there were comments or criticism received from the public. Laura Rappaport said there was nothing in the letter indicating that it was going to be appearing in the paper as an ad. Mark Sweeney said they apologize for that, that should have been clarified. Clifford Van Wagner stated that the letter has been withdrawn by the applicant for consideration as part of the application. Jaclyn Hakes said the Board received a Conservation Findings Statement, which is part of the Conservation Subdivision regulations. This is not to be confused with a SEQRA Findings Statement, it is completely separate. She said the Conservation Findings Statement before the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 27, 2009 - Page 12 of 14 Board does not include any new information, it is a compilation of information that is included in the Environmental Impact Statement and in the Findings Statement identifying the areas of conservation and what those areas are and what the aspects of conservation are for the proposed project. This will need to be discussed as part of the Preliminary Plat Review. There was also a list of technical comments received from Chazen Companies on behalf of the Board. Chazen did review the final Preliminary Plat that does reflect the proposed changes, as well as technical comments. Stuart Mesinger characterized the comments as technical in nature and none of those things would result in substantive changes to the plan, design, layout or any other things in terms of the environmental review. The review focused on compliance with the Saratoga Springs subdivision regulations. Chad Cooke, Boswell Engineering, reviewed Stuart Mesinger’s comments as follows (he indicated that will skip number 1 and return to it) 2. Cross Section. Chad said he is not sure what the cross slope on the road is on this plan. He said he will check that; it is a minor change in the plans if he doesn’t have the correct cross slope. 3. Proposed grades. Chad said he has revised the plan. Rather than water sheet flowing down the hill to the back of the homes, he will create some swales between the lots to direct the storm water out to the road. This is a minor change. 4. Three on one slope with the trail by Lot 34. Chad said he will step the slope in order to provide a flat area for the trail. This is a minor change that will not affect the plan. 5. Crosswalk across Geyser Road to Annie Drive. The crosswalk ends at the radius of the school driveway, so the alternative would be to move it off the radius and provide a small patch of concrete there for a landing for the crosswalk, if the County is agreeable. He will confirm that with the County. Adding sidewalk ramps: He said he thought they had them; if not, he will add them. 6. Existing and proposed grades are missing. The survey went to the boundary of the site. He said he can pick up the topography necessary and show it on the plan. He will also show the water line connection on Quevic Drive. 7. Cross culvert at Jane Street at Station 13+00. He said he will add that to the profile and show the required separation distance. The water line runs through the cross culvert at Station 16+50, so the water line will be bumped down below the culvert. He said this was a drafting error. 8. Catch basins CB3 and CB3A. These are shown at a different station on the plan than they are on the profile, they will be moved to the appropriate station. 9. Proposed sanitary sewers are identified as SDR-35 and SDR-26 and Class 52 duct liner pipe. This is a typographical error. He said he will check with Paul Male to make sure he has the right depths and rotations. 10. Hydrants or air relief valves should be located at high points in the proposed water line. He said he agrees, or they should have air relief valves. He said he will add one or the other at the high points. 11. An inside drop for the low pressure sewer connection at manhole 42. He said he will change that detail as noted. 12. A detail for the connection to the existing sanitary sewer manhole G-10 should be provided. He will provide a connection detail for that manhole. 13. Landscaping plans for the stormwater management area should be provided, including a planting schedule for the aquatic benches. He will provide that. 14. Details for the stormwater pond liners. He will provide a pond liner detail for the ponds. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 27, 2009 - Page 13 of 14 15. Apron dimension table in the culvert rock outlet pipe. He said he will change that and update it to include all of the possible combinations of outlet pipes on the project. Stuart Mesinger said he is satisfied with Chad’s answers, all the items are easily addressed; but Comment number 1 should be addressed. 1. Details for the overflow spillway. He will detail the spillway. Section 2-F.8.e requires a 100 foot minimum tangent between reverse curves. The tangent at Pamela Lane (Station 12+91.75 to Station 13+77.38 is less than 100 feet, and there is no tangent at Jane Street (Station 13+70.40). Chad said there is about 80 plus feet of tangent road there. He said this plan has remained unchanged since 2003, and he doesn’t know if the subdivision regulations prior to November 2005 had that clause in there or not. He said this is a subdivision road at a slow speed. He will talk with Jaclyn Hakes, Paul Male and Stuart Mesinger to see if that is an issue. He said at one location he has no tangent length between the curves, but it is a relatively flat curve at a slow speed, with a narrowed pavement section. Clifford Van Wagner asked Chad Cooke what the solution is if Paul Male and staff disagree with him. Chad said it can be changed, but it would change all the profiles. He said he will first attempt to see if Paul Male would be on board with leaving it as is. Stuart Mesinger indicated that he will defer to the City Engineer, because it is a city street. He said Chad makes good arguments. Clifford Van Wagner stated that this information is found in a less condensed format in the FEIS and the Findings Statement and also in the Preliminary Plat. Jaclyn Hakes said this step in the conservation subdivision process has not been done as formally in the past, but this is something that has to be done. The Board members will take some time to review the Conservation Findings Statement before it is discussed. Chad Cooke will have the results of his discussion with the City Engineer, staff and Chazen for the next meeting; however, changes to the plans will take longer. NEXT MEETING The next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for June 10, 2009, at 7:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Clifford Van Wagner adjourned the meeting at 10:33 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kathleen Livsey Recording Secretary Approved: June 10, 2009. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 27, 2009 - Page 14 of 14