Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Clifford Van Wagner, Chair; Jamin Totino, Vice-Chair (arrived 8:55 PM); Amy Durland; Michael Perkins; Laura Rappaport; Philip Klein ABSENT: Dan Gaba STAFF: Jaclyn Hakes, Principal Planner CALL TO ORDER Chair Clifford Van Wagner called the meeting to order at 7:05 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 There were no administrative actions to report. POSTPONED PROJECTS 09.044 Shafer Residence Subdivision, 718 North Broadway, postponed until October 14, 2009. The public hearing was opened. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR There is a quarterly joint land use boards meeting on Tuesday, September 29, 2009. The location is to be announced. Alane Ball Chanine from the New York State Parks Office will give a presentation about the Spa State Park Master Plan. This meeting is open to the public. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Clifford Van Wagner gave this opportunity to allow citizens to address planning issues not on the scheduled agenda. Hearing none. LETTER OF CREDIT 05.028.2 Mouzon House, 1 York Street. This is a letter of credit extension request for 18 months. BACKGROUND: Clifford Van Wagner said this was a Site Plan that was approved in April of 2005. There is an existing letter of credit in the amount of $55,400, which was last revised and extended on June 11, 2008. The reason for requesting this extension is the applicant is waiting for proposed construction in the parking lot. Appearing before the Board was Rob Peakod, the owner’s brother-in-law. He said Mr. Pedinotti is asking for a continuance because they are not sure how the parking garage is going to affect where the Mouzon is. Jaclyn Hakes stated that staff recommends an extension for18 months, with no reduction. She said the letter of credit is being held for a variety of things, including sidewalks. The applicant has not requested a reduction or provided information related to what has been completed to date. Clifford Van Wagner asked how far out the parking lot is. Jackie said at this point in time there are no plans for that area. Mr. Peakod asked if the parking garage plans have been accepted yet. Jackie said the City Council hasn’t identified a project to occur in that location. Clifford Van Wagner asked how the lack of sidewalks affects the Mouson House. Mr. Peakod said it doesn’t. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hearing none. Philip Klein made a motion to grant an 18-month extension of the Letter of Credit at the current amount of $15,400. Amy Durland seconded. Vote: Amy Durland, in favor; Michael Perkins, in favor; Laura Rappaport, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor. Motion carries 5-0. APPLICATIONS  09.034 SBA/Verizon Wireless Communications Facility, 2328 Route 50 This is a Site Plan review of a telecommunications facility in a Rural Residential-1 District. BACKGROUND: Clifford Van Wagner stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a Use Variance for a telecommunications facility in July of 2009. The Planning Board will discuss impacts on the wetlands, access, lighting, fencing, landscaping, etc. He said the Planning Board members visited the site for observation purposes only. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 23, 2009 - Page 2 of 23 Appearing before the Board was Todd Mathison, attorney from Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna, representing SBA, and Linda Stancliffe, landscape architect from Erdman Anthony. Todd Mathison said there was a question at the Planning Board’s agenda meeting as to whether there would be a cut for the structure and the tower. He said there is no excavation for the structure, there is about a 2-foot fill. He said Rich Fatima, who has provided the wetland report, looked over the new plans to ensure that the road profile will avoid the wetlands. He has a letter which states that it will. Clifford Van Wagner said Paul Male, City Engineer, and Jaclyn Hakes went out to the site to meet with Linda Stancliffe to look at the issues regarding impact on the wetlands. Jackie has information from that visit. Linda Stancliffe gave a power point presentation of the project site. She said the original location was north and was later moved to the south and east of the railroad track. The access road goes along an existing gravel roadway across the railroad to the project site. She said the original site was about 15 feet higher in elevation and 800 feet north of the proposed site. She said the wetlands mapping was prepared by the LA Group and surveyed by Erdman Anthony. The first wetland site that was evaluated is at the north of the site where the road crosses the culvert. The culvert enters a pond. She said there are no improvements proposed for this location, but a silt fence will be installed along the roadway so that dust and debris from truck traffic will not enter the wetland. The next area evaluated was to the south and west of the railroad, which is a pond created by the railroad and some roads that traverse the site to get access to the large parcel to the east. This wetland is bisected by the gravel road and again, a silt fence will be installed along both sides of the road. The only improvements to the gravel drive would be covering of 3 inches of new gravel to reduce the amount of erosion. She said the LA Group delineated the wetlands and recommended an extension of the silt fence farther toward the railroad and across the property line in the railroad right-of-way to capture any sediment that might come off the dust generated from travel across the drive during construction. The September 2009 revised Site Plan extends the driveway to connect to the existing gravel road. Grass will be planted once construction is complete. The landowner will access his land via another drive. The access road can be accessed by emergency vehicles, as can an area adjacent to the barn structure. At the September 15 on-site meeting with herself, the City Engineer and the City Planner, the grades were discussed. The grades are currently in excess of 20%, so the slope will be decreased to less than 12% to provide for emergency access. By doing so, they raised the elevation and matched the elevation of the original proposal, which was a monopole tower. In the presentation, the tower sat farther west and higher in elevation, so to maintain the grading the site was moved farther to the east and the base of the silo was raised so that the view will remain the same from what was proposed in the visual simulations, with a base elevation of 299.5. The grading around the ponds was reduced by combining two ponds into one pond with an outlet through the center area. Cliff asked for the elevation of the railroad bed, Linda said it is about 314. Linda explained the boring under the railroad, which will be a pit on each side of the railroad, a machine will drive a pipe underneath the railroad to contain electric and telephone lines. Chain link fencing with barbed wire is proposed to be installed on the west side of the building, which is the only open side. The fence will be locked and signed as appropriate per FCC regulations. The shelter windows will be covered with chain link fence and the base of the structure will be equipped with barbed wire. Jaclyn Hakes reviewed the findings of the site visit. She said they looked at the wetlands and the proximity to the roadway. She said Paul Male and she are satisfied that the wetlands will remain undisturbed at that point in time. These are Army Corps wetlands and do not require City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 23, 2009 - Page 3 of 23 buffering, as opposed to New York State wetlands that do. Based on their review and the information provided, the proposed improvements of crushed stone to the roadway for emergency access will not impact the wetlands. Amy Durland asked if a sign-off is required from the Army Corps. Linda Stancliffe said the wetlands are not being affected, because the roadway is existing. Laura Rappaport said that is per her and Jackie, but she questioned whether the Army Corps needs to weigh in also. Jackie said the roadway is existing, not a newly proposed road, so there will be no impact on the wetland. Laura asked how many vehicles per day will come down that road. Linda Stancliffe said during the 2-months construction period, about 10 trips back and forth per day, or perhaps 15 when they are pouring concrete. The typical maintenance of the site is once per month per carrier, for potentially 5 site visits per month. Amy Durland asked why the silt fence is being installed if the wetlands won’t be affected. Todd Mathison said they are being installed to avoid any potential siltation of the wetlands. He said the wetlands are not being filled because the road exists. By adding gravel and the silt fence, they will avoid any potential siltation which might occur gradually as a result of use of a road, which is an expected occurrence, and happens currently. The fence will also avoid any potential siltation during construction. The fence will be taken out after construction is complete, because use of the road will be minimized. Amy asked who will install them. Linda said the contractor, who has not been hired yet. Amy said she has read that it is common knowledge in the construction industry that silt fences are often installed in a way that is not effective and can be problematic. Linda said the City Code requires inspection of the silt fence during construction. Jackie said the engineering office will have a pre-construction meeting, then there will be frequent inspections. She said also, SWPPP was required, which includes regulations in this regard. Todd Mathison said the SWPPP inspector is accountable on the permit for ensuring compliance. Jackie said there is also an erosion control aspect to that, so that is ensured at two levels. Clifford Van Wagner said construction will only take 8 weeks, and with weekly inspections, the fence will not fail. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hearing none. DISCUSSION: Laura Rappaport asked for an explanation of wetland plants on the site. Todd Mathison said under the Army Corps regulations, they use 3 categories as indicative that there may be a federal jurisdictional wetland present. He said a qualified delineator will see those plants and say it may or may not be an Army Corps jurisdictional wetland. The next issue is whether or not it is navigable in law, but that is what led the LA Group to begin to identify the wetlands. Laura asked what makes them Army Corps wetlands. Todd said it is the fact that they are navigable under the definition of the law, they have some trace connection to another existing jurisdictional wetland. Linda Stancliffe said they connect to the Kayaderosseros creek. She stated that most of them were generated because of the railroad being built and Route 50. In that area, there is not an area for the water to escape. She said over time, the plants that like it there inhabit that, so the delineator looks at various other aspects and makes a determination. Amy Durland asked if they do flow toward the Kayaderosseros and connect, which is what makes them navigable. Linda said there is no disconnect, which is why they are considered navigable. She said there can be isolated wetlands, and these may be isolated by Army Corps, but on a conservative approach that the LA Group took, they believe that they are some type of wetlands. She said Army Corps could look at the site and say they are not connected and City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 23, 2009 - Page 4 of 23 therefore, they are isolated wetlands and they don’t have any jurisdiction. They did not go through that process. Todd said the very edge of the wetland boundary, based on the vegetation, is beyond the road, and they are not going beyond the road. Based on that, there is no potential impact and no potential jurisdiction, they are within an existing roadway. Amy said she is not sure she agrees, because the installation of silt fences is because of potential construction impact, and she thinks it does require a letter from the Army Corps. Todd said it would require a JD verification if they were impacting wetlands and applying for a permit or coverage under a nationwide permit. He said impacting wetlands is actual regulated fill of a wetland. He said the silt fence is being installed out of an overabundance of caution to avoid potential impacts, not fill, from a good SEQR storm water perspective. They are not concerned about Army Corps federal jurisdiction over this project, because they are staying within the improved width of the roadway. He said if they were widening the road or cutting through a wetland, that would be significant and may eligible for coverage under a nationwide permit, because it was a linear transportation project and it was less than a tenth of an acre. He stated that when you are staying within a right-of-way with an improved roadway and you are not filling the wetland and you’ve looked at the wetland vegetation boundary, there is no cause for concern. Jaclyn Hakes indicated that the Zoning Board of Appeals issued a negative declaration under SEQR. She said the wetlands was an issue that they had taken a look at. As part of the Site Plan review, staff is being cautious with regard to any potential impact. Clifford Van Wagner said since there is some concern regarding this, he asked if the members of the Board would be more comfortable keeping this public hearing open and asking the City Engineer, who is also the SWPPP person, to come to the next meeting or workshop to give the Board more comfort level with the Army Corp issue and the silt fence. Jackie asked the Board to let her know exactly what information it needs, because at the workshop Paul provided all the information that he has available at this point. Todd Mathison offered to distribute the letter, which is a sound bite of what has been talked about and what is in the delineation report. The letter states that they are not state wetlands, they are probably federal jurisdictional wetlands, the project is outside of them, there is no jurisdiction, but as a preventative measure the silt fence will be extended. Cliff said what the Board heard from Paul at the workshop is that he and Jackie visited the site and Paul is the City Engineer and is the SWPPP expert who has a liability, and he said at the workshop that he is comfortable with this. Phil Klein said the issue has been addressed very well by the applicant and the city’s own SWPPP engineer, and he is satisfied that there will be no impact on the wetlands. Laura Rappaport asked if the structure itself is in any wetland area. Cliff said no. Amy Durland said she appreciates the effort and explanation; however, it is hard for her to dismiss the understanding that she’s always had that federal jurisdictional wetlands require a sign-off from the Army Corps of Engineers. She said if silt fences are being installed because of the construction impact, she still has discomfort. She said she would have taken Cliff up on his offer to get absolute certainty that the sign-off is not needed from the Army Corps, although if it is in the interest of the Board to continue to a vote tonight, that is his call. Clifford Van Wagner asked the applicant if they want to leave the public hearing open to get more information, or they can request a vote tonight. Phil Klein asked if it is possible to get anything in writing from the Army Corps. Todd said it is possible, but he doesn’t know what the time frame would be, but to him there is no question so it is hard to ask that question. He said when you have a delineation that is easy to provide to the Army Corps, they are accustomed to verifying a delineation and verifying the impact, because then they have a regulatory obligation City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 23, 2009 - Page 5 of 23 to spend their agency resources to make sure that the impact that is being proposed is actually going to exist, which is a direct fill. He said the distinction is between fill, which is regulated in a wetland, and the absolute avoidance of a potential impact. Cliff suggested leaving the hearing open until Paul Male can meet with the Board again to answer questions, so the Board has a comfort level to vote. He said it is not a matter of whether the Board likes or doesn’t like the facility out there, because that use has been approved by the Zoning Board. Todd indicated that he will ask Rich Fatima to attend, since he did the delineation. Jackie said Paul will want the Board to articulate what information it would like to have. The public hearing was left open.  08.068.1 Gridley Street Stable, LLC, Gridley Street at Jefferson Street This is a Site Plan modification of horse stalls in the Institutional Horse Track Related District. BACKGROUND: Clifford Van Wagner stated that this is an amended Site Plan request for 44 stalls. The parcels were rezoned to the Institutional Horse Track Related District in 2008. The applicant previously submitted an application that was not heard by the Board because the Site Plan as proposed overlaid a paper street. That issue was resolved, this application is to remove the structures from the right-of-way. Jaclyn Hakes said this is an unusual step in the process. She said the barns are allowed with a Special Use Permit, but based on what is being proposed it would need Area Variances from the ZBA. The application will utilize the application that was proposed in 2008. She suggested the Planning Board treat this as a sketch plan, at this point in time the Board cannot vote on the Site Plan without a Special Use Permit, and it is not in compliance with area requirements. At this point the applicant wants to present to the Planning Board for guidance with regard to the general layout before it appears before the ZBA. Appearing before the Board were Matthew J. Jones, Mariesa Copolla, Charlie Hoffman, architect, and Jim Sasko, building consultant. Matt Jones gave a power point presentation of the proposed project. He said the project site is located on the corner of Jefferson Street and Gridley Street. The existing paper street is 50 feet wide with a gravel drive, with no other development. The most immediate neighbors to the project are Mike and Patty Clark, on Jefferson Street. The Valentine’s have an adjoining piece of property as well. There are 6 tax parcels, which they propose to merge into one tax parcel on each side of the paper street. The tax parcel just to the north of the project site belongs to Mr. and Mrs. Clark, which is a separate tax parcel. The applicant had originally suggested acquiring the rights to the paper street from the city, which would have landlocked the Valentine’s to the east and the Clarks to the west; hence, the revision in the site plan. Merging the 6 lots into one parcel would result in a lot of of about an acre. He said the minimum lot size in this district is about a half acre. There is an existing structure right on the paper street, which is proposed to stay. The new horse stalls are proposed to be built in the open field on the east. Charlie Hoffman described the proposed structure as a U-shaped structure. There are a series of 12 feet by 12 feet horse stalls, back-to-back. There is a covered shed row to walk the horses under cover around the perimeter of it, which makes the building wider. They would be working with a steep roof for ventilation and to keep the classic historic barn look. There is a second City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 23, 2009 - Page 6 of 23 level office only in the center, for use by the owner. The concept is to open up the activity to Gridley Street. Matt Jones said that will all occur on the easterly side. On the westerly side two structures will remain for the time being. There is a driveway to accommodate the 5 parking spaces that are required. The manure pad has been relocated from the previous plan away from the residences. The LA Group will develop a landscape plan to screen the barns from the Valentine residence. He said they may set aside a fund to work individually with the neighbors, or they may come in with a full plan. The project will require setbacks, which is not unusual on Gridley Street. He said in 2005 the ZBA looked at this application for the Marshall Barn, which has 3 front yards. The front yard setbacks are the smallest when you abut a residential neighbor, they are 30 feet. In this case, the rear setback would be 50 feet and the two side yard setbacks would be 40 feet, one is on the paper street, which they don’t think is a street. The last two barns received a setback variance for the two front yards from the required 30 feet to 15 feet. The barns appear to be back farther than they are, which is due to the overhangs. The stalls are 10 feet further in from the overhangs. He said that was the case for the Bond barns, which were moved back away from the street to have healthy rear yard setbacks, but not a front yard setback. These were granted in 2002. He said there were a number of issues in those cases which were resolved by the Planning Board with special conditions placed on the approvals to control noise, horse traffic, cleaning of the street, among other items. He said this seems to have worked. He said on this application, re-zoning occurred on May 6 following the Planning Board’s recommendation on March 26, this application was submitted on November 19 and modified on August 26 to remove the paper street from the application. The zoning setback requirements are 30 feet at the front, 50 feet at the rear, 40 feet at the sides, and half-acre lots must have a mean width of 100 feet. The rest of the items are not an issue in terms of compliance. He said one question is whether 40 stalls will work for the applicant on the 33,000 square foot parcel, the other question is if it is in the right place. There is some leeway to go forward, right now it is shown with a 4-foot encroachment into the front yard setbacks at 26 feet. The Zoning Board approved 15 feet with the Marshall barn. He said that may not gain much given the vegetation and buffering work to be done on the rear line, as opposed to the visual effect walking up and down Gridley Street, whose interest is in something lost since September 11, since you can’t get into the Oklahoma Track or NYRA to get up close to the horses. The Marshall barns are not well situated to getting up close to get the feel that the applicant would like to have of a walking ring, which is the centerpiece. He said another issue is they are very close to the paper street, so do you gain anything by shifting the whole program to the east closer to the neighbor, with whom they have a good sense of cooperation, in terms of sharing some paddocks. He said if the paper street were developed in the future, the property owners may ask for more of an alley configuration; however, if the City requires 50 feet of width, then the barns would be moved to the east. Matt proposed that after hearing from the Planning Board tonight, they will file an application on October 1 and be heard before the Zoning Board on November 5, for a decision on November 11, then reappear here on December 9 to act on SEQR, with a public hearing for the December 9 or December 23, and assuming the variances were consistent with the Site Plan, vote on the Special Use Permit and Site Plan. Matt Jones read a letter to the Planning Board from Mr. and Mrs. Clark and Mr. and Mrs. Valentine, dated September 15, 2009, which addresses their concerns. These concerns have been expressed to Matt Jones and are: disagreement with the current setback plans, the location of the manure pit (which has been moved), storage and removal of stall waste, and chemicals used on the site. Matt Jones said when the barns were previously operated, there was a daily manure removal program. The same system is proposed. He said he doesn’t think there are any chemicals put on the manure, but he will check on that. The number of horses City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 23, 2009 - Page 7 of 23 expected on the property will fluctuate seasonally, with a maximum of 50 for the 6-week racing season. Mid April to the end of October it would be used similarly to the other barns. Cliff asked how many stalls are in the existing barns. Matt Jones said 20 now. Cliff said the impact of this project is an additional 40. A screening/landscaping plan will be developed with the LA Group. Matt said regarding whether there will be security on the property, he doesn’t know, but his speculation is yes, given the value of the thoroughbreds. He will also get that answer. Equipment stored on the site would be the same operation that was seen this summer. Amy Durland asked Matt to clearly spell out what zoning variances they will be requesting. Matt said if things don’t move from the configuration now, there would be a front yard setback at 3.5 feet, with a 30-foot requirement; rear yard setback would be 16 feet, with a requirement of 50 feet, west side yard setbacks of 0 from the required 40, east side setback 12.5 feet, with a required 40 feet. Jackie explained the measurements are to the edge of the overhangs. Cliff said the west side setback mimics the other side of the paper street for the barn that is there today. The side yard setbacks assume a 50-foot right-of-way on the paper street. Cliff asked what the structure is that is placed on the paper street on the site plan. Mike Clark, 142 Jefferson Street, said that is his shed, which is about 90% on his property and the corner is on the paper street. He said the parcel is a piece of Madison Street that he owns, and Kenny McPeat owns the beginning part of the paper street. He said they never conceived that that would be developed. He said the shed could be moved. PUBLIC COMMENT: Sandra Hutton, 55 Gridley Street, stated that there were watchman every night, there is always security there. DISCUSSION: Clifford Van Wagner said what the Planning Board is being asked to discuss is shifting the buildings for a lesser impact on the paper street, and should there be a larger variance coming to Gridley to increase the land in the back. Amy Durland asked what the effect of this discussion is. She said the applicant still has to come back for a Special Use Permit and Site Plan review. She asked if what the Planning Board is saying locks it in, or does the Board want to address issues and concerns without any hint of approval or disapproval. Cliff said this a non-binding recommendation of how it tentatively looks on this site, knowing the applicant will come back for a Special Use Permit, and then go through Site Plan. Amy asked Matt Jones if that is his understanding, that they are proceeding at their own risk, because what was said here could change. Matt Jones said yes, that has been the Planning Board’s history. Amy asked if the Zoning Board could have the availability of tonight’s discussion. Cliff said yes. He said the Planning Board is here to discuss whether 40 stalls is too much, with the understanding that if you take away a certain number it is no longer cost effective. He said if you take 4 stalls away and end up with 36, you still have setback issues because of the walking ring, but what does that do for the overall project. Phil Klein said he doesn’t see much difference between 36 horses, 32 or 40. Cliff said he agrees, and if the consensus of the Planning Board is that there not much difference in those numbers, then the Board can look at shifting it. Phil Klein asked who the owner to the east is. Sandra Hutton said she is, she has pet miniature horses. Cliff asked her what this would do to her house. Ms. Hutton said she bought her portion of a different paper street on that side, so she has an extra 25 feet. She said it would probably not be a problem for her. Cliff asked if moving the structures closer to her house would affect her. She said she will have to discuss that, she may want to build garage some City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 23, 2009 - Page 8 of 23 day, although she still would be able to do that even with them coming that far. She said she would rather have a barn there than condos. Phil said if the barn were moved 6’ to the east, that would mitigate possible use of the paper street in the future, and it would not substantially impact the property owner to the east. This would make the edge of the roof 6.5 feet to the property line, then there is half of the 25-foot paper street, then there is the side yard setback in addition. This would give her 40 feet from the edge of the roof of the proposed barn, and 50 feet from the actual stall. Jaclyn Hakes said sixth parcel, 1-41, is the other half of the paper street. Phil Klein asked what the soils are. Jim Sasko said they are all sandy, and they will be contained on the property. Clifford Van Wagner asked the if the owners of lot 1-46 are in the audience. Matt Jones said the Valentine’s could not be here today. Cliff said 1-25 is vacant and the applicant is willing to put some sort of an agreed upon buffer in addition to what exists. Clifford Van Wagner asked the Planning Board members if they see a need to move the barns to the south toward Gridley Street. Laura Rappaport asked if there is a code on how many horses are allowed on a property per NYRA or the State. Matt Jones said he doesn’t know of any, but there is probably a standard stall size. Charlie Hoffman said the stall size is 12 feet by 12 feet. Laura also said consideration should also be given to facilities for the workers, because she doesn’t know if this is a lot on this kind of property. Laura asked what the proposed height of the building is, Charlie Hoffman indicated 35 feet to the center, 2 feet to the main ridge, 55 feet to the top of the spire, most of the roof is 28 feet. Amy Durland asked Matt Jones to put this proposed project in context to other barns the area in terms of numbers of stalls. Matt said his recollection is that Jim Marshall proposed 28 in 2005, and that boosted the count from between 85 and 90 to 112 or 115. Then there were around 80 between the Lehrman barn and the Bond barn. Amy said she was under the impression that there was a move to have barns closer to the track for security purposes and to avoid problems with transporting the horses. Matt said a number of trainers have built their own facilities around Saratoga, this is the third new barn on Gridley Street since 2002. He said trainers have an interest in controlling their own destiny when they bring horses to Saratoga. When Saratoga went to April to October training, folks who were here in April and occupied stalls to the start of the racing season, they occupied about three quarters of a barn. Others who came in for the meet had their horses in three of four locations occupying what was left. Amy asked if the applicant anticipates using these barns for a long period of time. Matt said yes. Cliff said if the barns were on NYRA property, then NYRA would own them and not the trainer and the trainer would lose their control. Phil said Charlie Weaver said there is very little room for expansion at the NYRA track. Clifford Van Wagner repeated that this is a non-binding opinion back to the Zoning Board. He asked the Board members if there is any inclination to recommend that the entire project move in a southerly direction, knowing that what is north is one undeveloped lot, fully wooded, and the applicant is willing to further buffer that. Phil Klein said he thinks it is fine just the way it is. He said he appreciates the extra buffering, but with the heavily wooded lot and the size of the lot, if something is done with that lot they will be able to keep as far away from the barn as they want to. Cliff said to keep in mind that this will come back to the Planning Board for Site Plan, when the Board can be specific about the buffering. Phil said one concern he has is there is not enough parking. Matt Jones said they can build 20% more, which is one more space, but then there is an upward issue with zoning. Jaclyn Hakes said she will check on whether the Planning City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 23, 2009 - Page 9 of 23 Board can grant a parking waiver or if the Zoning Board of Appeals should do it. Cliff suggested there could be parking on the paper street. Matt said he will see what might be available on the paper street. Michael Perkins said he has no issues with the proposed height. Regarding the paper street, it is his opinion to make that an alley, the issue with that is how close everything is. (Jamin Totino arrived at 8:55 PM). Mike said he is not concerned with where the walking ring is. He said he thinks the project could move south, but he is more concerned with the west and east sides, which seems very intensive to him with the overhangs. The Board recessed from 8:58 PM to 9:06 PM.  09.042 Palmetto Subdivision, Circular Street, McTygue Alley, Henry Street This is a public hearing on a 2-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential-3 and Urban Residential- 4A Districts. BACKGROUND: Clifford Van Wagner said that the Zoning Board gave an interpretation that the Area and Use Variance request to keep the existing 4-family as pre-existing non-conforming was granted. The Planning Board has been asked to consider the Subdivision. A Short Environmental Assessment Form has been provided. The subdivision is impacted by two zones, a UR-4A and a UR-3. Appearing before the Board was Eleanor Mullaney representing Nicholas Palmetto. Ms. Mullaney said this property has been in the Palmetto family since 1944, and it was one lot throughout that entire time. In 2004 the City rezoned that portion of Henry Street, which encompassed the applicant’s proposed Lot 2 to a UR-4A, the remaining upper portion remained a UR-3. The Zoning Board interpreted that the legal pre-existing, non-conforming use will continue without a need for any changes on the lot. She said it is unusual to request a subdivision without a proposed structure, there are no plans for that, but Mr. Palmetto has reasons for wanting to subdivide. The proposed lot line division is in accordance with the zoning line, they would continue that eastern line of Bank Alley. She said they are aware that they would have to return for Site Plan approval if there were any development on the lot for street trees, sidewalks, storm water pollution management, letter of credit, or Special Use Permit, but any proposal would be in keeping with the current UR-4A zone. Cliff said this is a 2-lot subdivision following the lines of the new zoning map, splitting it between a UR-4A and a UR-3 Zone. There is a pre-existing 4-unit house in existence prior to 1950. The applicant wishes to subdivide that and have an empty lot, and he is aware of the requirement that if he chooses to subsequently develop the vacant lot then a site plan will be required, which are the things that Eleanor spoke about, including curbing, sidewalks, trees, lights, sewer, etc. Jaclyn Hakes said there are two uses that do not require Site Plan review in the UR-4A district, a single family home or a 2-family residence, unless there are specific directions as a result of this approval. In that case, the items that would typically be required for a subdivision would not be required. She said the other option is for the Board to have those dealt with at this point in time. Cliff verified that if the applicant 2 years from now decides to put a one or two-family house on there that, unless the Board puts some verbiage in this approval, then he wouldn’t have to put sidewalks in. Jackie said that is correct. Eleanor Mullaney indicated that she and City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 23, 2009 - Page 10 of 23 her client understand that and are prepared to agree that any development on the site may require Site Plan review, including building a one or two-family home that would otherwise not be required. Jackie said that at Eleanor’s request, she also suggested that be added to the plan as well as any conditions of approval. Cliff said this will be a notation on the subdivision plan before being signed, and staff will make sure all the technical issues are addressed. Jackie said that is not only for the benefit of this applicant, but in the future for a different property owner. Amy clarified that that would be a full site plan, although the Board may decide to narrow it down, and not just the items listed. Michael Perkins asked if the departmental comments have been addressed. Jackie they would be addressed at Site Plan review. She said the comments are whether they have the ability to require normal subdivision amenities, and that the sanitary sewer stops at Henry Street and York Street, and any future development on that site would require the extension of that, but given there is no development planned now, it would not make sense to do that now. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hearing none. SEQR: The Planning Board reviewed the SEQRA Short Environmental Form Part II. Question C-5, Amy Durland noted that because the newly subdivided lot will be in a UR-4A zone, there would be a chance that it could be combined with nearby lots and provide more density. This would come back to the Planning Board for a Site Plan Review, so the Board would still have control. The applicant is aware of that and is willing to deal with that appropriately if they develop it. Otherwise, no large or important impacts were identified. DECISION: Motion by Jamin Totino that based on the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEQRA Short Environmental Assessment Form, and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part II of the SEQRA Short Environmental Assessment Form, the 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, I move to issue a SEQR Negative Declaration for this application. Philip Klein seconded. Clifford Van Wagner requested the Board be polled on the 2-lot subdivision with the conditions that the applicant will adhere to a full Site Plan Review of the created vacant lot at such time as appropriate. Vote: Jamin Totino, in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Michael Perkins, in favor; Laura Rappaport, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor Motion carries 6-0. Clifford Van Wagner reminded the audience that the Shafer Residence Subdivision public hearing was opened tonight and will be continued. The applicant has opted to appear at the October 14, 2009, Planning Board meeting. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 23, 2009 - Page 11 of 23  09.037 Roberts/Vetter Lot Line Adjustment, 437 Crescent Avenue This is a lot line adjustment in a Rural Residential-1 District. BACKGROUND: Clifford Van Wagner stated that the applicant sought relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals for a lot smaller than 2 acres in an RR-1 District. The Planning Board issued an unfavorable advisory opinion to the ZBA. The ZBA then denied the request, the applicant submitted a revised Lot Line Adjustment to the Planning Chairman requesting administrative action, which was denied with the statement that the applicant continues to have options available to not unnecessarily create an unusual lot line, including moving the dock, building another dock, or requesting an easement for dock access. At that time, the applicant was encouraged to make an appearance before the Planning Board to solve this. Appearing before the Board was John Coseo, representing Mr. Roberts and the Vetters. Mr. Coseo explained that in the 1991 era, a common prior grantor acquired 14 acres and got approval from the then Planning Board for 4 subdivided lots of at least 2 acres each in this area that requires 2 acres of land. The common grantor deeded one of the pieces to his daughter, the daughter added features onto her home, built a road onto the lake and dock and inadvertently put it onto her father’s lot without obtaining a survey. Over the course of time, the lots were sold, the Vetters purchased the piece to the west in 2005, in 2006 Mr. Roberts bought the piece next to them. Last year when a survey was done, the mistake was realized. After talking with Planning staff, the applicant requested a zoning variance. The ZBA referred the request to the Planning Board, who determined they were not empowered to make a recommendation in favor because it would create a substandard lot. The ZBA then denied the request. Mr. Coseo said Mr. Van Wagner did not grant the subsequently requested administrative approval. He said the back of the property where the jog in the survey line is is a very steep slope with wild vegetation and isn’t something that will be enjoyed for anything other than a steep climb. He said there are no neighbors in opposition to it, both neighbors want it because they see the value of the benefit of the purchase they had. Mr. Roberts recognizes that and wants to transfer the property to the Vetters. He said easements are not viable. The applicants would prefer to realign the property line to make sure that Mr. Roberts’ lot has the 2 acres. Mr. Coseo stated that in his opinion, the Board doesn’t have a rational basis for denial and should grant this request. He said he encourages the Board to consult with Mark Schachner if it has some hesitation about granting this, because he doesn’t think it can be denied. Mr. Coseo stated that having gotten a survey to properly keep both lots the minimum size, with no opposition from anyone and no change to the visual landscape, he requests the Board grant this request. Clifford Van Wagner indicated that at 6:50 this evening, he and Jaclyn Hakes consulted with Mark Schachner to discuss this case. Cliff indicated to Mark that this Planning Board was uncomfortable making the lot line adjustment on May 14, 2008 because it would be creating a substandard lot. Mark Schachner recommended the request be approved because the applicant has changed the survey and has complied with the minimum lot size of 2 acres. Michael Perkins said he was very much opposed to the original application, but he now has no issue with it. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 23, 2009 - Page 12 of 23 Amy Durland asked if the dock can be rebuilt. Mr. Coseo said it could, but the road leads down to the lake, which was approved by the Army Corps of Engineers, and it is a piece of property he does not want to have to give to his neighbor. Jaclyn Hakes said the lot line goes through the middle of the road. She asked Mr. Coseo if there will there be an access issue. Mr. Coseo said that Mr. Vetter has expressed to Mr. Roberts that he would have no objection to having a personal easement for him to have access. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hearing none. DISCUSSION: Jaclyn Hakes indicated that there are a couple of standard conditions typically applied to a Lot Line Adjustment. Amy Durland said it is not typical to have an easement down the middle of a road. Mr. Coseo said the whole mission of finding the line was an exercise in satisfying the lot size requirement. He said it has to pass by the propane tanks, the planters and the stone path, and it has to cover both sides of the road from the lake back, so the surveyor has reached the determination of setting it up in that fashion, but it is not uncommon on a private road to have a property line down the middle of it, and he doesn’t see a problem with respect to that. Amy said she sees a number of problems with dual ownership of a road with maintenance and clearing, etc. Laura Rappaport said it does seem unusual to have two people own a road. Mr. Coseo said associations own common roads, and he is sure the two parties can resolve any issues. Cliff Van Wagner said there are shared driveways in multiple small subdivisions. He said if the two landowners are comfortable with this, then any subsequent purchaser of either lot will have to be comfortable with it or they won’t buy it. Jamin Totino asked if the Board can require a notation on the deed reflecting the situation. Jaclyn Hakes said yes, it can be noted on maps and deeds, but she does have a concern with any subsequent property owners understanding the situation. Mr. Coseo said he is sure Mr. Vetter would be willing to stipulate that he and his subsequent grantees would be responsible for the maintenance of the road. Amy said that is helpful. Jaclyn Hakes said lot line adjustments require 2 mylar and 2 paper copies of the plans be submitted for the Chairman’s signature, and the additional notation as proposed by Mr. Coseo will be included. She said the applicant is responsible for filing the mylar with the County Clerk’s office within 60 days. DECISION: Michael Perkins made a motion to approve the Roberts/Vetter Lot Line Adjustment with the stipulations and conditions as noted in the meeting. Philip Klein seconded. Vote: Jamin Totino, in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Michael Perkins, in favor; Laura Rappaport, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor. Motion carries 6-0. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 23, 2009 - Page 13 of 23  09.043 Westview Apartments, 125 West Avenue This is a public hearing to modify an existing Special Use Permit to increase the number of senior housing units and parking in the Transect-4 and Transect-5 Districts. BACKGROUND: Clifford Van Wagner said a Special Use Permit and Site Plan were granted for this project in July of 2003. He said the request before the Planning Board is to amend the Site Plan. The Site Plan was originally approved to include 8,000 square feet of office/commercial/retail space on the first floor. The applicant is requesting permission to modify the Special Use Permit and convert that square footage to 3 additional senior housing units. The original motion that was approved was for up to 106 senior housing units including a community room, small kitchen for gathering events, lounges, computer room, office for building operations, recycling and laundry facilities; 106 on-site parking spaces; up to 8,000 square feet of ancillary uses including retail, business office, medical office or professional office. Currently there are 105 housing units on site. A SEQR Negative Declaration was issued in 2003. Appearing before the Board was Tom Frost, architect representing the owner, Bob Schneider. Tom Frost said the prior approval included up to 8,000 square feet of commercial space, not a requirement of 8,000 square feet. He said the 3 commercial units on the first floor total about 1,500 square feet each, all the same size as the dwelling units. He said the commercial spaces have not been successful. He said the idea of mixed use in this district is to add to the activity on the street. This building is locked down at night, the units are inside the building and are not separate storefronts on the sidewalk, because parking is not allowed on the street, and there is not a lot of pedestrian traffic at that end. He said there were thoughts about what kind of tenants could go in those commercial spaces, and none of that has worked out well. He said there was some discussion in the 2003 Planning Board meeting notes where the owner stated something to the effect that the commercial units don’t work in terms of the federal money that is involved in these types of projects, they are really not allowed. The owner wishes to convert the 3 units to standard apartments, so the number would go from 106 to 109. This would also reduce the parking requirement. Clifford Van Wagner asked if the 2003 motion conditions to include support facilities of a community room, small kitchen for gathering events, lounges, computer room, office for building operations, recycling and a laundry facility are there. Tom Frost said he believes they are, they are all building support services. He said the commercial units almost want to be in-house uses, like a beauty parlor, which didn’t work. He said a lawyer or an accountant wouldn’t want to have an office here, because there is no street traffic or visibility on the street. Amy Durland asked if the design that was built is the design that was approved in 2003. Tom said he believes so, but he was not the original architect. Jaclyn Hakes said the as-builts do meet the requirements. She said commercial in the zone is the intent, but not a requirement, which provides flexibility to the Planning Board in terms of how they are applied. Laura Rappaport said the intent of West Avenue was for mixed use, which got lost in the design of this building. Tom Frost said when it was first built, there was not much in terms of mixed use in that neighborhood, and now the neighborhood has quite a bit of mixed use, but not this building. Amy Durland asked what marketing efforts have been utilized to rent the commercial space. Robert Schneider said this is a great complex, fully rented and with a waiting list, which is one of the reasons why they are looking to do this. He said parking is in the rear of complex, which is City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 23, 2009 - Page 14 of 23 a problem because they try to limit the amount of traffic in the building. He said prospective tenants have had an issue with it not being open at night. He said they tried to bring in medical to cater to the seniors. He said they marketed for themselves during the initial lease-up period, and then they retained Realty USA to put it on the MLS for over a year, have had numerous showings, but it has been unsuccessful. He said the change from commercial to residential would reduce the traffic into the parking lot at night, and it would enhance their security. He said he has gone to the hospital to try to find potential tenants, he went to nearby buildings, he has put signs out. He said it is their intention to keep all of the requirements of affordability, reducing housing costs for seniors and the apartments would be the same prices as the existing rents. Amy asked if there have been price reductions. Mr. Schneider stated that because it is raw space, they offered free rent for whatever the construction costs would be. He said they even spent some money getting one of the spaces ready. He said he feels it would benefit the building to have it fully residential. Phil Klein asked if they would convert the spaces into two singles and a double. Robert Schneider said definitely singles, if they can get a double there, they would be happy to. Clifford Van Wagner brought up whether the Board can reaffirm the SEQR Negative Declaration. He indicated that since 2003 there has been a commercial endeavor put up across the street and the Empire State College is just to the north, so he doesn’t know if the Board can the reaffirm due to the changes in the character of the neighborhood. Jaclyn Hakes said the Board should consider whether or not the items that were considered as part of the initial SEQR review would cover any of the modifications; for example, the intensity of the use of residential versus commercial and what that impact might have on the surrounding neighborhood. She said the bottom line is if the SEQR review from 2003 contemplates the greatest significance of impact that could have occurred. If the Board feels this modification would create a greater impact, then SEQR can be reviewed again. Amy said in terms of SEQR, the modification probably represents a reduction in intensity from what was approved, although she would like more information about the modification request itself. Robert Schneider said the parking lot is generally about 60% full. He said by not having commercial, this would reduce the impact on the neighborhood and may be beneficial, and the seniors in the complex would experience less traffic. Michael Perkins said in looking at the changes that took place, the nature of the changes were in keeping with the intent of the zone. He said when they made the SEQR determination, they expected this type of change. He indicated he would be for the reaffirmation. Clifford Van Wagner said since this is a modification, the Special Use Permit is reopened. He said there have been concerns from neighbors that the lights in the parking lot are missing the appropriate shields and the light sheds into the neighborhood to the west. He said if the Board hears that issue tonight, it would be nice if the owners could remedy that. Robert Schneider said the shields were approved under the original plan, and all of the lights in the rear of the building were approved by the Building Inspector at that time. Cliff said he is not questioning whether or not they are approved, but whether they are performing as they should. Robert Schneider said he assumes something can be done. PUBLIC COMMENT: Appearing before the Board was Mrs. Michael McGraw, 315 Grand Avenue, Saratoga Springs. Mrs. McGraw submitted a letter for the record. She stated that at the beginning of the project before a tree was dropped, the neighbors met with the principals of Westview. She said the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 23, 2009 - Page 15 of 23 neighbors asked about the removal of trees, among many other things. Now, the agreed upon buffer has been removed, which has exposed her back yard to West Avenue. She said as the project progressed, she asked and was assured that that would be taken care of. She asked again half-way through the project and received the same answer. She asked again at the project open house and was told the landscaping wasn’t done yet. When the project was finished, she asked again about the exposed property and about the street lights which illuminate her back yard. She said 3 years ago one of the principals came to her door and she again asked about the lighting, and he told her they could put some shields up. She said a sprinkler system was recently installed at the project, which put a machine on her property without her knowledge. She said the neighborhood has been forced to tolerate garbage trucks at 5:00 AM once a week. Also, the CDTA bus comes in via Grand Avenue; however, this is supposed to be an exit only. She said there is also traffic that cuts through the project’s parking lot right next to her property to get to Grand Avenue. She stated that she doesn’t consider these people neighborhood friendly. She said they have done nothing for her, and she is the most impacted by the alterations in the terrain. She asked the Board to reconsider their request to add more apartments when they have no consideration for her or other neighbors. Mrs. McGraw thanked the Board for listening and doing their jobs. Clifford Van Wagner said that when the hotel was built on South Broadway, the neighbors had the same issue with the garbage trucks. Mr. Hoffman, the owner, stated that if it bothers the neighbors, it must also bother his customers, so he made the change in the time of garbage pick-up. Cliff said it would seem like that would be a viable response here, and he requested that the owner make that change. He said regarding the buffer to the west, he asked Jackie Hakes if the Site Plan was adhered to. Jackie said yes, the as-built drawings were accepted by the City Engineer, and they are not accepted unless all the requirements of Site Plan have been met. Given that, because there is a Special Use Permit modification before the Board, subsequently a Site Plan would have to be modified, which could include additional items to help reduce the impact on the neighbors. She said there are two options to consider. If a modification to the Special Use Permit is approved, she would suggest having conditions that had been outlined with additional items based on tonight’s discussion. The Board can then either require the applicant to come back before the Board for a full Site Plan modification, or the Board can grant the authority to the Chairman to administratively approve the modification to the Site Plan. Any administrative action must go through planning staff and the City Engineer. Phil Klein asked if buffering was required on the original approval. Jackie said there was some buffering there, but it sounds as if it’s been removed. Phil said that should be looked into. He said there are decorative street lights that shine into the dining room of the Saratoga Hotel. The City allowed the hotel to add a shield to stop the light from coming in. He said this would be inexpensive and would serve the purpose here. Clifford Van Wagner suggested the Site Plan should be reopened. Jamin Totino agreed; however, he said he is not in favor of the request because there is a larger contextual issue with the intent of the T-4 and T-5 districts, which is what was approved the first time. He said he respects the challenges the applicants have had, but he wonders if it would be better to expand the uses that have been allowed in order to broaden the possibilities that can be included in the building that exists, as opposed to closing it down and building residences. He said with the completion of the Empire State College and the fact that the T-4 goes down to the entrance of the high school, and the Kamen building, we are seeing the intent of the districts. He said approving strictly residential is moving in the opposite direction at a time when it is crucial to facilitate the process and see it through to fruition. He said at the same time, he identifies with the challenges that the neighbors have. He asked if the only way to address these issues is to City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 23, 2009 - Page 16 of 23 grant the Special Use Permit modification. Jackie said the Board cannot revisit a Site Plan unless an application has been received. She said the Board can only strongly encourage the applicant to correct the issues. Cliff asked that if the Board approves the modification, then re- opens the Site Plan, could a Letter of Credit be obtained. Jackie said if there are changes or additional items, 25% of the on-site improvements could be retained as a Letter of Credit or cash escrow. Cliff said the applicant needs to be a good neighbor. Amy asked the applicant if he did get the additional 3 units, would they be completely consistent with the units that exist there now in terms or pricing and size. Mr. Schneider said yes. Amy said if they are the same size, then they wouldn’t fill the entire 8,000 square feet. Cliff said in that case, they didn’t put in 8,000 square feet of commercial use, rather 1,750. Appearing before the Board was Steve Kamen, 120 West Avenue, Saratoga Springs. Mr. Kamen stated that he has had the same problem with the dumpsters, he has repeatedly called and he is on his second company. They come when they want to. He said the best he has been able to do is get them to replace the metal top with a rubber top. He said the companies have all said they do not do commercial areas in the afternoon. He said he would love to have pedestrian traffic, but there is no pedestrian traffic after about 5:00 or 6:00 for his coffee shop. He said he has tried all kinds of advertising on radio, newspaper, print media, coupons, and he can’t rent retail space. He said they have had some interest in the office space, but there is nothing to draw people to West Avenue. He said he likes the transect zones in theory, but it is not working on West Avenue. Mrs. McGraw asked if there is a noise ordinance, and if it would apply to the garbage people. Cliff said he does not know. Tom Frost asked if the Empire State College is a mixed use building. Jackie said it is not subject to city approvals, it is a state entity. Robert Schneider said he was the one who spoke with the neighbor some time back, and he did acknowledge that she had a lighting problem. He said his understanding that the Building Department recommended what was supposed to be there. He said if there is something he could do, he will work to solve the lighting problem. He said this is the first time he’s heard about the garbage problem, and he will see if there is anything else that can be done. He said what they are trying to do is reduce the impact on security in the building. He said regarding the buffer, he believes what had been approved has been implemented. He said he doesn’t believe the buffer has dissipated at all. Cliff Van Wagner said the Planning Board members were there on Monday and have been there in the past. He said if trees were there, they are now gone, and there is an unhappy neighbor, and it is in the owner’s best interest to fix it. He said the lights have been approved, but nonetheless they are casting a light to the neighbors to the west, shields would be fairly inexpensive and would probably go a long way. He said the applicant can’t walk away from this with 3 units, and the Board would have no leverage if the units are approved. He said what the owner is hearing from 6 Board members is that he has to go out of his way to make the people to the west happy. He said garbage trucks are unacceptable at 5:00 AM, the light shields are known, and the traffic route was to enter on West Avenue and exit on Grand Avenue, and if the CDTA bus is doing the opposite, the owner needs to stop that. He said the T-4 is a transition zone between commercial and residential, and if the applicant is not pulling his weight, the Board will not be happy and the applicant will not be happy. He said the Board will either open the Site Plan or have some very strict conditions on the Site Plan being signed. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 23, 2009 - Page 17 of 23 Phil Klein said a third option is to leave this as is and have the applicant come back with solutions. Jaclyn Hakes had indicated that is not an option, her concern is that application is to remove the retail space of the Special Use Permit. The items that are being discussed tonight that are impacting the neighbors are not specifically related to whether or not that is residential or retail space, but more related to Site Plan items. She said the Board has to act on the Special Use Permit one way or another, and if the modification were denied, the Board could encourage the applicant to move forward with those things. Jamin Totino added that he doesn’t think the building has been developed in a way to invite pedestrian traffic. He said approving the modification and reopening the Site Plan may enable the Board to massage the façade of the building to improve the retail possibilities. Amy Durland said Mr. Kamen’s comments could cut both ways. There is not enough foot traffic there, but there will never be foot traffic until there is commercial property there. She asked if the housing is subsidized. Robert Schneider said no, it is tax credit housing, income restricted. It is considered by the state to be affordable housing, and it is reviewed annually by the Department of Housing. He said there are 6 or 8 Section 8 tenants, who are not fully funded. Amy asked if the new apartments would include Section 8. Mr. Schneider said their preference is not to do that, but they cannot discriminate. He said they would be affordable and the tenants would have to qualify. Amy said she agrees with Jamin, it does present problems to continue with the requirement. She said on the basis of this being affordable housing, she is inclined to support the request with the addition of the Site Plan review in order to address some of the issues raised. Jackie said if the modification is granted, the Board needs to modify the Site Plan, because the current Site Plan would not accommodate the modification of the Special Use Permit. Jaclyn Hakes said the exit only onto Grand Avenue is not specified on the Site Plan. Mrs. McGraw said she didn’t know she had to put things in writing, or that when they went to the meeting the things she was told were subject to certain things. She said she wanted to be a good neighbor and she thought it was the lesser of evils that was going to be at that property. She said she took the applicant at his word. She said she had been positive about the project and let him take down all the trees. She said she was impacted the most, and the owner didn’t follow-up with what he said he would do. Mrs. McGraw told the Board she appreciates their help. Clifford Van Wagner requested previous meeting minutes to pick up the discussions that were had. He said if the Board approves 3 more affordable units than there are now, that is a positive to approving the modification. The Board then has the ability to open up the Site Plan and get the problems addressed on the record, with going back to previous meeting minutes that led up to the approval. However, the building would not be mixed use in a T-4 and a T-5. Jamin Totino said he likes the idea of going back to previous minutes to find out how perspicuous the previous Planning Board was in regard to the mixed use. He said Bob Israel was the only one who voted against that motion. He said he thinks the only way to solve the neighbor concerns is to re-open the Site Plan. Phil Klein said another thing to consider is that the applicant is talking about 1,750 square feet in a large building. Laura Rappaport said it seemed like the intent of the building was for mixed use, but it wasn’t built to meet that intent. She asked if there is a way to modify the building to make it look more commercial. She said the intent was to create a new commercial center for the City and now the Board itself will not be doing that. Tom Frost said it is a problem to expect City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 23, 2009 - Page 18 of 23 to have foot traffic on a highway where there is no parking in front. Cliff said it is too late, there is an approved project that was built back when the T zones were being kicked around, and in retrospect it was poorly done. Clifford Van Wagner suggested approving the amendment of the Special Use Permit in order to open up the Site Plan review process to clean up some of the things mostly to the west and make the best out of a situation that could have been designed better. DECISION: Philip Klein made a motion to approve the modification of the existing Special Use Permit to increase the number of senior housing units up to 109 with the support facilities as identified in the previous Special Use permit, and up to 110 parking spaces and a waiver of 7. Amy Durland seconded. She said she would not be supporting this if they were not affordable units, and she is glad it will enable the Board to bring some issues that were raised back to the table. Jamin Totino stated that he thinks the motion will pass, but he will oppose it based on the principles that he has already mentioned. Jaclyn Hakes indicated that a Site Plan modification is required by the full Planning Board. Vote: Jamin Totino, opposed; Amy Durland, in favor; Michael Perkins, opposed; Laura Rappaport, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor. Motion carries 4-2. Phil Klein stated that the applicant has an opportunity to accomplish ahead of time what is being requested. The Board recessed from 10:42 PM to 10:45 PM.  09.039 Market Center at Railroad Place, 09.040 Market Center at Railroad Place, Railroad Place and Division Street This is a Site Plan review of a multi-use building in a Transect-6 Urban Core District. This is a continuation of a public hearing on a 2-lot subdivision in a Transect-6 Urban Core District. Clifford Van Wagner said the last time the application was before the Board, the applicant was asked to start addressing some of the issues that will eventually be included in Site Plan Review. He said with this project having some significant neighbor interest, Jaclyn Hakes has volunteered to create an e-mail system for neighbor notifications, because once this is continued, there will be no more public notice. Cliff indicated that he wants to focus on particular items at each meeting. He said based on the late hour, he would like to discuss infrastructure tonight. Appearing before the Board were Mike Ingersoll and Sonny Bonocio. Mike Ingersoll said this proposal meets all the requirements of the T-6 zone. He said they understand that because of the Subdivision there is a public hearing. There is also a coordinated review because of the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 23, 2009 - Page 19 of 23 Environmental Quality Review Act. He said two weeks ago this Board made a request to be lead agency, but the Design Review Commission is also involved. The DRC will do a further review after a Site Plan and SEQR action. The DRC did not challenge the Planning Board’s request for lead agency status, so the Planning Board must formally deem itself lead agent. Because of the 2-week time frame, they are only prepared to talk about the things they have been working with the City Engineer on. He said they know the Board cannot vote tonight, and probably for some time. Mike Ingersoll reviewed the plans that were previously presented to the Planning Board. He said Sonny Bonocio owns the entire 2-acre parcel, but not the Citgo gas station. He said the Price Chopper will stay in place and, if this project is successful, it will move into the new facility. There are no plans for the existing Price Chopper building at this point. He said they are requesting to subdivide the property to the separate the market from the new building. He said most of the other projects on Railroad Place were phases, not subdivisions, so there was no public hearing. The zone mandates that a building be within 12 feet of a property line, so they would need a zoning variance to be more than that. The existing park on the corner of Division Street and Railroad Place is a private park built by Sonny Bonocio, designed by himself, with other contributions. They have plans down the road to make that an urban park. There will be an arcade along Railroad Place, with the ability for 3 more commercial spaces. Vehicles would enter under a parking structure, all deliveries would come in under cover to an enclosed garage, and the only vehicles to exit the site to Division Street would be delivery vehicles. The upper floors would be residential, with the entrance in the back on an upper deck, which would be parking for the apartments only. He said in this zone there is no parking requirement for any buildings, but they are providing that. Mike Ingersoll said there is currently an older 6-inch water line down Railroad Place. When the condominiums were built on Railroad Place, new lines were installed down Israel Lane and a stub was provided. Water flow tests have been done, and the water pressure for this project is adequate, so the only connection for the building is across the street in Franklin Square. They would provide another stub to cross-connect in the event something happened with the system, to ensure fire protection. He said Paul Male indicated he has no issue with water. There is currently no storm water system, other than a roof drain that connects to the street, which just goes into the ground. This project would increase the run-off by less than 1% because of the new urban park. The water will be collected, treated and will run into a new storm line on Railroad Place that does not currently exist. This will be an improvement for the City. He said as has been done on other projects, they are prepared to spend the money on other storm water solutions within the city, where they believe it would be better spent. He said they will do it either way; however, the line will be installed regardless. The overhead power lines will be removed and placed underground to improve the aesthetics. The existing sanitary sewer line is at capacity, so it will be enlarged. The new line will allow other buildings on Railroad Place to connect to the system. The old line will be backfilled. Mike Ingersoll said they have discussed fire safety with the Fire Chief, who expressed where he would like the knox boxes, standpipes and clearances. Butler Lane will become an access. The parking ramp will be reinforced to accommodate fire apparatus. Mike Ingersoll stated that they have proposed reducing the pedestrian crossings at Division Street and Railroad Place by up to 50% by providing bump-outs, which will calm traffic. The Department of Public Works is willing to let them attempt these for the first time in the City. Mike said Jaclyn Hakes suggested requesting that the County give them permission to move City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 23, 2009 - Page 20 of 23 the guiderails in their parking lot to allow for a walkway on their property for a better connection to Broadway. He said if they add a mid-block bump-out there, this would further calm traffic. He said down the road when there are plans for Lot 2, they may request the same solution there. Clifford Van Wagner said he appreciates the applicant isolating one item, and spending time with Paul Male and Jackie. He said he thinks that is the way to chip away at a big project. PUBLIC COMMENT: Diana Crooks, 70 Railroad Place, Saratoga Springs, asked where the rear exit is. Mike Ingersoll said it is behind the Price Chopper on an easement onto Church Street, and will remain there until the they vacate the property. Ms. Crooks said that seems like a reasonable way to get off the property for better truck access out of the city, rather than by Division Street, which is narrower. Martin Hartman, 70 Railroad Place, Saratoga Springs, a new Board member at 70 Railroad Place, said Sonny has addressed many of his concerns. He said many of the concerns deal with the traffic problem and the parking problem. There is an issue about loss of visibility up Railroad Place, which is now boxed in on each side. He asked what the plans are for traffic exiting onto Division Street. The answer was it will only be trucks. Cliff said the public is welcome to ask these questions, but traffic will be the topic at another meeting. He said he knows there are concerns about traffic, and there will definitely be discussions about those things, but the drawings presented reflect the infrastructure improvements. Mr. Hartman said he appreciates those, because they clear up concerns about that intersection on Railroad Place and Division Street. Mr. Hartman submitted his questions in writing to the Board. Diana Crooks asked if the subdivision is approved first, and if this would eliminate the access onto Church Street. Cliff said the Board will not vote on the Subdivision tonight. Jaclyn Hakes explained the review processes. She said SEQRA review will address traffic issues, which must be done before Site Plan or Subdivision approval. She said because this is a large project, the Board and applicant agreed to break it down into smaller issues in order to address all of them thoroughly. Jamin Totino added that her specific concerns regarding access to and from Church Street, Division and Railroad Place are all things that will come up at those times. Ms. Crooks questioned where the trucks would go after exiting onto Division Street, because she thinks it would make more sense to use the shared road to go to Church Street. Cliff said this will definitely be discussed, there will be a meeting geared toward traffic impacts, pedestrian impacts, sidewalks, cross-connects, the tightening up of the intersection, etc. All these questions must be answered during SEQR review before Site Plan or Subdivision can be approved. Mike Ingersoll stated that the applicant specifically asked not to have a vote on Subdivision until the whole project was reviewed. Charlie Israel, 110 Woodlawn Avenue, Saratoga Springs, said he manages 2, 4 and 6 Franklin Square, owned by his father. He said the pedestrian corridor through to Broadway is a great idea, it is dearly needed. Mark Parabeck, 7 Clinton Street, Saratoga Springs, said he applauds Sonny on what he’s done and what he plans to do. The two issues he was most concerned about were the pedestrian crossing at Railroad Place and Division Street, and it looks like the bump-outs will help that. He said it is headed in the right direction. He said he does agree that the traffic should be looked at City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 23, 2009 - Page 21 of 23 as far as where the trucks will come out, he would hate to see trucks going west through Franklin Square. Jaclyn Hakes indicated that two letters were received: one received September 18, 2009, from the Board of Directors of Franklin Square Condominiums 4; and a letter from Diana Crooks received on September 22, 2009. Phil Klein requested 10 packets of the slide presentation for the Board and staff members. Mike Ingersoll informed the public that a traffic study has been done and submitted with the application, giving truck counts, traffic counts, etc. Jamin Totino asked if the Board will deal with the historic impact, or if it is a SEQR issue. Cliff said at some point in time the applicant will make an application to the Design Review Commission, who will deal with mass and scale. He said as with the Weibel Avenue Project, once the Planning Board got to some issues where it had those questions, they handed it over to the DRC for preliminary information, and then held a joint meeting. Clifford Van Wagner asked the Board members and applicant what the next topic should be. Mike Ingersoll said they would like to meet with the Department of Public Works and Paul Male and at the next meeting discuss access and traffic. He said when they went to DRC, there was discussion and a suggestion that the applicant deliver a mass and scale application, which was delivered today, although they can’t formally act yet. This was done in anticipation of the Planning Board asking for their input before it acts. He said there have been projects that the Planning Board has approved, and then the DRC is not happy with the mass and scale, and they don’t have time for that. He said clearly theirs would be an advisory role at this point. Sonny said he likes this process because it provides absolute transparency. Cliff said he doesn’t think the Planning Board should be part of a joint meeting when the DRC first looks at it, but he would rather have the benefit of their wisdom rather than be a part of their discussions, then this Board can react accordingly. A joint meeting may be appropriate at some point. The Planning Board will reconvene in 3 weeks with this application to talk about traffic access, circulation, and truck deliveries going to Church Street rather than Division Street. He said the Board encourages proactive planning, which includes public comments. The public hearing is left open. The Planning Board accepted lead agency. Laura Rappaport requested a neighborhood overlay showing how this project fits in. Jaclyn Hakes suggested to the Board that if they have specific questions, they should submit them to her in advance of the meeting, so she can try and work through them with the Departments of Public Works and Public Safety. She said Traffic Safety, Engineering and Planning staff met yesterday for a lengthy, productive and cautiously optimistic meeting on some of the new ideas that are being proposed. NEXT MEETING The next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for October 14, 2009, at 7:00 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 23, 2009 - Page 22 of 23 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Clifford Van Wagner adjourned the meeting at 11:40 PM. Respectfully submitted, Kathleen Livsey Recording Secretary Adopted: October 28, 2009 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 23, 2009 - Page 23 of 23