Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES TUESDAY , NOVEMBER 10, 2009 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Clifford Van Wagner, Chair; Jamin Totino, Vice-Chair; Amy Durland (arrived at 8:43 PM); Michael Perkins; Laura Rappaport; Philip Klein; Dan Gaba ABSENT: No one STAFF: Jaclyn Hakes, Principal Planner CALL TO ORDER Chair Clifford Van Wagner called the meeting to order at 7:00 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. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR The next Planning Board workshop will be Monday, November 23, 2009, followed by a meeting on Tuesday, November 24, 2009. There will be a workshop on Monday, December 7, 2009, followed by a meeting on Wednesday, December 9, 2009, which will be the last one of the year. 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  08.060.1 58 Washington Street, 58 Washington Street This is an extension of a Site Plan for a mixed use building in the Transect-6 Urban Core District. BACKGROUND: Clifford Van Wagner said that the Site Plan was approved on December 18, 2008, mass and scale approval was granted in January of 2009, and the Architectural Review is taking place currently. Nothing has changed in the character of the neighborhood. The reason for the extension is market conditions. The Board is allowed to grant up to two 18-month extensions of a Site Plan. Appearing before the Board was Alan Oppenheim, who is requesting an 18-month extension on this project. Jaclyn Hakes said there are two separate expiration dates in Site Plans regulations. The Site Plan must be submitted for final signature by the Planning Board Chair within 12 months of the approval, and within 18 months of the approval a building permit must be pulled and construction must begin. This is nearing the 12-month deadline within which the mylars would need to be submitted for signature. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hearing none. DECISION: Philip Klein made a motion to grant an 18-month extension of the Site Plan approval. Seconded by Jamin Totino. Vote: Jamin Totino, 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 6-0.  09.039/09.040 Market Center at Railroad Place, Railroad Place and Division Street This is a continuation of a Public Hearing on a 2-lot Subdivision in the Transect-6 Urban Core District, as well as a Site Plan review of a multi-use building in the same zone. BACKGROUND: Clifford Van Wagner stated that at the last Planning Board meeting the SEQR Long Form was completed except for question Number 15 regarding traffic. The Board requested that the applicant supply information regarding potential traffic mitigation at the intersection of Railroad Place and Church Street. The applicant has communicated with Mark Benaquisto, the city’s traffic engineer, in this regard. The Subdivision SEQR form will encompass both the Subdivision and the Site Plan. Jaclyn Hakes added that the Saratoga County Planning Board referral response has been received, which indicated there will be no significant county-wide or inter-community impacts. Clifford Van Wagner read the E-mail from Mark Benaquisto. This communication indicated that his concerns have been reasonably addressed regarding signal replacement at Division Street and Railroad Place. Mr. Benaquisto stated that Creighton-Manning has sufficiently demonstrated that installing a new traffic signal at Church Street and Railroad Place would not be prudent at this time. However, the Planning Board will need to determine if the traffic delay is to be considered acceptable without mitigation. Also, the Planning Board might want to City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 10, 2009 - Page 2 of 19 consider his suggestion of a separate left/right turning lane. Cliff said that the Planning Board has discussed the potential mitigation on Railroad Place and Church Street for a turning lane to be considered for the Subdivision application for the existing Price Chopper at whatever point in time that building is developed. This will give the applicant and the city the opportunity to see what the impact of that intersection is by the development of this project, if it is approved. The addition of a turning lane in the northbound direction on Railroad Place would necessitate elimination of some parking spaces, which the applicant will be asked to discuss tonight. Laura Rappaport requested something in writing that more clearly indicates that Mark Benaquisto actually is stating that he is not recommending a signal replacement. Jaclyn Hakes explained that the concern was whether or not the pedestrian traffic that would be generated as a result of this project would be sufficient enough to meet the criteria at this time to require a pedestrian activated signal. Mark is stating it does not based on the information provided. Cliff said that any motion made will incorporate this very clearly. Mike Ingersoll, LA group, addressed the above issues. He said the addition of a turning lane on Railroad Place would eliminate 9 parking places. He said he is not sure that is the applicant’s obligation, nor does it help the project, especially with the addition of a mid-block crossing. He said also, further study would be needed regarding the Stewart’s entrance’s proximity to Church Street and how it flows at this time. He said the applicant is amenable in the 2-lot Subdivision condition that they are not done analyzing traffic flows if other properties are developed in the area. He said it would be an improvement to moving cars, but it is yet to be seen whether those cars are really there, and what effect it would have on the pedestrian side. He said they don’t object, but the don’t think it is a good idea at this time. Cliff said this can remain on the table until it is seen how this project impacts both vehicular and pedestrian traffic before the Board prematurely tries to fix one problem, which could create another one for pedestrians. Mike Ingersoll said they are not shirking their fair share of a little bit of contribution to a future signal. Cliff asked if the applicant has had a conversation with the county regarding accessibility through their parking lot. Mike said their county planner was encouraged by the proposed plan. He said this approval would come from the Supervisor level to the Department of Public Works at the county who would analyze that. PUBLIC HEARING: Hearing none. Clifford Van Wagner commended the applicant for working with the Preservation Foundation to come to an agreement on the design of the Franklin Square side of the building. He said the closest neighbor, Mr. Corbett, was more than supportive of the project. Clifford Van Wagner stated that the next step in the process is have a motion on the Subdivision to include that traffic mitigation may include, but will not be limited to, a turn lane on Railroad Place, that there will be an ingress/egress easement in place for access off of Railroad Place leading to the upper level of the parking garage, and payment of a $1,500 recreation fee for the new lot that is created. Cliff said the second motion would be for the Site Plan. He said a lot of the items in this application were offered on the first night, which include a new storm drainage system across Railroad Place and down to accommodate Division Street, a new water line, a new sanitary sewer hook-up which will be a forced main to the new system on Church Street, the bulb-outs for pedestrian traffic, removal of the crooked telephone pole and placing the wires underground. He said these do not have to be special conditions because they are already offered on the Site Plan, but will be noted before the drawing is signed. The inclusion of a left City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 10, 2009 - Page 3 of 19 turn only sign when delivery trucks are exiting onto Franklin Street would be a special condition. He said Mr. Corbett and Mr. Bonocio agreed to either a motion detector light and/or a crash bar to be installed on the parking garage so that does not become a pedestrian friendly access, but an emergency access only. The applicant had offered to provide a build-out analysis of Railroad Place which would include the Salvation Army building and the county building and the proposed new lot where the existing Price Chopper is, so that the Planning Board and the City can do proactive planning regarding pedestrian and vehicular traffic. He said staff is concerned about whether the storage of tape to replace the tape on the road would be kept for 5 years and not be utilized on someone else’s parcel and if it would still be code in 5 years. He said that doesn’t appear to be as practical as addressing those funds toward the potential preliminary designs for the replacement and improvement of the traffic signal. He said that is critical at this stage because eventually the sidewalks would need to be dug up again for that work. Jaclyn Hakes verified that the only possible blasting that may occur would be for the elevator pit or the water lines. Sonny Bonocio said they don’t have enough information yet, but he anticipates getting by without blasting. Jamin Totino asked what percentage of cars would be taking a right onto Church Street if the second lane were to be put it. Jaclyn Hakes said for the build scenario, the number of cars in the AM peak making a right turn heading east is 189, in the PM peak it is 134. Those making a left turn during the build scenario during the AM peak is 57, and in the PM peak is 87. During the no build similar scenario 68 in the PM peak turning left, 45 in the AM peak, 163 in the PM peak turning right and 118 in the AM peak turning right. The Board discussed Number 15 on the SEQR Long Form regarding whether there would be an effect on the existing transportation system. The answer had been previously determined to be there would be a small to moderate impact. The Board notes there may be that a delay may result at the Railroad Avenue and Church Street intersection (August 2009 traffic study), and mitigation proposed sufficiently minimizes the impact. Clifford Van Wagner stated that if this motion goes through, the motion will very clearly and specifically tie any necessary future mitigation to the subdivision and the actual parcel of land that the existing Price Chopper sits on today. Jaclyn Hakes stated that the original application includes the bulb-out and enhanced crosswalks at Division Street and Railroad Place. In addition to that, as part of the conversation with this Board, the applicant is proposing a mid-block crossing as part of mitigation to enhance the pedestrian environment, as well as the possibly of doing a build-out analysis for adjacent parcels along Railroad Place to understand what the traffic impact may be in the future and how the city can appropriately plan for those, as well as preliminary design work for future enhancement of the signal at Railroad Place and Division Street. Laura Rappaport said, therefore, the Board is not really addressing the level of service “D” and “E”, it is acknowledging that that is going to happen and, should this go through, accepting that at this time. Jackie said yes, the Board is balancing the vehicular improvements versus the pedestrian improvements. Cliff said the Board is recognizing that it may go to a level of service “E”. He said the numbers are not specific to an apartment project that is 2 blocks off Broadway, and perhaps the numbers won’t be as critical for the vehicle traffic, but more on the pedestrian side. Laura asked if the city would be involved in planning the pedestrian walkway on the county’s property. Phil Klein said because that is county property the city and county’s buildings and grounds and eventually the Board of Supervisors would act to on an easement from the county to the city. He said it will be determined who will maintain it. Jackie said if the Board wants, the Planning Office will initiate the discussions with the county on that. She said the proper pathway would be to take it to the Mayor and then have the City Council identify that as a priority and reach out to the county. Phil said another question to address would be who would have liability. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 10, 2009 - Page 4 of 19 SEQR DETERMINATION: Jamin Totino stated that based upon the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part II of the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, I move that the project will not result in any large and important impact and, therefore, is one that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based on this, I move to make to make a SEQR Negative Declaration for this action. Philip Klein seconded. SEQR Vote: Jamin Totino, 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 6-0. Jaclyn Hakes recommends that the shared ingress/egress easement between Lots 1 and 2 be signed and in place prior to signature of the final mylars, if this is successful. Cliff Van Wagner asked Mike Ingersoll if that was okay with the applicant. Mike Ingersoll said because it is the same owner, it will be easy to provide that simultaneously or prior to signing. Phil Klein said when Lot 2 comes before the Planning Board for review, that may be the time to address the intersection problem in regard to the turning lanes, and there appears to be some property that might be able to be utilized in making the road somewhat wider to accommodate a turn lane in the future. SUBDIVISION DECISION: Jamin Totino made a motion that pursuant to the City’s Subdivision regulations, to approve the 2 lot Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Any future Site Plan for Lot 1 and the existing Price Chopper will include traffic mitigation measures as deemed appropriate at the time, which may include, but are not limited to, new left and right turn lanes on Railroad Place at the intersection of Railroad Place and Church Street 2. An ingress/egress easement shall be in place for the access off of Railroad Place leading to the upper level of the parking garage. The easement must be signed prior to the signing of the final plans by the Planning Board Chair. 3. A recreation fee in the amount of $1,500 per each new lot shall be paid prior to the signing of the final plans by the Planning Board Chair. Dan Gaba seconded. Clifford Van Wagner closed the public hearing on the Subdivision. Subdivision Vote: Jamin Totino, 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 6-0. DISCUSSION: City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 10, 2009 - Page 5 of 19 Michael Perkins commented that in consideration of pedestrian safety and losing parking spaces, he is not in favor of putting an extra lane in. Philip Klein asked Bill Sweet, from Price Chopper, about the delivery schedules and procedures. He asked if the early morning delivery truck drivers will have codes to get into the delivery area so that they don’t have to wait outside. Mr. Sweet said that is the intention. Mike Ingersoll said while coming in, the trucks will still be under cover before entering the enclosed delivery area. Mr. Sweet said those drivers will be pre-approved and have an access code, and there will be a receiver at the store expecting the deliveries. Phil verified that the trucks will not be idling on the street until they can get it. Mr. Sweet said that is correct. Jamin Totino stated that he thinks this is an exciting project and is one that many people have been hoping for. He said the role of the Planning Board many times is to dissect plans and criticize plans and argue about them as much as it can. He said he can imagine that from the other side of the table that can seems a little bit undue and somewhat aggressive, and he wishes the process sometimes were different, but he asks for understanding in that the process and role of the Planning Board is sometimes not easy. He said nonetheless, this project is particularly exciting for the city and is an interesting and exciting opportunity for Price Chopper and that partnership and will be a great benefit to the community. He said he looks forward to seeing it done. SITE PLAN DECISION: Jamin Totino stated that pursuant to Article V of the City’s zoning ordinance, I move to approve the site plan as proposed with the following conditions: 1. A mid-block crossing shall be installed on Railroad Place, including a mountable curb as selected by the Traffic Safety Coordinator. 2. A left-turn only sign will be installed at the delivery exit on Division Street. 3. Motion activated lighting shall be installed along Butler Place AND/OR a crash bar shall be installed in the parking garage for emergency access. 4. A letter of credit or performance guarantee shall be in place prior to signing the final plans by the Planning Board Chair. 5. The applicant shall provide, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a build-out analysis for the adjacent vacant or underutilized parcels documenting potential traffic impacts and mitigation 6. The applicant shall provide, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, preliminary design plans for the replacement and improvement of the traffic signal at Division Street and Railroad Place 7. The Planning Board recognizes the final layout of the civic space/park will be reviewed by the Design Review Commission. The Planning Board requests that the existing statue and memorial plaque be incorporated into the final design. Dan Gaba seconded. Philip Klein complimented the applicant. He said what he has done here may be a signal to other applicants that come into the Board, that he has taken a huge cookie and broken it down into bite-size pieces that the Board was able to digest one at a time. He did a wonderful job doing his homework before he came, which allowed him to design the project rather than the Board, which it is not supposed to do. The Board was able to focus on smaller issues and get them taken care of in a relatively quick time. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 10, 2009 - Page 6 of 19 Dan Gaba stated that this is an exciting project, and is a job well done. Site Plan Vote: Jamin Totino, 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 6-0. Clifford Van Wagner concurred with the rest of the Planning Board members. He said this was an enjoyable project to be involved in and it allowed the Board to plan and not be reactive. He said Jackie is appreciative of that as well. Sonny Bonocio said working with all the neighbors, they picked up parts to make the project better all through the process, and he appreciates everyone’s comments. He said he appreciates Price Chopper for bringing this to the community and he is excited to work with them.  09.048 Greentree Farm Staff Housing, 36 Nelson Avenue This is a Site Plan Review for staff dormitory in the Institutional Horse Track Related District. BACKGROUND: Clifford Van Wagner said the Board listened to this application at the last meeting. Every one of the Board members have visited the site. Mr. Carr staked out the 4 corners of the proposed dormitory as well as the corners of the parking lot. This is an allowed use in the district, the applicant has shown a drawing of the proposed building, and they have requested 6 additional parking spaces which are more than allowed by zoning, so a waiver is requested. A public hearing is not required, however, a public hearing was opened and continues to be opened. Paul Male has sat in on the workshops on this application and he is satisfied with the engineering. The Board was informed that there has been communication between the LA Group and Yaddo as well as NYRA and Yaddo. The SEQR Form will be reviewed and if there is a negative declaration, the Board will move on to the Site Plan. Jaclyn Hakes indicated that this requires a Saratoga County Planning Board referral. A referral was received from them on October 29 indicating there was no significant countywide or inter-community impact. Appearing before the Board were Dave Carr, Matt Hurff and Tom Frost. Dave Carr clarified that they are allowed 20% over the parking requirement, and they are also allowed 6 spaces over that. He said the applicant would have no problem removing the 6 spaces if that is the Board’s desire. In addition, Frost Architecture brought Elana Richardson and Candace Wait from Yaddo out to the site. He said they had no issues with parking or with screening. He said they have had no conversations with NYRA regarding drainage. He said NYRA improved their storm water system over the summer because they do impact the Yaddo property, but this project does not. He said they do have flows that go onto Yaddo, but this plan does not increase that. Clifford Van Wagner asked how the access road to the parking lot will weave in and out of the trees. Dave Carr said there is a berm to the west, so the plan is to snake the access road through the trees to the parking lot. The parking lot and access road will not require much site disturbance. No trees will be taken down for the road, and only 2 or 3 trees will be taken down for the parking lot. Dave said if the Board requires it, they will add to the plan that no trees will be removed. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 10, 2009 - Page 7 of 19 Phil Klein said if the extra 6 parking spots will be used, he would rather extend the stone dust parking for those spots than having overflow parking where it is not intended, because it will not be plowed, it is permeable and it is not within sight of anything. Jamin Totino said he agrees with that after having been out there because the add-on doesn’t seem very significant. He said for safety and aesthetic reasons he would rather have the additional parking in the lot. Michael Perkins said he would prefer not to have the extra 6 spaces from the perspective of setting precedent, but he agrees that the 6 spaces are not very significant. Laura Rappaport said she would prefer not to have the waiver, because she doesn’t think that many people will be driving there. Dave Carr said most of the people are currently working in Kentucky, they are professionals who travel with the horses and they do have cars. Clifford Van Wagner pointed out that the applicant actually counted the number of cars that were on-site this year after the new barns were built. Also, this is a destination location for parking for people who work on the site, unlike parking in a very high traffic or residential area. Laura added that having been to the site, she agrees that her idea of using pavers would not work in this area. Dave Carr said he did ask that question and received a “no” answer. Jamin Totino asked if there would be value in adding a bike rack. Dave Carr agreed. Jamin and Phil also noticed some type of tank on the site. Dave Carr said Yaddo is doing logging, and their machinery is on this property. Phil said it shouldn’t be there, or it should be somewhat contained. Tom Frost said he will check on what it is. Laura Rappaport asked about fire fighting for the building. Dave Carr said there are fire hydrants on-site. Laura asked if the existing white buildings will be inhabited in the future. Tom Frost said they will probably be moth-balled. Laura asked if they have any historical significance. Tom said they are probably about 50 years old. Dave Carr said they would get a demolition permit if they decided to demolish them. Dan Gaba asked if there is a way of controlling parking elsewhere. Dave Carr and Matt Hurff said the owner is strict about not allowing that. Laura Rappaport said she can live with the extra 6 spaces. SEQR: The Board completed the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form and determined there would be no large or important environmental impacts. SEQR DETERMINATION: Jamin Totino stated that based upon the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part II of the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, I move that the project will not result in any large and important impact and is, therefore, one that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based on this, I move to make a SEQR Negative Declaration for this action. Laura Rappaport seconded. SEQR Vote: Jamin Totino, in favor; Michael Perkins, in favor; Laura Rappaport, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 10, 2009 - Page 8 of 19 Motion carries 6-0. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hearing none. SITE PLAN DECISION: Dan Gaba moved to approve the Site Plan with the following conditions: 1. Waiver granted for 6 additional parking spaces 2. Add bike racks sufficient to handle 10 bicycles 3. Entrance drive to parking lot will be built so that no additional trees will be removed 4. Remove the free-standing fuel tank from the property 5. A Letter of Credit or performance guarantee will be put in place prior to signing the final plat Michael Perkins seconded. Site Plan Vote: Jamin Totino, 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 6-0. The Board recessed from 8:39 PM to 8:45 PM. (Amy Durland arrived at 8:43 PM)  09.011 McDonald’s Rebuild, 197 South Broadway This is a SEQRA Coordinated Review for redevelopment of a restaurant in a Transect-5 District. Clifford Van Wagner said this procedure has to move forward tonight. He said the Board needs to come to a consensus on the orientation of the building and the 70% build-out requirement, then the two-story requirement, then begin SEQR. Jaclyn Hakes clarified the procedure. She said as lead agency for SEQR, the Planning Board is looking at all of the things encompassed in the 20 questions of the Part II. Distinct and separate from that are the Variances that are being sought that the Zoning Board of Appeals will weigh in on, as well as the Architectural Review by the Design Review Commission. The Planning Board will be examining the relief that is being sought understanding what that potential impact might be on the character of that corridor, looking at it from a broader perspective but understanding the connection with the specific relief that will be examined by another entity. Clifford Van Wagner said at the joint meeting the Chair of the Zoning Board indicated that as the lead agency, she was amendable to the Planning Board determining how the building will be oriented, determining what the Planning Board feels the build-out should be and the two-story requirement. SEQR must be completed and receive a negative declaration before the Zoning Board can vote on the various area variances that are generated by virtue of how this building is oriented and how the Zoning Board works with them for what the Design Review Commission spoke about, which was perhaps a wall with a fence above it. He said the Planning Board has the job of giving the applicant some direction on those 3 issues, it has to finalize the SEQR and if it is a negative declaration then the Zoning Board gets it and then DRC gets involved with Architectural Review and then the Site Plan comes back to the Planning Board. He said the applicant has given the Planning Board a presentation, at their request, of an orientation of an east-west build-out with the parking on the north side. The Planning Board has to be mindful of City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 10, 2009 - Page 9 of 19 safety at the west side with the alley in the back, which included a drive-through that interacted with the driveway, which the Planning Board was concerned about. Jamin Totino asked what the proposed percentage of building frontage is. Chris Boyea, Bohler Engineering, said they have made some revisions to the Site Plan to include the items that had been requested at the joint review meeting, which includes landscaping, buffering, berming and a wall. He said the building itself is roughly 45 to 50 feet in width, with a lot width of 200 feet. The area to the right of the building, which will be a patio area, is flexible at this time, but as shown is roughly 30 feet, for a total of about 80 feet from one tip of the building to the side of the trellis. The building itself is about 20% of the total parcel, adding the trellis it would be 31%. Chris Boyea said that is not including the wall or other items included. Jamin said he has been consistent all the way through, and he doesn’t know how this proposal was arrived at. He said the building should be oriented to be as close to the ordinance as feasible. He said the last iteration of the building showed the length of it on Broadway. He said this orientation is further away from one of the most important parts of the ordinance in regard to what the City is trying to accomplish in the T-5 zone. Susan Davis, architect, said she came into the process in late June/early July. She said they went before the DRC because the biggest issue then was the architectural aspect. The DRC felt that current version solved a lot of the site issues and the concerns of safety, the building addresses the street, and the front of the building faces the front of the road. She said if the building is turned the service doors will face a prominent elevation. She said the DRC indicated they wanted the applicant to continue moving in that direction. She said the previous scheme fits the ordinance, but there are ways to look at the intent with design standards that are examples of the preferred way to design and site uses, but is not to be considered the only acceptable solution. There are alternative ways to architecturally use elements to create the build-out which might be more compatible with the design features of the building. She said Chris will address the site issues and go back in time to revisit that version, which Jamin seems to be in preference of. Cliff said Jamin’s question was how did we get from that to this, which was answered, so there is no reason to go backwards. Cliff asked for the build-out percentage that includes the building, trellis and a certain amount of linear feet of a stone wall with a decorative fence above it. Chris Boyea said there would be about 100 feet of stone wall that can be installed. Cliff said that would bring it to 72%. Jaclyn Hakes stated that the requirement is 70% of the building frontage, and the applicant is saying this is the best alternative that they can propose with regard to the safety and circulation issues. The current proposal is trying to have the appearance of the structure come closer to at least meeting the general intent, as opposed to meeting the actual requirement. Cliff said at the joint meeting, Steven Rowland of the DRC brought up the suggestion of the stone wall and fence. He said the letter of the code is the building should be 70%, when in fact it is 20%. By taking the lead from the comments from the joint meeting, the applicant is making accommodations with the trellis and the brick wall and fence, which would comply with the intent of the code, not the actual code. Laura Rappaport said it meets the intent by filling out the space, but it doesn’t give the urban downtown structure feel. She said it looks out of place. Cliff said if a SEQR negative declaration is issued and the ZBA gets the application, then those issues will addressed by the DRC. He said any one board can prevent this from proceeding, but he doesn’t want to wrap this up and force the DRC to be stuck with it. He said he agrees this may not be perfect, but the DRC will weigh in on that. Chris Boyea said the applicant also liked the other plan in the beginning and invested in a full plan set, and then they hit a brick wall with traffic safety. He said Frances Esian from the McDonald’s Corporation suggested showing the benefits and negatives to each proposal. Chris City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 10, 2009 - Page 10 of 19 said Jackie said what they have to look at is what makes this site unique, and how is this not precedent setting. He said this site is unique because it is an existing use, and there probably will not be another request for a drive-through on South Broadway, which requires a special permit. It is visible on 3 sides, so aesthetics is important. He said he doesn’t think this will be precedent setting because McDonald’s was there long before the code was written, they are good operators, they sell hamburgers, they want to reinvest, and there are a lot of positives in this plan. He said from an environmental standpoint, this proposal would reduce storm water, reduce thermal heat from the parking lot, and it will be an energy efficient building. He said they need to get in front of the other boards to work out the issues. Amy Durland said, if the Board agrees, she would like to hear a summary of the practical difficulties in terms of the site layout and function of turning the building with more building frontage. Chris Boyea presented the boards showing each option. The first option increases the drive-through stack. It is about 110 feet of building frontage. The mass and scale is a tall building next to the street. The dumpster is hidden, there is buffer shielding parking, it meets the front setback, the wall fence extends the building to get to the frontage, and all the utilities are upgraded. The planning goals that option didn’t meet are that there would be an access ramp in the front of the building, it was littered with traffic conflicts and all customers would cross the drive-through lane, there is a conflict with the alley, there is a long delivery path, the back of the building is visible from Broadway, vehicle emergency access is difficult, the patio is directly across from the boutique hotel, and the customers’ view is of the back of the St. Charles Motel. With the revised plan, there is a long stack, vehicle circulation is improved with curb cut removal, which happens on both plans, there is delivery improvement, the pedestrian safety is much better, it works better with the grades to eliminate the long ramp, the mass and scale uses a solid brick wall with a wrought iron fence on top to anchor the building, there is increased green space, there is superior landscaping and architecture, the patio is off to the side, it meets the front building setback and the front of the building faces the street. The negatives are if it were built out to meet the code, the building would be 20 feet wide by 200 feet long. He said the second story can’t be met because of over 20 roof penetrations. Amy asked if there is a way to take advantage of some of the advantages of the first graphic that complies more with the code and is more desirable in a number of ways, but presents practical difficulties, in an option C that combines the best of both. She asked if the building can be pushed out for more frontage, but still keep the basic configuration that seems to comply more with the city’s requirements and the safety and practical issues. Chris said he thinks that is what DRC is going to make them do. Amy said that is within the Planning Board’s purview as well. Chris said the DRC said they want the trellis to look much more substantial with a roof over it to extend the mass of the building. Phil suggested maybe increasing the size of the trellis. Jamin suggested making an L-shaped building to make the actual frontage of the building come out, or make the building more square. Chris said that option was presented to this Board two years ago, and it didn’t fly. He said they are trying to stay at about 4,000 square feet, so the trellis or extending the roof is a great way to do it. He said they are open to suggestions. Jamin said although he is only one voice, and he has been as consistent as he can, but his personal view is the building is not oriented in a way that satisfies the zoning code enough for him to be comfortable with it. Sue Davis said she wants to preserve the entrance where it is. Mike Perkins stated that the Planning Board never requested to have the entrance on the side. Sue Davis said McDonald’s will only alter the floor plan to a certain degree. Phil Klein said the function of the building will not change if more seating is added where the pergola is. Cliff said safety is the most important consideration, but the Planning Board members are suggesting expanding the seating to give the building more mass and moving the open area to the end of that. Cliff said at the joint meeting the Zoning Board Chair stated the ZBA is willing to make some concessions, and the DRC is willing to make some concessions, and the Planning Board can make some concessions, but the applicant also has to make some concessions. Susan Davis said there has been and can be compromises. Cliff City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 10, 2009 - Page 11 of 19 said this is moving in the right direction. He said the consensus of the Board is to keep the orientation for safety purposes, put more mass to the building, Laura clarified keeping the main entrance on the road, Amy clarified the Board is talking about the building, not any outdoor features, then return to this Board. He said this is not a stamp of approval, this is procedurally the way to move along. He said the next topic of discussion will be the height of the building. Michael Perkins said he still thinks the pergola should be more substantial, and there should also be discussion about whether that should have a roof or not. Susan Davis said putting a roof on it will not be inviting or pedestrian friendly. Mike said he agrees, he just wants to have discussion about it. Cliff agreed this Board should address that, but the DRC will make that decision. Chris Boyea said McDonald’s will have an issue with increasing the square footage of the building, when it is not necessarily warranted. He said this is a one-of-a-kind expensive building, and if the cost is increased too much, it can’t happen. Cliff said he understands the financial ramifications, but the Board does not determine how much money the applicant makes, but what the benefit is to the city. Chris asked if they can’t accomplish the things on the list, should they return for SEQR determination. Cliff said the Board will start SEQR tonight. Chris said there will be a lag of time before the Board will see this again because McDonald’s Corporate needs to sign off on this type of design. Clifford Van Wagner said a habitable second floor is required in the T-5 zone. He said there are special conditions where the second floor may not have to be totally accessible to the general public, which negates the need for an elevator. Jaclyn Hakes read into the record the definition of “story” in a Transect District: “ A habitable level within a building of no more than 14 feet in height from finished floor to finished ceiling. Attics and raised basements are not considered a story.” She said she discussed with the acting zoning enforcement officer the concept of a second story regarding the accessibility as it relates to an elevator. She said absent plans, the Building Inspector cannot give explicit and specific guidance on this, but in the New York State Building Code’s accessibility chapter states 4 exceptions for a multi-level building. The one that may apply is Number 4, which states, “Where a two-story building or facility has one story with an occupant load of 5 or fewer persons that does not contain public use space, that story shall not be required to be connected by an accessible route to the story above or below.” She said there are questions about what is meant by an accessible route. Chris Boyea said when they first met with the Zoning Board, it was clear that any second story was a deal killer for McDonald’s Corporate. He said the Zoning Board gave positive feedback regarding the building being aesthetically pleasing and simulating 2 stories. He said occupant load is calculated per square footage, so that may be the tower. Susan Davis said the DRC had photos of a McDonald’s in Asheville which looked like more a residence. She said Brad Birge stated that appearance would be considered a two-story, because it implied that there was a second story. Jaclyn Hakes said it has been clear all along that staff are not decision-makers. She said the DRC also does not have the ability to provide a variance from a requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. She said if the Board gets past whether the second story is occupiable, this will set forth a precedent for the entire corridor that is a gateway to the city. Cliff asked how close the proposed “faux” second floor comes to the requirement of 14 feet from finished floor to finished ceiling. Chris Boyea said it is 20 plus feet in height. Sue Davis said her design has the feeling of a second story, but there are logistical issues of creating a floor plan to have access to it. She said it will meet the height of what a two-story building would be. Mike Perkins asked if it would be possible to put a roof over the entire second story area. Phil Klein asked if a railroad apartment could be created. Chris Boyea said any second story is a deal killer for McDonald’s. He said putting up a wall would technically meet the code, but it would not be seen or appreciated by anybody. Phil pointed out it would meet the letter of the law. Mike said meeting the law is important. Cliff questioned who has the ability to allow what appears to the eye to be a second story. Jackie Hakes said with this application there is no yes or no question or City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 10, 2009 - Page 12 of 19 answer, which makes it particularly challenging. She said the Planning Board, as lead agency for SEQR, needs to review all of those questions. She said question 19 addresses whether this is precedent setting for future projects, which is where the second story not meeting the intent as well as the requirement of the Transect-5 District becomes difficult. She said if the Planning Board gets past what makes this a unique setting in SEQRA, other than it is a deal killer by Corporate, then the ZBA will weigh in their factors for an Area Variance. Cliff said the variance would not be for the building height, but for the fact that it is an uninhabitable second story. Jackie added that if they are not providing the two stories, it would be a variance for the minimum two stories, but if they are providing a second story that is not habitable, then it would also be a variance from the inhabitable space. Susan Davis said the uniqueness is that this is a pre-existing building and use. Jamin Totino said this is a pre-existing use, not a pre-existing building because the current building will be torn down. Clifford Van Wagner said the Planning Board will not be an anchor around the applicant’s neck, but procedurally will give the applicant direction. He polled the Board members regarding their thoughts about the orientation of the building. Jamin Totino expressed that the proposed orientation of the building is not acceptable, but he is much more comfortable with the additions discussed, that is the L-shaped piece. Cliff said he is polling the Board regarding the mitigation to be 31% of the build-out, with a pergola and a wall up to 72%. Michael Perkins agreed. Amy Durland said she is okay with extending the building and the pergola, but she wouldn’t factor the wall into the frontage. She said the wall accomplishes a different purpose of screening the parking, that it doesn’t fool anyone that there is more of a build-out. Phil Klein said he thinks visually the wall does extend the building. Cliff said if the applicant gets to the Zoning Board, they will determine what they consider the relief to be. Laura Rappaport said she would prefer pushing the building out as far as possible. She said if the building were turned and faced Broadway, could the drive-through function the same way it is proposed now. Jamin said that would move the parking lot, so all the walking traffic would have to cross the drive-through lane to get to the building. Chris said this Board saw that concept very roughly before, which did pose the problem of foot traffic crossing the drive-through lane. The other problem would be with shortening the stacking. Cliff said the applicant has heard a consensus that more building needs to be on Broadway. SEQRA: The Board reviewed SEQRA Part II. There was discussion regarding Number 19, “Will the proposed action affect the character of the community.” Cliff said the Planning Board should look at this question in light of the fact that the Planning Board can send this to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Design Review Commission as proposed with a second floor that is 24 feet from the ground to the peak of the roof and 28 or 29 feet to the height of the column, with special conditions that indicate in a fast food restaurant the number and placement of air handling units, fans, ductwork, heating and cooling towers, etc, do not allow for the code to be met for a habitable second floor, and with the understanding that the applicant will change the plan to include more building on the north side. The other option is to get hung up on the second floor; however, the applicant has indicated that a habitable per code second floor is a deal breaker. Michael Perkins said he believes the Planning Board has to vote on what is before it. Jaclyn Hakes said she would suggest that the Planning Board view a modified plan based on the conversation today, and the applicant should more clearly articulate why this particular parcel and this particular application is unique, but not this type of use in the corridor. Amy Durland suggested taking an informal Board poll regarding whether the height is adequate to meet the intent of the second story, or does it actually want a second story, or whether it is willing to accept a faux second story. Chris Boyea said he has had that feedback from this City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 10, 2009 - Page 13 of 19 Board on the original application with the building turned. He said that at that point he got a thumbs up from this Board knowing that that was a false second floor. Cliff said that is off the table now and the Board has to look at the current proposal. Jamin Totino underscored that whether the second floor is habitable or not will come back to that issue. He said personally, that is what he is looking for, whether it is windows or whatever it is, he thinks it needs to have that effect. He said he is getting more comfortable with the L-shaped building and addition on the frontage, but he is not 100% there. However, the two-story question is huge, especially in regard to precedent setting. He said how unique circumstances exist only for this site is hugely important for this Board and for the City. He said what he is hearing is the Board should waive that because of the corporate model, and to him that sets bad precedent because then another company in the area can make the same argument. Laura Rappaport said she fully agrees with Jamin. Chris Boyea stated that he said Corporate is not going to allow it, it is not because it is a corporate model. He said there are operational issues and functional uses. Jamin said he understands that. Cliff said the applicant must come back, because the Planning Board cannot vote on SEQR without seeing the variation of more building. He said what he would like to see is a sketch more clearly showing how this will look from the street, adding a second tower for more symmetry. Cliff polled the Board members requesting a yeah or nay for a faux second floor. Jackie said what is proposed doesn’t appear to staff as two stories. Her question is whether the applicant is providing a one-story that is 24 feet in height, or something that appears as a two-story even though it is not a two-story, or if there is an actual two-story. Cliff said not an actual two-story, but one that looks like two stories but there really isn’t, with a second tower. Phil Klein said he is okay with what is proposed with the addition of a second tower; Amy Durland said she considers this proposal a story and a half, and she prefers an actual two-story height, okay with it being faux, and she doesn’t care for the towers; Dan Gaba said he is okay with an actual second floor height, okay with faux, but asked if the height can be increased by 4 feet to emphasize the appearance of a second story; Jamin Totino said with towers or no towers, it has to look like two stories before he can consider how they go forward; Mike Perkins said he is okay with the faux second story, but he cautioned that the Planning Board is one of a number of boards and by the strict regulations it does need a full second floor; Laura Rappaport said she is okay with the faux second story, and she agrees with what Mike said, and agrees that there has to be an explanation of the uniqueness of this project. Amy said if there is consensus on the height, the uniqueness goes to the fake nature of the second floor. She said there may be something that describes the unique situation that would mitigate against its actual use of the second floor. Cliff said he is okay with a faux second floor. He said 7 members of this Board are leaning toward at this stage with a lot of finessing, being okay with a faux second floor, showing reasons why this is unique not to the site, but to the building and to the use on that site specific to the building. He said the applicant should submit drawings keeping the architectural style, adding a couple of feet on it, adding mass and another sketch that does that with a second tower. He said at that point, the Board will be able to vote on SEQR, if there is a negative declaration the application will go to the Zoning Board and then to the Design Review Commission, then the applicant can go to McDonald’s Corporate with the package. He suggested the applicant not go to Corporate now, but after review by the three land use boards. He said the applicant has a concession from the Planning Board on the second floor, but not a vote. Chris Boyea said he was hopeful he could go to the Zoning Board and present the options discussed tonight. Cliff said by code, he can’t. The Board will need to have this information at least by 3:00 on the day of the workshop meeting.  08.037 Toscano Subdivision, 127 Jefferson Street City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 10, 2009 - Page 14 of 19 This is a Public Hearing on a 3-lot Subdivision in an Urban Residential-2 District. BACKGROUND: Clifford Van Wagner said this case goes back to 2007. The items considered then were City infrastructure improvements, access, curbing and sidewalks on Hathorn Street as well as Fenlon Street. Appearing before the Board was Dan Wheeler. He said little has changed other than the storm water design tying into what the city has installed. The system of dry wells will be connected into the catch basin for the overflow. The one building in front would be converted to a single- family and the three sheds in the back would be demolished. Included in the plans are sidewalks, street trees and street lights. The cedar trees on Fenlon Street will be removed. Dan Gaba said he would like to see some trees or fencing along the back of Lot 3 for some delineation and screening. Dan Wheeler will present a plan for this to staff and the Chairman for approval. Paul Male indicated that a basic SWPPP is required, which could be a condition of approval if the Board is comfortable with that. Amy Durland requested that the Chairman sign off on the SWPPP as well as the buffer plan prior to signing the Subdivision. Jaclyn Hakes said curbing on Fenlon Street is not proposed, but staff recommends it. Dan Wheeler said he will make sure that is included. Jackie recommended adding the condition that the current multi- family will be converted back to a single-family. Dan Wheeler requested that that be tied to the first C/O issuance for any lot in the subdivision. Jackie agreed. SEQR DECISION: Jamin Totino stated that based on the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEQR Short Environmental Assessment Form and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part II of the SEQR Short Environmental Assessment Form, I find the project will not result in any large and important impact and, therefore, is one that shall not have an adverse impact on the environment. I move to issue a SEQR Negative Declaration for this action. Michael Perkins seconded. PUBLIC HEARING: Hearing none SEQR 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 closed the public hearing, which was re-noticed for this meeting. SUBDIVISION DECISION: Dan Gaba moved to approve the subdivision with the following conditions: 1. A letter of Credit or performance guarantee will be in place 2. A recreation fee in the amount of $1,500 for each new lot shall be paid, for a total of $3,000 3. All SWPPP requirements shall be met and approved by the City Engineer City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 10, 2009 - Page 15 of 19 4. There will be curbing on East Fenlon Street 5. There will be a buffer on the rear lot line of Lot 3 6. The existing two-family house will be converted to a single-family at the issuance of the C/O for any of the 3 lots involved 7. The SWPPP and the proposed buffer will be scrutinized by the Planning Board Chair prior to the signing of the Subdivision Laura Rappaport seconded. Subdivision 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.  08.068.1 (09.051) Gridley Street Stables c/o Kenneth McPeek Racing Stables, Inc., Gridley Street at Jefferson Street This is a Public Hearing for a Special Use Permit for a horse barn in the Institutional Horse Track Related District. BACKGROUND: Clifford Van Wagner stated that this is a parcel that was re-zoned to the Institutional Horse Track Related District in 2008. The submitted application was not heard by the Planning Board at the time because of the interaction with the paper street. The applicant submitted an application removing any structures from the paper street right-of-way. The application is for a 40-stall horse barn. This will require some zoning variances. A SEQR determination is required. The applicant is proposing some changes in the setbacks. Appearing before the Board was Matthew J. Jones. He said if the Planning Board sees fit to issue a negative SEQR determination, that would allow the Zoning Board to act on the variances before them. He said he presented the application to them last Thursday and is hoping for a resolution this Thursday. He said he has also filed an application for a Special Use Permit and there is a pending application for a Site Plan Review. He said the Public Hearing can be scheduled for the 9th of December if the Board is so inclined. The Zoning Board would have to act on the variances before the Planning Board can act on the Special Use Permit. He said this plan is different from the previous plan in two respects. First, they shifted everything on Lot 2 6 to 6 ½ feet to the east toward Sandy Hutton’s house and away from the paper street. The reason for that was to provide some room away from the right-of-way if Monroe Street were ever developed into an alley or street to service the lots owned by the Valentines and the Clarks. The barn was also shifted about 10 feet to the south away from the Valentines’ boundary line in response to their comment on September 23. He said the variances requested for Lot 1 are all designed to make lawful the 2 barns that are there now. According to the Building Inspector, the paper street is a street under the law and as such, they are requesting 3 front yard setbacks and two side yard setbacks. He said two lots will be combined into one, which will still be only 12,500 square feet, where 20,000 square feet is required to meet mean width or size. Included are a required 4 parking spaces, which also will require a setback variance. The applicant is requesting 6 variances for Lot 2: the front yard setback on Gridley Street is 10 feet, which is measured to the overhang, even though the foundation is 10 feet further back, where 30 feet is required; the front yard setback on Monroe Street is 7 feet, where City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 10, 2009 - Page 16 of 19 the requirement is 30 feet; the side yard setback in the rear along the Valentines’ line to the overhang is 22 feet, where 40 feet is required because it abuts a residential lot; the side yard setback at 6 ½ feet, where 40 feet is required. He said he spoke to Mrs. Hutton to let her know they wanted to shift over toward her property. He said she wasn’t thrilled, but understood the rationale. The lot coverage totals 46.2% of lot coverage for Lot 2 when including the overhangs, and the City’s requirement is 35%. Clifford Van Wagner said the Planning Board is being asked to review the SEQR tonight, if there is a Negative Declaration it can move to the Zoning Board, then the application will return to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review and a Special Use Permit. Amy Durland asked if given the residences abutting the property, and given the fairly significant numbers, was there any thought given to reducing the number of stalls and condensing the project so it doesn’t impede so much on the neighbors. Matt Jones said yes, the original Site Plan showed 54 new stalls. He said they also looked carefully at the precedent of the Zoning Board and granting of zoning relief. He said the most recent on Gridley Street was in 2005 for the Pineview project. Previous to that the Bond barn on Gridley Street was granted variances in 2002. He said Pineview went to 16 feet for the front yard setback, here it is held at 20 feet. He said they could go down further so that the walking ring would be almost on top of the line, but they considered the substantial screening in the rear. Amy said although the neighbor is marginally okay with it, she still wonders if reducing the number could result in a different configuration that could be less of an intrusion on that lot. Matt Jones said he heard Sandy say that she was okay with the density and configuration, but given the unlikelihood of the paper street ever being more, why move it over 7 feet closer to her property. Cliff asked if eliminating stalls 1, 8, 33 and 40 at the top would eliminate any of the requested variances. Matt said it would be a difference of 12 feet, which would only reduce the variance to 6 feet. He said if you can’t see it, it doesn’t matter whether it is closer or farther away. Cliff also asked about the property to the north. Matt said previously on Woodlawn Court and Saratoga Hospital where screening was an enormous issue, the Planning Board approved an 8-foot high white fence along Saratoga Hospital’s borderline. Cliff said when he visited the Darley property he went along this property line and further east, which is not inconsistent with what is further east, which is more intrusive as far as their setback violations than what is being proposed here. Matt said the feel of walking by and getting close to the horses in the ring has been lost, which is important. He said all the traffic issues for horses were worked out in 2005 for Pineview with “do not enter”, “no left turn” signs and cones. Michael Perkins said as he stated at the last meeting, he is not that concerned with how close it comes to the street in the front yard, or even in the rear setback, but he thinks the side setbacks are fairly invasive. He said the property next door could request to do the same thing, which would have a roof 6 feet from the line with another roof 6 ½ feet away, which seems like a lot. He said on the Monroe side, given that that may be an alley, that wouldn’t be so much of a concern. Cliff said looking at Part II of the Environmental Assessment Form, this could receive a Negative Declaration, then move to the Zoning Board who will deal with the side yard variances. Mike Perkins said he would not neg dec it, because C2 and C4 go to his point. Cliff asked how the east side yard setback could be tweaked. Matt Jones said he could go back to Mrs. Hutton to learn more about her property. He said Mr. McPeek indicated that he has a very workable relationship with her and they contemplate using the area as a common pasture for the horses from both sides. He said SEQR aside, he will ask her if she is content with the Site Plan and if not, then it may mean a change. He said another lawyer in his office spoke to her, so he is uncomfortable speaking for someone unless he has a letter. He said in reading her comments from September 23, her preference was to not move it over. His preference is to City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 10, 2009 - Page 17 of 19 have her come and say how she feels about it. Cliff said this will be left open to hear from her directly or through Matt. Matt said he doesn’t see this as a SEQR issue which would kick it into a large and important impact. He said it could be a small to moderate impact that could have mitigation. Amy Durland asked if the Board can make a note of that as an option during the Site Plan in the SEQR Form. Jaclyn Hakes said if there could be adverse impacts that could be mitigated by reduction in the number of stalls, the Board should identify that here, but how many or how that is could be a little flexible and could be determined by the ZBA in the relief and the Site Plan aspect of it, or the Special Use Permit aspect of it can also further limit that based on neighborhood character. Matt Jones stated that a Negative Declaration on SEQR in no way precludes the Board from then, in review of Site Plan or Special Use Permit, requiring the applicant to shift his barns and lose some. He said those two things are separate inquiries altogether and one might be fully appropriate whether or not a neighbor objected. He said the Zoning Board will give the maximum, but the Planning Board may be uncomfortable with that given the proximity to Mrs. Hutton’s and could require it to be smaller. Amy Durland said if the Zoning Board grants these variances, she doesn’t think the Planning Board does have the authority to make other requirements. Matt Jones said impact on the neighborhood is absolutely one of the criteria that the Planning Board is obligated to consider. Amy said that is also what the Zoning Board considers, and if they grant the variances she doesn’t think the Planning Board can make a different determination. Matt said that is a separate legal test altogether, otherwise he could say the Zoning Board did it and the Planning Board has no discretion under a Special Use Permit, which is not the law. Jackie said the distinction is between the use, which is what the Special Use Permit is looking at in terms of that impact of that use, and that could equate into a reduction of the density and the intensity of the use on the site. She said she would caution the Planning Board in terms of the SEQRA aspect, it is a little bit different than a typical Special Use/Site Plan process where the Planning Board is lead agency. She said typically SEQRA is kept open until all of the aspects of the Special Use Permit are vetted out or of the Site Plan, but here the Planning Board is being asked to do that first before getting into the SEQR conversation about the Special Use or the Site Plan. She said if there are concerns regarding the east side of the parcel, or any other concerns related to community character, they should be identified on the SEQRA form to be mitigated at the Special Use or Site Plan. Clifford Van Wagner proposed that this will be left open to speak to the neighbor to the east before it proceeds any further. Mike Perkins said he doesn’t think he needs a neighbor to make him better understand the conditions there. Cliff said the board will also have the opportunity to go back and revisit the site. Matt Jones said she was here to present her case to the Planning Board, and this plan was the result of that September 23 meeting, where the Planning Board requested moving it away from the paper street. He said if the Planning Board revisits the site, it could come to the same conclusion as Mike. Phil Klein suggested removing 4 stalls at the top and moving the rows in 12 feet on each side. Mike said he would also suggest moving it over toward the paper street. Clifford Van Wagner proposed that the Planning Board accept Lead Agency Status. All in favor. PUBLIC COMMENT: Jaclyn Hakes said an E-mail was received today from Tamara Valentine. This was a correspondence between her and Matt Jones regarding this project. Jackie said the asked Ms. Valentine if she wished to submit this to the Board, and she responded that she did. Matt said that he has responded to her in writing. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 10, 2009 - Page 18 of 19 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Laura Rappaport made a motion to accept the October 28, 2009 meeting minutes as presented. Mike Perkins seconded. All in favor. NEXT MEETING The next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for November 24, 2009, at 7:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Clifford Van Wagner adjourned the meeting at 11:34 PM. Respectfully submitted, Kathleen Livsey Recording Secretary Adopted: January 13, 2010 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 10, 2009 - Page 19 of 19