Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2009 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Clifford Van Wagner, Chair; Amy Durland; Michael Perkins; Laura Rappaport; Philip Klein; Dan Gaba ABSENT: Jamin Totino, Vice-Chair 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 07.106.1 Vanden Handel Bed and Breakfast, 94 George Street. Request for administrative action to modify a Site Plan. Request to change location of handicap parking and use uni-lock pavers for off-loading area - Approved November 13, 2009. Request to use crushed stone for driving lane - Denied November 13, 2009 because of safety and snowplowing issues. 09.056 Joseph Street Subdivision (ref PB #05.040). Request for lot line adjustment to move lot line 10 square feet – Approved on November 17, 2009, with conditions that they properly locate the houses on the new lots so they don’t come back for another administrative request. 09.050 Snyder Lot Line Adjustment, 432 Grand Avenue. Request for lot line adjustment, keeping the same number of lots – Approved November 18, 2009. POSTPONED PROJECTS 09.011 McDonald’s Rebuild, 197 South Broadway. This is a SEQRA Coordinated Review of the redevelopment of existing restaurant in a Transect-5 District. Adjourned per applicant’s request (verbal request by Chris Boyea). No date has been requested to re-appear. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR Clifford Van Wagner announced the upcoming Planning Board workshop December 7, 2009, and meeting December 9, 2009. There will not be a second meeting in December. There will be a quarterly land use boards meeting on November 30, 2009, at 7:00 in the Music Hall, 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. DISCUSSION ITEM Clifford Van Wagner said the Department of Public Works has asked the Planning Board to approve a revision to the application regarding the water service agreement. Jaclyn Hakes said currently on the Site Plan and Subdivision applications there is a requirement for the applicant to submit a water service connection agreement, idenfying that they have paid for the water connection and service. The DPW has asked that the Planning Board require on those applications that there be a water service connection agreement for each individual lot or unit that is associated with the project. She said that she and Paul are in favor of this change to make it easier to track each individual lot. The Board members agreed to empower Jackie to make that change. APPLICATIONS
09.055 Siro’s Zoning Amendment, 168 Lincoln Avenue This is an advisory opinion to the City Council on opening of a restaurant year round in the Institutional Horse Track Related District. Clifford Van Wagner said the Planning Board had issued a permanent Special Use Permit on March 19, 2003, for this property primarily for the indoor eating and drinking establishment. There were 10 conditions, one of which states that “The eating and drinking establishment shall be limited to 90 calendar days of operation per year including the days of the thoroughbred racing meet”. Jaclyn Hakes outlined the required procedure for a zoning amendment. With any zoning amendment that comes before the City Council there is an application submitted to the City Council, as the legislative body of the City. The Zoning Ordinance states that if the City Council determines that the application before them for a zoning amendment has “merit for review”, they must send that to the Planning Board for an advisory opinion. That advisory opinion must be issued by the Planning Board within 30 days of the request. The City Council then must hold a Public Hearing and seek a referral from the Saratoga County Planning Board and they must conduct SEQR before a vote can be taken on the application. What is before the Planning Board now is there was an application with regard to a zoning text amendment for the Siro’s property and the Council did determine that it had merit for review. The Council requested that the Planning Board consider an advisory opinion. This request from the City Council did ask the Planning Board to focus on issues relating to noise, traffic and parking in this particular location. She said staff placed this item on this meeting agenda so that the Board would have at least two meetings to discuss this, since there is only one meeting in December. The Planning Board must look at whether or not the request is contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and whether or not it is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the long-term vision of the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 24, 2009 - Page 2 of 14 City that is established in the Comprehensive Plan. The request before the Planning Board is specific to the 90-day time frame for eating and drinking establishments. Currently eating and drinking establishments that were in existence prior to January 1, 2002, can operate with a Special Use Permit and Site Plan in the Institutional Horse Track Related District for a period of 90 days. The request is to change that language to allow eating and drinking establishments year-round. There are questions as to how that would apply elsewhere throughout the district. Clifford Van Wagner said the Board needs to be aware of the size of the Institutional Horse Track Related District and what it actually encompasses. The Board reviewed the zoning map. Appearing before the Board was Tom Dillon, owner. Mr. Dillon stated that he is not sure if his attorney was aware that this was on the agenda tonight. He said he was not informed by his attorney of this meeting, he found out from the newspaper. He said that his attorney is out of town. Clifford Van Wagner stated that the public hearing has been open, so it does not need to be re-noticed. He strongly suggested to Mr. Dillon that he needs his attorney present to proceed. Tom Dillon asked if he can request an adjournment to the December 9, 2009 meeting. Cliff said he can. Amy Durland said the clock should start ticking for the 30 days in the first meeting that the Board meets. Phil Klein stated that the Board can extend that 30 days. Jackie said that can be done if the request is received in writing. Mr. Dillon stated that he is sure that his attorney would approve of the extension. Amy Durland stated that she believed the applicant requested to be on the agenda. Mr. Dillon said he did not, and that would have come through his attorney, and he was not informed by his attorney that he would be on the agenda tonight. Jackie said all applicants or their agents are called prior to the meeting to inform them of the agenda. Cliff apologized for the communication error. He said this meeting does not have to be re-noticed. He said this will be the first item on the next agenda on December 9, 2009. He said the public hearing will be left open. Phil Klein asked if any concerned neighbors who are here tonight and cannot attend the meeting on December 9 can speak tonight. Cliff said the attorney may need to hear the issues of concern. He said multiple communications have been received from concerned neighbors, which are part of the permanent record. Dan Gaba suggested that if any concerned neighbors here tonight cannot attend December 9, they can put their comments in writing to Jaclyn Hakes to be part of the permanent record. PUBLIC HEARING: Bentley Boivin, 129 Nelson Avenue, stated that he opposes having Siro’s operate beyond 90 days. He said when the zoning changes took place in 2002, the neighbors and the owners got together and agreed on a lot of things and one of them was that they would not go beyond the 90 days. If they had known they were considering going beyond the 90 days, there would have been more in-depth discussion about more limitations for year-round use. Secondly, the noise and traffic generated from Siro’s just during the summer is extensive. He said the public often uses his driveway to turn around and he is concerned about safety. He said the neighborhood is a family neighborhood. He said he would like to have neighborhood input like in 2002 to discuss limitations. He said the primary one would be no outdoor music. He said he understands the limitations and tolerates the track season, which is part of the neighborhood; but before and after that he does not want Siro’s to operate live music, or any other venues like weddings that would create live music. He said that is not part of the neighborhood atmosphere. He asked the Planning Board to sincerely look at the zoning that was allowed in the Institutional Horse District and to stick with the 90 days operation. Amy Durland asked Mr. Boivin if he means outdoor music or no live music. Mr. Boivin said any music that he can hear, depending on the volume of the music. He said he would have to see what indoor music City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 24, 2009 - Page 3 of 14 would be to comment on that. He said his preference is no outdoor entertainment at Siro’s beyond the track season, which is not neighborly. Jaclyn Hakes identified items received from the public so far on November 23, 2009: an E-mail from Larry King at 126 Nelson Avenue; Sara Goodwin at 119 Nelson; Bentley Boivin at 129 Nelson Avenue; Jeanette Marino at 35 Jackson Street; Rosemary Tate at Lincoln Avenue; and an E-mail today from Tim Donohoe at 125 Nelson Avenue. The hearing was adjourned until December 9, 2009. No public notice is required. Larry King, 126 Nelson Avenue, requested a reading of the proposed text from John Carusone, because he doesn’t know if his copy is accurate. Jackie said only one application was submitted to the City Council, so if that is what he has, it is accurate.
09.051 Gridley Street Stable c/o Kenneth McPeek Stables, Inc. Gridley Street at Jefferson Street This is a continuation of a Public Hearing for a Special Use Permit for a horse barn in the Institutional Horse Track Related District. BACKGROUND: Clifford Van Wagner gave the background. He said at the last Planning Board meeting there was request for a 40 horse stall barn. The Board had questions regarding proximity to the neighbor to the east as well as to the north and questions regarding the paper street to the west. Appearing before the Board was Matthew J. Jones, attorney for the applicant. He said this is the SEQR review prior to seeking zoning variances, followed by the Planning Board’s consideration of a Special Use Permit and Site Plan review. He said as a result of discussion at the last Planning Board meeting, the structures are proposed to be moved over to the west 5 feet farther away from Sandy Hutton’s home and 5 feet closer to the paper street. He said he did some measurements of the paper street because there were concerns about the barns being only 2 feet off the paper street on the east side and right on top of it on the west side, which could impede future construction of a drive off Gridley Street. He said there are only 2 potential properties served by the street which belong to the Valentines and the Clarks. He said his sense is that what would likely be developed there would an alley. Even if Gridley Street was used as a model at 16 feet wide, there would still be 17 feet on either side of the pavement within which to accommodate sidewalks and street lights and snow removal, which will probably not be put in there. He said alleys go from 10 feet to 14 feet, which is likely to happen in this area, so shifting it 2 feet off the line makes the most sense. He said he met with Sandy Hutton today, who appeared before the Board on September 23, and asked her if it matters to her where the barns are in relation to her house. He said she said her number one concern was, because she is a horse owner, was the use of the property and she is anxious to have it used as stables. He said she said it doesn’t make any difference to her if it is 5 feet off her property or 12 feet off. She submitted her opinion in writing, stating that she is content with the Site Plan either with 5 feet or 12 feet off the property line. Matt said as a result of that, he would urge the Planning Board to consider a condition stating what their specific recommendations are, down to a half foot for that distance, before the application goes to the Zoning Board. He said the applicant’s preference would be to be closer to Mrs. Hutton’s property to make more use of the other side, and so it is more balanced, but they can live with the Planning Board’s decision to move it away from Mrs. Hutton’s property. Phil Klein said his preference would be to center it City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 24, 2009 - Page 4 of 14 on the buildable lot and not squeeze the paper street, especially with a willing neighbor. Amy Durland said she understands Phil’s point and she doesn’t disagree, but her concern is that the neighbor’s property could change hands, and while this neighbor does not object to the reduced setback, the next neighbor may. Cliff said that person would be aware of it going into it. Phil pointed out that there are 3 or 4 other horse barns on that street now, so someone would know what is in the proximity of the house they are going to buy. Matt Jones said the second concern was the number of stalls. After discussion, the applicant proposes to eliminate stalls 1, 8, 33 and 40 in order to move the main bank of stalls to the south toward Gridley Street a maximum of 12 feet. This would create a maximum of an additional 12 feet of setback for the Valentines, going from 22 feet up to 34 feet. He said the problem with that is that the overhang goes over the top of the outside rail of the walking ring. To accommodate that there are three choices. One is perhaps coming 4 feet closer to the sidewalk in the front, secondly shrinking the walking ring, or thirdly picking up 8 feet in the rear rather than 12 feet. The applicant would prefer on the north side having the setback not less than 30 feet, as opposed to the maximum of 34 feet. Amy Durland asked what the disadvantage is of coming 4 feet closer in the front. Matt said there would be none, it would just be right on top of the property line. He said if the engineer had all 3 areas to work with, it would be easier to come up with a plan. Laura Rappaport asked how close the ring would be to the sidewalk if it were moved. Clark Wilkinson, Paragon Engineering, said the horse ring would be literally at the right-of-way line, and the proposed sidewalk is just off the other side of the right-of-way line, less than half a foot of separation. He said there is a proposed fence there, so there wouldn’t be any co-mingling of people on the sidewalk with the horses, but even at 4 feet it is a little close because the horses can get spooked. Cliff said the most practical compromise would be to pick up 8 of the 12 feet, still having a considerable buffer on the back property line, and leave 4 feet between the face of the barn to the overhang. Dan Gaba asked what the preference is of the neighbors in the rear. Matt said the preference is to move it forward, but the higher preference is the treatment along the fence. He said they will probably install an 8-foot high decorative fence and vegetation. Clifford Van Wagner said the amendment to the application seen two weeks ago is for 36 stalls rather than 40, there is some wiggle room on the east side, and one option is to pick up 8 feet on the north side with the understanding that the applicant has agreed to put in an 8-foot high decorative screening fence and vegetative cover on the inside of that. PUBLIC HEARING: Hearing none. Jaclyn Hakes suggested that if a negative declaration is issued, it would be helpful to attach to SEQRA an explanation of why the negative declaration was issued to assist the other involved agencies in their deliberations. Michael Perkins noted that the changes don’t impact the concerns that he raised at the last meeting. He said he agrees with Amy about having different neighbors there, and he thinks the Board needs to look at what is right and he thinks variances to that extent are way too much. He said he would drop six stalls off of each side and he would have a tendency to move it closer to the paper street because he thinks an alley is appropriate. Laura Rappaport said that agrees with Mike. She asked if consideration had been given to flipping the barns onto the frontage of Gridley Street to be more open for the north neighbors and it might be safer on the road, even though it might not be as attractive from the road. Matt Jones said they did a layout with the walking ring behind. He said with the 8-foot high fence the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 24, 2009 - Page 5 of 14 Valentine’s wouldn’t see either way. He said it would lose the feeling created along Gridley Street which is the closeness of the horses. Laura said it seems awfully close and when you go down Fifth Avenue they try to keep you away from the horses. Matt said on the south side of Fifth Avenue you can walk to the rail and get near the horses, although they are not the thoroughbreds. He said Mr. McPeek is very comfortable having the walking ring out front and he desires it that way. Clifford Van Wagner summarized the proposal, which is for 36 stalls, the north side setback would be 30 feet, and the structure would be centered on the lot in the east/west direction. Laura Rappaport asked if removing 8 or 12 more stalls would eliminate any variances. Matt Jones said no. Amy Durland said that although it is the purview of the Zoning Board, the variances suggest a crowding of the property. Phil Klein added that the drawing includes the overhangs, so the building mass is really less than the percentage of lot coverage. Amy said she still feels there may need to be more restraint regarding how much of the building occupies the lot. She said she thinks Mike might have a point. Matt noted that two other Gridley Street barns received zoning variances. Cliff added that is what is out there, which is why it is there. He said it is close to NYRA and that is why it is zoned what it is, so he doesn’t have a problem with that because nothing else is going to be there. Jaclyn Hakes included in the record the letter that Matt referred to from Sandra Hutton. SEQRA: The Board reviewed the SEQR Long Environmental Assessment Form. Number C4, “Communities’ existing plans or goals as officially adopted or change in use or intensity of the use of the land or the natural resources”. Mike Perkins stated that he feels this would be an adverse impact. Amy Durland said she wonders to what extent this might result in other properties in this zone and in this area presuming the necessity of obtaining variances in order to make use of their property. She said this may set a precedent. Cliff said each case stands on its own, so there is no authority or implied authority granted to the next applicant to get a variance. Amy said many applicants do point out that variances have been granted to others, and at some point the meeting of the city standards becomes weakened. She said she feels these are fairly significant variances. Phil Klein said that it is the Zoning Board’s job to look at each application and judge upon its merits. Cliff added that the Planning Board is not granting the relief. He said the Planning Board will vote on Part II and if it is a negative declaration then the staff will send a note to ZBA from the Planning Board regarding points to be considered, not suggestions or points that they need to vote on. The ZBA will decide what variances to grant. Jackie said if the Planning Board votes in favor of a negative declaration, that doesn’t mean that relief will be granted by the ZBA, it also does not mean if the reliefs requested are granted that the Planning Board won’t have a chance to further shape this project as part of the Special Use Permit and Site Plan applications. Amy indicated that with that in mind, she is more comfortable voting on SEQR. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hearing none. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 24, 2009 - Page 6 of 14 DECISION: Dan Gaba stated that based upon 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, it is the Board’s opinion that 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. Phil Klein seconded. Vote: Amy Durland, in favor; Michael Perkins, opposed; Laura Rappaport, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor Motion carries 5-1.
09.053/09.054 McKenzie’s Way Subdivision, Part 1/Part 2, East Broadway/Cleveland Avenue This is a review of a 6-lot Subdivision in a UR-2 District and review of an 8-lot Subdivision in a UR-2 District. BACKGROUND: Clifford Van Wagner said there are two applicants, each owning a portion of land that abuts each other, and collectively they are requesting a total of 14 building lots. He said Clark Wilkinson is representing both applicants, Stephen Ethier who is requesting a 6-lot Subdivision and Saratoga Enterprises, Bob Howard, who is requesting an 8-lot Subdivision. Jaclyn Hakes said this is an unusual situation where each application will track through the process as separate applications, each requiring separate approvals, separate SEQR determinations, etc. However, because they are adjacent properties and will ultimately share infrastructure, the Board will look at this as a whole project. Clifford Van Wagner said the Planning Board action tonight is simply to initiate coordinated review and request lead agency status. Jackie said this is a Realty Subdivision and under the SEQRA regulations different agencies have the authority and ability to generate their own Type I action list. She said the New York State Department of Health has enacted their own Type I action list and a Realty Subdivision is on their Type I list; therefore, any Realty Subdivision, of which each of these applications in and of themselves are Realty Subdivisions, makes it a Type I action requiring a Long Environmental Assessment Form and a coordinated review. The involved agencies includes the New York State Department of Health. The only action this board can do tonight is to initiate coordinated review with the involved agencies, the involved agencies have 30 days to respond under the SEQRA regulations to act on lead agency before the application can proceed. Appearing before the Board was Clark Wilkinson, Paragon Engineering, representing both applicants for this project. Clark presented the neighborhood plan in response to questions raised at the agenda workshop on Monday. He said this is the subdivision of approximately 2.9 acres into 14 single-family lots. The access will be from Cleveland Avenue trough the parcel out to East Broadway. He said there are two strips of land that total 40 feet in width to gain access to the back parcel. The parcel on East Broadway is the 6-lot subdivision owned by Stephen City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 24, 2009 - Page 7 of 14 Ethier. The two strips of land and the landlocked parcel are owned by Saratoga Enterprises. The proposal is for a right-of-way width of 40 feet with 20 feet of pavement, 5 feet of sidewalk on each side and a 5-foot planting strip on each side; the submitted map showed 24 feet of pavement in error. He said each lot meets the minimum requirements for area and width. He has shown on the plan detached garages behind the houses, and if they are not detached they will be pushed toward the back of the house for room to park in the driveway without interfering with the sidewalk. The sewer will be served from East Broadway, there is water on Cleveland Avenue and East Broadway which will be looped to help substantiate the city system and provide water for this project. He said in the January meeting, this Board was leaning toward having an access to the trailer park to the east that fronts on Jefferson Street. In talking with his clients and from an engineering and planning standpoint and the fact that the trailer park is fully built-out in close proximity to the Saratoga Gaming and Raceway, he and his clients feel that any future development if the trailer park ever went under would probably warrant a commercial application geared toward the Saratoga Gaming and Raceway, even though it is in a UR-6 zone. For those reasons, he did not provide a stub street in the plan for future connection. He said they feel it should be a walkway at the most. They don’t see any benefit to the city or this area to have a road through there. Amy Durland asked Clark is he feels the trailer park would change to a commercial zone if it went under. Clark said that it is his opinion that that whatever goes there would be geared toward the Gaming and Raceway and the zoning would have to be changed from a UR-6, but there are certain things allowed under the UR-6. Amy said that may or may not be the case, but as trailer parks are terminated there is a trend more toward manufactured or multi-family housing. Clark said multi-family is more of a commercial nature. Amy said she thinks it is residential, but if it were commercial, she asked why the connection wouldn’t make sense. Clark said from an engineering and efficiency standpoint they are asking to reduce the pavement width to 20 feet. He said more traffic would not warrant reducing the pavement width. He said they would like to have a neighborhood type of feel with smaller roadways for children to play and to prevent parking on it. He said going to a smaller pavement and then inviting more cars is not good planning. Amy said she thinks that is good planning. She said the developments in which there were no connections with smaller roads were to some extent older developments. She said in general more recent urban planning does make sure that there is parking on the street, which is seen as a traffic calming measure. She said the Planning Board should determine what the design should be before the density is determined and reducing to road width to make that happen. Clark said Cleveland Avenue is currently a 40-foot width, Garfield Avenue exists as a 40-foot right-of-way and the Witt project to the north has some 40-foot right-of-ways in the same general type of pattern that this project is accomplishing. Amy said the Witt project on Richard Street doesn’t connect to any through streets. Clark said Joshua Road originally existed as a 40-foot right-of-way and when that subdivision went through this Board, some right-of-way was added. Jackie asked the Board to clarify if it is the right-of-way width that is of concern or the pavement width. Amy said she was talking about the actual road width. She said she is not suggesting that the sidewalk width or the planting strips should be reduced. She is saying that the design presumes a certain number of units based on a smaller road, and she is not convinced that the smaller road makes sense, even though it has been done in some cases in this area. She said in general urban design discourages not allowing parking on the street, and she has significant questions about that. Clark pointed out that this project is in the outside district of the city. Laura said it is still in the UR-2 District. Cliff asked Clark if the width of the road is dictated by the 3 lots to the left. Clark said no. Cliff said they could get a 22 or 24-foot road there. Clark said on the plans he showed a 24-foot road, but to do that in a 40-foot right-of-way, there would be reduced planting strips or reduced sidewalks or it would require an easement outside of that. Jackie said according to conversations with Mark Benaquista, the 90-degree turn is a significant safety issue and it cannot happen. She said that was identified as part of the sketch discussion. She said during City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 24, 2009 - Page 8 of 14 the sketch discussion, the Planning Board indicated that a T providing a future connection, which is general practice, was much better received at the staff level as well. She said in September she and Paul Male had a meeting with the applicant to express that. She said this area is undergoing redevelopment, and there are some older developments that may not have been tuned into future connections. She said any time you can identify a potential future connection is a step in a positive direction. Cliff said to provide for a connection, one building lot would be eliminated. Clark said he’s done a sketch that shows that he can still get 8 lots with the T. Phil Klein said that would minimize the lots. Clark said it would meet the zone, with a narrower right-of-way than the current Subdivision standard of 55 feet. Cliff said 40 feet would only provide for 6 inches on each side of a vehicle on the road, without room for parking. Clark proposed no parking if the road is 20 feet wide. Cliff said regardless of parking, it is tight for two cars going back and forth. Clark said they easily meet, the reason for a 9-foot car width is to be able to open the car doors. Phil said with one car parked on the street, there wouldn’t be enough room for a pumper truck to get through. Clark said there would be 13 feet, which is wide enough. A wider right-of-way was shown at sketch discussion, but is not part of this application. Clark asked if he sweeps the 90-degree angle and still keeps the 20-foot pavement width, what is the Board’s feeling. Cliff said they would need to see how it affects the lots. Clark said in January he presented those sketch plans and there was an open discussion. He said what he took away from that is that if they will ask for a reduced pavement, it is going to be 25 and 5, and he shows 24 on the plan, and that a connection was requested, which is the only thing he didn’t include. He asked if that impacts the width. Cliff said the Board can’t guess, but Public Safety and Public works won’t allow a right angle turn. He said the Board is concerned about a 20-foot wide road. Clark said providing a sweeping turn would change two lots to be narrower in the front than the back that would meet the average lot width and area as a minimum. Amy Durland said according to the January meeting minutes, what she said then is consistent with what she is saying now. She had asked for his rationale for no on-street parking, she said it may be cleaner and give more room to build, but it may not be consistent with an urban approach to the neighborhood, in addition to connectivity where possible. Amy asked Jackie if the application is ultimately modified, can the Board still initiate coordinated review. Jackie said the Board can initiate coordinated review, but it would be more beneficial to have the application forwarded to the other involved agencies to be reflective of what this Board is wishing to see; however, she doesn’t think the 90-degree angle or curve would impact the other agencies’ reviews, because that is a DOH and DEC issue. Cliff requested that the applicant provide an overview of the 6-lot subdivision. Clark said the 6- lot subdivision fronts on East Broadway, the connection would by a road from East Broadway. The lots would meet the minimum area and minimum width requirements of the UR-2 zone, with the 40-foot right-of-way. The utilities would be served from East Broadway, which will eventually be looped. Storm water would be taken care of on-site with no runoff through the 50- year and minimum runoff through the 100-year storm. Cliff verified that the water line would be a condition before signing. Clark said absolutely, it is on this application. PUBLIC HEARING: Kendra Hamburger, who lives on the corner of East Broadway and Cleveland Avenue, said she has a problem with the density because of traffic. She said East Broadway is very narrow, and the only thing that saves them in the wintertime there are no sidewalks, so the snow can be pushed back. She said if East Broadway is ever widened, it will wipe out her front yard. She said when her mother sold the land to Mr. Ethier, she was told there had to be sidewalks and the Planning Board did away with sidewalks in front of her current house because it would take away from her property. She said in her experience, when Mr. Ethier puts up houses, he wipes City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 24, 2009 - Page 9 of 14 all the trees out, and in addition to that the houses being close together is not aesthetically pleasing. She said the neighborhood is starting to change, and she would like to see the lots be a little bit bigger. She said during the appraisal of the 1-acre lot that her mother owned, the appraiser said 3 houses could realistically be on the lot. Cliff said he apparently didn’t look at the zoning code. She said cramping the houses on the lots isn’t aesthetically pleasing. Cliff explained that the zone allows for single-family homes on 6,600 square feet. Ms. Hamburger again expressed her concern about increased traffic. Tim Conners, 16 Cleveland Avenue, which runs next to the paper road, the proposed McKenzie Way. He said he has no problem with the development. He asked if he can expect an encroachment on his property line. Phil Klein and Clark Wilkinson said the sidewalk would come right to his property line. Laura Rappaport asked who would be responsible for keeping the sidewalks clear. Jackie informed Mr. Conners that according to the city code, it would be his responsibility to keep a safe passage clear in front of and on the side of his property. Mr. Conners said he has many other question that relate to Site Plan in regard to lighting, drainage, snow removal, etc. Clark said they are shown in the subdivision plans that were submitted. Jackie said those plans are available in her office Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, and she would be happy to go over them with him. Amy pointed out that all of those have not been approved and are subject to discussion. Robert Nielson, 7 Cleveland Avenue, said he is concerned about the density. He is concerned about the size of the road, safety, sidewalks. He said it is almost semi-rural coming up East Broadway, people use 3-wheelers, there are children and people walking, and with increased volume there would safety issues. He said for that many houses in that section, there should be a subdivision with sidewalks and street size similar to Taylor Street. He said a narrow street with that turn would be a real safety problem for snowplowing. Cliff said all comments are well received, and the Board will not take any action tonight, but will continue to review the application. He said the Department of Health has to sign off on lead agency status, and both projects will be before this Board many times. He said the public will not be notified again, because this a continuation, but the website will give the agenda. Steve Ethier, applicant for the front property, asked for direction from the Board mainly on the width of the pavement and the connection. Phil Klein stated that he prefers not to see a connection to the trailer park, which would increase traffic on both streets. He said if there is no connection, then the only traffic would be the residents of the street. Dan Gaba pointed out that there would be no increased traffic until something happens with the trailer park. He questioned whether it could be made one-way. Cliff said he agreed with Steve because the pavement width will dictate sidewalk width and the planting strip, as well at the straight through connection. He said he has questions about the keyhole lot access. Jackie said because the storm water management regulations from DEC continue to change, engineering is in favor of less pavement because it reduces the amount of impervious surface, which will reduce the amount of facilities needed to manage storm water. She said there is a balance between what is envisioned for an urban residential neighborhood versus the amount of impervious surface. Amy said she is all for reducing impervious surface, but she also thinks that the urban local street should be 28 feet wide, or if it is an urban street it would be substantially larger to provide for parking. She said in terms of impervious surface, if it enables additional lots, she questions how much of a net gain in terms of permeable surfaces that would produce. Jackie said this application includes sidewalks on both sides of the street, but this Board has examined the idea of sidewalks on one side of the street to reduce City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 24, 2009 - Page 10 of 14 impervious surface in the past. She said the difference is that this is an urban residential area, which generally means a grid pattern with sidewalks and streetscape enhancements that follow that. Jackie said there is an article in the Subdivision regulations that allows the Planning Board to waive the requirements of the Subdivision regulations if it meets certain criteria if it is unique in nature and if it provides enhanced safety, in addition to other criteria. Cliff suggested negotiating the pavement width to 22 feet with 4-foot wide sidewalks. Phil said there is also room to move the houses back a little bit. Clark said they were trying to make it more urban by having the houses near the street, but that could be done. Clark said that the notations that Amy read about the 28 feet, that is the actual requirement of pavement for a road in this general vicinity. The plans that he submitted show 24, because he wrote that down from January and never went back to the notes to check it, so the plans show 24 with a 4-foot planting strip and a 4-foot sidewalk to make up 40 feet. Amy said Richard Avenue is 22 feet, and when she saw it there was a car parked there, which took up about half the street. She said she is only one Board member, but she is interested in an expanded roadway. She said the Board should determine what the road should be and then determine how many lots would be allowed. She said she is not in favor of one-way streets as a way of reducing road width, and it would be confusing and imposing an unnecessary restriction. She said she thinks the road should be 28 feet wide for the kind of neighborhood that is being discussed, and she would also allow for connections wherever possible. Phil said if you put a 28-foot road and two 4-foot sidewalks there would be only 2 feet left on each side, which is not plausible. Laura Rappaport suggested widening the road past the entrance within the subdivision. Clark felt this would be more of a safety issue. Clifford Van Wagner said the issues are that the entrance off Cleveland Avenue is 40 feet, that and the two trapezoid lots are driving the bus. He said the Board needs to determine the street width, the appropriate curve, and it needs to see a resulting drawing. He said it seems like a safety hazard to expand the road once it gets into the subdivision. He said a 24-foot wide road would leave room for 4-foot sidewalks on each side, with only a 4-foot planting strip on each side, which is not great for snow removal. Laura asked if narrowing the sidewalks would meet ADA requirements. Jackie said ADA requirements are for a 4-foot wide sidewalk. Michael Perkins said he is for reducing the storm water, but you increase it by moving it to another area by putting a house. He asked the applicant to do a layout that includes a standard size road and see what would fit in there lot-wise. He said then he would be all for reducing the driveway to demonstrate that the number of lots would fit with the standard roads, yet the road width is reduced as well as reducing permeability. He said given it is outside the district, he would be for a narrower road. He said he is not always against one-way streets, but in this area it would be confusing. Cliff requested that the applicant do some different colored layovers showing an 8-house subdivision by Mr. Howard and a 6-house subdivision by Mr. Ethier, with different road widths showing the sidewalks, the curved turn, the connection, and how that impacts the lot layout. Phil stated that he thinks Mr. Howard’s lots are an appropriate size given the neighborhood, but he has a problem with what looks like smaller lot sizes on the Ethier site. He asked if the applicant has contemplated asking for a zoning change, which could enable him to build 4 duplexes, then the lots could be larger. Jackie said that would also require a Use Variance. Steve Ethier stated that he needs to get 6 lots to pay for the road going through. Clark said that Cleveland Avenue is a dead-end, so by providing that access the dead-end shortens. Steve said he had proposed a change in zone to increase the density, which met with opposition. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 24, 2009 - Page 11 of 14 Clifford Van Wagner stated that the Board would like to see the variations at least a week in advance of the next meeting. Clark asked if the Board wants to see the house locations and driveways in addition to the road. Cliff said to show the infrastructure changes without houses. Steve Ethier asked if sidewalks on each side of the road are necessary. Cliff said that is a Site Plan issue, but it will dictate the road width, so the applicant should do an overlay of that option. Jaclyn Hakes said she will meet with Clark regarding the general technical comments. Clark said he also plans on meeting with Mr. Benaquista to get his specific concerns and to present his own side as well to come to an agreement with Public Safety. The Planning Board initiated coordinated review and accepted Lead Agency status. The Board recessed from 9:25 PM to 9:40 PM.
09.052 Lands of Stephen P. Ethier, Garfield Avenue/East Broadway This is a Sketch Plan Review of a 26 to 32-lot Subdivision in a UR-2 District. Appearing before the Board was Clark Wilkinson. He said this property is to the west of the previous application. He said he is proposing aligning the streets, but they could be offset some. He said they are proposing a 40-foot right-of way that coincides with the existing Garfield right-of-way and the existing Cleveland right-of-way. He said the road coming in will loop around and come back out, and mostly the only people going in there will be the people who live there. He said this plan looks almost exactly like Northway Court to the south. He said all the land is vacant minus one existing house on East Broadway. He said the overall plan adds property to that property, so it will then front on 3 streets. He said the plan in front of the Board did not include the land to the south, which Steve Ethier has gotten under contract since that time. The minimum square footage required for a parcel in the UR-2 zone is 6,600, and these lots average 7,100 to 7,200 square feet. He said they range from 6,700 to 10,000 square feet. Amy Durland said the design emulates the Northway Court design from the 1970s, and the city wants more of a grid pattern with connections if possible. Clark said you can’t stub anywhere from this property because it is adjacent to State land, already developed land and East Broadway. The acquisition of the other land will add 6 lots to the previously drawn plans. Mike Perkins asked if there is an opportunity to connect to Reservation Road. Steve Ethier said he dedicated a 25-foot easement to the City to run a sewer line through. He said in 1888 there were all 25-foot lots with 2 dead-end streets, Garfield and Reservation. The tax maps were adjusted and now there are about 20 parcels, 25 to 200 square feet. He said Garfield is now existing as a dead-end paper street. He said to try to line up the pavement of Shaw Drive and the new road, he was going to buy Garfield and move the street further east. He said there is now only a small patch of Garfield with 2 houses, so the real estate committee indicated it will probably be sold to the neighbors because it will never be a through street. He said he has submitted two options, one with the radius and one with a square turn. He said he wants to pursue either, but there is no place to stub to. Mike Perkins said if the intent of the zoning was met, the paper road and Cleveland would have been continued, which is why he asked about Reservation Road. Clark said there is not enough width there to provide a through street. Amy Durland said it is one thing if there is a road that is one block long and has 4 or 6 houses on it and it has a 20-foot wide street, and it is another thing if there is a 30 or more lot City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 24, 2009 - Page 12 of 14 subdivision that won’t allow parking at all because the roads are narrow. She said she has a problem with that and for this substantial development a narrow road that won’t accommodate parking is the wrong concept for that area. She said there is some flexibility because it is 5 acres. She said again, the Planning Board needs to plan what it wants for the roads, then it can determine how many lots can fit on the acreage. In terms of permeability if there are additional lots because the roads are narrow enough to accommodate them, she has no reason to think that is a net gain for permeability. Steve Ethier said he would like to know how to handle the radius in the road, then he can adjust the right-of-way, depending on what the Board decides for the other project. He said it won’t be detrimental on this project to have a wider right-of-way. The Board members were polled on their opinion regarding the right angle or the radius. Amy Durland, Laura Rappaport, Dan Gaba and Cliff Van Wagner all prefer the grid pattern. Phil Klein and Mike Perkins prefer the horseshoe design. Jackie said the square pattern will be an issue with Public Safety. Mike indicated that you can’t create the grid because of pre-existing conditions. Cliff said the Board needs to hear from Public Safety before it commits. PUBLIC COMMENT: Judy Koch, 7 Cleveland Avenue, said her property will be in the middle of all the new developments. She said her neighborhood consists of 5 cottage/ranch houses and 3 larger two- story homes at the end of the road. She said she is interested in the design and how close other houses will be to her house. She said she is not against development, but East Broadway is a very small street. Amy Durland asked Steve Ethier how a wider road would affect the number of lots, since many of them are very close to the minimum requirement. Steve said a lot of them are minimum, but a lot are oversized, so he thinks it would only affect a couple of lots. He said Shaw Drive is an approved road, so not only East Broadway would take the new traffic. He said he can do an overlay showing this. Amy said the width of the street might make a difference to Public Safety. She said she doesn’t think it should be a narrow street that can’t accommodate parking. Steve said he will meet with Public Safety showing a 55-foot right-of-way with the grid. Phil Klein said Public Safety is going to want the curve because of traffic issues. Cliff suggested waiting to hear what they say. Dan said maybe having that on a wider street may not be an issue. Jackie asked what the hatched areas on either side of the existing white house represent. Clark said that is land to be dedicated to the existing house or additional right-of-way. Laura Rappaport asked what buffering is planned between the development and the State land. Steve said buffering is not needed, because it is a wooded area. Steve said the city has a 25- foot easement for the sewer line across the back yards of the development. He said not much was disturbed for the sewer line because it was bored under the ground. Laura said the Board usually requires buffering between private developments and State land. Phil said on the Wagner property a fence with a gate was installed between that and the State land. Cliff said the State land adjacent to the city right-of-way is a wooded area, so the State land is the buffer. Jackie said the buffer between the rear portion of any property in this area is the rear yard setback, which is 25 feet, unless the Board wishes to talk about something else. There are no other requirements for additional buffering to the State land. Laura asked if the State will have an opportunity for input. Jackie said as an adjacent property owner they would be noticed with regard to the Public Hearing and have the opportunity to comment. Amy said when a high density area abuts again a low density area, there should be some sort of transition. She said part of the problem here is that there are other developments that area already there that never provided such a transition. She thinks a transition is something the Board should consider. Jackie said the Board could consider, as part of the sketch discussion, providing pedestrian City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 24, 2009 - Page 13 of 14 access to the State land. Clark said they will come up with the best plan that meets the zone and the intent, with direction from the Board and the State. Steve Ethier said he will meet with Public Safety and he will return with a layout that meets what they advise. Amy stated again that Public Safety should understand that the road width is open for discussion, it could be a standard width. Phil Klein suggested that if the house at the end of East Broadway were eliminated, the whole neighborhood could have access to the State property, plus that house will have headlights shining into it. Clark said they will look into that. NEXT MEETING The next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for December 9, 2009, at 7:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Clifford Van Wagner adjourned the meeting at 10:22 PM. Respectfully submitted, Kathleen Livsey Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 24, 2009 - Page 14 of 14