Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2009 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Clifford Van Wagner, Chair; Jamin Totino, Vice-Chair; Amy Durland, Michael Perkins (arrived 7 :05 pm), 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 Clifford Van Wagner reported on one administrative action which is the Fasig Tipton at East Avenue and George Street. This is a request to reduce the amount of the building expansion. The proposed expansion requested is now a 450 square foot two story expansion along George Street. The modification to the building façade includes the following: 1) The applicant is removing the proposed windows and awnings on the second floor; 2) The existing exposed concrete columns will be replaced and/or boxed in by the same type of cedar material that exists at Fasig Tipton today. He approved this action after consulting with Planning staff, the Planning Board Attorney, and the Planning Board Vice Chair for the following reasons: 1) A Planning Board approval does not in these specific circumstances obligate the applicant to construct the full expansion. The applicant can build less than was approved. 2) The reduction in building expansion does not meet or exceed any thresholds identified in Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance requiring site plan review; 3) The modification to the building façade is not a substantial material change and in fact the proposed modification is more consistent with the existing structure design and also addresses the architectural concerns expressed during the site plan review process. 4) The proposed modification more clearly maintains the strong vertical lines of the existing structure and continues to provide a pronounced entrance on East Avenue as well as George Street. This administrative action request does not include any modification to the site design or the site materials. He said that for those four reasons and consultation with various people, that administrative action was approved. POSTPONED/CANCELLED PROJECTS 09.057 White Farms Road Bed and Breadfast, 66 White Farms Road, adjourned per applicant to January 13, 2010 09.053 McKenzie’s Way Subdivision Part 1, East Broadway, continued to January 13, 2010 This is a request by the Planning staff and himself because the applicant needs to meet with Mark Benaquista 09.054 McKenzie’s Way Subdivision Part 2, Cleveland Avenue, continued to January 13, 2010 09.052 Lands of Stephen P. Ethier, Garfield Avenue/East Broaday, adjourned to January 27, 2010 COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR Clifford Van Wagner announced that this is the last Planning Board meeting of 2009 and the next Planning Board agenda workshop iwill be held Monday January 11. 2010 and the next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for Wednesday January 13, 2010 and there is a Planning Board agenda workshop on Monday January 25 and a Planning Board meeting two dates later on January 27. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Clifford Van Wagner gave this opportunity to allow citizens to address planning issues not on tonight’s scheduled agenda. Hearing none. PLANNING BOARD STANDARD DETAILS Clifford Van Wagner said back in February of 2009 the Planning staff brought to the Planning Board’s attention a review of standard details. There are some 75 standard details that applicants need to adhere to in order to put an application together for the Planning Board. The Planning Board in February kicked it back to the staff and they are all very technical engineering types of details including road widths, road building, subgrade and infrastrucure improvements of which the Engineering and Planning staff have the final say. The Planning Board is reviewing the standard details in an effort to create a review process that is more user-friendly and efficient. The intent is to adopt a standardized set of commonly used details and post them on the website for applicants to include on their applications. An applicant can check out the standard details on the website and see how they apply to their project, check them off and hopefully make the process more efficient, less time consuming and less expensive. The Department of Public Works, Public Safety and Engineering have received and reviewed these standard details and Planning staff was kind enough to print them and give the Planning Board an opportunity to comment on them and bring their questions and concerns to Planning staff and eventually vote to adopt the standard details. Amy Durland said that since she just received the revised standard details this morning and has not had a chance to review them, she would abstain from any vote on them at this time. Clifford Van Wagner said there is no hurry, approval of the standards could be postponed until January 2010. Jaclyn Hakes said that the process began in 2005 so it has been ongoing so there is no rush. If it is determined in the future that new details need to be developed or modifications need to be made, it is an evolving process but the 75 details presented to the Board tonight are among the most commonly used and this is a starting point. Laura Rappaport said she also did not have a chance to review the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – December 9, 2009 - Page 2 of 19 standards. Clifford Van Wagner said there is no reqson to push this through, so he would like to have these on the agenda for the January 13 Planning Board meeting for review and vote; Board members should forward any questions or comments on the details to Jaclyn Hakes.. LETTER OF CREDIT 05.040.2 Joseph Street Subdivision, 16 Joseph Street This was a request for a letter of credit extension for a subdivision in an Urban Residential-2 District. Clifford Van Wagner said the subdivision was approved July 27, 2005. The existing letter of credit is in the amount of $179,200 and the last letter of credit revision was an 18-month extension on May 28, 2008. He said there is no time frame requested in the agenda notes. Appearing before the Board was Christian Yan Niekerk on behalf of the applicant Joseph Street LLC based out of Richmondville New York. He said the applicant is requesting an 18-month extension; they are not applying for any change in the amount and they are requesting an extension because they have not yet finished the project which is a subdivision for 28 houses. Clifford Van Wagner asked how many houses have been built so far and Christian replied there are 4 houses. Clifford Van Wagner said that as a point of reference he has been requested to do two administrative actions already on this subdivision of 28 houses with only four built so far. The administrative actions were based on the fact that a small portion of the houses were out of the building envelope that is approved and two out of four is not a good percentage for that, so he asked the applicant to be more attentive to details in the future so when they lay out a house they do not come back for administrative action. He said otherwise, they may be asked to come back to the full Board rather than an administrative action and discuss reducing the subdivision by one house in order to accommodate the houses in an orderly fashion. Christian Yan Niekerk said he would make sure to pass that feedback to the applicant. Jaclyn Hakes said the letter of credit expires December 31, 2009; they all expire at the end of a quarter regardless of the exact date of approval. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hearing none DECISION: Dan Gaba moved to extend the Letter of Credit for 18 months in the amount of $179,200 with no reduction. Seconded by Jamin Totino. 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 06.036 Brereton Subdivision, 14 Vermont Street City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – December 9, 2009 - Page 3 of 19 This was a letter of credit revision in an Urban Residential-3 District. Clifford Van Wagner said the applicant is Pat Brereton. He said the property is located at 14 Vermont Street and this is a two-lot subdivision approved on June 6, 2006 and a letter of credit extension was approved May 28, 2008. The letter of credit exists in the amount of $14,400 and a reduction to $0 is being requested. He explained that the issues for the Board to consider are that the as-built drawings, easements to the City and sidewalk changes are outstanding. The City Engineer is the Board’s reference on this and historically he is the person on staff that reviews these letters of credit with the understanding of what items are outstanding and attaches a dollar value to those items. In no instance does the letter of credit get reduced less than 25% of the original amount which, in this case, was $14,400. However, the City Engineer has recommended a reduction to $5,000. Appearing before the Board was Pat Brereton, applicant. Pat Brereton said they are requesting an extension of time and a reduction of the amount of the letter of credit. He has learned since submitting the application that he can request up to an 18 month extension and he would like to amend the application to reflect an 18-month extension and reduce the amount to 25% of the original amount ($3600). Clifford Van Wagner said the City Engineer recommended reducing the letter of credit to $5,000. He asked Mr. Brereton what the status is of the three outstanding items. Pat Brereton said they have not proceeded with the as-built drawings because there are some outstanding issues relative to the easements and he is proceeding on them and although six months ago he thought there would be enough time but he was wrong and needs more time to complete the items. Phil Klein asked why the applicant would want the letter of credit lower than the amount recommended by the City Engineer. Pat Brereton said no, the $5,000 is acceptable. Phil Klein asked what the changes are to the sidewalk as mentioned in the agenda notes. Pat Brereton said the sidewalk was shown on the original plan as concrete but it was built with pavers where the driveway is so the bad sidewalk was replaced as required but it is his understanding that he must submit for an administrative action to change the concrete sidewalk where the driveway is to pavers. Clifford Van Wagner stated for clarification that the sidewalk was not built to City standards. Pat Brereton said he is planning to request administrative action to allow the drive way portion of the sidewalk to be pavers. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hearing none. DECISION: Philip Klein moved to extend the Letter of Credit 18 months and reduce the letter of credit from $14,400 to $5,000. Seconded by Jamin Totino 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 APPLICATIONS  09.007 Siro’s Zoning Amendment, 168 Lincoln Avenue City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – December 9, 2009 - Page 4 of 19 This is an advisory opinion to the City Council on a zoning text amendment in the Institutional Horse Track Related District. Clifford Van Wagner explained that the City Council has asked the Planning Board to issue an advisory opinion on a zoning text amendment in the Institutional Horse-track Related District (INST-HTR District) He asked Planning staff Jaclyn Hakes to review the pertinent background items. Jaclyn Hakes said the City Council has asked the Board for an advisory opinion pursuant to the City’s zoning ordinance and part of that tasks the Planning Board to examine two items: 1) Whether or not the proposed zoning amendment is contrary to the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance and 2) Whether or not the proposed amendment is in accordance to the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan. These are the two main items that the Planning Board must consider to render an advisory opinion of this sort. She said that additionally, the City Council identified other items they wished the Planning Board to consider as part of their deliberations for the advisory opinion including noise, traffic, and parking issues which are more site specific issues with the Siro’s parcel. She said part of what the Board will be looking at in a broader scope in terms of the Institutional Horse Track Related District and the impact of the proposed amendment on the District, the impact City-wide and the impact with regard to the neighborhood. She said part of the Board’s considerations tonight should focus on the questions in regard to the actual proposed amendment itself in terms of clarification of some of the language that the applicant is proposing and whether or not this is related to the general public welfare issue or is it site specific. She said that any time the Planning Board is looking at zoning it needs to be in the perspective of the long term impact over the entire district and the impact on the City and whether the amendment is the right direction for the City. She said regarding some of the history, this Board is very familiar with Siro’s. On March 11, 2009 this Board issued a renewable special use permit with conditions for outdoor entertainment. There is an existent permanent special use permit for an indoor eating and drinking establishment, and there are several conditions attached to the special use permit which are outlined in the Board’s background notes. Regarding procedure, Jaclyn Hakes pointed out that if for example this application moves out of the Planning Board regardless of the outcome of the advisory opinion, and if the City Council decides to approve the application for a zoning amendment, the special use permit for an indoor eating and drinking establishment has a very specific condition within it that identifies a limited time within which the indoor eating and drinking establishment can operate so even if there is an amendment to the zoning text as proposed, opening up the eating and drinking establishment in the INST-HTR District to operate year-round, the permanent special use permit existing on this parcel limits operation to 90 days so the applicant would then have to go before the Planning Board to acquire an amendment to the existing permanent special use permit. Appearing before the Board was John Carusone, agent for the applicant. John Carusone apologized for the mix-up. The City Council voted on Tuesday and he left for Europe on Wednesday and if the Planning Board feels that it needs more time, the applicant is willing to waive the 30-day requirement because there are a lot of complexities regarding this issue and it is a very unique situation and there are some policy issues that the Board must consider. He said the general history of this parcel goes back a long way. Siro’s has been operating as a restaurant for at least 75 years and although its history has been closely associated with the race track, it is not a race track parcel as such and has over the years occasionally operated year-round. He said that former owner Harry Kirker operated the establishment as a -year-round restaurant and the current owner, Tom Dillon operated year-round in 1989, 1990 and 1991, but they have always opened during the year for special events such as weddings. John Carusone said that as the track expanded exponentially over the years so did Siro’s business and the need for more activities, especially outdoors, grew until finally they had to City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – December 9, 2009 - Page 5 of 19 receive proper permitting. They were about to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and decided they needed to bring everything into conformity so the process began in 2001 and they have been to numerous meetings, both formal and informal and initially former City Planner Geoff Borneman proposed that they consider a neighborhood zone that would encompass the entire square block but for various reasons that did not work out. He said the suggestion to put the parcel in the zone it is now came from then Planning Board Chairman Lew Benton and whether that was a good idea or not is debatable. He said they took the Siro’s parcel and four other New York Racing Association (NYRA) parcels and included them in the INST-HTR zone. He mentioned that the existing snack bar in this area is not included in this zone but remains in the UR-2 zone. John Carusone said that the grandfathering concept could be considered contentious. The process of the zoning change took almost one full year and at the time Siro’s owners had stated on a number of occasions that they had no intention to operate beyond the racing season which was true then but they also did not intend to give up what they already had which was the grandfathered right to operate as an indoor restaurant. Everything that would happen outdoors was not grandfathered; all that occurred after the passage of the zoning ordinance and without the benefit of any permitting but ultimately was brought into conformance. It was clearly the case that the big issue was the outdoor use; no one seemed to have any problem with the running of a restaurant indoors. The noise and traffic of the outdoor use generated the complaints. He said the neighbors, applicant and various City officials worked together to try to find a way to fix the situation and out of those efforts came some carefully worded rules and regulations that were run initially in the legislation and then in the Planning Board Special Use permit. The intent was not to limit the indoor use which was intended to be grandfathered. He said this creates a dichotomy between the special use permit, and the overall use and whether it automatically relinquishes the grandfathered use and in his opinion to do so would be a taking, because if a parcel is owned and has a certain value and it is used year- round then the legislature says it can only be used three months, that would constitute a devaluation. He said that when the applicant decided to operate the indoor restaurant beyond the ninety days, they deliberated on a few ideas and initially requested from the Zoning Board of Appeals an interpretation that would allow the year-round restaurant under the grandfathering concept and for a special use permit on the basis of a hardship. The ZBA decided that the issue would be better handled by the City Council because it appears to be a legislative issue. He said they are here today to ask the Planning Board to render to the City Council a favorable advisory opinion on what is now pending. He said they are open to any recommended changes in language. He said that although the Board has no jurisdiction over the concept of hardship, he wants them to understand the reason for this request. The climate today is completely different than it was two or three years ago; Siro’s has lost money for the past two years. Years ago it did well, but now there are six owners who are only here during the summer months and if Siro’s is going to survive as the institution it has been there needs to be an additional source of revenue and the owners think this is the way they must proceed. He said that the restaurant is for sale but there is a strong likelihood that the buyer is among the six that own it now. One of the concerns is the ripple effect and in examining the rest of this zone it is hard to conceive right now what direct ripple effects there would be because there is nothing similar or in the same situation in this zone as Siro’s. There are restaurants but they are on the race track and only operate when the track is operating and the restaurant at Fasig Tipton only operates when Fasig Tipton is operating. This is a unique situation and it really is concentrated on one parcel and any ripple effect would be incidental. He said the location itself is unique because off- season the neighborhood is quite sparsely populated and there are no residents across the street or on Frank Sullivan Place and the only neighbors are those on Nelson Avenue that back up to the parcel. If things cannot be changed, it will be the only restaurant in town that can only operate three months per year yet their expenses continue twelve months per year such as City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – December 9, 2009 - Page 6 of 19 taxes and insurance. He said that the expenses have risen drastically; they are paying $55,000 for parking and other expenses such as insurance have gone up a lot and although it is not the purview of the Planning Board to relieve that, the applicant is attempting to mitigate the financial hardship by operating year-round. They had a meeting with the neighbors at the restaurant last Thursday and some of the neighbors expressed concerns about precedents that might be set and the ripple effect but the concept that it would be just an indoor neighborhood restaurant did not seem to offend anyone. He said they are not asking for specific limitations, management has indicated that they would most likely operate three or four nights tops and not twelve months a year because given the location there is no foot traffic, the likelihood is that even if this application is looked upon favorably by the Planning Board and ultimately by the City Council the fact of the matter is that it would not be used as intensely as the restaurants downtown. He said that if there are any questions, Tom Dillon is here and they would be happy to answer questions and speak with neighbors as well. Jaclyn Hakes said it might be helpful for the Board to get a clarification on the actual language being proposed and for the benefit of the audience: “Notwithstanding the above, any Eating and Drinking Establishment which was in existence prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance shall be permitted to operate throughout the year provided that such operation, except as permitted within the ninety (90) day period as set forth above shall occur entirely and exclusively indoors.” Jaclyn Hakes said this is assuming that within the use table of the zoning ordinance which is where the text to be changed exists, still falls under the category of a special use permit and site plan review but what is important is what language is being referenced by the phrase ”notwithstanding the above” and also what is meant by the language “prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance” - does it mean the adoption of the original zoning ordinance in 1961, the 1970 or the 1990 ordinance which is the current one. She said clarification is needed there as well as the phrase “within the ninety day period as set forth above” because it is not clear whether that is referencing the existing language in that portion of the use table. John Carusone said the zoning ordinance referred to is the 1961 ordinance because that is when the modern ordinance was developed and accepted. He said as far as the language he used regarding the ninety day period, that is in the schedule and goes on to specify the limitations, the seating and the indoor and outdoor use and what they are requesting is something outside of that language of the ninety days but he wanted to ensure the activities would occur entirely and exclusively indoors which is what they mean by the term “grandfathering” which is what Siro’s was years ago- an indoor restaurant, with no activities outdoors whatsoever. Laura Rappaport stated for clarification that outside of those ninety days, it would be only an indoor operation and John Carusone confirmed that to be correct. Clifford Van Wagner said that the Board should refer to page 5 of the agenda notes and look at the verbiage of the special use permit that was granted initially in March of 2003 and item number two which is in bold type states “the eating and drinking establishment shall be limited to 90 calendar days of operation per year including the days of the thoroughbred racing meet”. It appears that the applicant is asking the Board to keep this verbiage of the permanent special use permit in place and therefore allow Siro’s to do what it has done over the years which is the indoor and outdoor activities and the text change is asking the Planning Board to allow the activities referred to in the special use permit to continue to happen only within that 90-day window of time and allow by the use of the “grandfather” term the indoor restaurant use that occurred even prior to the 1961 zoning ordinance year-round. Jaclyn Hakes pointed out to the Board that the “grandfathering” clause is not something currently before the board to weigh in on and is not part of the request by the City Council as part of the zoning text. It is a separate issue and was brought up by Mr. Carusone as part of identifying why the applicant is where they are today. Clifford Van Wagner said that the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – December 9, 2009 - Page 7 of 19 Planning Board must focus in on a zoning text change request that the applicant asked the City Council to weigh in on and the Council kicked it over to the Planning Board for their input in the form of an advisory opinion. Jamin Totino asked what the indoor seating capacity is for the restaurant. Tom Dillon said the restaurant seats 140. Laura Rappaport asked to what the phrase “notwithstanding the above” refers. John Carusone said “…the above” refers to all that “ninety- day” language in the schedule. PUBLIC HEARING: Clifford Van Wagner opened the public hearing and asked that when addressing the Board, the speaker must give their name and address. He said there are a number of folks that submitted written comments which are also part of the record. Larry King, 126 Nelson Avenue said he sent a letter and he did not have the exact language that is currently before the Board but the more he looks at this, it seems to be relatively vague and it is not clear what the intent really is because of the vagueness of the language. He is not comfortable with bringing back a grandfathered use because in zoning the idea is to be uniform across the zone and here they would be creating the opportunity for only a specific parcel to use this particular use and it is very conflicting to the goal of comprehensive planning which is that when a district is re-zoned, every parcel should be uniform and this creates the opportunity to not conform to the zoning requirements of that district and it brings back things that we have tried to extinguish. He said he participated in 2002 and what has caught his attention and that of other neighbors here is the discussion of the intent. It was a long process in 2002 and there was a point when Mr. Carusone said to the whole neighborhood that their intent was to only be seasonal and that was the breakthrough in the move to the Institutional horse track related zoning because they captured that intent and in so doing extinguished the “grandfathered” use and he does not know how a year-round restaurant would fit into that intent. The neighbors hired an attorney, Russell Tharp who reviewed it and confirmed that; when the neighborhood group heard there was this previously undisclosed intent they asked Russell Tharp for his opinion and he responded that the legislation was very clear and did capture the intent. Larry King wanted to make it clear as a participant in that process that without question collectively the intent by the City, the neighbors and the applicant who wrote and proposed the language, that they wanted to extinguish the grandfather use and have a limited seasonal venue so no harm was done because that is what everyone intended at the time. To change now would be a violation and contradiction of what is in the code in section 240-9. Drew Farrell, 138 Nelson Avenue and he was also part of the process in 2002 and it was his understanding that the use that Siro’s was going to have for that restaurant limited to 90-days in the horse track related zone was for the outdoor use only and any use that was granted prior regarding indoor activity that did not impact the neighborhood with noise like outdoor bands was not going to be part of it; if they wanted to have just indoor use they could and as far as what they are requesting now, he lives very close to Siro’s and he can’t imagine that an indoor restaurant would create too much noise or create problems. Bently Boivin, 129 Nelson Avenue said he has concerns about re-instituting a grandfather clause even though the Board is not focusing on that because he has concerns about the ripple effect with the other lots in the neighborhood. If something did move forward and the neighbors are part of the discussion, he asked the Board to put together language that is pretty much air- tight that sticks beyond outdoor entertainment within a 90-day frame, he would consider supporting Siro’s for the neighborhood option outside of the 90-days when there is not outdoor entertainment because he sees the value of a restaurant in that neighborhood but the language City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – December 9, 2009 - Page 8 of 19 must be written in conjunction with input from the neighbors and stated specifically that there is absolutely no outdoor entertainment including weddings, catering events, etc. beyond the 90 days. He would support that language but parking issues must be included and dealt with because he is highly concerned with parking in the neighborhood when that restaurant is operating outside of the 90-days. Clifford Van Wagner stated for clarification that Mr. Bovin is concerned about the grandfathering verbiage however if there is a way for the City Council to work around that, he is ok with a year-round restaurant as long as other than during the 90-day period all activity stays inside. Mr. Boivin confirmed that to be his opinion. John McMahon, attorney, said he represents Mrs. Rose Tait who is a direct neighbor of Siro’s. He recommends that no change be made in the text. He was part of the process in 2002 by which the text was formulated and the text was not casual, it was deliberate and Mr. Carusone and Chairman Benton were both part of the process in drafting the language and the selling point to the neighbors who were uncertain as to weather to approve a plan by which a residential area was made into an institutional horse track related zone was a conscious giving by Siro’s to provide a talking point to persuade people they would only operate 90-days in order to reduce the animosity of the proposal. He said that Mrs. Tait believes that Siro’s made their own bed with the 90-day pledge and if they have to sleep in that bed, so be it. He said that the premises has been advertised for sale and normally when someone is going to sell a piece of property they do not go to a zoning board or other board to try to get things changed because they are not the people that are going to be there. He said that if Siro’s intends to sell the property, why not wait until the property is sold and then take the application up from the person that buys the property. This might lower the expected sale price which would be another hardship that was not visited upon them. No one knows what is going to happen to the property when it is sold and if it is to be sold to one of the current owners, let’s identify who it is and figure out who will be operating the restaurant and whether they be granted a bigger gift than the City Council already granted to them in 2002. When the language was presented to the City Council in 2002, Siro’s did not object to the language or when it was drafted by the Planning Board and he is confident that Lew Benton had the full authority of Siro’s as to every piece of that language so nothing was taken from Siro’s and anything they perceive as being “grandfathered” has not been used for years. He questioned whether a grandfather clause had a limitation on it regarding abandonment for more than a certain number of years; but he understands that “grandfathering” cannot be the focus of the Board. The application should be rejected. Tom Montelone, 140 Nelson Avenue and he has been a full-time resident of the neighborhood since 1978 and when he moved there, Siro’s was there and he recalled seeing the restaurant when he viewed the house and although he had some misgivings, he purchased the house and went on with his life. Siro’s operated full time, year round for about ten years while he lived there and he was never aware of any problems, any excessive traffic or difficulties and he trusts that if the language in the zoning makes specific their hours of operation there is not going to be a problem in the future. He trusts that the current owners will do the right thing and he does not anticipate any problems. He asked the Board to support the application. Clem Marino, 35 Jackson Street Saratoga Springs said that living in that neighborhood, they accept what they deal with during the track season, but any changes that come before boards in terms of changes in permits whether locally or broadly concerns him and should be very carefully considered regardless of how small it seems not only from the standpoint of the actual change but the precedent being set for future applicants. He said he was involved in the 2002- 2003 change and his recollection is that the neighbors were concerned when the changes were made and it was made clear, promised and stated that it would only be related to the operation of the track and that is what sold him to concede regarding the impact on the neighborhood - it City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – December 9, 2009 - Page 9 of 19 was limited to the 90-day operation. He asked the Board to be very careful with the changes when they consider their recommendations. During the whole process there was a point where Siro’s was just looking for local changes and they did not anticipate this but at some point in the process it changed to the whole area being re-zoned. He said from that aspect he would recommend that the Board not support this because of the possibility that the whole area could be re-zoned again which would cause uncertainty as to what could be allowed in the future. Camille Hord, 45 Monroe Street Saratoga Springs said her residence is a few blocks from Siro’s and she does not pretend to understand everything about changes in text and whatever but if fairness is an issue, there are three neighborhood restaurants, one on the corner of Nelson and Union, another on the corner of Nelson and Gridley and she is not aware of any big problems there as far as parking or anything and it would be great to have another venue in the neighborhood and he is just talking about having an indoor restaurant a few more months out of the year with nothing outside and no excessive noise, and, regardless of the zoning district, if other restaurants can operate in that neighborhood, why not Siro’s. Clifford Van Wagner said there would be more opportunity for public input when this is brought back to the board since Mr. Carusone has provided the Board with an additional time frame in which to deal with this issue. He explained that by code when the City Council asks the Planning Board for an advisory opinion they have 30 days to make such a decision unless the applicant is willing to extend that timeframe. Based upon the fact that this meeting was postponed from two weeks ago, and this is the first hearing it is possible there will be no recommendation at tonight’s meeting if the Board feels they need to get some more information. Jaclyn Hakes said she received one email earlier today and another around 6 pm tonight. She said an email was received from Sara Goodwin of 119 Nelson Avenue and an email from Patty Hasbrouck. Both would be forwarded to the Planning Board members. Clifford Van Wagner asked for input from the Planning Board as to whether they need more information. He asked if the exact verbiage is available regarding the reference to the verbiage in 2002 when the Planning Board issued a temporary special use permit and then in 2003 when the permanent special use permit was done. Jaclyn Hakes said that the minutes from 2003 are available. Clifford Van Wagner asked if there is anything that clearly articulates the extinguishing of what was there before. Mike Perkins asked if the Board should be considering that or should the Board be examining the current language of the zone, what is proposed and whether it is appropriate or not because a lot of the points made are pertaining to whether it should be grandfathered or not and he does not believe that the Board can decide that. Jaclyn Hakes said that is absolutely correct and there are a few issues before the Board and it is not an easy process before the board right now because of the history of this specific parcel. She urged the Board to remember that their task is to consider, within the proposed zoning text amendment to the Institutional horse-track related district regardless of parcel and which eating and drinking establishment it may apply to, whether the language is contrary to the intent of the zoning language and if it is in accordance with the current comprehensive plan. She said to answer Cliff’s question, there was a discussion at the Planning Board level when they reviewed that special use permit about the grandfathering clause and there has been several conversations between the City Attorney and the applicant’s attorney,. So it is an unresolved issue but it does not affect the zoning that is in place and it does not affect what is being requested before the Board at this time. She said the first part of the Board’s consideration is whether the text change conforms to the intent of the INST-HTR District as described in the City’s zoning ordinance as follows: “The intent of the district is to accommodate uses associated with the City’s rich history of competitive horse racing. This district is intended to provide uses City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – December 9, 2009 - Page 10 of 19 that supplement and compliment the horse track operations.” She said that one part of what the Board’s evaluation will be is whether the proposed zoning text amendment presented to the Board is contrary to or consistent with that intent of the zoning ordinance for this particular district. She said secondly, the Comprehensive Plan is the broader vision of the City and the board must determine if the text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as to the affect it has on one specific parcel within a larger district. She said these are not easy questions to answer but that is the heart of the matter before the Board right now. Amy Durland asked what district the other neighborhood restaurants are in. Jaclyn Hakes said there is the Horseshoe, Pennell’s and the Springwater Inn. The Horseshoe is in a tourist related business district, Pennell’s is in a residential district and Springwater Bistro is also in a residential district so there are different districts that have different requirements and they are operating under different circumstances. She said to that point, the Council has asked the Planning Board to weigh in on some level the impact on the neighborhood regarding parking and noise. In the permanent special use permit, for the indoor portion, 255 parking spaces were waived as part of this application and as part of that, the current operators are required to identify parking spaces every year which they do and submit that to the City so in terms of the site specific aspects the issue that would need to be addressed, if in fact a change in zoning occurred, is what would happen to the parking beyond the 90 days and where would that occur. Phil Klein asked if these questions could be considered prior to the special use permit application. Jaclyn Hakes said that generally the Board could ask those questions as long as they do not get too bogged down in the specifics of an individual parcel; it is the long-term impacts that are crucial. Amy Durland said the Board’s charge is to determine whether or not the revision is contrary to the purpose of the chapter of the zoning ordinance and in accordance with the comprehensive plan and what the intention of the district which is very clearly to accommodate uses related to the competitive horseracing in that zone. She said in that respect it is fairly simple and Mr. Carusone’s comments about changes in the economic climate which suggest financial hardship and whether or not it was self-created because of the unanticipated economic climate, and the uniqueness of the location all seem to point to use variance issues rather than what the Planning Board is considering so if the applicant’s choice is to go to the City Council for a text amendment for which the applicant needs an advisory opinion from the Planning Board, she does not question the relevance of these points to the applicant but she questions the relevance of these points to the Planning Board because the Board’s charge is broader in that they are supposed to look very explicitly at this is to ensure that any proposed change within the text amendment is not contrary to purposes of the chapter which is to support the racing industry. That being said, the Board is charged to address parking, traffic and noise so in that regard she asked if it is possible to examine the terms of the special use permit in order to understand the context of what has actually occurred. She asked if the applicant obtained lease arrangements for a total of 161 off-street parking spaces for the duration of the special use permit as a required condition in exchange for the granted waiver of 265 required on site parking spaces. Jaclyn Hakes said that there is a lease arrangement and the 161 leases are submitted to the Zoning Enforcement Officer by July 1 of each year so it is an annually renewable lease the applicant currently has with NYRA for various locations; the locations of the parking spaces were identified in a sketch in the special use permit so they are clearly articulated and identified lots within which those leases must be obtained totaling 161 and in the two years that she has been here, the leases come to her and she documents them and provides them to the zoning enforcement officer. Amy Durland asked if those spaces are available only during the racing City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – December 9, 2009 - Page 11 of 19 season. Jaclyn Hakes responded that she would have to read the language. Tom Dillon said the leases are set up for the racing season and are specific but not necessarily exclusive to that and he has had that discussion with NYRA related to the premise being discussed here. Amy Durland said there is a term in the special use permit that the applicant would contribute up to $5,000 for the installation of appropriate drainage improvements on Lincoln Avenue and she was wondering about the status of that term. Tom Dillon said the $5,000 was in escrow with the City for three years and since no work was done in that timeframe, the City returned the $5,000. He does not know whether there was a limitation on the terms of the escrow or not, but it was returned after three years because no work was done. Jamin Totino asked if this were to pass and the applicant were to come back for an amendment to the special use permit, would that trigger any site plan review? Jaclyn Hakes said it would depend on what is happening, if what is proposed would modify anything to do with the site plan. Jamin Totino is not clear as to why the City Council would ask the Board to consider parking and noise when those are site plan issues - perhaps it is because the Council is not familiar with the purview of the Planning Board. Jaclyn Hakes said that parking and noise are obvious impacts of extending an existing limited time eating and drinking establishment operation to a year-round eating and drinking establishment. Phil Klein said that whether the leases can be extended is central to what the City Council has asked the Board to review. John Carusone said he spoke with the Assistant Counsel to NYRA two days ago and it is ongoing and the lease they have now expires and is renewed annually but this is a different scope so if it were to pass, a different kind of lease would be required. Phil Klein said that since the applicant has granted the Board the benefit of more time to review this and get more questions answered, the Board should continue to collect more information to make an informed decision in January. Clifford Van Wagner thanked the audience for being very articulate. He said the Planning Board and staff needs to look into the background and examine not only the amendment to the current text, but there also needs to be more research done on the history. The public hearing will remain open to the January 13 Planning Board meeting. He asked if the staff wants the applicant to return to the board with anything specific. Jamin Totino said there is two additions to the agenda notes that are important in addition to what has already been mentioned about whether the text amendment is contrary to the zoning ordinance and inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and he has heard some allusions to this which is how does this amendment serve the general welfare of the community and has sufficient forethought been given to the amendment as part of a well-considered comprehensive plan. He has heard some of that but it has not been expressly stated by the applicant. Some neighbors have expressed a desire to have an additional venue in the neighborhood and there would be a corresponding economic value to the community, but the two items should be addressed directly. Jaclyn Hakes said that agenda notes are no longer provided to the applicants or the public but she will share the information with the applicant. John Carusone asked if he needs to submit a letter regarding consenting to the extension. Jaclyn Hakes responded that the email he sent to her is sufficient; it referenced the need for a second meeting. Amy Durland said that whether or not the amendment is in accordance with the comprehensive plan is a good point. She noted that the standard of the Planning Board’s review has to be that the proposed change being recommended by the applicant has to meet both the general purposes and intent of the chapter and of the comprehensive plan. If the intent of the chapter is not met but the comp plan is, the proposed change would not meet the test. She said the intent City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – December 9, 2009 - Page 12 of 19 of the INST-HTR district is to accommodate uses associated with competitive horse racing; this is the remedy that the applicants have chosen. In theory there are other options for the applicant including a use variance, which is what she believes the applicant was referring in the standards he articulated at the beginning of the meeting as well as other actions relating to the map amendment. She is willing to go along with the Board in regards to extending the time past the 30 days but she does not feel there is anything complicated about this and she is prepared to vote tonight. Laura Rappaport said that when the Planning Board issued their last advisory opinion regarding Darley Stud and the horse training facility, they suggested that instead of piece-meal changing of requirements within this zone that the Board conduct a more comprehensive review of the whole zone and the regulations there and make any changes necessary. She said that a use variance might be a more valid remedy. John Carusone said they applied for a use variance and the ZBA said they did not think it was the way to go. Amy Durland said she is not suggesting whether the use variance should be granted; she is saying that the items identified related to economic hardship and the change in circumstances suggest that it might not be a self-created hardship, or the uniqueness of the property are standards that apply more to the Zoning Board than the Planning Board. John Carusone was trying to give it context; the board has the right to know the context, why did they say one thing in 2002 and something different now. Clifford Van Wagner said that if the ZBA did not listen to the argument for a use variance, he can see why the applicant would bring this to the City Council. John Carusone said it did not go to a vote with the ZBA, there were two applications that night that had the question as to whether it could be decided by the Zoning Board or if it were more of a legislative issue and the ZBA fundamentally determined that this application is legislative and does not belong with the ZBA. Amy Durland said that typically it is the zoning enforcement officer that determines whether an application should be before the Zoning Board and it is odd to have the ZBA itself determine at a meeting that it is inappropriate for a particular application to be before that board. Larry King suggested that the applicant consider withdrawing the application. Clifford Van Wagner said that the bottom line is that the ZBA opted not to hear the application so it went to the City Council and now it is in front of the Planning Board so it does not matter how it got here. He said the public hearing would remain open and the next meeting is scheduled January 13, 2010. He asked John Carusone to stay in touch with Jaclyn Hakes and to draft some verbiage to answer the two questions that Jamin had. He notified the audience that they would not receive another notice on this in the paper; the public hearing stays open and there will not be anything else in the paper but this will be back on the agenda on January 13. Jaclyn Hakes said that if any member of the audience wishes to be on an email distribution list regarding this project, please send an email to her and they will receive a draft agenda and be placed on the distribution list. The public hearing was left open. SEQR: It was noted that there is no SEQR required for advisory opinion.  04.054 1 Westview Apartments, 125 West Avenue City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – December 9, 2009 - Page 13 of 19 This is a request to modify a special use permit in the Transect 4 and Transect 5 zoning districts. Clifford Van Wagner said that the special use permit was modified with conditions on September 23, 2009 by a 4-2 vote. The applicant wished to remove two retail spaces from Westview Apartments, however during the course of those negotiations and comments, a neighbor to the west had some significant comments that compelled the Board to ask the applicant to come back and address those comments in an appropriate manner. Appearing before the Board were Matthew Jones, Attorney for the applicant and Tom Frost, Architect. Tom Frost said that Bob Schneider is the owner of Westview Apartments and he is unable to be here tonight. He said they received Planning Board approval to change the three commercial units over to residential units, and it was understood that they could obtain a site plan change administratively, but because they are back before the Board, they did a site plan to encompass that change. Part of what is on the site plan is the change of the three units from commercial to residential - a total of 1600 square feet. He said that Mrs. McGraw lives on the corner property to the west of the Westview Apartments and she brought up issues of the site lighting, the glare from the site lighting, and the fact that she was under the impression she was promised some screen plantings between her property and the Westview property; those two items were the major concerns she had. He said there are other concerns about the timing of garbage pickup in the morning, and the route that buses take through the property. He said that the site plan submitted tonight includes the change from commercial to residential units, and addresses the placement of two trees, which are very specifically detailed. These trees are 16- feet high autumn blaze maple and Bob’s trees can and will accommodate this request. Tom Frost said he is unsure of the caliper of the trees. At this time there is nothing in writing between Westview and the neighbor, Mrs. McGraw, but it is his understanding that the applicant has agreed to put these trees on her property, but there is no guarantee that they will be replaced if one of the trees dies. The trees will be on the outside of the fence; her fence is close to her building but it is not on her property line; the property line is much closer to the driveway than the fence. The trees will be on her property in between the fence and her property line. Tom Frost said the other part of the situation is the site lighting and he submitted a photograph of what the pole lights look like. He said what they are doing to six of the light fixtures is maintaining the same pole and maintaining the same globe but removing the fixture that is inside the globe and replacing it with a different fixture which includes with it a screen/light baffle. If you were to look down on the light fixture there is a 120° arc that will be blacked out. He has shown on the drawing where those arcs occur and it can be clearly seen that all the light fixtures along the road, which are the ones causing the problem will be blacked out for the neighbors adjacent to the property on the west side. He said these are down lights and the other 240° of the light will be as bright as it always was but shining towards the apartments instead and there has never been a complaint from the people in the apartments about that. Phil Klein asked if the shield was on the inside of the globe and Tom Frost said that it was. He said they could not be adapted to the existing fixtures on the inside so they changed them out in order to have the baffles installed. Amy Durland asked if this is an effective way to address lighting concerns. Tom Frost said this is the most effective way to address lighting concerns because it should completely black out those light fixtures for those properties. Phil Klein asked if 120° was sufficient and Tom Frost said that it is sufficient. He said that 120° allows the light to fall along the edge of the driveway. He picked these light baffles because that is the specifications they have for these fixtures. Amy Durland said there are most likely a number of alternatives if we wanted to go away from those fixtures. Clifford Van Wagner said the Board’s concerns were lighting, landscaping and buffering, and he asked whether two trees is the sum total of the buffering that satisfies Mrs. McGraw. Tom Frost City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – December 9, 2009 - Page 14 of 19 said it is. Laura Rappaport commented that the trees are not even evergreen so what happens in the autumn. Tom Frost said that she requested those trees and this is what she wanted and to her specifications. Jamin Totino asked if all of the trees on the site plan currently exist. Tom Frost said he did not do an inventory of the trees to really see. There are trees along there and he does not know if the plan is actually accurate. Amy Durland said it was commented on during the caravan that trees were sparse on Grand and West Avenue although the amount gets denser with trees as it goes in. Clifford Van Wagner said that the applicant has indicated that the garbage company has not been cooperative or helpful regarding the impact of garbage pick-up. Phil Klein suggested that the applicant get a new garbage service if the current company does not cooperate. He asked about the City ordinance in reference to garbage pick-up. Tom Frost said that the trash hauler agreed not to pick anything up prior to 7 am in the mornings. Mike Perkins asked if there is anything in writing and Tom Frost said it is on the plan. Clifford Van Wagner said that if it is in the plan and not being done, then it is a violation of the site plan which makes it enforceable but someone has to complain. Tom Frost said that Mrs. McGraw picked out requested the particular trees and they have complied with her wishes. Phil Klein explained that Mrs. McGraw’s son is on tree detail for the City so he knows trees. Amy Durland said that the Board can decide in terms of buffering if their recommendations were to exceed beyond what Mrs. McGraw requested. She noted that on the caravan, everyone on the Board observed that the buffering was rather sparse at that entrance. She said in terms of the lighting she has some concerns and wondered if there was any recourse if that 120° shield was not adequate and if it is not, whether the board could figure out a way to come back to this issue another time. Tom Frost said that the shield is the only choice available by the manufacturer of the light fixtures. Phil Klein asked if Mrs. McGraw thinks the 120° is sufficient. Tom Frost said he believes that she has bought into that. When the fixtures are changed out, it might make sense to leave the globe off one night and adjust them individually to the apartments or residences they might affect. They could test them out at night and make adjustments accordingly. He said the shield is directly in front of the light fixture or bulb. He said there would be some vertical light. Phil Klein said the light needs to shine on the road. He asked if it would be an issue for someone on the second floor of the McGraw house, and Tom Frost said he did not think it would. Laura Rappaport asked if there has been any feedback from other neighbors and Tom Frost and the other Board members agreed that there had not been any other feedback from neighbors. Jaclyn Hakes said the only comment received from anyone in regards to this project is the letter received from Mrs. McGraw today. It was not required to notify the neighbors about tonight’s meeting. Mrs. McGraw did come in and look at the site plan. Clifford Van Wagner said the Board could vote tonight or leave this open based on what the they have heard tonight and revisit the site one more time. He does not see an urgency to vote on this tonight. It was very evident at the last site visit that the property buffering was very sparse as you turn into the site and he is not sure if what is presented on the site plan is what is actually on the site but if the rest of the Board is comfortable we can vote tonight. Amy Durland asked whether Mr. Schneider or anyone reached out to the neighbors about tonight’s meeting in terms of the site plan or in particular, the lighting although notification is not required in this instance. Tom Frost said no, nothing was sent out other than the notice that went out for the special use modification and they have not heard from any of the other neighbors either. Laura Rappaport asked if the neighbors came to the meetings when the building was built. Jaclyn Hakes said that she was not in office at that time but she was a resident of the City and because City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – December 9, 2009 - Page 15 of 19 this was one of the first transect district projects in the City, there was a lot of discussion and feedback on this project at the time. Amy Durland said the Board needs to address concerns that might exist and although Mrs. McGraw may be satisfied with some of the terms at this point, it might not be the end of the story. She is concerned as to whether the proposed light solution is adequate; the trend now is to have down-facing lighting and to try to keep the glare facing down and to a minimum not just for the neighbors’ sake but for the City’s sake. She is not completely convinced that the proposed shield is the best solution and she is not convinced that the Board shouldn’t be requesting more of a buffer at the entrance. Jamin Totino agrees with Cliff and he is not convinced that the trees on the map exist on the site. Mike Perkins said regardless of whether the trees are actually there or not if the Board is approving the site plan, if the trees are not there, they must be planted if that is the signed and approved site plan. He said from his perspective as he sees it on the site plan, there are enough trees, but if the trees are not there, they should be. Clifford Van Wagner said that the Board should be proactive by visiting the site to verify the numbers and calipers and heights of the trees. Phil Kline said that the Board would like an inventory of the exact buffer as to what is there or not there. He asked if it were possible to get a larger shield, eliminate the vertical light and block the light from the people on the west, and concentrate on the down lighting if it can be done without buying new fixtures. Tom Frost said that the people that make these lights are the same people that make them for the City and there are different globes that would fit on that pole but the cost varies. Dan Gaba said that depending on the height and density of the trees, they could block the light. Jaclyn Hakes said there is a request on the table by the applicant to waive the application fee. Tom Frost said the thinking from Bob Schneider was that the special use permit modification cost $1,000 and to come back with a site plan review was another $1,000 fee and he was wondering if the second fee could be waived. Mike Perkins said those are standard fees and the board does not waive them. Amy Durland asked if there would be rationale in waiving the fee because this is affordable housing. Clifford Van Wagner said that waiving the fees affects only the owner, not the renters and he is not a not-for-profit, which are the only ones for which the Board will waive a fee. The only time the board has waived fees is for a not-for -profit. PUBLIC HEARING: Hearing none. Clifford Van Wagner said the public hearing would remain open and the Board will discuss this further at the next meeting on January 13, 2010. SEQR: It was noted that a SEQRA negative declaration was issued on July 9, 2003 The Board recessed from 8:55 P.M. to 9:00 P.M.  09.056 Congregation & Yeshiva Pardes Yosef, Corner of Veterans Way, Excelsior Avenue This is a sketch plan for development of 24 unit apartment buildings in the Urban Residential-1 District. The applicant is Joel Aronson City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – December 9, 2009 - Page 16 of 19 Appearing before the Board was Ed Esposito, Landscape Architect - agent for the applicant Ed Esposito said he is a landscape architect with Monarch Design and he has developed a site plan for the applicant to construct two supporting residences to the existing school on a 3.89 acre site. There will be some zoning work necessary but they are trying to get the best fit for the site. He exhibited a landscape plan and showed existing trees. He said the developed area of the parcel is .57 acres. They have contemplated different schemes but the proposed sketch plan represents the most preferred solution. He indicated how existing parking would fit in. Some existing trees go from 60 to 100 feet in height and he indicated on the sketch plan the view from South Loughberry Road to the units. There will be units on all three elevations including South Loughberry Road, Excelsior Avenue and Veterans Way. There is an existing wrought iron fence in the back. He said the area at the corner at the entrance of Veterans Way near the main entrance needs the most minimal variance work - it is a triple frontage lot. Because of the widened city right-of-way, they are proposing to maintain a side yard setback of 16.5’ on the South Loughberry side. If they were to pursue a variance for this project, one reason would be to keep the school active and meet the needs of the school. They wanted to keep the parking lot because students play in the lot throwing balls and playing various games. Mike Perkins asked who would be using the new structures. Ed Esposito replied that there would be 12 apartments only intended for on-premise use. When staff comes to the school currently they have to rent elsewhere but having the apartments gives them a chance to live on site. The intended users are staff and students. He exhibited a floor plan which showed four units per floor including kitchen and laundry. He said that students, staff and their families come from Israel and many other places and they will use the apartments. The plan calls for residential scale lights, about 60 watts each. He said the site plan package includes a map from the surveyor indicating trees and the topography of the area. He said they will remove 20 trees from 6” to 30” caliper, a handful of them are locust trees, and there are a 24” and an 18’ maple and some larger trees including a 10” locust, and a 12” and 14” hardwood. They are trying to keep the trees pruned and manage the remaining trees and he is concerned for the 40” maple that is supposed to be in the courtyard area but to save the 30’ setback they need a variance to make the footprints work. If the applicant, Joel Aaronson, were to apply for a land acquisition it might help the application. Clifford Van Wagner said that for a sketch discussion, the trees are not a priority at this time. He said the applicant will need relief from the Zoning Board because there is more then one principle structure on the lot. Clifford Van Wagner asked Ed Esposito talk about the parcel in the upper left hand corner of the plan; there appears to a burm that divides the land in half. Ed Esposito said that Joel Aronson purchased half of the parcel and it is a survey deeded area. Cliff Van Wagner said there is no history of a lot line adjustment or change. Laura Rappaport questioned how the applicant could by half of the lot? Ed Esposito said he was directed to do an analysis. If they were to do a lot line adjustment it could become part of the green area. They are pursuing a variance for the coverage. This property is in a UR-1 zone, the minimum lot size is 12,500 square feet. The lot is non-conforming. Jaclyn Hakes said that the square footage of the existing lot meets minimum lot requirements but separating them does not meet the minimum standards. She said if Mr. Aronson purchased that lot he did so without approvals and this is no longer in compliance with what the request is or with the existing site plan. Clifford Van Wagner said there is no sense in looking at this until the site is in compliance. Mike Perkins said the intent for a sketch plan discussion is for the applicant to get the advice of the Planning Board as to whether the applicant meets the intent of City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – December 9, 2009 - Page 17 of 19 the zoning ordinance and whether the plan requires special use permits and a zoning variance. He has a hard time looking at the site plan until these other issues are cleaned up. Clifford Van Wagner asked if the school was approved for a specific number of students. Ed Esposito said the facility size is limited to 64,000 square feet; all students must reside on premises, the number of students is 180 maximum and the number of staff is 30 maximum. The additional facilities are for dining quarters and student housing. He said regarding the existing school, the ZBA identified private schools as a permitted use in the special use permit. Mike Perkins questioned how it got approved. Laura Rappaport said a private school, whether a boarding school or not is not outlined in the Code. Clifford Van Wagner said that typically when the applicant comes in, the Planning Board tells them to clean up the housekeeping issues in order to enable the Board to examine a site plan that is accurate, approved and without violations. Phil Klein asked if it could be clarified as to whether this is an allowable use. Amy Durland said that private schools are allowed in this zone. Mike Perkins said there is a broad definition of allowed use- a private school is ok but it does not specify whether living on site is acceptable. Jaclyn Hakes said there is no easy answer by definition of a private school and it does not exist in the code. Jamin Totino said this seems to be an expansion of the special use permit since the students might be living there without parents because that indicates a dormitory and is entirely different than 24 apartments. Laura Rappaport said that she is not ready to approve a residence for unsupervised teen agers. She suggested that when the applicant returns, he should create a space designated for play other than a parking lot. Ed Esposito said the original application, 3.89 acres, included the other piece. He said that the applicant indicated that some students attend that might be older than 16- the school has growing pains and needs supportive housing. The apartments would allow staff and students to stay on site instead of driving. Each apartment contains two bedrooms, a kitchen, a bathroom, and laundry. They will be pursuing a building permit, a certificate of occupancy and inspections. He said the property is an odd shape and it is this predisposed condition that Joel is trying to alleviate by purchasing a buffer. Cliff Van Wagner said it is too early for that. Ed Esposito asked if the parcel was a deal breaker; Joel Aronson participated in the acquisitions and if he is 2% short, he would try to buy the green land. Clifford Van Wagner said the Board cannot consider any of this tonight. The applicant must clear up the other issues. The parcel should be legalized and brought into compliance before any other action can be taken. Illegal parcel additions, lot line adjustments are items that preclude the applicant from coming to the Planning Board with the original request because currently the site is non-compliant and non-conforming. Ed Esposito said that the parcel should not be included since most of the housekeeping issues involve the outrigger parcel and that would alleviate the situation. Phil Klein said the applicant must look at the green area that encompasses the whole parcel, the box has been opened. Jaclyn Hakes asked whether the 7800 square feet is not part of the 3.88 acres and if not, this creates an additional lot and is now a subdivision which is a movement of additional lot lines and even if it is a separate conforming lot, it did not go through the subdivision process. Ed Esposito does not want that lot to encumber this review. Phil Klein said that the applicant has created two substandard lots. Cliff Van Wagner said the Zoning Board would have the same problems. Jaclyn Hakes said it depends on what the applicant proposes to do. If you wish to modify the lot line, that is an administrative action by the Planning Board Chair; if you wish to move forward as a subdivision, it is a Planning Board issue and you would need an application for a subdivision. Clifford Van Wagner said the ball is in the Planning Board’s court. Ed Esposito clarified that the applicant is interested in buying half the lot where the farmhouse is. Clifford Van Wagner said the sheet of paper in the application shows that the lot line adjustments have City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – December 9, 2009 - Page 18 of 19 been done. This application can not proceed. Ed Esposito asked if they could proceed with Zoning. Mike Perkins suggested that Ed meet with Mr. Aronson and come back to Planning staff in hopes of gaining a clear understanding of what he wants to do. Laura Rappaport said that pertaining to sketch plans; the applicants should provide several scenarios on how they could meet their goals. Clifford Van Wagner suggested to Ed that he should not apply to the Zoning Board but instead he should meet with the owner to decide what direction they are going to proceed in and contact staff and they will give you a list of what needs to be done and in what order. DISCLOSURE: None SEQR: It was noted that no SEQR is required for sketch discussion. It is likely that SEQRA coordinated review would be recommended for the proposed project. The ZBA, DRC and the Planning Board would be involved agencies. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Board agreed to postpone approval of the Planning Board minutes for the November 10 and November 24, 2009 meetings because some of the members had not had a chance to review them. Clifford Van Wagner stated that the draft minutes can be viewed on the City’s website and the vote to accept the minutes would be pushed to the next meeting. NEXT MEETING The next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for January 13, 2009, at 7:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Clifford Van Wagner adjourned the meeting at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Wagner Recording Secretary Approved: City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – December 9, 2009 - Page 19 of 19