Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2010 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Clifford Van Wagner, Chair; Jamin Totino, Vice-Chair; Amy Durland; Michael Perkins; Philip Klein; Dan Gaba; Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary ABSENT: Michael Perkins STAFF: Jaclyn Hakes, Principal Planner CALL TO ORDER Chair Clifford Van Wagner called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING Clifford Van Wagner said the proceedings of this meeting are being taped for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. REPORT ON ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS BY THE CHAIR There are no actions by the chair. POSTPONED PROJECTS 09.052 LANDS OF STEPHEN P. ETHIER Garfield Avenue/East Broadway, sketch plan review Of 26-32 lot subdivision in the Urban Residential-2 District. Adjourned to January 27, 2010. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR Welcome to our new board member Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary. Also like to welcome our new secretary, Diane Buzanowski. This is my second two year term as Board Chair. I would like to express thanks to all board members present as well as our outgoing Planning Board member Laura Rappaport, who is in the audience for their efforts and their dedication to the many hours that very few people see here between site visit workshops and meetings. Hard to calculate how many hours they actually put in. Specifically, I would like to thank my Vice Chair Jamin for his support and wisdom. I appreciate his help. Last but not least I would like to thank the City’s Principal Planner Jackie Hakes for her constant tutelage. We do know the value of a City Planner and plan to keep her. Thank you. We will continue to run an efficient, respectful meeting. Respectful on the part of the Board, the audience and their agents. We have made progress in the last two years and we will continue with that effort. We all work to make this a better place to live and to work. Two letters of appreciation were read in appreciation of the Planning Board and their hard work and dedication. Laura Rappaport filled in for a term which was left vacant. She now has Wednesday nights open again. Laura was presented with a letter of appreciation and a plaque for her efforts. UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS/AGENDA WORKSHOPS: MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 2010 – AGENDA WORKSHOP WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2010 – 7:00PM PLANNING BOARD MEETING PUBLIC WORKSHOP FOR THE ROUTE 50 SOUTHERN GATEWAY PROJECT, THURSDAY, JANUARY 21, 2010 AT 6:00PM AT THE GIDEON. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Clifford Van Wagner gave this opportunity to allow citizens to address planning issues not on the scheduled agenda. No one took advantage of the privilege of the floor. Our newest board member Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary has not had the opportunity to scrutinize our Agenda notes and our projects only briefly, and would like to make a statement. Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary wished to let the Board and applicants know that I will be abstaining from all Board actions this evening. As a recent appointed member of the Planning Board, and given the fact that materials were presented to her just last evening, she has not had the chance to thoroughly go through them. Therefore, she will be abstaining from any decisions/actions this evening. One member is absent. Mike Perkins is absent, Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary will abstain. She will participate but not take place in any voting. Therefore, there are five voting members tonight for the balance of the evening and you need 4 out of 5 positive votes in order to get a positive resolution from this Board. Any applicant here tonight does have the opportunity if they so desire to request a postponement of their hearing tonight for the next meeting two weeks from tonight in the event you wish to have a little bit better odds. LETTER OF CREDIT APPLICATION
04.033.2 EXCELSIOR PARK, EUREKA AVENUE SUBDIVISION. 45 Eureka Avenue Amy Durland has notified the Board that she wishes to recuse herself from voting on this due to her own personal private views as a citizen publicly not in favor of it as it applies to her City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 13, 2010 - page 2 of 17 own personal neighborhood. She will be doing so tonight. Applicant John Witt requests a letter of credit extension. Jackie Haake provided the following. Three lot subdivision off of Eureka Avenue. Credit application expired December 31, 2009. In order to protect the City, the City Attorney, City Engineer, and Planning staff contacted the Bank to allow them to extend this for one year. To protect the City with regard to additional Improvements that need to happen for this subdivision. However, given the zoning ordinance, and subdivision regulations state credit letter may only be extended under the authority of the Planning Board. Existing letter of credit is $60,500 and we request the Board tonight to vote on a letter of credit extension to December 31, 2010. Anyone in the audience who wishes to comment on this letter of extension. Any questions or comments from the Board. Mr. Klein requested information as to when the applicant submitted the letter to request an extension on his credit application. Jackie Haake informed the Board this was received on December 22, 2009. The application deadline was early November. This letter of credit is with regard to a bridge to access over to the 3 lots. Only one lot has been developed and the actual top coat and the finishing of the public street has not occurred. Motion to extend this letter of credit to expire December 31, 2010, by Philip Klein seconded by Jamin Totino. There is no further discussion. VOTE: Jamin Tostino – in favor Amy Durland – recused Michael Perkins – absent Philip Klein – in favor Dan Gaba – in favor Suzanne Bernardi-Clearly – abstain Clifford Van Wagtner – in favor Motion carries 4-0. APPLICATIONS 1. 09.055 SIROS ZONING AMENDMENT, 168 Lincoln Avenue, advisory opinion to the City Council for a zoning text amendment in an institutional Horse Track Related District. Mr. Carusone states that in view of the fact that the Board is down two voting members. Request permission to postpone until the January 27, 2010 meeting. Item will be placed on the agenda for the next Planning Board Meeting 01/27/2010. 2. 04.054.1 WESTVIEW APARTMENTS, 125 West Avenue, modification to site plan in a Transect 4 and Transect 5 district. Request from the owner that there are three apartments in this facility were originally specified to be either retail or offices. The applicant has been unable to rent these spaces and requests a modification to that plan. Neighbors had some concerns and questions regarding lighting and landscaping on the west side of the property line. Tonight Mr. Frost and Mr. Jones are here to tell us what they plan to do on these two outstanding issues. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 13, 2010 - page 3 of 17 Mr. Tom Frost, Frost Architecture, Saratoga Springs, representing the owners of Westview Apartments. We are planting two large maple trees behind one house which abuts the property on that person’s property not on the Westview Property. This will be completed in the Spring with the neighbor in agreement. The trees will be her responsibility to maintain. We may be asked to plant 4 or 5 smaller trees. Light fixtures, we found that the light fixture manufacturer can make a special shield that will shield the lights at 180 degrees so that there will be complete blockage of light from the fixture horizontally to anyone living on the west side of that complex. There will be some down light from these fixtures around the light pole. The light will shine on the Westview Apartments and the driveway in question. Discussion by Amy Durland as to the number of trees proposed and it was agreed that the trees would be planted so as not to appear sparse and could be as many as three trees. Mr. Frost agreed to however many trees to be planted to be aesthetically pleasing. Applicants request to waive the fee was withdrawn. Reaffirmation of the original SEQRA negative declaration, will be voted on. Motion to reaffirm the original SEQRA negative declaration was made by Jamin Totino seconded by Dan Gaba. Vote: Michael Perkins – absent Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary - abstain Jamin Totino – in favor Amy Durland – in favor Philip Klein – in favor Dan Gaba – in favor Clifford Van Wagner – in favor Motion carries 5-0. DECISION Motion to amend or modify the existing site plan with the conditions Mr. Frost has offered made by Jamin Totino, seconded by Dan Gaba. Amy Durland thanked Mr. Frost for bringing in the light fixture into the agenda workshop for all on the Board to see. Vote: Michael Perkins – absent Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary – abstain Jamin Totino – in favor Amy Durland – in favor Philip Klein – in favor Dan Gaba – in favor Clifford Van Wagner – in favor Motion carries 5-0. 3. 10.001 RYALL CARRIAGE HOUSE, 104 Union Avenue, site plan review in an Urban Residential -4 district. ZBA area relief granted on December 10, 2009. Request by Mr. Frost’s clients would like to City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 13, 2010 - page 4 of 17 lift the existing garage off its foundation, move it over and replace with all new footing and foundations in, and replace the building on the new foundation, and convert to a carriage house. The new carriage will not be in the exact location of the existing building but will be moved 4 feet to the east and 7 feet to the north away from the alley so that the building is freed up from the confines of the property lines in that corner. Once the building is replaced onto the new foundation, there are a couple of small additions to it. Covered porch on the north, and there is a carport structure on west. Very little change from the site plan. Parking requirements would be six off street parking spaces for this unit because the main house has two units in it, and this carriage house would constitute a third unit. An old tennis court which was dismantled years ago will remain as additional parking without any new paving. There will be separate utilities to the carriage house and that requires a grinder pump for the sewage and to run the sewage out to the line in Union Avenue and will get water and gas from Union Avenue. In the process of doing this there are overhead power lines from the alley which provide service to the house, those will be place underground and with a separate line to the carriage house with its own meter. The carriage house is being restored, so it will still appear as it does today. It’s in such bad structural condition that the majority of it will have to be replaced, but basically it will be retained as the historical structure that it is. Site plan submitted, number of comments from Paul Male, City Engineer, one of which deals with the condition of the sidewalk on Union Avenue,. Sidewalks and curbs will be evaluated and if repairs are needed they will be listed in the letter of credit computation and it will be noted on the site plan. Clifford Van Wagner notes this is a UR-4 zoning code allows for more than one principal use on this parcel of land. When the Board did the caravan it was noted that by moving this structure farther north it will allow a larger area for the cars and it will not be as dangerous situation as it is now for a car to back out of that or to pull off to the side where the carport will be. Questions or comments from the audience regarding the application of 104 Union Avenue for the site plan review of a carriage house. No comments or concerns. DECISION Motion for a site plan for the addition of the conversion of this property carriage house noting that more than one principal building is allowed in this UR-4 zone. Jackie Haake, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs would like noted that this is a SEQRA Type II action, not requiring any review. Motion was made by Amy Durland, seconded by Philip Klein. No further discussion. Vote: Michael Perkins – absent Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary – abstain Jamin Totino – in favor Amy Durland – in favor Philip Klein – in favor Dan Gaba – in favor City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 13, 2010 - page 5 of 17  Clifford Van Wagner – in favor Motion carries 5-0. Mr. Donald Harper agent for Jon Cromer approached the Board. Regarding Agenda Item: 8. 09.057 WHITE FARMS ROAD BED AND BREAKFAST, 66 White Farms Road, public Hearing for special use permit for five room neighborhood bed and breakfast in a Rural Residential-1 District. Request an adjournment to be placed on the agenda for the next Planning Board Meeting scheduled for January 27, 2010 due to the fact that there is not a full contingent of voting Board members present this evening. Noted by the Board and this agenda item will be place on the January 27, 2010 agenda. ANNOUNCEMENT/POSTPONED/CANCELLED ITEMS 1. 09.055 SIROS ZONING AMENDMENT, 168 Lincoln Avenue, advisory opinion to the City Council for a zoning text amendment in an institutional Horse Track Related District. 8. 09.057 WHITE FARMS ROAD BED AND BREAKFAST, 66 White Farms Road, public Hearing for special use permit for five room neighborhood bed and breakfast in a Rural Residential-1 District. Both items have postponed until the next Planning Board Meeting on January 27, 2010. Clifford Van Wagner, Planning Board Chairman stated again for the benefit of anyone who came in late, the Board is not at full voting capacity. One member Mr. Michael Perkins had a family emergency and could not attend this evenings meeting, and the Board’s newest member Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary did not receive information materials until last evening and was unable to review items completely does not feel informed enough to vote on agenda items this evening. Therefore, the board is not at full voting capacity and anyone who wishes may adjourn items until the Board’s next meeting on January 27, 2010. 4. 09.053 McKENZIE’S WAY SUBDIVISION-PART 1, East Broadway continuation of Public hearing on an 8-lot subdivision in an Urban Residential-2 District. 5. 09.054 MCKENZIE’S WAY SUBDIVISION-PART 2, Cleveland Avenue, continuation of public hearing on a 6-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential-2 District. HISTORY McKENZIE'S WAY SUBDIVISION-PART 1 is a 6 lot subdivision. The applicant is Steve Ethier who is not here tonight but his agent Clark Wilkinson is present. This 6 lot subdivision is on East Broadway. These two applications will be heard simultaneously. McKENZIE'S WAY SUBDIVISION-PART 2 is owned by Bob Howard. This is a request for an 8 lot subdivision. Due to the fact that these two parcels are adjacent to each other there is an economy scale that kicks in if the applicants pool their resources to do the infrastructure, the road improvements, water and sewer. So although they two separate applications, they are tonight being treated as one. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 13, 2010 - page 6 of 17 McKENZIE’S WAY SUBDIVISION-PART 1 is a 6-lot subdivision. The items which we requested more information on is the road width, the right of way width, and on the issues for MCKENZIE’S WAY SUBDIVISION-PART 2 again is the road width, the right of way, sidewalks, planting strips and the Board was most interested in the right angle turn as opposed to a curved radius. City Engineer stated at the Planning Board workshop that the curve radius was unacceptable to the City’s standards. The applicant has returned with a drawing which we will look at tonight. Shows a right angle turn, has a sub portion which goes beyond MCKENZIE’S WAY which would allow for fire truck turn around but also in the event that the trailer park that is really contiguous to that street if there was ever any change in use of that site this sub street can serve as a through street which again is one of the best planning statutes that we try to encourage. Mr. Clark Wilkinson, Mr. Ethier’s agent is set up. Open up site plan. Jackie Hakes took the opportunity to walk through the current site plans. The most recent subdivision plans the Board received included 4 different sheets. Two examples with the curbed street, curbed roadway, and two alternatives with the sub street. It is the recommendation of the staff, Public Safety and Engineering that the sub street what is examined in more detail, however it is the Planning Board’s decision in terms of which you wish to move forward with. If we look at the two alternatives showing the sub street trying to get closer to that grid street pattern in the Urban Residential District. What you will notice are two options. One option shows a 40 foot dedicated right of way, and a 24 foot pavement width. That includes in addition to the 40 feet an additional 10 feet of right of way that would be under easement to the City. So 40 feet of the right of way would be City public right of way. The remainder 5 feet on either side would be dedicated to the City, but would be on private property. The City would have access to that for the purposes of utilities, etc., etc., under that easement agreement. The 24 foot pavement width, at the request of Public Safety and our Traffic Safety Coordinator, he would recommend not having on street parking in that situation because of the reduced pavement width. In this alternative it includes two 5 foot sidewalks which are the requirements for sub-divisions, as well as two 5 foot planting strips at the curbing. The second alternative that was submitted by Clark Wilkinson, agent for applicant, involves a 40 foot dedicated right of way with a 28 foot pavement width. That allows for the potential for on street parking. Again 5 foot sidewalks on either side, 5 foot planting strip on either side. This option, however, with the 28 foot pavement width does include the full 55 foot right of way, which is the requirement here and that would have the additional 15 feet which would be under easement similar to the 10 feet of the previous. That is what you have before you now. Clifford Van Wagner informed the Board that what this comes down to is there parking allowed on the streets or not. One with 28 foot wide pavement would allow alternate side parking, 24 foot wide would not and the driveway in each of these 14 houses are at least 40 feet long. Mr. Wilkinson, stated some homes have one garage, some two depending upon the purchaser. Each lot does have a turnaround, which could house two vehicles. Member of the Board requested clarification of street width 24 foot street width, no parking preferably stated by Public Safety and Traffic Safety, 28 foot street width would allow for alternate side parking. What is the surrounding neighborhood street width for consistency? Mr. Wilkinson explained that Cleveland Avenue is actually a 24 foot paved road. Some of East Broadway from intersection of Cleveland west is 24 feet or less. From Cleveland Avenue City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 13, 2010 - page 7 of 17 toward Jefferson it varies from about 24 feet and as it gets closer to Jefferson it widens out to about 28 maybe even 30 feet paved. There is no curbing on East Broadway at all. There is curbing on Cleveland on both sides. The proposal is in character with most of the neighborhood in this particular area. Question as to whether the Board wants to consider to have parking on the street alternately or not. The streets that currently have 24 foot widths do not having parking allowed currently, however there is no signage stating so. We would also offer to place signage, stating no parking. Lots in the UR-2 Zone, per Mr. Wilkinson’s experience must have the garage separate from the house for number of reasons. The lot works better, the footprint of the house works better. If you attach a garage you have to do it in the back. Cannot fit a side load garage, you need space in here to get off the sidewalk. That is why in a UR-2 zone most homes will show a detached garage pushed in the back. Board member would like a stipulation made on the site plan that the garages are to be detached and behind the proposed house. To recap Mr. Van Wagner states what we are looking at is 24 feet street width there would be no on street parking. 5 foot sidewalks on either side of the street. 5 foot planting strip on either side of the street. There are curbs and there are street lights and street trees. Mr. Wilkinson states proper spacing and proper lighting fixtures all the street trees are all designed and will be included in the final site plans on this. The sidewalks will extend all the way to Cleveland Avenue on both sides. The final details must be worked out with the City Engineer. Any questions or comments from the Board? Amy Durland is in favor of the 28 foot width. This is a UR district, an urban local street not a rural road which is what the local standards indicate for a 24 foot pavement width. Studies indicate on street parking is safer it slows traffic down and it is considered a desirable amenity for urban neighborhoods. Where there are sidewalks it is safer to have on street parking. Can accommodate visitors. Creation of this new neighborhood with these larger subdivisions where there is a potential for through streets. It is important to accommodate expected traffic impacts. Planning basic to have on street parking in urban neighborhoods. Will only support this if the street width is 28 feet in width. Philip Klein maintains a no parking street does make it easier for the City to maintain the streets. Speed is not a factor on this street. Very small street. Jamin Totino spoke regarding his agreement with Amy Durland regarding the width of the street and the ability of vehicles to park on the street. Speaking from experience with his own street, he feel nervous about creating a new neighborhood where no one is able to park on the street. It does make it easier for the City to maintain the streets, and he agrees with Phil on that, however he does agree with Amy. Mr. Wilkinson does give an argument for both sides. However, it should be noted that this project although it is in an urban residential zone it is actually in the outside district. If the board goes with 28 foot width roadway it would be impossible to provide dual sidewalks. Only one sidewalk can be provided without easement from the current property owners. The Board questioned Jackie Haake, Principal Planner, if the Board went with a 28 foot width in the proposed development only one side will be able to have a sidewalk. Anyone in the audience who wishes to comment on the proposal in front of us now, items 4 & 5 McKenzie’s Way Part I and Part II. Mr. Brian Frappier, I own 18 Cleveland Avenue not adjacent to McKenzie but just to the south. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 13, 2010 - page 8 of 17 I am not coming forth with any specifics regarding what the board should do but let me point out that I am a new homeowner and its actually come to my attention just now that we cannot park on Cleveland Avenue. Mr. Frappier did not know that. We have been parking there all along. We have very short driveways there only 10-12 foot driveways. One car in the garage. Board informed Mr. Frappier that if there are no signs stating no parking that parking must be allowed. We just moved here from Boston. One issue in Boston is not a lot of on street parking. The concern is not allowing on street parking thereby forcing parking either on Cleveland Avenue or on East Broadway. 24 foot street width does seem to work on Cleveland Avenue. Fairly small street, not a lot of traffic. Advocating some outlet for the parking issue for the inevitable parties that will happen as well as avoiding parking in people’s driveways. Issue I would like to raise this point I am down slope from the development. There is a plan for water run off, and whatever additional landscaping is done that there is no shuttling of water to the homes on Cleveland Avenue. McKenzie I west end, perhaps access to the State Park, that would be nice and enhance the neighborhood. The last issue that I would like to raise is trees. One of the reasons we decided to live here was because there was so much old time New England, upstate New York landscaping. Large trees and old houses that you are trying to preserve. We would like to see any large trees that can be accommodated with the site plans as well as any boarder trees along the Cleveland Avenue properties, some measure taken to protect them, because they give the feel of Old Saratoga. Thank you for you time. Amy Durland now asked Mr. Frappier if there is curbing by his home. Mr. Klein brought up the parking on Travers Manor, allow on street parking but it is a nightmare for DPW to perform maintenance. No concern with speed – short street. 24 feet better to handle. Jackie Haake spoke about a meeting which was held with Paul Male, City Engineer, sat in on a meeting with out Traffic Safety Coordinator, myself, Steve Ethier and Clark Wilkinson, representing both Mr. Ethier and Mr. Howard. Both proposals before you are the alternatives for the 28 foot and the 24 foot pavement widths. Both were endorsed by all parties. No preference from a functional standpoint. The next step is to evaluate Part II of the long environmental assessment form for each. This does require coordinated review. Each of these applications is considered a Type I action under SEQRA and the last time the board heard both of these applications you initiated coordinated review. The two additional involved agencies for this purpose are the New York State Department of Health and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. We have received notification back from both entities for both projects, deferring lead agency to the Planning Board. The first action would be for the Planning Board to accept lead agency status for both projects to continue with the SEQRA review. Letter from the Department of Environmental Conservation Suggested that the board consider seeking a determination of the potential impact on cultural resources from the State Historic Preservation Office. As soon as this notice was received, the applicant’s agent was contacted to inform of receipt of this information and suggested to them to submit a project review to the State Historic Preservation Office. It would be staff recommendation to proceed with the Environmental Assessment Form Part II up to this question as it arises and if the board requests to hear back from this office. Consistent for both applications. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 13, 2010 - page 9 of 17 Planning Board must accept lead agency status for McKenzie’s Way Part I and Part II. Applicant need direction on the pavement width. Review SEQRA form for both McKenzie's Way Part I and Part II, and we will as in the past – if we get to a point that is outstanding we will hold off until final determination is made. Mr. Wilkinson has submitted the entire package as requested to OPRHP. It was approximately one week ago. I will follow up with a call by the weeks end. There initial review is roughly two weeks. So I am anticipating by the end of next week a positive or negative answer. Anybody in the audience other than the gentleman who spoke earlier wishing to comment on this. No objection by the Board to accept lead agency status. Mr. Van Wagner states that the more he listens to Jamin and Amy having lived on a narrow street years ago for a long time I think it’s advantageous to go to 28 feet with parking on the street, along with longer driveways. Jamin Totino also agrees with 28 foot width. Respects Phil’s comments and also is aware of the neighbors concerns about cars dispersing to other parts of the neighborhood. Unfair to ask of this new neighborhood. Amy Durland has made her point for 28 foot widths. Dan Gaba states in theory 24 foot road would be fantastic, however in reality is that people are going to park there anyway and plow trucks are still going to have a problem. I believe it is far better to give the residents 28 foot. Philip Klein is advocating 24 foot width for ease of DPW crews. Michael Perkins is absent Suzanne Bernardi-Clearly is abstaining. Clifford Van Wagner, Planning Board Chairman stated again for the benefit of anyone who came in late, the Board is not at full voting capacity. One member Mr. Michael Perkins had a family emergency and could not attend this evenings meeting, and the Board’s newest member Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary did not receive information materials until last evening and was unable to review items completely does not feel informed enough to vote on agenda items this evening. Therefore, the board is not at full voting capacity and anyone who wishes may adjourn items until the Board’s next meeting on January 27, 2010. SEQRA REVIEW PART II FOR MCKENZIE’S WAY SUBDIVISION PART I 1). YES · CONSTRUCTION THAT WILL CONTINUE FOR MORE THAN 1 YR. OR INVOLVE MORE THAN ONE PHASE OR STAGE. SMALL TO MODERATE. 2), NO 3). NO 4). NO City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 13, 2010 - page 10 of 17 5). NO 6). YES ·OTHER IMPACTS – SURFACE DRAINAGE PATTERNS MAY BE ALTERED, BUT IMPACTS WOULD BE MINIMIZED THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONTROLS PROPOSED. 7). N 8). NO 9). NO 10). NO 11). NO 12). IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAELOLOGICAL RESOURCES 13). NO 14). NO 15). YES ·ALTERATION OF PRESENT PATTERNS OF MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND/OR GOODS. SMALL TO MODERATE 16). NO 17). NO 18). NO 19). YES ·PROPOSED ACTION WILL CAUSE A CHANGE IN THE DENSITY OF LAND USE. SMALL TO MODERATE 20). NO Amy Durland request a copy of Part I before final determination is made. Board has gone as far as they can on McKenzie’s Way Part I. No action will be taken tonight. We have given applicant direction on pavement width, and therefore the right of way. 28 foot width with sidewalks, with curbs two 5 foot planting strips with lights and trees. 09.054 MCKENZIE’S WAY SUBDIVISION-PART 2, Cleveland Avenue, continuation of public hearing on a 6-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential-2 District. Accept lead agency for SEQRA status. Direction on pavement width. 28 feet pavement widths with 5 foot sidewalks on either side. 5 foot planting strip and as it comes up to the top of McKenzie’s Way as Jackie Haake indicated the 28 foot wide road width will allow for a sidewalk on one side only. The applicant is responsible for that sidewalk, as this is a part of his subdivision, and will be up the applicant and his agent to have conversation with the property owners to be sure an easement can be provided to put a sidewalk on their land. Mr. Clark Wilkinson spoke about eliminating a sidewalk on one side of the roadway to allow for project to proceed without obtaining easements, etc., 28 foot wide pavement, sidewalk and City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 13, 2010 - page 11 of 17 5 foot wide planting strip. Amy Durland questioned the possibility of approaching the property owners regarding the easement prior to a final determination being made. Clifford Van Wagner made a suggestion as to how the sidewalk issue could be resolved, and all parties seems to be in agreement. This area is geared to pedestrian traffic and geared to walking and access to the State Park. Anyone in the audience care to comment on this application. Mr. Brian Frappier, 18 Cleveland Avenue, I am not opposed either way, I think it might be adequate to have just one sidewalk down McKenzie’s way. There is not a lot of through traffic and pedestrian traffic. It is not a downtown area. I walk a lot, and I am continually frustrated by how sidewalks just disappear. There is no way to go. Seems like a good idea to have a sidewalk there and hope in the future that it might show up, but it usually doesn’t. It might be a good idea to place sidewalks in now in the planning stages. SEQRA REVIEW PART II FOR MCKENZIE’S WAY SUBDIVISION PART II 1). YES · CONSTRUCTION THAT WILL CONTINUE FOR MORE THAN 1 YR. OR INVOLVE MORE THAN ONE PHASE OR STAGE. 2). NO 3). NO 4). NO 5). NO 6). YES ·OTHER IMPACTS – SURFACE DRAINAGE PATTERNS MAY BE ALTERED, BUT IMPACTS WOULD BE MINIMIZED THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONTROLS PROPOSED. 7). NO 8). NO 9). NO 10). NO 11). NO 12). IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES – REMAINS OUTSTANDING. 13). NO 14). NO 15). YES ·ALTERATION OF PRESENT PATTERNS OF MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND/OR GOODS. SMALL TO MODERATE IMPACT. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 13, 2010 - page 12 of 17 16). NO 17). NO 18). NO 19). YES ·PROPOSED ACTION WILL CONFLICT WITH OFFICIALLY ADOPTED PLANS OR GOALS. 20). NO These two items will not be placed back on the agenda until agent has information regarding item 12 on the SEQRA Part II application for McKenzie’s Way Part I and Part II. Full site plan when completed to be reviewed by the Board including trees to remain. Mr. Wilkinson offered additional information regarding right of way easement for sidewalk in McKenzie’s Way Part II. Owner of property is granting easement is Mr. Howard’s soon to be ex father in law and the chances of obtaining permission are greatly diminished. Jackie Hakes informed Board and Mr. Wilkinson what has occurred in the past is the agreement between the property owners had been identified as a condition of the subdivision approval which allows you to move forward with some other approvals such as, DEC, etc., etc. and you do have 12 months. Any questions or comments from the Board. None Mr. Van Wagner questioned if the McDonald’s representatives had made a decision. #7. on the Agenda. 7. 09.011 MCDONALD’S REBUILD, 197 South Broadway SEQRA coordinated review for redevelopment of a restaurant in a Transect-5 District. Decision was made to postpone until the next board meeting to have the benefit of the full Planning Board. This item will be placed on the January 27, 2010 agenda. A five minute recess was granted. 6. 06.010.1 285 JEFFERSON STREET, 287 Jefferson Street, modification to a site plan in an Urban Residential-4 District. Minor modification to a site plan approved in July 2006. This is Phase I of this project. 10-11 units and 11 parcel parking garage has been completed and I believe 4 of the 10 units that are built are of the affordable nature. Phase II has not been constructed. It includes 10 more units in one structure and 4 units in the second structure with 2 more affordable units, and then 13 space parking garage. The applicant requests removal of the breezeway connecting the two structures the 10 unit and the 4 unit in Phase II. This will create multiple principal structures, and because of the zone this is in it is allowed. Jackie Hakes has had some conversations with the Public Safety Department which the applicant has not had an opportunity to see because this conversation took place today. Comment received from the Department of Public Safety were related to the original approval. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 13, 2010 - page 13 of 17 The comments were not specific to the modification before you. Spoke with Assistant Chief Vitor to clarify a little bit more what concerns were, comments and if they were addressed to the modifications. The detachments of the structures now creates three principal structures will not have an impact. He did say it would have been ideal if there were some accommodations made for emergency access. The access has been constructed and is not being proposed to be modified at this point in time. Option in front of the Board to consider. 1). I do feel that the comments that we have received from Public Safety are addressed to the original and the initial approval. The area has been constructed according to the site plan approval. 2). Consider as a condition of approval to have the applicant work with the fire department to add a mini hammerhead to allow at the very least an opportunity for an ambulance to turn around and move past a fire truck if in fact they are both there, instead of having the ambulance back all the way out. The Assistant Chief has some options/ideas for a way for that to be accomplished without adding a significant amount of impermeable surface. The new proposed garage area immediately to the south of that proposed garage area, he had suggested paving that area a width of 12 to 15 feet to allow for a turnaround. Width is currently 25 feet, fire department requires a minimum of 26 could go as narrow as 24 in terms of driving two trucks in next to each other. Suggested taking away some of the pavement in width to create a hammerhead area. Provide for the safety of the residents. Agent for the applicant does fully appreciate what the Public Safety Department is requesting. Does have some ideas of his own as well. Could possibly use pavers, does not effect the impervious areas. Applicant would be willing to sit with Fire Chief and to see how this can be accomplished. Application can be approved subject to administrative action. This modification was discussed at the workshop is fairly minor. The plan has been approved SEQRA has already been approved. The building except for getting rid of the connecting breezeway that will increase permeability and the resulting building will be smaller. Amy Durland endorsed the use of permeable pavers and suggested this may be accomplished through some administrative review. Would their be a willingness to keep that open as a possibility if it looks as if the boards concerns about being clearly delineated can still be accomplished with a permeable paver? Could we still keep that on the table for discussion? The Board indicated yes. The applicant’s main purpose of the reduction, is after having this first building built with 10 units he was looking at what the next building with the attachment would look like and he feels that the massive scale of that together will be too large for the neighborhood, and that is why he wants to try to separate it. Make the site a little more marketable because you are opening up a little more green space. Also, the reduction of the square footage of the building is due to the fact that the 10 units that are in there, the ones that went the fastest were the smallest ones. He is looking to reduce the footprint to meet the market demand at this time. Proper signage to avoid someone parking a boat or whatever. Minimum size of 12 by 20. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 13, 2010 - page 14 of 17 There is a dumpster pad identified in the approve site plan and on the proposed modification. The area of concern is entering from Jefferson Street two parking space adjacent to the garage. This would need to come into compliance. Where the dumpster is located right now, is in parking space #25 which is in the garage. Needs to be moved and screening added. A resolution will be required regarding the dumpster. Frequency of pickup will need to be Increased secondary to the dumpster being overflowing during a site visit and will only get worse with the additional units. Building department brought to Jackie Hake’s attention today that the street numbering needs to be confirmed with our Department of Public Works department and our 911 addressing is currently working on the correct addressing of these principal structures. There should be a condition stating that the street addressing must be approve and verified by the DPW. Anyone is the audience wishing to comment on this application. No one. Comments or questions from the Board. Hearing none. Motion by Jamin Totino seconded by Amy Durland. Vote: Jamin Totino – favor Amy Durland – favor Michael Perkins – absent Philip Klein – favor Dan Gaba – favor Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary – abstain Clifford Van Wagner – favor Motion carries 5-0. 9. 10.002 MOUNT OLIVET BAPTIST CHURCH SUBDIVISION, 100 Crescent Street, advisory opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals in an Urban Residential-2 and Urban Residential-4 District. Request to give and advisory opinion back to the Zoning Board regarding a subdivision not a lot line adjustment. The applicant proposed to carve off a parcel of the Mount Olivet Baptist Church I assume in an effort to generate some money for the Church. Mr. Doyle, the applicant would like to take that land a build a single family house. The Zoning Board is asking for assistance due to the fact that mean lot width needs to be 100 feet and the resulting lot width of the proposed lot is 85 feet. Advisory opinion prior to granting a variance, on the actual subdivision and the reduction in the mean moderate. If this is approved by the Zoning Board than the applicant will come back to us with a full subdivision application. Any comments or questions. Proposed subdivision proposes 85 foot lot width and if you look adjacent to that immediately south the two single family lots are each 77 feet adjacent. Mr. James Doyle applicant, was approached by the Church. The Church is under some financial constraints. Did do the sub division of 77 feet homes, adjacent to the area. The house is proposed smaller than the homes on Crescent Street. Some concerns corner home, subdivision costs, etc., What does that entail? Curbing is expected, storm sewers, to increase the infrastructure. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 13, 2010 - page 15 of 17 Discuss advisory opinion regarding the mean lot width. We will vote on that and then you will need to apply for a subdivision. On site visit sidewalk extension may be needed up Jefferson Street to the intersection. We will need to see subdivision application and the cost will be $1100.00. We do have basic requirements for subdivision. We will work you and what actually will be required. Direction from the planning board. Consistent issues with regard to parking. So anything that you and Mt. Olivet Church can do prior to submitting the application would be beneficial. Due to the fact that the Church is a 501-c3 Not for Profit, some extenuating circumstances this very well could be one. We have made exceptions in the past. Vote on advisory opinion, obtain variance, and sit down with staff while preparing subdivision application and with staff to work with applicant and the church. Any comment from the audience. None. Additional comments or questions from the Board. None Motion by Dan Gaba, seconded by Philip Klein. Vote: Jamin Totino – favor Amy Durland – favor Michael Perkins – absent Philip Klein – favor Dan Gaba – favor Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary – abstain Clifford Van Wagner – favor Motion carries 5-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES We have the minutes of the November minutes and today December 9, 2009 minutes were forwarded. Entertain motion to approve the November 10th and November 24th meeting minutes. by Clifford VanWagner, seconded. All in favor ayes. Nayes none. Motion carries 5-0. Motion to approve the meeting minutes for December 9, 2009. Motion by Jamin Totino, seconded by Dan Gaba. All in favor ayes, all nayes none. Motion carries 5-0. STANDARD DETAILS Relate to site plans, lighting, sidewalk construction, and all the technical engineering data that City Engineer and staff Jackie Haake, look at, as well as Public Safety and DPW, confer with applicants and their engineers. Members of the Board are ready to vote on standard details. Motion to accept the standard details as presented by the staff made by Clifford VanWagner, seconded by Dan Gaba. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 13, 2010 - page 16 of 17 Amy Durland reviewed the details and at some point would like to see some items added that she did not see. More detailed examples of plants, especially invasive plants that should be avoided, and landscaping being done. These standards have not been recently updated and modified. This was initiated in 2005 and has never been updated. This is very useful in dealing with applicant who are not familiar with the area. Encourage the board if there are any ideas to be passed on to be added to the standard details and this will improve the project review. In 2009 the City was the recipient of a Grant for Urban Forestry. That grant would entail taking a look at what we have in the City and identifying trees that would fit in with a Urban environment that would not impact utility lines and that would grow well. At this point in time it has been stalled due to lack of matching funds. We are hopeful that we can retain that and at some point in time this would fit in nicely with within what is good for our area and the growing season. City no longer employs an arborist. Amy Durland also mentioned down-facing lighting as an option that should be encouraged and in the standard details at some point in the future. Standard details are a starting point. Motion by Clifford VanWagner, seconded by Dan Gaba to accept Standard Details as presented as a beginning point for a process that will evolve as time goes on. Point of Process and Procedure for the Board, the Planning Board attorney was questioned as to the proper procedure for the adoption of the Standard Details. The Standard Details are treated as a Planning Board Document so there is no need to have a City Council approval of of this. Flexibility is that the Planning Board can modify as need with out Legislative Approval. Vote: Jamin Totino – favor Amy Durland – favor Michael Perkins – absent Philip Klein – favor Dan Gaba – favor Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary – abstain Clifford Van Wagner – favor Motion carries 5-0. NEXT MEETING The next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for January 27, 2010 at 7:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Clifford Van Wagner adjourned the meeting at 9:55pm. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved 6-0-1: March 10, 2010 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 13, 2010 - page 17 of 17