Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2010 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Clifford Van Wagner, Chair; Jamin Totino, Vice-Chair; Amy Durland; 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. APPLICATIONS: 1. 10.005 LANDS OF THP CUSTOM BUILDERS SUBDIVISION, Southeast corner of Taylor Street and Doten Avenue, public hearing of 2 lot subdivision in the Urban Residenrial -2 District. 2. 10.004 HISTORIC DISTRICT EXPANSION – Request for advisory opinion to the City Council for nexpansion of the City’s historic district to align with the Broadway National Register District. POSTPONED PROJECTS 09.053 McKENZIE’S WAY SUBDIVISION-PART 1, East Broadway, continuation of public hearing on a 6-lot subdivision in an Urban Residential-2 District. 09.054 McKENZIE’S WAY SUBDIVISION-PART 2, Cleveland Avenue, continuation of public hearing on a 6-lot subdivision in an Urban Residential-2 District. NEXT MEETING The next Planning Board agenda workshop will be held on Monday. February 8, 2010 The next Planning Board meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 10, 2010. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Clifford Van Wagner gave this opportunity to allow citizens to address planning issues not on the scheduled agenda. LETTER OF CREDIT APPLICATION No letters of credit application. APPLICATIONS 1. 09.055 SIROS ZONING AMENDMENT REQUEST: Request for an advisory opinion to the City Council for a zoning text amendment in the Institutional Horse-Track Related District. Applicant: Siro’s (John Carusone, Jr., agent) Siro’s currently enjoys the benefit of a special use permit that was granted in 2002 which allows and eating and drinking establishment for a set number of days which are 90 in an Institutional Horse Track Related District. It also specifically addresses the outside activities as well as the music that is associated with that. The applicant has requested the City Council for a zoning text amendment which would allow a year round eating establishment. Application in front of the Planning Board is for an advisory opinion to the City Council. Jacklyn Hakes informed the Board there are packets for them as well as for the record we received and email from Tom Ruin on January 25, 2010, which was also forwarded to the applicant. The Board is being asked to comment and to go back to the City Council regarding this extention of the 90 calendar days of operation including the days of the thoroughbred meet. Mr. Carusone had some answers to questions which were asked at the workshop meeting. Presented the Board with some drawings which will help to answer the questions/concerns. A question arose regarding the parking and where the potential parking would be. The top drawing shows five lots and these are the same five lots that were added to the horse related district when the ordinance was amended. The corner lot which is marked NYRA is what has been used by Siro’s for many seasons past as their summer parking. The very narrow lot which is also marked NYRA is for access to the rear of Siro’s and also houses the dumpster. The next one is the stakes’s barn and the one in the far corner at the corner of Frank Sullivan and City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 2 of 24 Wright Street is the administrative building. The other parking lot which we would not have to use on a year round basis is marked Tax lot #17. Siro’s also leases that for summer use only. The second drawing, Amy questioned was the potential effect on the rest of the zone. The drawing is outlined for the horse related district. The applicant attempted to identify the properties or parcels on which there is no racing. The amendment we are talking about deals with those parcels. The one furthest to the north is outlined in blue or purple would be the Fassig Tipton parcels and further to south outlined in yellow would be the hay and feed barn and then in the reddish outline would be the National Museum of Racing. Further to the south in green would be the five lots that we shown on the first map. This ordinance that we are seeking to amend is very narrow. It just involves those five lots. It just involves using a restaurant on lots other than those on which there is racing or horse training, so we think that any amendment would continue to have a narrow effect. I know there is always a concern as to what the effect would be on the rest of the district. I think the effect would be non-existent. Now we know there are restaurants obviously at the race track. Fassig Tipton has a restaurant but the likelihood of this affecting them is nil. Of course, you have the museum and the hay barns. The effect of this would be exceedingly narrow. I would like to review a couple of important points: This is for indoor use only. We are seeking no changes at all as far as the 90 day window is concerned. All of those restrictions would remain in full force and effect and this would only be for the indoor use of the premises only. A number of the neighbors have spoken, I would say most of the near neighbors are generally in favor of it, they want some restrictions and I will review that in a minute. I also would like to say Rose Tate does not live on Lincoln Avenue. She does not live in the City of Saratoga Springs. We all know that she is opposed to this. This was discussed at the workshop meeting and I think it bears repeating which is to say that if the City Council sees fit to rezone this it would have to come back to this board for and amendment to the existing Special Use Permit and for a new site plan. It seems that would be the time when the other issues that maybe of concern, parking, traffic, etc., that where those things would be governed and any restrictions that this board chose to place on it could be done. This is not by any means an open book that we are talking about where we are asking the City Council to do something and there are no local controls at all. This Board will continue to have a lot of say in what goes on there and how it goes on. As you know you have some guidelines for granting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, and there set forth in Section 240-15.3. You need to be convinced that the revision is not contrary to the general purposes and intent of this chapter. The general purposes are set forth in Section 240-1.3. I expect that you are all familiar with that. I have looked through that and I don’t see anything in those general provisions that would be contrary to what we are seeking. The second test is to see whether the revision is accordant with the comprehensive plan. I have looked through the plan and I see nothing in the plan that would in any way be contrary to what we are seeking to do here. We are not looking for a bailout. That has been suggested maybe not in those words and I will have Tom Dillon from Siro’s talk about that. This is a historic institution in town the business climate has changed. I think the Board has to take that into context why we are here. We are not here because we are trying to make a lot more money. It has been a losing proposition for the last couple of years and this is an effort really to keep Siro’s alive, it is an important thing to the community and to racing. Clifford Van Wagner reiterated the Article 15 the two points within that is what we are being asked to look at tonight. The Planning Board shall recommend favorably the adoption of any proposed change only if it meets the following conditions. That the revision is not contrary to City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 3 of 24 the general purposes and intent of the chapter, and also that the revision is in accordance with the comprehensive plan. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to comment on this case tonight, keeping in mind if you have spoken in the past, you do not have to repeat those, all of your comments are on record. If there is anybody who would like to come forward may do so at this time, and give us your name and address. Mr. Jack Knowlton, I have lived in Saratoga Springs since 1984, currently at 116 5th Avenue. I wear a couple of different hats, one I operate a health care consulting business here in town, located in the Wise Building, and secondly as most of you know I am the managing partner of Sakatoga Stable. My relationship with Siro’s goes back more than 20 years. In all my healthcare consulting business we have had luncheons, the one big marketing initiative we have every year, we bring 70-80-90 people from around the state to a luncheon at Siro’s, a day at the track and back over to Siro’s for an evening of entertainment. We also this year have used Siro’s for some other events. My office holiday party was at Siro’s and we also had a Sakatoga Stable event at Siro’s. We have 85 people involved in the Sakatoga Stable from fifteen states and Canada as well as the US. Everybody who comes to Saratoga wants to go to Siro’s as part of their racing experience. I think that it is critically important that everybody understands that Siro’s really is in lock step with racing. You travel the country and talk about Saratoga and racing and people want to talk about going to Siro's, that is what they want to do.Seven years ago when Funny Cide won the Derby and Bird Song won the Oaks the City had a celebration, where did they have it at Siro’s in June. We did not have it at the City Center or anywhere else, we had it at Siro’s the world has changed a lot over the years for Siro’s and the competition. We did not have a Prime at Saratoga National, another high end competition. A lot of other restaurants in town have come and gone, Siro’s has stayed. There are good reasons why they need more latitude to operate their business and this request should seriously be considered and hopefully be approved. Amy Durland asked Mr. Knowlton if his stables are open year round or do they operate only during the race meet. There is no stable as such, we purchase and race horses and they stay at different racetracks and travel around, at training centers, so we don’t actually own a stable. We manage five syndicates here in Saratoga with both local people and people around the country. Amy Durland questioned whether these operations were year round. Mr. Knowlton replied that their horses race year round. Mr. Knowlton does reside here in Saratoga managing the business, marketing share in the syndicates. Mr. Ken Green, 12 Iroquois Drive, Saratoga Springs, NY. I have lived in Saratoga Springs since 1981. I am a great fan of Siro’s. I have spent many a dollar there, and enjoyed my opportunities. I believe that a year round business is obviously going to be better for Saratoga Springs because it will generate more revenue. When they generate more revenue, we generate more revenue here in the City. The Economic Development of this business over the years has been phenomenal. There has been millions of dollars paid to this City as a result of the benefits of this business. When a business can see itself to expand and grow and be part of the community, be a contributor to the community, not just in taxes but also in supporting all the non-profit organizations they support and the fundraisers they support. It is fantastic. Saratoga is different than other communities and part of that difference is our bistros. Some of the neighborhood bistros that I get a chance to go to are different than the regular chains and the things that the lions share of the people go to. That is why we are different and that is why we are more successful as a community. Tom Dillon has dedicated himself to this project and to this business for years and years and years. Again has contributed successfully financially to this community and I feel that he will manage his business on a year round basis in keeping with the neighborhood, in keeping with the noise ordinances and will make a great contribution. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 4 of 24 Mr. Bob Reed, 21 Wells Street, Saratoga Springs, over by the hospital. I have been in your neighborhood for three years as a result of being associated with Siro’s. I used to be on the Executive Board of the Center for Disabilities, which used to be the Center for the Disabled. Marylou Whitney and some other individuals got me involved in that particular fund raiser that we do at Siro’s. I am a former NFL player, played for the Vikings, for those who like the Vikings let me apologize to you. They will show up next year hopefully. I am a community activist, I am the gentleman who brought the NFL alumni here, over 12 years ago, when we started over at McGregor Links Country Club. Then I moved it down to Shaker Ridge, I gave money to four different counties when we started this back in 1996. I was an advisor to Karen Hitchcock, in order to be able to bring the Giants here. I was living in Guilderland at the time. I have always dedicated myself to community involvement particularly children. This is my first meeting here. I have known Mr. Dillon as some of the staff for some time. I work over there as a volunteer and also as an employee now. I was not aware of the association with Siro’s until I decided to live here. I travel quite a bit in and out of the area and I have to say this, and the friends that I know when I go to Miami, speak about where I live Siro’s is a marqueed name. I have no vested interest here just to make you aware of the fact that how large it is tied into the racetrack, it is tied into the community and it is tied into everything of what Saratoga is about, because that is what I hear. I think it should be an added advantage to be able to allow Siro’s to be able to function within that community, you have growth for example in the Casino, you have growth showing all the way in this community. The contribution these individuals have made has helped me, helped this community and in raising money for children. It can’t do any harm, only add more value. Besides the jobs, it is the only restaurant if you took a poll at the Preakness or the Kentucky Derby or anything horse related you mention Saratoga the next thing mentioned is Siro’s. They are almost synonymous. For them to want to be able to move forward to be able to add more value right down the line is something that should be taken more seriously and see what you could possibly do in order to make this part of the community in that part of town. Mr. John McMahon, I have spoken previously and I think my original thesis no bailout for Siro’s. I just like to reiterate, Siro’s was a part of the drafting of the legislation that they are seeking to get you to advise for change. They in combination with then Chair Benton brought forth the original proposition on 04/01/2002. At that time it contained a 90 day limitation on restaurant activities. It was modified, amended, it cam back to the planning board. It came to the City Council, it came back to the planning board, and back to the City Council. It was argued back and forth for about two months. On the 21st day of May 2002 it was adopted. At all times the 90 restriction was there. It was a part of the negotiations to obtain this amendment to the then Zoning Law that was given up by Siro’s in order to get approval. They got the approval they did not complain about it then and it was right there in black and white. They didn’t complain about it until more than a year later. Incidentally, no one on the part of the neighbors was notified of that position that they didn’t intend to do this. They did it and they should be held to account for it. The obligation of the Planning Board that is the board is to disapprove this unless you find that it is not contrary to the general purpose and intent of the chapter and that it is in concordant with the master plan. I call your attention to Section 135-1b which says that the preservation and protection of residential lands visually and physically from those of non- residents and wherever reasonable the elimination of non-conforming uses which have a deleterious effect upon the surroundings. That is one of the purposes of the chapter. My client has residential lands surrounding the area other than the horse related property is residential. That entire area was originally residential and the people who live there now are entitled to protection against the encroachments of commercial property. I think that is one consideration you can make, and insofar as whether it is concordant with the master plan one of the procedural policies of the master plan calls for the enforcement of existing land use regulations. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 5 of 24 It also identifies that an issue that the master planners thought it was important to maintain balance. This proposal is not in accordance with those principals. Siro’s has been admittedly in violation of zoning ordinances for more than several decades. Rather than enforce the rules the city has helped them escape the rules. The legislation now sought to be amended is one of those escape mechanisms that was used. Now another one is sought. If there ever was a need for a maintenance of balance it right here and now. The Planning Board and the City Council have pulled Siro’s chestnuts out of the fire for much too long. Striking a balance in favor of the residents nearby Siro’s is long overdue. One other thing my client Rose Tate keeps and apartment at her property for herself, during her sister’s recent fatal illness, she kept her there and cared for her there, she occupies the apartment just like many people have two places., and is a resident in that area. Mr. Larry King, 126 Nelson Avenue, Saratoga Springs, New York. You guys have done a really good job. I have watched your workshops trying to work through and address specifically what the issue is in front of you. I really appreciate it. Jackie you have been really helpful. I am not here in opposition to Siro’s. That is not my reason for being here. The proposal in front of you is suggesting that you change the entire zone. We have heard a lot of people support something different and the support has been let’s support Siro’s. I am not sure how you are going to vote on this supporting this for Siro’s benefit, the singular property. This really does border on the boundaries of spot zoning. Just be careful how you address this because what we are trying to look at is the whole zone. This isn’t about one property. Mr. Tom Dillon, I have been the managing partner and executive chef at Siro’s for 25 years. My home here is on Franklin Square, 31 Franklin Street, Saratoga Springs, New York. I would just like to clear up a couple of things. I feel that what was just stated is that we are the only single business or parcel in the horseracing district that this ruling affects. The only one. I will address the previous statements. I find it mystifying to me that Siro’s has been a restaurant called Siro’s in its exact same outline for something like 78 to 82 years. This particular arena has been here since before there were residents in the area. Everyone of the closet residents to us have been at this microphone to speak to say that we manage our business well, that we handle what we can handle as well as we can handle it. When we first bought Siro’s this present partnership we had an average attendance at the racetrack of 10,000 people. We had a nice comfortable little business. In the early 1990’s I operated Siro’s during the winter for four years and maybe people remember. During that time we gave as much back to the community as we do during the summer. We do major benefit events, in the winter time we did YMCA benefits, Boys Clubs, Halloween things, Siro’s has always been known for giving back to the community and I truly believe that the key point in what we are trying to get here is Siro’s for all of its fame and for all of its massive summer business and we agree that, for instance that green lot that we rent down below us because we are required to have 166 spaces during the summer. The NYRA lot has 98, we pay $50,000 for 36 days of parking in that larger lot. We haven’t put a car in it in four years. We park by valet. Whoever else may be parked down there they are not being parked by Siro’s valets. We have reports from people who live down at that end of the neighborhood that it’s our people who are causing problems down there. Hundreds of cars stay there after the races. People go in all different types of directions. We have not parked a car there in four years but we still pay for it. In the winter time, if you did a tour like you said you must have seen that it is a ghost town. The closest neighbors are all in accordance with what we want to do. They have all been at this microphone to say that they don’t have a problem. We did eight parties during the holiday season. I would venture to say that there isn’t a person sitting in this room who lives in our neighborhood who knew that we did them. We only hold 120 people would be the most that would ever be in this neighborhood in the off season. We will be open four or five nights a week, and will be doing 40 or 50 dinners. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 6 of 24 This is key, an absolute necessity for us to stay in business. The August of the racing season no longer supports the year round expenses of Siro’s restaurant. Between its mortgaging, insurances, parking situations, the lot we now pay $50,000 for five years ago we paid $5,000. Just those two things are astronomical. Those thing occurred because the City came and put sidewalks where parking for Siro’s had been for sixty years. No one informed us of the change in parking regulations. In 2003 we came to the commission, we owned the house next door at the time, we asked if this planning board would put that house in the zone and we Had a plan drawn, at great expense to us to remodel our entire back yard, landscape it completely, take down the big stages, build permanent bars and add outdoor seating for dining. We asked in return that we be allowed to at least start the process because we now in the neighborhood at the time, there was a movement at that time for a lot of the bigger houses to become Bed and Breakfasts, and there was a lot of talk at that time to zone it up. We asked to add another profit center to Siro’s, we would have put four or five luxury suites in that house. The plan or the backyard was approved, they refuse to put the house into the zone. With no new profit center it did not make sense to make the changes in the backyard. In all the planning stages in was for the 90 days only that is what we assumed. We were not going to open the inside anyway, we assumed it was for the outside operations because it was a special use permit that was totally built on our outside entertainment and its effect on the neighborhood. We make tremendous concessions at that time. We used to be open until 11:00PM now we are open until 9:00PM. We wanted to cooperate with the neighborhood and we still do. I have two sons in the business. My younger is graduating from the Culinary Institute. My older son has been managing wine in various positions. They are 25 and 21. They grew up in this town, they went through the school system. They would like to operate a business in their hometown year round. They are not interested in any more outside operations. They would like to run the fine dining that Siro’s is known for all over the country and basically all over the world, as you heard from some of the other people that came up here. We have a legacy here. We have a tradition here. If one or two people don’t like what happens during racing season, I don’t know what I can do about it when the track went from 10,000 people to 20,000. I’m located at that corner and we do our best to handle it. We do the best we can and we do a damn good job. A lot of people in this community will tell you that. Basically our asking to do this is not for any other purposes. I have been here 25 years and I would like my children to have it for the next 25 years. In order to do that we essentially need what we are asking for. I can no longer pay the bill for 11 months of the year that we are not open out of the month of the year that I am. Clifford Van Wagner read a letter from our seventh planning board member who is unable to attend this evening, because of a corporate conflict. This is a letter from Planning Board member Mr. Michael Perkins. This does not constitute a vote. There are six people present on the Board tonight who will be voting. We checked with our counsel Mark Schatner. (A copy of the letter will be attached to the minutes). Clifford Van Wagner, Planning Board Chairman, states he is a 3rd generation native of the Saratoga Springs Community, I appreciate what Siro’s has meant to this City. I have been there and agree with the points that Mr. Dillon has made, Jack Knowlton has made, some excellent comments. Siro’s certainly has deep historical tradition in this community. I tried to come up with an analogy, I spoke with Jackie at length today, it is a poor analogy, however, I am going to present it. If someone came in here and presented us with a cake and said do you want Strawberry or Chocolate frosting, that is what we would have to answer. In this case we are being asked to change the zoning text. We can’t change what kind of cake has been brought in, and we have to listen to the zoning code. Personally I feel that the proposed amendment does not meet the intent of the Zoning Ordinance in an Institutional Horse Track Related District. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 7 of 24 The intent states that the district is to accommodate uses associated with the City’s rich history with competitive horse racing. This district is intended to provide uses that supplement and compliment the horse track operations. More specifically a year round eating and drinking establishment is beyond the scope and intent of the Institutional Horse Track Related District. The zoning text as proposed is not in accordance with the comp plan. The Planning Board respectfully notes that the City Council did request that this Board consider additional impact of the zoning text amendment relative to this specific parcel and the use of an eating and drinking establishment on this parcel, such as parking and noise. However, I feel that it is more appropriate to address site specific issues during such time when an application for specific site is before the board not when examining a zoning text amendment. That said I would recommend to the City Council to deny this zoning text amendment as requested but also to set this district aside for specific review and update. I think the City Council should do that. I think the City Council should change the text and I think that Siro’s should be remain open year round. Ninety days in the special use permit for the text that was granted in 2002 has worked, I don’t think it should have any additional outdoor use the rest of the year. I think this restaurant can exist in this neighborhood, however, I cannot or will not support the request for a zoning text amendment because this is something this board cannot do based on the zoning text and specifically those two items is it not contrary to the general purpose as intended of this chapter and is in accordance with the comp plan. We cannot vote on this as a text amendment because it is not what we are allowed to do. The City Council can do what they want. They can agree with this advisory opinion. They are not bound by it. I would recommend and this is open for discussion I would recommend personally that the City Council address this Institutional Horse Track Related District and its possible then that there could be other year round activities that could be allowed in this district. However, I feel that the Planning Board’s hands are tied procedurally and I know that is a round about way to get to it, that would be my recommendation for denying the zoning text amendment but sending a message back to the City Council to please work on specific review and update of the Institutional Horse Tract Related District, to possibly allow Siro’s and if necessary other year round establishments. That is my motion. Jamin Totino seconded that motion, and feels the same as the Chairman of the Planning Board that this is a tough decision, personally because we respect the opinions that have been shared about Siro’s and the value that it provides to the City of Saratoga Springs, both historically and currently. I also agree with the comments of Mr. King and Mike Perkins expressed and those that the chairman expressed. On paper and on face value it actually a simple decision for the Planning Board to make and I fully support the recommendations to the City Council to take a closer look at this zone and do what they can to find a different way around this. Any additional comments from the Board? Amy Durland fundamentally agrees and supports the motion with what has been said. I think it is important that there be an understanding from the people who have spoken, and as has been suggested by other members of the board, that the issue is not the integrity or the management confidence or skills of the restaurant owners or the benefit to the economy of the area, or the popularity of the restaurant or its great reputation all of which I think all of us will acknowledge in the affirmative. But we do have our marching orders so to speak and my concern is also that if we support this it would have implications for the entire zone because we would essentially be no longer addressing the horse track operations as seasonal, but interpreting them as year round and that by singling Siro’s out, this property and essentially gerry-rigging a zoning text language/amendment it would favor this particular property owner which strikes me as preferential and arbitrary. I think that what has been suggested that there is City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 8 of 24 a need to review this zone in a more comprehensive way. It’s in need of that and so I am optimistic that that might happen and that there may ultimately be a productive communication among Siro’s and the concerns that a year round operation might generate from nearby property owners and that this can all be translated into a zoning language that will acknowledge both interests. For now, I do think it is fairly clear the way the district interest is defined in the Zoning Ordinance is not conducive to a favorable advisory. Philip Klein for the benefit of the audience reads the charge – If the Planning Board in its written report shall recommend favorably the adoption of any proposed change only if it meets the following conditions: The revision is not contrary to the general purposes and intent of the chapter. I think the language is deliberate and when it was written it was sold to the neighbors as such. It does not preclude Siro’s to go ahead and try and package this to the City Council in a different format. I to think that latitude must be given to the fact that Siro’s is a stalwart part of the racing scene in Saratoga. The horse race season is not just July and August. It actually runs May through October, and that possibly a compromise of 6 months might be something that Siro’s might be interested in looking at. I think that the City Council should take into consideration looking at the zone in its entirety and shape it the way it is now rather than the way it was when the language was originally written which I don’t know exactly when it was written but it has been added to and changed a number of time. I too cannot support a positive opinion. Chairman Van Wagner stated what a difficult position the Board is in because we all recognize and appreciate what Siro’s means to this community. Nobody is questioning the integrity, the class the operation that the restaurant has. It not an issue here and never was and I hope no one leaves this room with that feeling. Our hands are tied, we have a job we have a zoning code we have text and there is no wiggle room. We have been struggling with this for a long time. This is what we need to do and I will call the vote. I will work on the advisory opinion with staff that goes back to the City Council to let them know that we sincerely and it appears to be unanimous for the members present, hearing no objections that we all believe that Siro’s is a mainstay of this community and we want it to be here, we just need to get it there in a way that is legal and can stand up to the test of time and hopefully the City Council can do that and I would like to see Siro’s come back to us and we can deal with the site plan and we can deal with the issues that need to and we all want to see that happen. Thanks to all in the audience for their diligence here, this has certainly been a test. Vote: Jamin Totino - favor Amy Durland - favor Michael Perkins - absent Philip Klein - favor Dan Gaba - favor Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary – favor Clifford Van Wagner – favor Motion carries 6-0. Chairman Van Wagner wishes Siro’s the best of luck in the future. 2. 09.011 MCDONALD’S REBUILD, 197 South Broadway SEQRA coordinated review for redevelopment of a restaurant in a Transect-5 District. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 9 of 24 We were able to bring together last year the Planning Commission, the Design Review Board and the Zoning Board last year to have the applicant and his agents listen to all the comments and all the sides. As a result of the coordinated review the application needs to get the SEQRA determination. The Zoning Board and the Design Review Commission have deferred lead agency status to the Planning Board. A long form has been submitted by the applicant. We have gone through the SEQRA form up to question #19. Questions #19. Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? The answer to that was yes. What we need to get through tonight is to get through the impact of this, whether it is small to moderate potential, large impact and if it is potentially large can it be mitigated by a project change. Procedurally if we get through the SEQRA review tonight because we have been issued lead agency status, this project would then go to the Zoning Board because the Zoning Board would have to grant some variances and the advantage of bringing this applicant to the joint land use board meeting was so that all the boards and their chairs could hear the procedural street that this project has to go down and the Zoning Board by giving us lead agency and then hearing what we were trying to get this project to start to look like. If we could get through SEQRA that the Zoning Board would try to be favorable in the relief that they were being asked to grant. If granted then the applicant returns to the Planning Board for special use permit and then the site plan and Design Review Commission approval are required. This is a lengthy process. One of the main concerns this board has is it’s build out. The zone requires a 70% build out, we came up with some opportunities, and I believe Mr. Klein suggested perhaps the brick wall with some type of fencing on top of it to stretch the project out in a north south direction. Another suggestion was made to add another room on the north side of the building to give it some more square footage. Then there is a pergola that is off the north side of that. The other item is this Boards hands are tied in that in this zone this building has to be two stories. The zoning code states that it has to be habitable or usable, a finished space. This board has to adhere to this as well as the Zoning Board because this building is going to set the tone for development from this point south. South Broadway is right for redevelopment. South of the McDonald’s building several years ago we had the Right Aid looking to purchase the hotel on the corner and tear that down. We are very rigid and strict on our requirements for two story and they went away. We do not want McDonald’s to go away but we still have rules and regulations that we must adhere to. We would like to hear from our applicants where they have moved to from our last meeting. Chris Boyea, Bohler Engineering, and Sue Davis our local architect, as well as the typical McDonald’s support staff. The last time we were before the Board was November 10, 2009, to review the project. We left with very clear direction. We left with four bullet points. 1. Show the trellis area, as a building not just as a trellis. Originally our trellis was the small section on the side of the building. So we have done that. We have now added that and it is actually part of the building. It makes the Building 25 feet longer along Broadway. 2. Place the trellis on the side of the building. Take the trellis from the side, make that building and then put the trellis to anchor additional frontage along Broadway. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 10 of 24  So we have done that. 3. Can you make the building 4 feet taller, and include a row of second floor windows. We have extended the height of the building and we have included a whole row of second floor windows above the first floor windows. 4. Can you carry the full two stories the whole length of the building? Our original proposal, showed two stories on only part of the building, we have actually now taken the roof line all the way across including the 25 feet that we have added to the building so that from the front view you have a very tall flat front building that gives you the City atmosphere and there is no step in the roofline across. So we have submitted the revised site plan and the revised colored building elevations and we are excited and looking forward to getting a negative declaration for the SEQRA and moving forward to the Zoning Board and Design Review Commission. The usable second floor, some of the things to keep in mind as to the uniqueness of this site and the request for the second floor is that we are not a new business coming in. Many of the applications that you will see in the future are of a Rite Aide or a Pharmacy locating on a vacant lot or an old house or a gas station. There would be a change of use. McDonald’s has been in business here for many years and wants to reinvest in the community. ADA compliance, etc. We are an existing quick serve restaurant, so it needs a special use permit. If anyone else were to come in with a quick serve restaurant it would be a whole different situation. We are existing and we have a unique use. With the parking and drive thru it pushes the parking away from the building so cars can circulate the building and we have less pedestrians crossing the traffic. Any tenant upstairs would have to cross thru the drive thru area during peak drive thru times would conflict with a dental or physicians office. We have a lot of roof penetrations. Over 30 roof penetrations in this operation whether it is direct vent up, exhaust fans or there is cooking equipment, heating, bathroom vents. Our HVAC equipment is now 100% hidden behind this very tall building. so that will help with noise reduction as well as aesthetics, and no outside compressors or slabs. This is a brand new neat self sufficient building, a great step forwards and we are really excited to be at a point where we can go to the Zoning Board and to the Design Review Board and continue this knowing we are coming back here and hopefully have a permit from this board on our return trip. Questions or comments from the Board? Jamin Totino questioned the side elevation of the building on South Broadway which is 24 feet, and the height of the building is 30 feet grade to the top of the tower. Amy Durland questioned the height of where the first floor ends and the second story begins. Sue Davis architect replied with 9 perhaps 10 feet floor to floor. Philip Klein commended the applicants and is very pleased, with the second story, and that the second story issued was resolved. The code states that the second floor needs to be habitable. Mass the full second story and that it meet the code. Happy to see the full frontage, longer building looks good and the brick looks nice, gives is a sense of balance with the other side of the building. The building and the pergola together gives us 98 feet. The lot width is 250ft. and 33 feet for the additional fencing and wall. 40% of frontage and then we added the pretty massive decorative wall which is brick with wrought iron on top in an attempt to work with the code and anchor the rest. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 11 of 24 Any questions or comments from the Board? Amy Durland agrees that it is better. Frontage is an issue, and you did do what we asked. I personally am not sure that I would like to see a fence or a stone wall. That was discussed by some members and it maybe the majority but I personally am not convinced however I will defer to the people who are better versed in design issues about that. I am not convinced that it is necessarily a good feature, nor utterly unconvinced that that is something will in some way deceive the eye or help facilitate a thought of more of a build out. This does not matter to me at all. You did appear to do what we said. You added a fairly substantial amount to the frontage of the actual building. I am sorry that we let you off the hook in terms of the model or at least in something that could be projected on a screen so that we could have a sense of the actual appearance of that. I still have a question, the height certainly supports what you interpret as our order about the second story or at least the appearance of a second story. The design doesn’t completely convince me that it looks like a two story building. I am willing to defer to other opinions if they can convince me that I am wrong about this. The idea of asking for a row of windows was to very clearly denote a second story, especially if we are indicating that a non finished second story maybe possible then I think it really has to look extremely convincingly like a second story and I am not completely convinced that this does it. I guess that the height does but the appearance of it does not suggest that and I would be interested in the other board members reactions. Jamin Totino questioned the roofline area at the east elevation was that it does not look like a two story building from this vantage point. I am concerned that there is no appearance of the second story from at least this block. Sue Davis assured the Board that this area is still under development and that they were concentrating on the street façade. An earlier sketch was done which had some windows on the side, we could put them back in. Is that a design review issue? Or is that what we are here tonight to review for SEQRE. If that is a concern, we do need to come back to the Planning Board, and those are things we can look into. Also would like to have the roof line wrap around, and consistently wrap which would help in giving this more of a mass feeling. This still must go through the Design Review Commission. Amy Durland is not sure she agrees totally with that. DRC is definitely responsible for design, and where the windows appear is important in configuration of that second story, but it seems there is a fundamental question which is addressed now, which has to do with an item in SEQRA saying the proposed action will not conflict with officially adopted plans or goals and that is that it requires two stories and I think it is within the Planning Boards perview to determine whether or not this plan constitutes two stories or the appearance of two stories. I am not saying every little design issue should be addressed by the planning board. The chairman is quite pleased the applicant responded with all of the issues and areas which were given him. This is a remarkable improvement since we first saw it. Now we will go back to Item #19 of the SEQRA review - Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community we know it is yes. It should affect it, it should make an improvement. There is a McDonalds there today, it is not like we are taking an empty lot at the admission of the owner of the building this building is sorely in need of improvement and he is willing to put his money on the table so he knows it needs to be done. The City would be pleased to get a new building. Appreciate Marks perseverance and his respect for the three Boards when we had the Joint Land use Board Meeting City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 12 of 24 Any other comments from the Board? Hearing none, I will open it up to the Public as the Public Hearing is remains open. Jamin Totino stated that he made his concerns regarding this building pretty well known and I tried to be as consistent as possible everytime and I think with regard to the Chairmans comments I do agree the applicants persistence and that you have come a long way and in many ways I wish we had started here. I think the Zoning code is fairly clear and I think that it offers enough guidance that we could have frankly started here from my point of view. I still have concerns. One of them is the second story. Amy has made some comments regarding the frontage build out and I agree with you we are not looking for a full frontage build out. I agree with Amy regarding the brick wall and the pergola while it may by design in many eyes have some effect visually I still have a lot of concerns because it is so short of the guidance that exists in the ordinance. I am not a designer and in some respects you have taken the recommendations and suggestions that we have made in the last meeting and have incorporated those, I still personally have a lot of concerns. In regard to the second story piece the comment I made earlier regarding the north and east elevation relate to one another. I still have concern regarding that. The Chairman states that he has a lot of faith in the Design Review Commission and this area Jamin spoke about does need some finessing and that is why I am hopeful that unlike a project that was done on West Avenue, we handed to DRC the whole thing and said here is what it is work with it. We want to work as much as we can within the parameters of the code which states certain things have to happen first. I would like to see a simultaneous, if the applicant is willing to role the dice once more and after approvals go through it to have a simultaneous look at this building by both Planning and DRC, so that DRC can help us through this process. The Public Hearing remains open on this application. Are there any comments. Keeping in mind that anything anyone might have offered in the past is in the record. Part of the permanent record, you do not need to repeat it again. If there is anything new to discuss, or anyone wishing to address the board. No one. Jaclyn Hakes informed the Board they have several options in front of them when they are considering whether or not these impacts identified have a small to moderate impact or potentially large impact. The Board has in the past if in fact have identified a small to moderate impact expanded upon how that is an impact or how that can be focused to be a small to moderate impact for example the interesting debate that is going on at the table right now perhaps a little more guidance if you will in terms of additional comments for the DRC and the Zoning Board to consider during their review under SEQRA, you could add that in the space provided here to have additional comments if you feel that is strong enough to address what you as board members feel are the impact. If in fact you do feel that is not sufficient enough to provide more focused guidance to the other involved agencies then the box for large impact would be selected and that would automatically kick this review into a PART III for SEQRA, during which times there are several questions identified under the PART III SEQRA regulations that the board would need to address and identify specific mitigation to mitigate that potentially large impact. Those are the two options to be thinking about and it depends on whether or not the Board feels small to moderate impact or is it potentially large. Question #19 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 13 of 24 Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Yes ·The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. N/A ·The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase By more than 5% per year as a result of this project. N/A ·Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals? Yes, the actual building on the site does not meet the 70% to require a zoning variance. Amount to be determined, does not have a large impact. Small to moderate. Jamin Totino states that he does have a question whether it sets a precedent or not because I think if it does not set a precedent it is a small impact, if it does set a precedent it is potentially large impact, I do not have experience on the Zoning Board and I am not settled on that personally. I don’t know how this could not be considered to set a precedent, if it does not meet the currently zoning ordinance. So I am curious as to what other board members are thinking. Dan Gaba states that there is an existing McDonald there now. If nothing happens here we have a building that is a smaller one story McDonald’s building that already exists. I would agree that if someone comes in to develop another parcel a precedent has already been set with a smaller building and its existing. They have done a good job of creating an appearance of a two story building and setting a precedent the other way. Jamin states that the difference between Dan’s statement and how he feels is that this is a complete tear down and rebuild, and an opportunity to meet the Zoning Code. I respect and understand and value and understand the argument, I am not sure I agree with that. Philip Klein feels it does set a precedent. A positive precedent, as to what we have now. What we would be getting if this is passed by the other two boards. Granted it is a tear down and rebuild but we are not on the corner of 5th and 171st street, in Manhattan, where you can build a McDonald’s that is 200 feet long and two stories high or whatever the case maybe. You are constrained with population here. I think the applicant has done what we have asked by bringing this thing back a number of times and we have had the ability to make them get this bigger and bigger and bigger. With the addition, the pergola, the brick fence and wrought iron on top that it will visually look and set the kind of precedent we want. Suzanne Cleary was not here when all of this was first discussed. My perception is that the applicant came back with everything that you were asked to do and I actually had visited the McDonald’s and it is in dire need of a new building and a lot of work. I think you have done a very nice job in trying to meet the frontage requirements. When I look at the narrowness of the street and the traffic I cannot imagine a bigger building. You have done a very good job. One quick question, are the windows just a perception. There will be a second floor. The Planning Board can, if they desire waive the usable City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 14 of 24  habitable part of that and the Zoning Board can then vary that. Jackie Hake interjected that the applicant offered at the beginning of this discussion some points as to why this is a unique circumstance with regard to the precedent setting nature of varying from the two story requirements in the T-5 District. I don’t know if that is something the board agrees with or does not agree with, but those items that were identified early on I have them and we could walk through them again. The uniqueness of the quick turn around restaurant, the drive thru, the roof penetrations. If the Board feels that these are unique to this particular site, and wish to frame your discussion and your response to the SEQRA questions in that regard, that does give some narrowness to the precedent setting nature of this but it is a matter of whether or not you as a Board agree that those are unique to this particular circumstance. Chairman Van Wager states the goal of this is - what we are asking the applicant to put on paper and build is what appears to be a two story building. I guess my though is if this building is to be built in the plan that we see in front of us, I suspect that anyone driving down Broadway is going to look at that and say oh look there is a two story McDonald’s. They are not going to know whether or not the second floor is habitable. I do not have a problem with that personally. All the penetration of all the specialized equipment that they have, and then what really type of usable space are you going to have upstairs. I am in favor of waiving the habitable space as long as what we look at and 99.9% of the folks and those that are not here tonight aren't looking at the webcast will not know that there is not a habitable second floor. That is the goal. I am hearing small to moderate impact from Dan Gaba Suzanne Cleary, Philip Klein, and Cliff Van Wagner. Jamin is on the fence and Amy Durland. Amy Durland questioned whether the roof penetrations which are important which is part of what determines whether this is a unique situation. Is that unique to McDonald’s specifically, can we assume that there might be other establishments coming around on South Broadway that would be fast food establishments that might be in a similar situation. Chris Boyea, of Bohler Engineering stated this is not unique to McDonald’s as much as it is unique to the industry. It would be fast food restaurants. Another reason we would like to keep these vents is less impact to our neighbors. We have heard neighbor input for two years on and off with different concepts and I was actually to hear no neighbor input today which I am reading as they are satisfied with the changes we have made and one of those is there is a motel next to us and we are trying to limit the impact to them. If we were to try to put vents out the side of the building certainly they would be impacted, by odors, smells, and noise. Amy Durland stated the self created hardship would be if you were before the Zoning Board but I do have some concerns about us running into the situation again, with other establishments. My position is and has always been a faux second story is acceptable, if that second story is crystal clear as a second story and I understand that this is going to other Boards but I do think this is the planning boards prevue to determine whether or not its second story. Maybe it is adequate to construct language in what goes on to the other boards about that. I am not sure. Chairman Van Wagner states that the height is there, DRC can make it work. If any of us here are concerned with the height of the windows, the break of the first and second floor ala we have the height. DRC can finish what we have started. We heard that at the Joint Land Review Boards Meeting. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 15 of 24 Chris Boyea of Bohler Engineering did confirm the next steps with Jackie, Brad and Susan and we would then go to the Zoning Board for approvals for variances, approvals from Design Review Commission and the it comes back to the Planning Board for site plan and special use permit. Jackie Hakes would like to clarify the actual procedural steps. Zoning Board for multiple area variances on what we have before us. The next step procedurally would be to go back to the Planning Board for special use permit, you do have an option at that point in time to also submit your application for the Design Review keeping in mind the Design Review cannot issue any approvals until the special use permits have been approved. You can also go through the site plan review process simultaneously with a special use permit before the Planning Board again procedurally understanding the special use permit has to be approved first. The reason for that is the special use approval is identifying that this is a permitted use but there are additional criteria that must be met. You have to re-establish your use essentially before you can get the Design Review Commission approval and the site plan approval. Bullet #3 SEQRA Right now I have four people that think this is a small to moderate impact. Amy Durland is concerned that we are still the Board that determines if it is indeed a second story, or the appearance of a second story. Staff perspective if the Board feels that there is that much of an issue associated with this perhaps it might not be a small to moderate impact. If you do feel it is a small to moderate impact, but you would like to give some additional guidance to the DRC, I would suggest adding some additional comments as part of the SEQRA for indicating that the second story must be clearly denoted, through appropriate design within this district. I can also as part of forwarding along the negative declaration to the DRC and Zoning Board I can also forward along whatever information you wish for them to have. Jamin Totino states that the majority of the Board feels that this is a small to moderate impact. We do not have to come to a consensus. We can vote and move on. Chairman Van Wagner states there are four members who are in favor of classifying this small to moderate. We will move onto the next bullet. ·Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of the land use? N/A ·Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community? No ·Development will create a demand for additional community services? No ·Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future project? N/A ·Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment? N/A Question #19 Bullet #3 This will have a small to moderate impact with officially adopted plans or goals. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 16 of 24 The Planning Board request that the DRC pay particular attention to the second floor design of this building in its articulation that it is clearly defined as a two story building. Vote on the SEQRA document knowing if the applicant receives a negative declaration he proceed to the Zoning Board for a number of variances to be determined based on what they actually put in their drawing and then the applicant returns to the Planning Board for special use permits, then simultaneously go to DRC and get the special use permits. Entertain a joint land use review meeting, with DRC. Mr. Gaba based upon the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEQRA and analysis of the information provided and presented in part II of the SEQRA short environmental assessment form it is the Boards opinion that it will not result in any large or important impact, and therefore is one that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. I would like to make a motion for a negative declaration for SEQRA. Seconded by Philip Klein. Amy Durland would like to clarify that she will not be supporting the motion but I wanted to indicate to the applicants that they have made great progress on this. My preference would be that we consider this a large impact as well as the precedent setting portion of that motion and it goes to a Part III and that we still work on the mitigation before we send it on. Any further comments. Hearing none. Vote: Jamin Totino - opposed Amy Durland - opposed Michael Perkins - absent Philip Klein - favor Dan Gaba - favor Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary – favor Clifford Van Wagner – favor Motion carries 4-2. Mr. Van Wagner requests a five minute recess at 9:10 P.M. 3. 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. The only action we can take this evening to initiate a SEQRA coordinated review and request lead agency status. DISCLOSURE: David Harper, attorney for the applicant is counsel for both the Saratoga Springs City Center Authority and is part time First Assistant District Attorney for Saratoga County. Documentation in Planning and Building Department files indicate the possible operation of a bed and breakfast without appropriate approvals in 2004 and 2009. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 17 of 24 2007 Certificate of Occupancy (09/12/07) issued by the Building Inspector for the construction of habitable space at the basement level, under the eastern porch of this single family home indicates the following condition of approval; There is no approval for use of this space for office or home occupation purposes. There is not approval for use of this single family residence as a “guest house” or “bed and breakfast” or “bed and breakfast dwelling” ISSUES TO CONSIDER: Saratoga County referral: Received December 23, 2009 – No significant county wide or inter community impact. It appears that there is a home occupation currently being operated out of the residence, and an Article in the zoning code indicates that exterior storage or display of stock, equipment or products is prohibited. A neighborhood bed and breakfast establishment may not have regularly scheduled commercial indoor or outdoor activities such as weddings/receptions/showers, business meetings, catered events. Request Mr. Harper to give an overview of the project. Mr. Jon Cromer owner of the property and Greg Beswick from Tommell Associates, are with us he is our engineer and he will explain the sketch plan. This was on the agenda in December. Mr. Toohey advised us that he was the attorney for Marylou Whitney, our neighbor to the north and that she had concerns about the proposed use. We had sent her a letter back in August of 2009 to tell her that we intended to make this application, prior to sending out the required notice to the neighbors. We met with Mr. Toohey in his office but quickly he indicated that Mrs. Whitney had concerns that an illegal bed and breakfast has been operated here. There were concerns regarding Mr. Cromer has at times parked overflow parking from SPAC visitors from sold out concerts on his property. There was concern that the parking of vehicles may have led to trespassers onto the Whitney compound. There were concerns about headlights associated with parking cars at night, and noise of outdoor parties and the impact of tents. Jackie indicated a question as to a home occupation. The property was purchased by Mr. Cromer in 2002. I ran into Marylou and John with Ed Louie and his wife at the old Chianti’s. I am an old friend of Ed Louie so I went up to say hi. I said to Marylou and John I am you new neighbor, and she said I heard the place was sold. She said what are you going to do with it? I said I am going to live there, run my video business and I might turn it into a bed and breakfast. She said oh that is great. We have friends that come to town would you rent to them. I said yes and I will let you know when I am ready. In 2002 no rentals. In 2003 – 2 In 2004 – 3 In 2005 – 1 - website In 2006 – no rentals In 2007 – no rentals In 2008 – put the house for sale. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 18 of 24  In 2009 – no rentals Parking overflow from SPAC. During Dave Matthews’s weekend I get a dumpster, portable johns and give every car a green garbage and 90% of our trash is picked up and in bags. No problems. I do videographing – the business has slowed down emensly due to the economic. I am trying to do this bed and breakfast to supplement my income. My home occupation consists of an office everything is done over the phone. I have two video tractor trailers. Whenever they are in town they are just resting between events. They are usually parked at exist 16 truckstop. Regarding the fence to the west of us is a 6 foot high chain link with barbed wire in the front. The north wall is a 6 foot chain link with barbed wire. When we park cars no one goes past us to Marylou’s back gate. New sidewalk was placed with chain link fence. Greg Beswick will explain the sketch plan and go over the narrative. Several letters of support from residents who live in the area. Husband and wife who live at 4 Winners Circle Drive. Neighbors do not have a problem. We keep the area clean. Chairman Van Wagner informed the group that the Planning Board did do a caravan. Certain members of the Board get together on Monday evening and do a workshop When we did do the caravan there was a tractor trailer with your video equipment there. You tell me that they are at Exit 16 yet we observed one. Mr. Cromer states that he has already taken steps to close the video business. Any other questions from the Board at this time. Hearing none. Open this up for a Public Hearing, which will remain open until the next meeting. Mr. Toohey, attorney for Marylou Whitney states that in all the 30 years he had been before the Board it is the first time he has heard an applicant admit to at least three illegal uses of a piece property, and then ask for a special use permit. I do represent Mrs. Whitney and Mr. Hendrickson on this. They are vehemently opposed to this. I can tell you that the presentation that has been made no matter how brief this evening is inconsistent with the fact pattern that I have been given, so we will preserve that until the next meeting. We have 2 ½ pages of agenda notes. I have reviewed with Mr. Harper the concerns and he knows of them. Jackie Hakes informed the Board that the applicant has submitted a short environmental assessment form as part of their application, however, this is considered a Type I action due to its proximity contiguous to publicly owned park land. While a long environmental assessment form is not necessarily required it is typical or usual to have a long environmental assessment form for Type I action, I offer it to you as the Planning Board whether or not you wish to have the long form submitted to the other involved agencies for coordinate review. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 19 of 24 Motion to initiate coordinated review and request lead agency status by Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman. Is there a second? Seconded by Jamin Totino. Everyone in favor say aye. Ayes all, nayes none. Mr. Harper requests that staff notify applicant when this issue will be placed back on the agenda. Staff will notify Mr. Harper and Mr. Toohey when we received communication on this. At that point in time we will discuss placing this item back on the agenda. 4. 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. Mr. Steve Ethier applicant and owner of the property, who since the last meeting is looking for a road pattern. We met with Traffic Safety and the City Engineer, Paul Male and DPW Commissioner regarding the two layouts. All three were very adamant about not using any right angles. Jackie Hakes was also in attendance. We are looking to move forward with this concept traditional sidewalks, curbs on both sides, 28 feet of pavement and also connections to the State Park. Right now the sewer line going in on the north part of the property so we are are trying to get a good indication from the road layout so we can start laying out the sewer line. I granted the city an easement to take care of a pump station on Adams Street. I am here for the second time to get a good feel from the Board, are you okay with this layout. 32 lots as shown, all meet the square footage requirements. The City Engineer requested that we align the pavement up with Shore Drive which will not be a problem. Jackie Hakes will clarify from the workshop on Monday, it might seem like a deviation from what we had heard from Public Safety and the DPW with regards to the McKenzie’s Way application subdivisions I and II which were adjourned from tonight. The distinction between what is before you with this application and those is that there is a potential to have a future connection to really establish the grid street pattern in this particular Urban Residential neighborhood. With this situation unless there is some opportunity to see connection it is really challenging to identify the potential future road connections in this area, given that Reservation Road, half of the road is owned by the Park and the other half is owned by Steve. The other streets have homes that line them on both sides so there really isn’t the potential like there is in McKenzie’s Way for future redevelopment and future reconnecting of the grid pattern. The safety concern is to have a right angle as opposed to the sweeping u shape. If it were a T type of connect that is a different type of situation from their perspective. Mr. Ethier is simply looking for some direction. Curved roadway rather than the right angle, Is preferred by DPW and Engineering and Traffic Safety. The applicant needs to submit an application for subdivision. We will look at sidewalk, curbs, street lighting, planting, connection to the State Park, 28 foot of pavement, and linning up the pavement with Shore Drive. On street parking. A request was made by Amy Durland when the applicant returns for subdivision approval please provide a large enought perspective of the area around this. This does appear like a suburban model area, and we are trying to get away from this however the DPW, Engineering and Traffic Safety were adamant about it so we will concur. This will be a work in progress. This is a sketch plan, when you come back with a broader perspective there might be some things that are still questionable. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 20 of 24 10:00 PM Dan Gaba had to leave. Per Mr. Matt Jones request we will put Gridley Street for last. 5. 10.003 SUTTON SUBDIVISION, 74 Warren Street, public hearing of 2 lot subdivision In the Transect-5 District. The applicant, requested a 2 lot subdivision which was approved on July 30, 2008, but expired on July 30, 2009 due to a failure to bring in final plans for Board Chair signature. The entire approval is dismissed. Mark Sutton I live at 112 County Road 68 in Saratoga Springs, but I own property at 74 Warren Street, which is the home of Advantage Press which is what my wife and I operate as a business in town. We are requesting to take the parcel that is called 74 Warren Street, that goes from Warren Street all the way through to East Avenue and to divide it into a two lot subdivision. The drawing indicates what a potential piece of building could be that is not necessarily what is going to be proposed there but it is indicating as a mere illustration that a building and parking could be located at that end of the parcel of land. This is the exact application which was presented to the Board prior. Jackie Hakes interjected that nothing has changed from the previous approval. Because it is located in a T-5 district any future use of that second lot would require at minimum a special use permit and site plan review by the Planning Board as well as the DRC. Applicant is required as a part of this subdivision To provide the following along East Avenue sidewalks, street trees and street lights were one of the conditions. Applicant states that $2500.00 was placed in escrow for future sidewalks to this area. Jackie Hakes will check into this and advise the applicant. If the subdivision is approved and the property is sold, this could be part of that sale process to determine who will hold that letter of credit or cash escrow and be responsible for the actual placement of those streetscape elements. Anyone in the audience who wishes to comment on this. Open the Public Hearing on this matter. Short Form II 1. No 2. No 3. None anticipated. 4. No 5. None anticipated. 6. None 7. No 8. No 9. No Reviewed the short form and is there a motion for SEQRA determination. Jamin Totino based on the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEQRA short environmental form and analysis of the information provided and presented in PartII of the SEQRA short City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 21 of 24 environmental assessment form I find this project will not result in any large or important impacts and therefore is one that will not have a significant impact on the environment. I move to issue a SEQRA negative declaration for this action. Seconded by Suzanne Cleary. Any further comments or discussions. Hearing none. Vote: Jamin Totino - favor Amy Durland - favor Michael Perkins - absent Philip Klein - favor Dan Gaba - left Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary – favor Clifford Van Wagner – favor Motion carries 5-0. Motion for subdivision should include provision for sidewalks, street trees, and street lights as required by code. This should be added to the East Avenue end of this parcel and that all technical items that are addressed in the agenda notes must be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Staff and the City Engineer before the Chairman signs the subdivision drawings. Motion by Philip Klein, seconded by Jamin Totino. Any further discussion. None. Vote: Jamin Totino - favor Amy Durland - favor Michael Perkins - absent Philip Klein - favor Dan Gaba - left Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary – favor Clifford Van Wagner – favor Motion carries 5-0. 6. 09.051 GRIDLEY STREET STABLES C/O KENNETH McPEEK RACING STABLES, INC., Gridley Street at Jefferson Street,m continuation of a public hearing for a special use permit for horse barn in the institutional Horse Track Related District. Matthew J. Jones, attorney for the applicant. Mr. Jones has gone to the Zoning Board and received some relief. He is now in front of us for a special use permit. We are here following approval for several variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals in December for a special use permit. If the Board would adopt a resolution for a special use permit. Proposing to construct 36 new stalls in this area here. We have been in contact with the immediate neighbors and Mr. & Mrs. Clark, Mr. & Mrs. Valentine, and Sandy Hutton. Letter of support was sent on November 24, 2009 submitted to the Planning Board. Mr. Clark who resides in the neighborhood sent an email to Jackie regarding the site plan. We spent a good deal of time with the Mr. & Mrs. Valentine regarding the border area. Looking for a more natural border or barrier, and the zoning board of appeals on its own initiative did as one of its condition did impose on us as one of the area variances a requirement City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 22 of 24 that we install an 8 foot fence. We had it proposed and had it shown to you. Combination of an 8 foot fence and a number of sugar maples and arbovitie which will grow up higher than the fence and provide a vegetative buffer. Screening of both fence and buffer. High solid white 8 foot fence. Jackie Hake informed the Board the resolution was emailed to them today from the ZBA. There are some conditions. Many of which may come out of a special use permit and a site plan process. In December the applicant came back to the board with a new site plan which reduced the number of stalls from 40-36 reducing the wings and moving four stalls. This allowed us to move the project 8 feet to the south, Gridley Street, so it is now 30 feet from the property line. We are smaller and a little bit away from the neighbors. Applicant has made a decision to center the project so it’s equally distant from the side. There are six statutory standards that need to be examined and made a determination on the granting or failure of a special use permit. Here are a few: 1. Extent to which the plan is in harmony with the comprehensive plan and the ordinance. Use which would be supplementary or complimentary to the racetracks. Only operates late April until early November, only during the training season. 2. Value of racetracks and desire to maintain their viability. Section 1.2 and Section 3.5 Specifically talks about the support for the viability and the growth of the community unique institutions including the racetracks. 3. Health, safety and welfare of the residents. The ZBA identified no toxic substances will be on the property. No toxic substances will be used. Waste removal services will be provided once a day. There is not a lot of traffic, not a lot of workers there is not a lot things that would otherwise go with the commercial institution. Amy Durland questioned noise impact, odors and flies, etc., things that cannot be easily controlled. I question this only because of the large number of horses housed in this Stable. Mr. Jones stated there will be odors on a hot and steamy night. As far as a negative impact, probably only a minor impact, however you would notice the odor of horses. Discussion among the board members relative to the amount and number of horses in that area which is a horse district. No one in the audience. Chairman Van Wager states the Board is being asked to grant a special use permit , the Planning Board issued a SEQRA negative declaration on 11/24/09. Chairman Van Wagner entertained a motion for the granting of a special use permit. Also a motion to allow for a special use permit for thirty six (36) stalls on Gridley Street. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 23 of 24 Second by Suzanne Cleary. Any further discussion. None Vote: Jamin Totino - favor Amy Durland - favor Michael Perkins - absent Philip Klein - favor Dan Gaba - left early Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary – favor Clifford Van Wagner – favor Motion passes 5-0. NEXT MEETING The next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for February 10, 2010 at 7:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Clifford Van Wagner adjourned the meeting at 10:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved 6-0-1: March 10, 2010 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 24 of 24 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 27, 2010 – Page 25 of 24