Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Clifford Van Wagner, Chair; Jamin Totino, Vice-Chair; Amy Durland; Philip Klein; Dan Gaba, Michael Perkins, Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary STAFF: Jaclyn Hakes, Principal Planner CALL TO ORDER Chair Clifford Van Wagner called the meeting to order at 7:05 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 09.053 McKENZIE’S WAY SUBDIVISION-PART 1, East Broadway, continuation of public hearing on a 6-lot subdivision in an Urban Residential-2 District. Adjourned to February 24, 2010. 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. Adjourned to February 24, 2010. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR – Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated that tonight is Jacklyn Hakes last meeting as Principal Planner for the City of Saratoga. I have had the opportunity to work with Jackie for 2 years and 2 months as Chairman. Very few people in the audience even the attorneys and agents who are here on a regular basis know how much work Jackie puts into these meetings. We have come to these meetings with 35-40 page agendas. . The agenda is what makes us look good. The attention Jackie gives to detail lets us walk thur this. She knows the Zoning Code of the City of Saratoga Springs verbatim and her ability to apply that to the intracasies of the application brought to us has been exceptionally valuable. I will truly mis her and appreciate her professionalism and friendship. I have spent many hours with Jackie. Her new firm is truly the winner here. They are getting a premier employee and it is the City of Saratoga’s loss. Michael Perkins stated that Jackie had big shoes to fill and she absolutely filled those shoes quickly and this is a big loss fof the City. Jamin Totino stated that he would like to echo everything that everyone has said and would like to thank Jackie personally for everything, it has been a pleasure working with her and he will miss her. Amy Durland stated she also echos everthing everyone else has said and Jackie knows how we feel, thank you very much for everything. Philip Klein stated that Jackie is wonderful, she made it fun. I hope it will continue to be as much fun although he doesn’t know how it will be without her, but we wish her well in her new endeavor, if there is anything we can do to help her in her new job just let us know. UPCOMING SCHEDULE Planning Board workshop will be held on Monday, March 22, 2010 Planning Board meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 @ 7:00 P.M. Joint Quarterly Land Use Board Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 30, 2010. ▪Guest speaker from the Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC), our Metropolitan Planning Organization to discuss access management. ▪Possible joint meeting regarding the SBA use variance application on Weibel Avenue. Training Opportunity: Local Govenment Planning and Zoning Workshop hosted by the Capital District Regional Planning Commission will take place on April 8, 2010 at Hudson Valley Community College. This is an opportunity for boared members to obtain required continuing educatoin credits. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Clifford Van Wagner gave this opportunity to allow citizens to address planning issues not on the scheduled agenda. Matthew Jones, Jones Farradino Law Firm. Mr. Jones states that he concurs with everything the Chairman, Cliff Van Wagner stated regarding the Prinicipal City Planner, Jackie Hakes. We welcome Jackie to the good side. A number of us realized how important it is to have someone who spends until midnight here with the Board giving not just professional and competent advise but fully reserached through, thoughtful and deliberative and dispassionate. This is not only important to the people we represent who have thousands maybe millions of dollars at stake in their applications but to have someone with that caliber of professionalism is hugely important. On behalf of a number of my collegues and myself, in the time Jackie has been with the City as Principal Planner we have always seen her handle herself and this board with with a calm demeanor and a sense of grace and these qualities we admire and we would like to expresses our appreciation with these flowers and a gift certificate. Jacklyn Hakes stated that the gifts were not necessary but very much appreicated and it has been a pleasure to work with such a dedicated Board. Thank you to all. Helena Frost, Grand Avenue. I am the lady that had the fire two years ago. I am very frustrated by the process. I have not appeared before this Board, my attorney and architect have appeared. It has taken one year to get a building permit. I am angry. Due to the delays with City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – March 10, 2010 - Page 2 of 23 my project and due to the fact that it was commercial and because of personnel changes in several departments I cannot get my money back. Now I am being required to have a street light installed in an area where there is no line. I am the only one who has had to go the extra mile, because my home was a multi family home and considered commercial. I would like to file my revised plans, remove the light and get my money back. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner states that he is very familiar with the project. It is not a commercial site. It was not a commercial site. It was an allowable two unit zone. The applicant requested a 3rd unit thus making a site plan revision, necessitating a street light and street trees. That information was given to the applicant. This is a zoning code regulation which states how many per linear foot. This board does not have the authority to return monies on a letter of credit, a bond or whatever. The project is not completed to the engineers specifications. You must speak with City engineer and staff. A. LETTER OF CREDIT REVISIONS: 1. 07.031.2 ZANKEL MUSIC CENTER–SKIDMORE COLLEGE–815 NORTH BROADWAY Paul Lundburg agent representing Skidmore College. Current Letter of Credit amount $163,000 reduced from $271,500 on March 11, 2009. Requesting extension to June 30, 2010 and reduction to $30,000. City Engineer suggest Letter of Credit amount should be reduced to $75,800. Reason for extension: only top coat for parking lots remaining. Anyone in the audience who wishes to comment on this request. None heard. Request for a 6 month Letter of Credit extension to September 30, 2010 in the amount of $75,000. Motion by Jamin Totino, seconded by Philip Klein. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; Suzanne Cleary, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor Motion passes 7-0 2. 06.065.1 MOKASHA SQUARE SUBDIVISION – 2-11 MOKASHA SQUARE Andre Schmid, Laguna Homes Current Letter of Credit amount $81,700 reduced from $229,500 on September 24, 2008. Requesting extension to September 30, 2011 and $81,700. Reason for extension: top coat of road has not been completed. Anyone in the audience who wishes to comment on this request. None heard. Request for an 18 month Letter of Credit extension to September 30, 2011 in the amount of $81,700. Motion by Michael Perkins, seconded by Dan Gaba. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; Suzanne Cleary, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – March 10, 2010 - Page 3 of 23  Motion passes 7-0. 3. 04.103.3 HAMPTON INN & SUITES – 38 HIGH ROCK AVENUE Michael Hoffman Current Letter of Credit amount $157,000 reduced from $370,896 11/2005. Requesting extension to September 30, 2011 and $157,000 to $111,300 Reason for extension: work not yet done. Remaining open items include landscaping and “as built” drawings. Anyone in the audience wishing to comment on this application. None heard. Request for an 18 month Letter of Credit extension to September 30, 2011 in the amount of $111,300. Motion by Jamin Totino, seconded by Philip Klein VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; Suzanne Cleary, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor Motion passes 7-0. 4. 01.032.2 PARK ALLEY SUBDIVISION, 79 GREENFIELD AVENUE John Witt Current Letter of Credit Amount $59,400. Planning Board approval April 25, 2001. Requesting extension to March 30, 2011. Reason for extension: need to have sidewalk finished and as-built drawings. Anyone in the audience wishing to comment on this applicant. None heard. Request for a 12 month Letter of Credit extension to March 30, 2011. Motion by Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary, seconded by Dan Gaba. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor, P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; Suzanne Cleary, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor Motion passes 7-0. 5. 08.001.1 DEE PROPERTIES – 233 MAPLE AVENUE Jones Farradino Agent Planning Board Approval of a 2-lot subdivision on February 14, 2008. $9500 cash in lieu of letter of credit. Requesting extension to September 30, 2011. Reason for extension: The economic climate over the past 18 months has delayed the project. Anyone in the audience wishing to comment on this application. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – March 10, 2010 - Page 4 of 23 Request for an 18 month extension to September 30, 2011, $9500 cash in lieu of a Letter of Credit . Motion by Jamin Totino, seconded by Amy Durland. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; M. Perkins; in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor Motion passes 7-0. 6. 06.042.1 262-268 BROADWAY MIXED USE BUILDING – 262-268 BROADWAY Keith Ferraro, agent for Bonacio Construction Current Letter of Credit amount $86,000, in September 24, 2008. Requesting extension to September 30, 2011, and reduction in Letter of Credit to $23,000. Reason for extension: small amount of concrete work remains which will not be completed until summer. Anyone in the audience wishing to comment on this application. None heard. Request for an 18 month Letter of Credit extension to September 30, 2011 in the amount of $23,000. Motion by Dan Gaba, seconded by Philip Klein. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor, M. Perkins, in favor, P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor Motion passes 7-0. B. APPLICATIONS: 7. 10.008 WJ GRANDE INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION, Duplainville Road, public hearing on a four lot subdivision in the General Inustrial District. Applicant: John Munter, Michael Munter, Munter Land Holdings, LLC, Tom Nace, Agent. We are being asked to consider a request for a 4-lot subdivision in a General Industrial District (ND-G). The application is to divide 130 acres into 4 lots. Site plan review would be required for any build-out or future development of these lots according to the use table found in Article II of the Zoning Ordinance. Saratoga County Planning Board refferal is still pending. Therefore, we cannot take any action this evening awaiting the response from Saratoga County Planning. COMMENTS RECEIVED: Letter and email from Paul Safran, 50 Adams Road, received March 8, 2010. Presentation by Michael Munter. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – March 10, 2010 - Page 5 of 23 Questions or comments from the Board. Amy Durland asked what the hydrology and topography of the area is especially lot 4, are there wetlands, flood plain? The applicants will of course follow the DEC buffers which are required. Mr. Nace does not know if it is a flood plain, there are wetlands in the back of the property line along the creek. John Munter states that there is a flood plain along Rowlands Hollow Creek. Any area along the creek is considered wetlands and is delineated. Of course this will all be addressed when a tenant is ready to develop the area. Amy Durland agreed with Mr. Munter. Lot 4 is a concern due to a conservation easement being contiguous to that area and to maintain a buffer. Appears to be the most environmentally sensitive lot. Do you intend to do any cutting prior to tenants. Mr. Munter said no only to stockpile equipement/supplies but no access cleaning or clearing for marketing purposes. Amy Durland reminded the applicants of the Soil Disturbance Permit that would be required prior to any substantial cutting. Also, Jackie can you give us some information regarding the Karner Blue. Jackie Hake informed the group that there are some habitat areas in this area for the Karner Blue Butterfly which is an endangered species. Katherine O’Brien of the DEC would be able to offer information and should be contacted prior to developement of this area. Dan Gaba asked for some scale or idea of the size of the lots. Mr. John Munter stated that lot 1 is approximately 131/2 acres, lot 2 is approximately 161/2 acres, lot 3 approximately 55 acres and lot 4 is 42 acres. However, there are only 10-12 acres of usable land on lot 4. Closer scrutiny will be made when there are tenants for this acreage and site plans must be presented. PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing is opened at 8:00pm. Any comments from the audience at this time. Please come forward and state your name. Thomas Gibbs, 7 Dutchess Court, Saratoga Springs. I live in Rowland Hollow East. I would just like to address some issues with the Planning Board, and some areas for them to look at. They neighborhood would like some vegetative screening from Adams Road. There are nice homes in this area and they would like some buffer between the industrial park and these homes. Also, traffic coming our of the Grande Industrial Park is awful. Cars, and trucks and busses coming in and out at all hours of the day and night. Traffic at Rt 5 and Geyser Rd is always backed up. We are very concerned in our neighborhood. Board members indicated to Mr. Gibbs that there is some traffic mitigation in process. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – March 10, 2010 - Page 6 of 23 The Saratoga County Planning Board which meets the 3rd Thursday of the month is working on traffic site plan. Mr. Gibbs thanked all members of the board, his neighbors for working so hard. Chairman Cliff Van Wagner assured Mr. Gibbs that his comments and concerns have been made part of the permanent record and will be kept for future reference. Jackie Hakes states that the bridge over the railroad tracks is scheduled for improvements. The design work is almost completed and they are moving forward very quickly with stimulus monies. The bridge will be somewhat larger establishing a 3rd lane. Jackie Hakes states that under SEQRA it is an unlisted action. Long form is not required for unlisted action. The Planning Board does have the ability to request that of any applicant from the perspective of actually completing an accurate long form. It would be difficult not understanding a lot of the potential impacts and not knowing the current usage. I would suggest that in the draft part II that you have in front of you are some proposed language to help address some of the concerns that should be addressed at the time of site plan understanding more clearly what is going to be happening on the site. Part of short form, indicating that the board did consider that there are potential impacts at the time of site plan review. This is an option if you still wish to require a long form at this point this is another option. Procedurally, assuming that the County of Saratoga has a positive recommendation for this, then this would come back to us for a four lot subdivision, we need a SEQRA determination on that four lot subdivision. When the applicants come back to us with an applicant for one of the four lots with a building square footage, parking and all the other items we can then go into a SEQRA determination for that individual lot and if necessary go to the long form. Jackie Hakes would also like to point out for the record for the benefit of the public who may be aware, Article II of the Zoning Ordinance identifies permitted uses for this particular district. There are no principal permitted uses in this district, so everything at a minimum needs and requires site plan review and may require special use permits. Everything will have to come back before the board for site plan review. Chairman Van Wagner states that this is a four lot subdivision by simply drawing the lines to separate one parcel into four and extending the road 800 feet. We can do the short form, then depending on what applicant comes in for what site will determine what we have to do down the line knowing that we are all very sensitive to the environmental issues on the entire acreage. Andrea Hyde Rogers, 57 Ballston Avenue and I have always been interested in the historical name of Adams Road. Descendant of Adams Whipple, and I am interested in history and I am trying to figure out if there is anything historical about Adams Road. I have lived here since 1991 I have been curious about it because I know they Whipple Adams are from this area. The Board informed Ms. Rogers local historians could probably help you. These applicants are not proposing a new use, they do not need a use variance. This entire park is zoned for an industrial park. The zoning does not give them the right to build anything, they have to come before the board with any new use. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak about this application. None Heard. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – March 10, 2010 - Page 7 of 23 The public hearing will remain open. Jackie Hakes interjected that if something were to come back from the County that might change what occurs with regards to SEQRA, the planning board can at any time go back and review SEQRA again. SEQRA PART II REVIEW Chairman Van Wagner reviewed the SEQRA short EAF Part II. No other large or important impacts were identified. Jamin Totino states that based upon the information provided by the applicant Part I of the SEQRA short EAF an analysis of the information provided and presented in Part II of the SEQRA short EAF form. The project will not result in any large or important impact and is therefore one that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. I move to issue negative declaration for this action. Seconded by Dan Gaba. Any questions or comments. Hearing none. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein; D. Gaba, in favor, Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor Motion approved 7-0. Chairman Van Wagner stated we have clearly delineated where we need to go from here. Mr. Munter stated this is just the first step with this project. I suggest you contact Jackie and get on the agenda in two weeks. We will leave the public hearing open. We will comment on the next meeting after hearing the County Planning Board comments. Board recessed at 8:35pm Board resumed meeting at 8:40 pm 8. 10.006 CHINDAMO LAUNDROMAT, 360 Broadway, 6 Phila Street, continuation of public hearing on special use permit for small laundromat in the Transect-6 District. Applicant Steve Chindamo. Mr. Chindamo states since the last meeting he has had a notice from the Building Inspector stating all construction had to be stopped because of the need for a permit. I went to speak to Steve Shorr, who is a building inspector and he stated I did not necessarily need a building permit. A builidng permit would be contingent upon a code review, and that I should get a code review. I hired an architect who works nearby and he did a code review. Some of the things he addressed are things that you talked about with me earlier. Fire safety, this space about 100 years ago used to be a bank vault. It was the cigar lounge was a bank. It still have some of the vaults. My area is the main vault. So, it is totally encased in concrete and steel and so it is not from what the architect says not a fire hazard. It would take hours upon hours for a fire to reach any part of the building. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – March 10, 2010 - Page 8 of 23 Jackie Hakes stated improvements of a non residential use less than 4,000 square feet so it is a Type II action which does not require SEQRA review. You do need to review the six special use permit standards and whether or not your and the board feel that the proposed use meets those criteria. Two other items to consider are the applicant did request a permenent special use permit and then is also requesting waiver of site plan, in this particular instance. That is something that is rarely suggested for the Planning Board. A waiver of site plan for a variety of reasons but in this particular instance, the Engineering Department and the Planning Department feel that it would not be necessary given that there is actually no site work being done here. There are no parking requirements in a T-6 for this and it would all be internal. The Board can place any conditions that you may wish after you get through the six criteria and feel that conditions are appropriate. Jamin Totino stated just so the applicant is going into this with full awareness the last sentence of the architecture report that points to and says that this building would be impossible to bring this to wheelchair accessibility standards. Which brings a question in my mind that one of the intentions of the applicant was to maintain a laundry service for the people who were renting out of your building or the public? Steven Chindamo the applicant states it would be for the public with limited hours. Chairman Van Wagner states that the application must conform to these specifications. The board will review the six special permit standards: 1). The extend to which the use is in harmony with and promotes the general purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and this ordinance and its effect on the health, welfare and safety of the City and its residents. Answer: Compatible with the comprehensive plan. 2). The overall compatibility of the use with the neighborhood and the positive and negative impacts on community character, including the character of adjoining properties, districts and uses, and the positive and negative impacts on density, including the density of adjoining properties, districts and uses. Answer: Compatible with the comprehensive plan. 3). The positive and negative impacts of the use on vehicular congestion and parking, including the provision of adequate parking and the absence of hazardous parking or traffic conditions. Answer: Positive impact. 4). The positive and negative impacts on infrastructure and services, including utilities, public facilities and services, including the extent to which the project extends or provides infrastructure and services to areas in need of such infrastructure and services. Answer: Neglilgible. 5). The positive and negative impacts on environmental and natural resources, including the environmental and physical suitability of the site for development, the risk of fire, flood or erosion and impacts such as emissions of electrical charges, dust, light, vibration or noise detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – March 10, 2010 - Page 9 of 23 Answer: Questionable, but the code enforcement process following this will determine that. 6). The extent to which the use provides positive or negative effects on the long-term economic stability and community character of the City and surrounding properties, districts and uses. Answer: No negative impacts. Anyone in the audience who wishes to comments on this application? None heard. Chairman Van Wagner would like to entertain a motion to grant this special use permit, reflect a waiver of site plan. Special use permit would be clearly defined as having a maximum of 4 washer and 4 double dryers and that all required permits and inspections shall be obtained prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Those permits and inspections may include but not be limited to a Building Permit, a Plumbing Permit, Fire Inspection and Electrical Inspection. Amy Durland, as previously stated, feels this is a laudable use downtown and the items that Mr. Chindamo had submitted as part of his application were reflected in the items that we just went throught with the special use permit standards are accurate. My only question is do we have any obligation under the ADA or anything else to provide handicapped access? Jamin Totino stated no we do not and the reason the question was asked was for the benefit of the applicant, to be aware that to my knowledge opening a business to the public requires handicapped accessibility. If there is a waiver or provision that would relieve him of that obligation I am unaware of that. The applicant states that his architect is telling him that the clause would be grandfathered in because it has been a business since approximately the 1940’s. The business has not been interrupted for more than a year. Any other questions or comments from the board? Philip Klein stated and would like to possibly make a part of the motion if we can, if the applicant would agree to locking it up at 9:00pm. The applicant does not have any problems with locking this establishment up at this hour. Chairman Van Wagner stated that we will put the hours of operation written into the Special Use Permit. The applicant states 6am until 10pm. Clifford Van Wagner would like to entertain a motion for the Special Use Permit for the Operation of a laundromat at 6 Phila Street, with the following conditions: ▪Site plan waived. ▪Maximum of 4 washing machines and 4 double stacked dryers be allowed to be in use. ▪All required permits and inspections shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. ▪Permits and inspections may include but not be limited to the following: a building permit, a plumbing permit, and electrical inspection, a fire inspection, ▪Hours of operation will be limited to 7 days per week, 6am to 10pm. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – March 10, 2010 - Page 10 of 23 The board notes that the six standards of the special use permit are met by this application. This will be a permanent Special Use Permit. Motion by Philip Klein, seconded by Michael Perkins. Anyone in the audience wishing to comment on this application? Hearing none. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor; Motions passes 7-0. 9. 09.057 WHITE FARMS ROAD BED AND BREAKFAST, 66 White Farms Road, continuation of public hearing for special use permit for five room neighborhood bed and breakfast in a Rural Residential-1 District. Applicant: Jon Cromer, (David Harper, agent) Nick D’Allessandro substituting. Chairman Van Wagner states that this is the third hearing. The points at issue here are to operate a neighborhood bed and breakfast in an RR-1 District. If it is granted with Special Use Permit a site plan will be subsequently required. Points of consideration at the table when we started was the very apparent use of a home occupation and also not only apparent but the offered proof of the applicant that cars have been parked on this site to accomodate overflow traffic at SPAC. When we last met, I asked the applicant to come back and tell us what he really wants to do, because as we heard and saw drawings and pictures and we heard from the attorney for and the attorney against we really never heard what the true request of us was. We know that there is a request for a Bed and Breakfast. There has been a Bed and Breakfast in the past, there has been home occupation in the past, which this Planning Board observed in their caravan, and the applicant has admitted that he has parked cars. So, if there are no other questions or comments, My very first question is would you tell us what it is you exactly want and what you don’t want. Nick D’Allessandro substituting for David Harper stated that Mr. Cromer prepared a sworn affidavit that was given to the Board that addresses some of the issues that were brought up in the past. Basically, he does want to operate a five bedroom Bed and Breakfast. He still wants the opportunity to park cars occasionally, when the Bed and Breakfast is not in operation and he feels that the parking of the cars is a benefit to the City because it alleviates congestion on White Farms Road and in the Spring Development and also makes for a safer path for people to cross the street over into SPAC. His main emphasis is to operate a 5 bedroom Bed and Breakfast. Chairman Clilfford Van Wagner with a special use permit a neighborhood bed and breakfast is an allowed use. Parking is not. Parking is not an allowed use. It is not defined as being an allowed use if it is not there, then we can easily assume that it is a non allowable, not a legal use. So, I think we need to start with that. We haven’t spoken about the home occupation. Philip Klein states there is a way to get to that end, however it is not through this board. It would have to go through the zoning ordinance. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – March 10, 2010 - Page 11 of 23 Michael Perkins states that the home occupation is even outside of this. What we are doing is voting on whether to issue a special use permit for a Bed and Breakfast, go through the list of six standards and does it meet those. We can put conditions on the permit. Jamin Totino agrees with Michael Perkins and believes this is the way to go. We do have the ability to with a public hearing revoke the special use permit if violations occur in the meantime. They just have to be presented to us and we have to hold a public comment but that would be incumbent on neighbors or anybody else to report to the City and that can unfold. Chairman Van Wagner states that the Board also spoke regarding whether this would be a renewable or if the special use permit could go with the ownership of the property and that it would expire if the applicant would be successful in selling his property, which is the final goal of this. I believe I am quite correct in stating that the special use permit goes with the land not with the ownership, so we could not make the permit contingent on that. It can certainly be a renewable yearly special use permit. We have a B & B within the City that has the same stipulation. The applicant states if his video business were flourishing I would not be here. If the Bed and Breakfast is successful I will stay there and run it and live here. That is what I wanted to do from the beginning. Amy Durland states that it does not really matter. This happens and it certainly would not be the first applicant to come in and get approval and convey the property to someone else and leave. Jackie Hakes interjected the criteria to be addressed as part of the Bed and Breakfast. I would also point out that as part of the affidavit that was received on Monday, the applicant is also requesting a waiver of site plan for this. The neighborhood bed and breakfast is a permitted use in the RR-1 district, with a special use permit and site plan. Unlike the last application the board just reviewed there would be potential site changes and issues to be addressed and staff would recommend that the site plan should occur. The Board will review the six special permit standards: 1). The extend to which the use is in harmony with and promotes the general purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and this ordinance and its effect on the health, welfare and safety of the City and its residents. Answer: Compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. 2). The overall compatibility of the use with the neighborhood and the positive and negative impacts on community character, including the character of adjoining properties, districts and uses, and the positive and negative impacts on density, including the density of adjoining properties, districts and uses. Answer: Compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. 3). The positive and negative impacts of the use on vehicular congestion and parking, including the provision of adequate parking and the absence of hazardous parking or traffic conditions. Answer: No concern. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – March 10, 2010 - Page 12 of 23 4). The positive and negative impacts on infrastructure and services, including utilities, public facilities and services, including the extent to which the project extends or provides infrastructure and services to areas in need of such infrastructure and services. Answer: No concern. 5). The positive and negative impacts on environmental and natural resources, including the environmental and physical suitability of the site for development, the risk of fire, flood or erosion and impacts such as emissions of electrical charges, dust, light, vibration or noise detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Amy Durland stated because this is over five acres and the acreage that includes the house and parking is a small portion of that five acres. I would like there to be some type of recogition in the minutes or framed as a condition that if there is ever any expansion of this property into any of the other areas on that five acres, then there are further assessments that need to be completed in terms of the environmental impact. I would also suggest that the buffer to Route 50, the wooded area the trees that separate the house from Route 50 that the trees be retained and that would be a condition in the Special Use Permit. The applicant states that he will clean up the dead wood and the brush, but the trees will remain. Amy Durland questioned Jackie Hakes about language concerning dead trees. Jackie Hakes stated that there is some standard language that is typically used in conservation easements to allow for the removal of dead and diseased trees. The Board can include this as a condition of this approval that a buffer shall remain at the time of site planning, as well as the pedestrian access in connection to the state park property. 6). The extent to which the use provides positive or negative effects on the long-term economic stability and community character of the City and surrounding properties, districts and uses. Philip Klein states that if were to approve the special use permit that if we look at the character of the surrounding properties that would actually enhance the character of the surrounding properties because we could eliminate a number of the detrimental things that exist or used to exist on that property. Anyone in the audience who would like to comment on this application? Mr. Toohey, attorney for Mrs. Whitney and Mr. Hendrickson. I am assuming that the applicant has concluded his presentation. The first point that I want to make is that there as a matter of law there is insufficient evidence before you at this moment for you to make a determination that a special use permit can be granted on this property. The testimony as for the six standards have not come from the applicant. It is not the boards job to supply proof and it is improper for the board to supply proof on its own with regard to applications and the answer to all six of those questions and in three meetings now I have not heard any of those six questions answered by proof submitted by the applicant or data that has been supplied. The board does not have the right to testify on behalf of the applicant which is exactly what just happened as you went through all six of those issues. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – March 10, 2010 - Page 13 of 23 Amy Durland disagreed with Mr. Toohey. We were not testifying at all. We were simply going through each of the standards to determine based on all the evidence that was presented before us in previous meetings whether we felt that this use would meet those standards. We were not testifying on his behalf or anything like that we were simply reviewing those standards and determining, which is what we are supposed to do, whether those criteria would be met. Mr. Toohey is suggesting and I am trying to do it respectfully is that the information that came from the members of the board is not within you record. It is information that is gleened from some other source, but it is not information gleaned from the applicant that as a matter of law cannot be done. Philip Klein stated that the determination that we reached was a arrived at by a process of us going out on a site visit and looking at the property. We are familiar with Saratoga Springs and the character of the City. We are familiar with the zoning and what the property is zoned as now. I think there was a lot of information that the board had when it was reviewing those six criteria. The applicant also submitted a long SEQRA form Part I, which also has a lot of information which the board has not yet addressed. Mr. Toohey is just speaking about what he perceived has happened here this evening. Because the Boards background knowledge with regard to any particular property is not a substitute for the applicant having to come forward with proof with regard to what is going on with regards to its own application. Otherwise there would be no need for the applicant to submit proof. It is only the facts within the records submitted by the applicant that should be considered. The Board can then glean from those facts other information. Otherwise there is no reason to do that. I will not repeat all the information that I gave you last week that already is within the record and will be reviewed later on. I do have a question though and I do have a concern with regard to some of the information that came up at the agenda session. Everybody was here except a few members and the Planning Boards attorney who I respect very much came in and said very clearly that yours is not an enforcement responsibiltiy. You do not have that right to be the enforcer with regard to things that are going on. That is not the point that I am trying to make here. The reason if you recall in my most recent letter I used the concept of a hazardous waste finding with regard to this property is that if there was hazardous waste on this property then at that point when you go through your criteria, you would certainly take that into consideration because it is a present problem. The counsel for the board said no that is not the same thing because that is a permanent problem. The problem is that it is not a permanent problem. Hazardous waste matter can be mitigated. It can be eliminated, it can be erradicated from the property as a result it can no longer be considered. The points that we are making is that there are things that exist on this property, just like a hazardous waste, that could be eliminated but have not been eliminated. Just like hazardous waste they are something that could be taken back and I’m not asking you to enforce that, you do not have the right to enforce that. You do not have the right to enforce that but you also have the right just like you could consider the hazardous waste that would exist on the site to consider that as you go through your review of that six standards. We are ignoring what exists presently on this site, just as if we were ignoring that hazardous waste problem. I am just asking you to see if you believe that these things do infact exist. There is a big difference between the two. I am not asking you to enforce, I am asking you to recognize that which exists. That is not what Marc said you could and could not do. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – March 10, 2010 - Page 14 of 23 Amy Durland stated she summarized after Marc Schachner’s discussion and what he said. I would like to get on the record what my read is of what he said and if anyone disagrees you can jump in. What I thought he was saying is we cannot say that the planning board can’t review the special use permit application because of past or existing violations. The Planning Board has no zoning enforcement role. That we can condition the requested use on the cessation of any unauthorized use if the unauthorized uses are reasonably related to the proposed use. In the case of some toxic contamination I think you could say that there is a very direct and significant relationship to the proposed use. We can’t use ownership as one of our conditions that we can limit in terms of time. This is what I had understood Marc Schachner to say. I do not see any contradiction in what you said with what we have done so far, or what we are considering. Mr. Toohey, states again for the record he does. The distinction that is being made is that these are pre-existing conditions you cannot look a those pre-existing conditions, but you can look at the condition of the property as it exists right now. You can look at the condition of the property it has a parking business on it, that the applicant as of tonight wants to continue. It has on it right now a home occupation that may or may not be questionable. It has on it provably a bed and breakfast operation that is going on without a permit. Those are things that exist right now. So again, I am not telling you to tell him to stop doing that, I am merely stating that within your analysis of those six standards, those six tests those things have to come into consideration because they exist just like hazardous waste exists on the site right now. For example, parking, we have 75-125 car parking lot that is going on there on a seasonal basis. One of your standards has to do with parking. It isn’t that that used to exist, not only does it exist, but the applicant wants it to continue to exist. There is an admission that that is a standard that exists on this property right now. That has to be taken into consideration I believe. Jackie Hakes interjected a lot of these issues that are being raised have been submitted through a very lengthy public hearing process at the last meeting as well as in writing and the board has been given direction by the Planning Board Attorney. I would reinforce that direction that the Planning Board attorney has given. Mr. Toohey stated he has made his point. There is a distinction between enforcement which you do not have the right to and realization of what actually exists on the property. It is clear to me that there is a move to grant this application. I recognize that, so if the application is going to be granted I would ask that it be given status as a renewable permit. A one year renewable permit. There is nothing in the code that says there is any magic in the one year number. The primary problems that have existed with regard to this property will exist from this day forward until probably September or October of this year. They are not parking cars there in the middle of October. The Bed and Breakfast is or is not being properly or improperly run at Christmas Time so if our goal is to sit there and see if in fact there is a standard that is being met by the applicant in good faith. There is no need for that one year standard. I would suggest that it be a six month standard. The six months takes this applicant through the period when a bed and breakfast at that site will be most viable economically and otherwise. It takes through the period where the greatest complaints from the neighbors exist with regard to its use and utilization. Let’s see how this proves out. I would ask the board to take that into consideration. One of the things that Mark Schackner said was that you do not have enforcement rights, I would ask you to look at Section 240.6.3(i). This section of the code states “The Planning Board shall attach such conditions as safeguard to the special use permit as our determined by the Planning Board to be necessary and City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – March 10, 2010 - Page 15 of 23 desirable to ensure conformance with the letter and spirit of all applicable standards and requirements. For purpose of this board I believe that phrase should be interpreted to include all of the standards and requirements of the code. That it broadens your authority beyond that which is setup here. Mr. Toohey states he wishes the Board to look at this in a broader sense. They would have said applicable for special use permits, or applicable in article VI. Clearly in the article below that you can see that they do refer to specifics sections. Also you do have the right to mitigation, perhaps this is something to discuss at the site plan review with regard to damage that has been done to both State and private property. Nick D’Alessandro agent for Mr. Cromer states that there is no parking business there. There is no infrastructure, there is just a large field. Mr. Cromer used these fields to park cars 8 times last year during large concerts. He is willing to give that up. It does not fit the bed and breakfast that is his main focus here. Also, he is not running a bed and breakfast now. He has not rented the house out since 2005. He only rented it out 5 times. On a similar basis when people rent out their houses during track season. As far as a renewal period six months, Mr. Cromer has to make an investment to convert the house to a bed and breakfast. People do come her during the winter time. It is a nice area, especially being close to the park for cross country skiing. So we would ask if you do consider granting this special use permit on a renewable period that it be at least for one year. Chairman Van Wagner asked what improvements have to be made to this property in order for this to be a bed and breakfast? Mr. Cromer stated that he had Tom Frost come in and do a code compliance. Smoke detectors permanently wired in the bedrooms. Emergency exist signs. Carbon monoxide detectors. I had an area designated for parking for the guests. Whether that needs to be paved or if we can stay gravel. Paint and remodel a little bit inside. We have been holding off on any kind of construction until we know what we are doing. Jackie Hakes interjected there is something the board may want to consider with the renewable special use permit and timing and you can identify whatever time you feel is appropriate. In addition to the special use permit, the applicant will need site plan review, will also need DRC review for any changes to the exterior and will most likely need a building permit prior to getting the certificate of occupancy. There is a lot of time involved in those so if you are going to assign a time I would recommend identifying whether that time is from the point of the speical use permit grant or from the approval of the site plan or from the approval and receipt of the building permit. Just narrow that a little bit so that the entire time frame is not take up by the review process. Chairman Van Wagner stated assuming the applicant follows the letter of the law, he cannot rent a room as a bed and breakfast until he gets a certificate of occupancy. Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary stated that the location of White Farms Road is in an area where you can have a bed and breakfast, however we have neighbors that are upset. Where do you draw the line and make it fair to them as well as the applicant here. I think there is a credibility problem that is in the back of everyone’s mind that’s not being addressed. It is the question of what is really going on and that is probably putting a damper on this just moving forward. Jackie Hakes interjected that part of trying to strike that balance, the applicant is requesting a permanent special use permit which means he does not have to come back at any time. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – March 10, 2010 - Page 16 of 23 One of the attempts to try to strike a balance is the possibility of a renewable which would identify the necessity to come back before the board and have the board take a look at. Application is for the property not the owner. The board has to look at the parcel itself and is it appropriate for the parcel. Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary states that it is hard to separate the two. Just as another side note, is this septic or sewer? The applicant stated septic. Suzanee Bernardi-Cleary states there are only so many people and families that are allowed to live in the house using the septic system, otherwise you have to add onto your septic system. Do you know if you have the right septic system? The applicant states there is a history of this house and it was an inn at one time. It has six bedrooms and the system that is there is big enough for the six bedrooms. I had Billy McTygue come out and take a look and Tom Cross looked and they said it should be adequate. We took the top off and since I have been there, I have pumped it out once and Stone Industries came and did it and said this thing is huge. Amy Durland states that this is a site plan review issue. The question I had its true there is a difference between the neighborhood bed and breakfast and the corridor bed and breakfast in terms of the special activities. The neighborhood bed and breakfast may not have regularly scheduled commercial indoor and outdoor activities such as weddings, receptions, showers, business meetings, etc., and for the corridor bed and breakfast it says you may have regularly scheduled activities. Does that mean there can be occasional ones that are not regularly scheduled? Jackie Hakes interjected that given that language it is a little bit open. Suggest that before the permit is issued the conditions should be listed. The reason for that is that they do have periodic events and they do have to supply by July 1st of the year what events are scheduled to the building inspector and that is a requirement of the special use permit. Jamin Totino stated that he is also struggling. The board has done its diligence. We have all done the site plan and I was out there over the weekend again. Most of my energy has been focused on dealing with or how we are dealing with the alleged violations. I am comfortable with the fact that we have gone through the six criteria that are before us, it might be better not to move forward on this application tonight. The public hearing is still open and to consider some of these contingencies that have come up including the home occupation and limiting that and the parking and possibly others. Since we are not under any timeline this matter needs to be handled sensitively especially in regards to Suzanne comments regarding past practice and striking a balance here with what our obligations are and some of the arguments that Mr. Toohey has made. I would like a little more time to think about this and to come up with a solution that really makes sense for everyone, and possibly bring Mark Schachtner back in regard to some of Mr. Toohey’s comments. What I hear from Suzanne and my own concerns are what we heard from the neighbors are not around the concern of having a bed and breakfast. They are around past alleged violations around parking and businesses and so on. So how do we structure a decision that does strike a balance with all that. I am not ready for that tonight. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – March 10, 2010 - Page 17 of 23 Mike Perkins states that particular point, I think comes with the conditions if there are legal uses you grant a special use permit, a one year permit starting immediately, and it would be revoked if there were any illegal activity. Jamin Totino states that revocation is not immediate. Somebody would have to initiate a public hearing and then we would have the ability to revoke that. We can’t just do that automatically. Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary states when someone moves to the suburbs and they have five acres. There is a certain amount of rights that they have too. They want a certain amount of privacy, and certain things that are going on. I am picturing myself as anyone of those neighbors and I am thinking now this is something new in my neighborhood. So, granting the applicant his right here, I am denying other folks their rights as well. This is where I need to get a balance. This courtroom is open for everyone to give their feelings and opinions and I am taking that to heart too. Unfortunately there is the credibility thing and it is all going on. Nick D’Alessandro attorney for Mr. Cromer states that Mr. Cromer has submitted a petition that has been signed by a large number of neighbors. Only one neighbor has made a complaint about his idea of having a bed and breakfast. As far as the parking goes he is willing to forgo the parking and he did not create the parking situation, the cars came to him. Anytime there is a large SPAC concert like Dave Matthews, there is not enough parking for people, they park up and down that street, and cause a traffic hazard and also they park in the Springs Condominium area. The people who actually live in the condo area were happy that he was having this parking because it alleviated problems for them. Now, he may have violated the law, it was good natured and he did not understand that he was doing that. So he is willing to forego that. We have no problems with the parking and only one neighbor, albeit a neighbor with a lot of clout is complaining about his five bedroom bed and breakfast, ten people maximum if he is so lucky to fill it up. Jackie Hakes interjected that it appears that this is going to be continued and a couple of things to think about as your pondering this over the next few weeks. I am not sure when this will be back on, #1. I would like to suggest that the Planning Board as your reviewing this that you do take into consideration all the comments from the public hearing but that a decision generally on a special use permit should not be made solely on the comments from the public but does need to be based in our zoning ordinance regulations the review of those criteria for special use permit as well as the SEQRA review. The second part of that is that I suggest that you have a draft SEQRA Part II and have the board look through carefully all the aspects of that SEQRA form as well as you are thinking through this. Amy Durland respects what Jamin Totino and Suzanne said. In some ways it would be more appropriate to proceed tonight because as we have said before in other applications a lot of the issues that need to be resolved would be resolved during the site plan. The parking does need to be addressed as well as a number of other issues. The reason that I would be more interested in proceeding is because something indicated in the affidavit that was submitted by the applicant’s attorney the special use permit is seen or can be seen and certainly I see it as a way of lawfully extinguishing the unauthorized uses that have existed in the past. This is a City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – March 10, 2010 - Page 18 of 23 positive step, something that is going to help remedy the situation, not something that is going to make it worse. We are talking about a bed and breakfast by the way a smaller and less intensive use of a bed and breakfast than what the applicant is entitled to request. This gives us an opening to define and address all these other impacts that people are concerned about that were unauthorized. I do not see any reason not to continue on with it. Chairman Van Wagner agreed that if this was to proceed to a positive special use permit that the language would very significantly, limit what can or cannot be done. We need to keep pecking away at this thing and we ought to have more conversations with Mark Schactner. Weigh in one more time. We are close. I would be very comfortable to have Mark Schactner come back one more time. I want to do this like all the other cases to make sure we are on thick ice here. We do need to study this a little further. Philip Klein suggested we stop in the Planning office and give those conditions that we individually would like to see and have them put together and possibly communicated to us prior to the workshop so that we could take a look at it and then discuss more at the workshop. I agree with Amy, I see this as a positive step for the neighbors. A positive step for rectifying some of the alleged illegal uses of the property, and having this whole outcome be a very good positive outcome, not only for the applicant but for the whole neighborhood. Suzanne Bernardi-Clearly states she was thinking along those line as well. I am not getting the sense that this is a desire on the applicant’s part. Just at the last meeting two weeks ago he was putting the house up for sale, and he was moving on. Was it just because he really wanted to do it or was it a feature he wanted to offer with the sale of his house. When someone has a passion to open up a bed and breakfast and they want to do it as a livelihood, you have more of a feeling to help this applicant out, but it is a gray area. I can almost hear him saying that if I can’t rent out the rooms then I will park cars. My other business is not working either. So, it is a scramble of things that I am struggling with. Amy Durland suggests that if we are going to have Mark Schactner that we have him in at the actual meeting rather than the agenda workshop. I think it would be useful to have him here when the applicant is here and we’re all officially here. Jackie Hakes will speak to Marc Schactner and see his availability to attend a meeting. Edwin Andrews, 4 Winners Circle. I submitted a letter previously on behalf and signed the petition that he mentioned before. In regards to the alleged legal or illegal parking that is going on at the property. It is my opinion and many of my neighbors opinions it is a public service. He is keeping those partying from parking in my driveway and defecating on my lawn. He provides for the handful of cars that use his parking he provides the same number of portalets as the entire 1500 car overflow parking provided by SPAC and Live Nation. He provides every car that comes in a trash bag and a dumpster to put it in when they leave. I know he has a home business because once in a while I notice his truck it is out of site. He does not disturb any neighbors with his home business and were he prevented from parking cars I would have to clean up crap that he handles. I walked past his house the morning after a concert and walked past his overflow parking lot. The trash at the official parking lot at SPAC is there for a week minimum. There is an official crew that comes through at 6am they do not do a very good job. He is cleaning up after them. Don’t take him away. A bed and breakfast there is room on his five acres for however many cars that would require to virtually disappear. It would have no impact on the neighborhood. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – March 10, 2010 - Page 19 of 23 Applicant Jon Cromer states that he has no intention of turning the property into the Elvis Chapel of Saratoga Springs. Before you decide on the parking you need to talk to the park police and the City Traffic Safety People. I saw Denny today and he said they are going to kill me if they take you away. I am going to be towing and ticketing and SPAC and the state built that new sidewalk down to my neighbors which also border Katy Hill and they are running and illegal parking lot. The state went through all the expense of building the sidewalk to get the people there safely. Mike Perkins states that we do not decide about parking. That is not our job. It is not an allowed use. Jackie Hakes interjected that she did receive today a letter from Deanne Signor, 14 Geyser Rd. Chairman Van Wagner states that this case will remain open. It will not be readvertised. I suggest that you stay in touch with the Planning Office. Hopefully you will be on the agenda in two weeks. Amy Durland states that there is a preference on the board, a strong preference if you are taking over for Mr. Harper on this case know that we prefer to have items that are handed to us are done prior to the meeting rather than at the table so that we have a chance to review them before the meeting. 10. 10.007 SUBDIVISION OF LANDS OF MOUNT OLIVET BAPTIST CHURCH, Southwest corner of Crescent Street & Jefferson Street, public hearing on a two lot subdivision in the in the Urban Residential-2 and Urban Residential-4 Districts. Applicant James Doyle, agent. Planning Board issued an advisory opinion to the Zoning Board on January 13, 2010. The property parcel needed an area variance and the area variance was granted by the Zoning Board on February 8, 2010, for a front yard setbacks and mean lot width relief. Mr. Doyle appears before us for a two lot subdivision and he has purchased a parcel on the south side of the Church so that they could raise some money and he can build a house. Chairman Van Wagner states your drawing indicates that you will continue the sidewalk from the southern portion of the adjacent property north along your new proposed lot. What this board talked about when Jim was here before, was the free for all approach to the parking lot that would be on the north side of the proposed lot that Jim wants to build a house on. My concern is the site is really uncontrolled. The lot is similar to the one where there is an ability for cars to egress and ingress without any controlled area. This is a church that I would assume young children and a lot of elderly folks. If those folks are walking to and from the church and cars are pulling out in a haphazard fashion is an accident waiting to happen. There is an expense to this though but I am thinking that sidewalks along the Jefferson Street side at a minimum with a specific delineated driveway and either and in and out on this side or perhaps on the west side of that ingress on Crescent and an exit out on Jefferson or vice versa. Just to control this and make it a little bit safer. I think the fact that Jim is purchasing this lot and helping out the church is admirable. He built a nice house., I’m impressed. I know there is an expense associated with this, but I think it is just dangerous to have just an uncontrolled parking area. Discussion and review of drawings submitted regarding possibility of ingress and egress. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – March 10, 2010 - Page 20 of 23 Philip Klein suggested doing the curbing and the sidewalk and use stonedust in the parking lot for drainage and this would help to reduce the cost. Jim Doyle thanked the Board. I am coming to the table with the intent of doing it right, making improvements and coming up with the solution. The corner area is problematic. Curbing and sidewalk all the way down would be a huge improvement for safety. No problem with doing that. Mr. Doyle was requesting some advisement from the Board as to how to alleviate any parking problems in this area. Amy Durland suggested to have the applicant come back with a plan that we would review. Come back in two week and put some overlays on the plans and show us what ideas you come up with and show us how you plan to delineate the parking. Require 1 parking space per 10 people. Discussion ensured among board members and applicant. Appliant requested to come back to review parking and curbing with entrances and exits. Also possibly the idea of an island to help with traffic flow. Jackie Hakes stated correspondence was received from Jeff and Pat Novo, 154 Jefferson Street, Saratoga Springs, regarding this application. This application is adjourned for two weeks. 11. 10.007 GRIDLEY STREET STABLES C/O KENNETH McPEEK RACING STABLES, INC., Gridley Street at Jefferson Street, site plan review for a horse barn in the Institutional Horse Track Related District. Applicant: Kenneth McPeek Racing Stables, Inc. (Matt Jones, Agent) The last time this applicant appeared before the Board the site plan that the engineer put together did not accurately consider the comments that Paul Male, City Engineer and Jackie Hakes, City Planner had. Jackie Hakes informed that Board that a completted SWPPP, that has been submitted and the City Engineer is making his final review. Location of the utilities along Gridley Street. Initially, they were identified as being located on the actual parcels themselves, amended the application. Matt Jones, agent. What you have before you is what we have shown you since September. It has evolved into a smaller project, a reduction in the number of stalls on lot #2. The landscaping is new, which appears next to the Valentines property. The Zoning Board did site planning and required an 8 foot high fence along the border, as is shown. Also because it is our preference arbovitaes and sugar maples as screening. Treatment along the front with sidewalks. There are no sidewalks on Gridley Street, from the racetrack up to this point. Treatment for sidewalks should be a stonedust path and that really has to do with the thoroughbreds. A curb and conrete sidewalk would not be desirable or preferable for the horses stabled there. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – March 10, 2010 - Page 21 of 23 Cliff Van Wagner questioned the type of street trees. Do we have lights? Mr. Jones pointed out the trees on the site plan. Also, there are no street lights on Gridley St. Discussion among the board regarding the appropriateness of street lights in this neighborhood. There are lights on the barns which would only be lit six months of the year. There is a concern with pedestrian traffic, however there are no homes in this area. Amy Durland questioned the use of lights that would not contribute to light pollution, but still confers safety benefits to people walking up and down the street. Jackie Hakes informed the Board that this is not located in an historic district. It would not be the historic Sternberg lighting. We do have a standard detail light which is another version of a Sternberg. The board felt that two street lights would be nice in this area, it would accent the property, and there are several type of lighting. It does not have to be high wattage lights, it can be softer lower wattage lights. Anyone in the audience wishing to be heard regardint his application. None heard. Comments or questions from the board. LETTER OF CREDIT Jackie Hakes states the applicant will need to submit a revised cost estimate. The City Engineer would identify the amount. Mike Perkins stated regarding the sidewalk the fact of the horses is enough to waive the standard sidewalks. The streetlight is also a good idea. Philip Klein stated that if there will be lights on the barns themselves, the should be adequately positioned so that the Valentines and other neighbors are not disturbed by them. Can we mitigate that as much as possible. Cliff Van Wagner states we will entertain a positive motion for site plan with conditions that would include: all technical items to be addressed to the satisfaction of the engineer and planning departments prior to the Chair’s signature. That includes but not limited to the approved SWPPP plan, two street lights to be agreed upon by staff as far as location and size, stonedust sidewalk which will be maintained year around, and that exterior barn lights are downlight so that they do not interfere with the neighboring properties. Jamin Totino makes a motion, seconded by Dan Gaba. Any further discussion. Jackie Hakes one last comment, SEQRA was completed. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor M. Perkins, opposed Motion carries 6-1. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – March 10, 2010 - Page 22 of 23 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Clifford Van Wagner entertains a motion to approve the minutes of the January 13, 2010 meeting with corrections submitted. Motion made by Dan Gaba, seconded by Jamin Totino VOTE:6-0-1 Clifford Van Wagner entertains a motion to approve the minutes of the January 27, 2010 meeting with corrections submitted. Motion made by Jamin Totino, seconded by Amy Durland. VOTE: 6-0-1 Clifford Van Wagner entertains a motion to approve the minutes of the February 10, 2010 meeting with corrections submitted. Motion made by Dan Gaba, seconded by Clifford Van Wagner. VOTE 7-0. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM. All in favor, ayes all, nayes none. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved 7-0: April 28, 2010 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – March 10, 2010 - Page 23 of 23