Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 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 LATE ARRIVAL: Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary arrived at 7:15PM STAFF: Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning & Economic Development CALL TO ORDER: Chair Clifford Van Wagner called the meeting to order at 7:04 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 1). 08.032.1 Request for a placement of a 8 x10 shed on Saratoga Springs PBA property located at 77 Weibel Avenue. Approved. 2). 09.048.1 Request to revised the approved Demolition and Erosion Control Plan (drawing L-1.0) for Greentree Farm Staff Housing. Approved 3). 06.015.1 Request to revised building footprint for 6 – unit senior housing project at 124 Jefferson Street. Denied. Applicant to appear before full board for modification. 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 May 12, 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 May 12, 2010. UPCOMING SCHEDULE Caravan and workshop, Monday April 26th. Planning Board meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 @.7:00 PM. Caravan and workshop, Monday May 10th. Planning Board meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 @ 7:00 P.M. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Clifford Van Wagner gave this opportunity to allow citizens to address planning issues not on the scheduled agenda. No one. APPLICATIONS: 1. 07.045.2 SARATOGA HOTEL SITE PLAN EXTENSION, 534 Broadway, extension of site plan in the Transect-6 District. Request for an extension of site plan approval in the Transect-6 District. The original site plan was approved on May 2, 2007 for the construction of a small addition and canopy and revised vehicle access pattern. Extension was granted on October 22, 2008 and expires on May 2, 2010. Applicant is seeking a 2nd and final extension to November 2, 2011. SEQRA: The Planning Board at its May 2, 2007 meeting classified this action as a Type 2 action under SEQRA requiring no further SEQRA review. No public hearing is required for the extension of a site plan approval. Applicant: Saratoga Hotel/LXR Luxury Resorts (Matthew J. Jones, agent) There is only a single change in the neighborhood/area since you looked at the application two years ago and that is the construction of the City Center expansion. This expansion has no bearing on the site plan amendment that we have proposed and had approved by the Planning Board. As you recall, that is a canopy and a reconfiguration of the two travel lanes at the front entrance to the Saratoga Hilton. There is one comment and that was from Public Safety which had to do with compliance with the existing site plan on the entrance to the fire lane. The applicant will complete the changes requested by Public Safety and bring this area into compliance with the existing site plan. Addition of signage will be provided. Philip Klein questioned Mr. Jones if the applicant had given him any indication when this project will be started. Mr. Jones, stated that the applicant informed him at this time there is too much uncertainty in the economy for them to tell when or if that construction is going to be done. At best, this extension will give him every opportunity to do so under the ordinance. Chair, Clifford Van Wagner, questioned Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development if this applicant’s second extension should expires and there is no action, the site plan for this expires as well and does it then become a whole new application. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated that it is a whole new application process. That is law. It can be reversed by the City Council through legislative action. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 12, 2008 - Page 2 of 14 Chairman Clifford Van Wagner questioned if the Board had any further questions or comments. None heard. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner questioned if there way anyone in the audience wishing to make a comment on the application of Saratoga Hilton? None heard. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated we will entertain a motion for an 18 month extension to the Saratoga Hilton with the provision that the fire lane to the northwest of the building be constructed or reconfigured to meet with the requirements of the 1989 site plan. Motion by Jamin Totino, seconded by Dan Gaba. Michael Perkins would like added to the motion the reasoning, our findings are that there have been no significant changes to the site or neighborhood, and the circumstances in finding the facts that which the orginal site plan was granted has not significantly changed. Accepted by Jamin Totino. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; Michael Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; C. VanWagner, in favor ABSENT: S.Cleary Motion passes 6-0. 2. 10.009 WESTSIDE REALTY MANAGEMKENT, LLC, Request for advisory opinion to the City Council for Zoning Amendment to change current zone from Transect-4 and Urban Residential-2 to Transect-4 District. Applicant: Steven Komp (partner with S. Kamen) DISCLOSURES; None BACKGROUND: On November 7, 2006, the City Council voted to extend the T-5 zone at 120 West Avenue to encompass the entire parcel (previously split with UR-2) following a failed motion (3-3) on a favorable advisory opinion. On May 28, 2008, the Planning Board issued an “unfavorable” advisory opinion to the City Council on a reqested zoning map amendment to change 3 parcels (including the subject parcel) from UR-2 and T-4 to T-5. The applicant subsequently withdrew the request. On April 9, 2009, Mr. Kamen requested a lot line adjustment to two sides of the adjacent City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 12, 2008 - Page 3 of 14 property, 120 West Avenue. That lot line adjustment was denied by this Planning Board on April 27, 2009. On December 3, 2009, the City Council requested an advisory opinion to change three parcels including the subject parcel tonight from UR-2 and T-4 to T-5. The applicant requested numerous adjournments before the Planning Board and then subsequently withdrew the request. The neighbors at that time had a presentation that they wanted to present to the Planning Board. The applicant never again appeared before the Board. Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary arrived at 7:15PM. At the March 6, 2010 City Council Meeting the Council voted to seek an advisory opinion from the Planning Board on this current request for a zoning boundary amendment for one parcel, on the corner. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner questioned Bradley Birge, Administrator of Planning and Economic Development if there is any history to bring to the Board regarding this applicant. Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development stated that most of the requests are the result of the construction. It appears that the current project encroaches upon the adjacent parcel, on Grand Avenue. That is what prompted the applicant previously to request changing two parcels to T-5. As you recall the applicants request was denied. The applicant also recommended and applied for re-zoning to T-4 for the same three parcels and that was withdrawn as well. So at the moment, it is just the rezoning of this one parcel. This one parcel is actually divided by two zoning districts. The T-4 zone, divides the parcel and 55 – 60% of the parcel is zoned T-4 which is a mixed use urban neighborhood transect zone and then the eastern third or so of that same parcel is zoned UR-2 which is a single family zone, similar to the parcel that are zoned to the east, a residential neighborhood. Philip Klein stated some of the bigger differences are the height of the building and the density that is allowed on that property,. Bradley Birge agreed and stated that the setbacks are relieved to a great extent within the T-4 zone. The idea is to have a mix of residential and non residential uses in that area in a T-4. The height is actually limited to 40 feet within the residential district the uses are entirely residential for single family homes, but the height is actually allowable much higher at 60 feet maximum with the residential zones in that area. Amy Durland stated there are also design issues including setbacks they are quite different. Bradley Birge agreed. Mike Perkins stated when you have a parcel that consists of two different zones if you had a T-4 and a UR-2 you could extend 100 feet and use that as a T-4. Bradley Birge answered only if the zones were identified as such back when that was originally changed, which is back prior to 1990, I believe is the date on that. So any of the more recent zones that are created by the no zones divided do not have the ability to move 100 feet in either direction. Mike Perkins stated when the Board went and made a recommendation looking at the larger one, our recommendation was to clean things up. We thought they could use either most or all of that property for T-4, so we were cleaning that up by making it all T-4. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 12, 2008 - Page 4 of 14 Chairman, Clifford Van Wagner stated that is the application in which the applicant never came back to the table that is what we discussed and then he eventually withdrew that application. Mike Perkins stated that they asked for T-5, we said no, We laid out how we thought it ought to be and made recommendations and then they went and did not act on it. Bradley Birge stated the Zoning Ordinance Article 240-2.3 has a paragraph for lots in two districts. It talks about the uses in the district as they occurred as they were they based upon the amendment date of 1991. So this division occurred following subsequent to 1991 with the advent of the T zone. So this one paragraph would not apply to that. Jamin Totino questioned Bradley Birge mentioning that 60% of the lot is now T-4. So now if it were100% if this were to be approved, would it have a West Avenue address and not a Grand Avenue address? Bradley Birge stated no. It depends upon what is being constructed and where it is being constructed on their property. Within the T zones, you bring out the frontage, and the frontage is the roadway with the highest carrying capacity, so that would most likely be West Avenue, within that area and so for all intents and purposes I would believe it would be West Avenue, but I can’t guarantee that at this time. T-4 is a zone where no uses are permitted as a right and very little if nothing is prohibited as a right either, so everything requires special use permit by the Planning Board. Site Plan by the Planning Board, and also Design Review architectural review. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner questioned if the applicant is here tonight? The applicant is not here. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated we will not be able to proceed on this. Procedurally, what we can do now that we have done all this preliminary work is postpone this until the end of the meeting to see if the applicant does arrive. Colleen Braim, I live at 24 St. Rose Court, Saratoga Springs. We have been through this before. This all started back in September or October 2008. We have a very specific and unusual case here in Saratoga. I know most people don’t care because unless it is your neighborhood your back yard you don’t care. Who wants to get up in the morning and listen to a dumpster, smell a dumpster, and see a dumpster. Chairman, Clifford Van Wagner stated the Board does care. Mrs. Braim stated she was sorry, she knows the Board cares. I am emotional. We are very weary, we have been doing this for a year and a half, constant fighting trying every time something comes up, mysteriously they are not here. He is not here. We are looking out at property on West Avenue where the neighbors were told you won’t see a thing. There are dying arbovitae’s, there is a paved parking lot in the back. There is a dumpster and some poor person has to look out at that, from their front yard, their back yard. There is something inherently wrong here that we can’t somehow make things work in an intelligent way. Why is the buffer a bunch of dying arbovitaes. Why can’t there be responsible development. We are not against it, we recognize and embrace it. Why do people who have lived here for 30 years all of a sudden have to roll over and play dead, because someone who has no City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 12, 2008 - Page 5 of 14 obviously vested interest in the neighborhood wants to build something. I can say this because it is not my property but this gentleman does not even have a CO on the property he has already tried to develop. It is not even fully rented. It is pathetic and it is very hard to comprehend. I love Saratoga. I have a business here. It is a great City. How can you not love it here. Let’s get a grip here and deal with the facts. There are good developers and their are bad developers. There are people who are responsible and people who are not responsible. If it were you backyard or your house how would you feel about it? Thank you. I think the Planning Board, all of you are tired and I respect the fact that you give of your time so generously because I am exhausted after almost two years of just coming down to all the City Council Meetings that last until 11 – 12 o’clock at night. I appreciate what you are trying to do. We are reasonable people. Sometimes when your dealing with people that again just don’t get it. They can’t compromise our whole neighborhood with a tire place, the car wash, all these people say they are going to do one thing and once they get what they want , they don’t care what the neighbors want. Amy Durland asked Mrs. Braim when you say a tiny little strip are you talking about the residential buffer? Mrs. Braim stated, yes, the buffer, this is a real precarious situation. The strip of area between Grand Avenue and Washington Street. It is the only area where there t is such a tiny buffer between residential and commercial. To be honest up until a few years ago, if you were traveling up West Avenue from the High School on the right hand side that area has always been homes, and a law office, a chiropractor, very unobtrusive businesses. We understand the left side where the Empire State College is and Stewart’s that has always been a commercial area. So there has always been this unspoken buffer on the right side of West Avenue. Now we have Mr. Kamen building this building which totally destroyed all the vegetation here, and so there are no mature trees, there is no nothing. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated that every Planning Board member visits the sites. Some of us do it collectively at the caravan. We were there Monday afternoon. The rest of the Board members had visited the site numerous times and again this week. If you were listening to the web cast on Monday night at the workshop you would have heard our disappointment being voiced. The exact disappointment that you just stated. The inadequate, as Mr. Klein pointed out, arborvitae that are sparse and somewhat dead in the back. Bradley Birge has since brought to our attention that there are site plan violations for the parcel in the middle. We will make the disclaimer, it is not on our agenda tonight but as stated to Bradley Birge that I would voice my displeasure and other Board members tonight can do the same at the applicant’s credibility. Credibility goes a long way to this Board to bring a project to the table and to complete it according to site plan and this applicant has not done so. I was fully intending to ask the applicant about credibility and compliance as much as within the pervue that we have and as we have all seen the applicant is not here. Amy Durland commented that I am very unhappy that the applicant is not here, without any notice. This is not the first time that this has happened with this particular applicant and what happens is that people who are interested in participating with the process come out and they rearrange their schedules and it is often not easy to do that, with the expectation that there input will be relevant to what is happening that night. It is very frustrating as I am sure you and the rest of the Board agree to have them just not show. I am wondering do we have any options regarding that, or are we just in a position where we simply have to postpone it until next time. Bradley Birge, Administrator, City Planning and Economic Development stated that the Zoning Ordinance indicates that for an amendment advisory opinion states that the Planning Board shall provide a recommendation within 30 days. Now, there have been numerous times in the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 12, 2008 - Page 6 of 14 past when you asked the City Council for additional time to evaluate the testimony in evaluating the recommendation or the application. You have a couple of options. One of which is there is no requirement for an applicant to be here before you, should you wish to take action. Secondly, you can ask the City Council for additional time because you would like to take additional comment and that the applicant failed to show, and take additional time to make you recommendations. Philip Klein stated there is a third option, and that would be to issue an opinion to the City Council negatively. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner states that we could take action on this tonight. We had asked the City Engineer, at the workshop to look into the existing site plan for 126 West Avenue and see what the letter of credit is. So, there is action that perhaps we can take. We will now proceed to the third item on the agenda the application for the Posie Peddler. When that application is complete if either Mr. Kamen or his partners arrives we will continue, otherwise this Board will take no action tonight because we cannot. It is inappropriate for us to want to ask questions and have no one here to answer them. Amy Durland, stated she agrees with the Chair’s suggestion that we postpone this and see if the applicant shows up before the end of the meeting, but if they don’t we should discuss how we want to handle this. PUBLIC HEARING: Chair Clifford Van Wagner stated the Public Hearing will remain open. There is another gentleman here who would like to speak. Robert Braim, 24 St. Rose Court, Saratoga Springs. Lifelong Saratogian. I used to deliver papers to the Chair’s folks over on East Avenue. It was my wife who spoke earlier. This has been going on a long time, and I think Mr. Kamen’s record is well documented. We gave the majority of the Board in October of 2008 a rather lengthy position paper which you have on record and I am not going to go back and rehash that. I would like to speak to a couple of issues, which my wife raised. One is the unique situation. It is hard to visualize on a power point presentation. Paperwork was distributed to the Board. This is a visual comparison of the depth of the T-5 properties which are currently located along West Avenue taken from the zoning map on the City’s website. If you look at it there are quite deep. Once you hit Washington Street and proceed towards Grand Avenue you can see that those lots are considerably more shallow. There is in many cases dual zoning that occurs there. I believe the 120 project which is not on the agenda tonight that was also a split zoned property like this current one is. We all know what has happened with the 120 property. If we go back and take a look at the landscape and utility map that was approved by Mr. Lou Benton and the Board you can see numerous things that were promised to be done that were not done. Even as trivial as the number of trees that were supposed to be planted were not planted. 49 arborvitaes, I counted there are 43. Obviously, there is a discrepancy there. That is counting the ones lying on the ground and obviously dead. In addition, there are many other issues with this property, so I think his track record of fulfilling his commitments is well documents. Our concern as a neighborhood is not against development. In fact, I am going to speak strongly in favor of the Posie Peddler because we know these people. They came to us before hand. We have worked on developing a suitable buffer and the Squires are marvelous people who I have not City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 12, 2008 - Page 7 of 14 doubt will indeed fulfill their commitments to us their neighbors. This was not done in this particular case. We held a press conference in February of 2009 at Dave Goths house and you may remember seeing in the local newspapers local coverage on that. Mr. Kamen and Mr. Komp the two Applicants who were supposed to be here this evening came and met with us while that was going on. They were not invited. They promised to get back to us and work with us to develop a legitimate landscape buffer, not a fence, not a row of one foot high foliage but something which would restore the clear cut foliage of the foliage he quite honestly clear cut. My recollection is that the only area that he received administrative approval for was the area which abuts the property directly to the north, which coincidently we found out subsequent to the approval, was a silent partner which he admitted to us at that meeting. You wonder about the honesty or at least the willingness to meet commitments that were made. All were are looking to maintain is our homes. Our quality of life here in Saratoga. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated that there really not very much we can say. We will table this application, and we will listen to the next application. Jamin Totino questioned Bradley Birge regarding the 30 day clock. Where are we on that timeline? Bradley Birger answered towards the end, the correspondence came from the Commissioner of Accounts on March 17, 2010. 3. 10.011 POSIE PEDDLER, 92 West Avenue, public hearing on a special use permit for florist and outdoor storage and display in the Transect-5 District. Applicant: James Squires, Dan Wheeler and Mike Perri, Agents. DISCLOSURES: None. BACKGROUND: We have an applicant here who wishes to purchase the Little Red Schoolhouse, that has been an applicant in front of us before for some rental possibilities and that application was eventually withdrawn for whatever reason. This site has housed a number of non-conforming uses in the recent past. In January of 2008 the Planning Board issued a SEQRA Negative Declaration and approved a special use permit for Kumon Educational Center. We now have an applicant who wishes to request a special use permit in front of us tonight to purchase the building and move their florist shop there. If the special use request is voted on tonight then we will subsequently have to do site plan, and DRC will be involved in this. So this is the first of a couple of steps and hopefully the applicants have checked with the staff. Our planning staff can walk you through the process. Procedurally on paper it is quite simple. As Mr. Braim said when you have a good applicant that follows the rules and regulations it does follow step by step. Any questions or comments from staff? Applicant: James Squires, 56 Dyer Switch Road, Saratoga Springs. Tonight Gretchen and I have come before the Board to request a special use permit. We are interested in buying ourselves a birthday present. The Posie Peddler this year has turned 100 year old. It has been in Gretchen’s family since 1910 when her Great Grandfather came over from Germany and started the business. We like our business, we like our employees and it is time for us to look City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 12, 2008 - Page 8 of 14 for a investment that is going to be good for our future. The Little Red Schoolhouse on West Avenue is the place we need to finally plant our stakes. What we are looking to do there is basically open a flower shop that follows the reputation that we have had for the 100 years we have been in business. We are not looking to work against the neighbors. Like Colleen and Tom Braim said we had a meeting at the Posie Peddler last Thursday night with our neighbors, just to show them our plans and what we would like to do and ask them about their concerns and comments. We are all on the same track and what we want to do is to move into that community and be good neighbors about it. We are a flower shop. A full service florist. Anything that we do sell pertains basically to the flower business and we want to continue that. The request for display outside, I would like to clarify, is not going to be what the flower shop looks like in back of City Hall. It just not going to happen. I would not do that to the neighbors, because I would not want that done to me. We are looking to sell potted plants, bouquets of flowers, we are not going to be able to display a lot of thing out front because of the direction that the building sits facing the west. Flowers do like sun to grow but they don’t like to sit in the sun and cook. There is not going to be anything out there that is going to be an eyesore to anyone in the community. We are looking around the back of the building, there is a driveway there for deliveries. There will be a dumpster cage built back there and it will not be seen. On the outside of the built cage there will be window boxes for a good part of the year with plants. There will be doors on it. Bradley Birge interjected that the plans that the Board has before them the plans that were submitted with the special use permit. That is what currently exists. The items that we received today that is the application for the site plan which includes that new area have not yet been seen or reviewed by the Board. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated that for a special use permit what we really need to focus on is exactly what you are telling us. What your business will be, and how you see it fitting into the neighborhood. We have items that we need to consider for code. Let me just tell you what they are: 1). The extent 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. 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. 3). The positive and negative impacts of the sue on vehicular congestion and parking, including the provision of adequate parking and the absence of hazardous parking or traffic conditions. 4). The positive and negative impacts on infrastructure and services including utlities, public facilities and services, including the extent to which the project extends or provides infrastructure and services to ares in need of such infrastructure and services. 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 – April 12, 2008 - Page 9 of 14 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. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner continued that is what this Board initially has to deal with for a special use permit. The Board tonight will talk about special use. You will, assuming the outcome of that is positive, and if it is you will then make application which you have already started for a second application which is that of site plan. At that point in time we will get into the parking and a number of other issues all positive to the site. Bradley Birge stated that this has been referred to the Saratoga County Planning Board on March 24, 2010 and they indicated no significant county wide or inter community impact. The necessity of that is because it is within 500 feet of the County Road. Questions or comments from the Board? Amy Durland questioned exactly what variances are required? This does require appearing before the Zoning Board for variances. Bradley Birge answered it is the build to line. This is a Transect zone and so it is required to build close to the property line in the front. The T-5 zone specifically. Within that area the applicant is also required to build along the frontage to maintain that pedestrian way in that area. Now you do have an existing building so part of that is being demolished and then being rebuilt in essentially the same location. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated procedurally for the special use permit we need to do a short form SEQRA review, then the applicant would make an application for a site plan and they would also make application to the Zoning Board for the variances. Bradley Birge stated the first task is to issue a SEQRA determination and then if you wish to proceed with the special use permit you may. Following that they proceed to the Zoning Board to seek relief from the built to and the built out based upon what their proposed structures. Gaining that relief they return to the Planning Board for site plan review and follow up with DRC for architectural review. Mr. Squires stated that right now he is under contract to buy the building. He is hoping for a target date of May 31, 2010 for all the administrative approvals. We are set for the next meeting which is May 12, 2010. We are proceeding with the applications. Philip Klein questioned the outdoor display. Mr. Squires stated if you look at the back of the building, and when a neighbor looks out the their back door, or front window it is going to look like your back yard. It will have a garden, it is going to have an arbor with plants growing. We spoke with our other neighbor right in back of us and we’re waiting to see what type of barrier or if he wants a barrier at all between his house and our property. Post and rail fencing will also be installed. It will look like someones home not a place of business. The display area will be in the rear of the building. There will be times when I put thing out in front such as Christmas wreaths, or hanging baskets. We will have awnings and window boxes under the windows. The addition to the building will match the remainder of the building. Amy Durland stated as Cliff pointed out this is a special use permit and the details of that City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 12, 2008 - Page 10 of 14 will be discussed during the site plan application, but I just wanted to mention now, typically in this zone, this T-5 zone the standard issue format for an application would be to try to pull the building out to the front and put the parking in the back. Now, were there other factors to balance against that which in this case their may be. We can be flexible about that but in this case what I hear you saying is that the building itself has some informal historic value and that your interest is to retain that. Also, that you are sensitive to the neighbors and making sure that you have an adequate buffer and that you provide a scenic area so that it is not an intrusion for them. I do not disagree with any of that and I think that is great. However, the parking in front is somewhat contrary to this zone. If this proceeds, I don ‘t know if you are working with a consultant, if there is someway even some small way to mitigate the effects of the parking in front that would be useful, and the details would be more appropriate for site plan. Mr. Squires stated that it has already been done. Parking would be placed along the side. of the buiding alotting 8 parking spaces and 1 handicapped space. Amy Durland questioned if the road in front of the business would be access to the parking only. Mr. Squires answered it would be access to parking only. We definitely did our homework. We had some nice conversations with Brad and a couple of people in town that I am working with Dan Wheeler and Mike Perri, so we are trying to do this the right way. My biggest concern is that we have a certain budget to buy the buidling and to do the rehab that we need to do business with so for us to have to get into too many extras for the first couple of years is going to be a little difficult. I just don’t want to go into this project and be so far into debt that if we do have a bad year, with the economy the way it is has been I don’t want to put myself in a position where I’m not going to be able to pay my bills. I want to be able to pay my bills like I am now and as long as I can keep doing that and just keep investing over the next five years what we are going to do with this piece of property to start out with is definitely clean it up. The Board reviewed the standards for a special use permit pursuant to Article V. Anyother comments from the Board at this time? Hearing none. Anyone in the audience wishing to make a comment on this application? John Casey, owner of the West Hill Shopping Plaza, immediately across the street, behind the bank and Stewart’s. I wish the Board would put this on the right track. I think it would be great boost to the neighborhood. We enthusiastically welcome them to the neighborhood. Robert Braim, 24 St. Rose Ct., yes there is a quasi-historic issue of importance at least to me. My grandmother Madeline Braim Eddy taught in that building for F. Donald Myers many many years ago. This is a community based business celebrating 100 years and I think there are a few issues but these can be worked out. This business has shown commitment to the community. This is what impressed us in meeting with Gretchen and Jim. We support them. Neil Nielson, owner of Wings over Saratoga in the Glen Hills Plaza. I do not know the Squires and have never met them. I have lived in the town for 37 years and I am very concerned in getting the proper commercial development out in the West Avenue end and I want to say that I support this 100% because of the reputation they have in town with the Posie Peddler. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 12, 2008 - Page 11 of 14 I have made some inquiries since I heard they were interested in going in here and everything I heard even preceeding this meeting and what I heard tonight only enforces my commitment to help them do whatever I can to get this established here. Chair, Clifford Van Wagner stated that hearing no further comments from the audience the Board will now proceed to a SEQRA determination, short form. Bradley Birge stated that we have heard a lot tonight about good applicants and bad applicants. It is the public right to express whatever views they have and your right to voice reviews you have on the Board. Let me just remind the Board that your charge is to determine projects and issue approvals or denials, favorable or unfavorable opinions based upon the criteria that is within the zoning ordinance for that. It is important that you are able to voice your decisions based upon the standards and guidelines that are within the zoning ordiannce itself. Amy Durland stated that she just wanted the applicant to be aware that there are still several issues to be sorted out at the site plan level. Mike Perkins stated that he believes there maybe just a couple of issues on Part I areas, just minor things to clean up. Under #10, it states that there are variances for non-coformance to T-6, that should read T-5. Also, technically under #8, where it states will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other land use restrictions, I believe the answer would be no, it would be the zoning variances required. Any further questions on Part I? None heard. Chair, Clifford Van Wagner stated we will now review Part II of SEQRA. Jamin Totino stated based upon the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEQRA short EAF, and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part II of the SEQRA short EAF, I find the project will not result in any large or important impact, and is therefore one that will not have a significant or adverse impact on the environment. I move to issue a SEQRA negative declaration for this action. Seconded by Philip Klein. Any other questions or comment? Amy Durland stated briefly Mike gave us a heads up about making sure that Part I is filled out and I know that #11 and #12 are just a secretarial thing and both need to be filled out. I assume the answer to both of those is no but it should be completed as well. The only other comment I would like to make is that if by the time the applicants come back for site plan if it appears that there is additional information that flooding could be an issue or needs to be attended to we can always re-open SEQRA if necessary on that issue. Bradley Birge is in receipt of the submissions from Dan Wheeler for the site plan so the Board will have those in plenty of time. VOTE: In favor: 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 – April 12, 2008 - Page 12 of 14  Motion passes: 7-0. Chair Clifford Van Wagner stated we now need to have an action on the special use permit. We have heard all the comments from the applicants, the public has give us their input. Any other questions or comments from the Board? None heard. Chair Clifford Van Wagner stated do we entertain a motion for a special use permit which will allow the Posie Peddler to operate a florist shop and a outdoor storage display in a T-5 zone at 92 West Avenue, knowing that once special use permit gets approval then it requires zoning variances which will be determined by the site plan that the appllicant submits, where the building is located and how big it is, will determine the variances which are needed. Michael Perkins makes a motion for a special use permit based upon the fact that the use is consistent with the six criteria which we have discussed. Seconded by Jamin Totino. VOTE: In favor: 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. 10.009 WESTSIDE REALTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Request for advisory opinion to the City Council for Zoning Amendment to change current zone from Transect-4 and Urban Residential-2 to Transect-4 District. Applicant: Steven Komp (partner with S. Kamen) Chair Clifford Van Wagner stated at the recommendation of the Board, if you remember the applicantion was item #2 on the agenda. Westside Realty Management, LLC was not here so the application was postponed. It is 8:20 PM and the Board has postponed the above mentioned application to last on the agenda is that applicant here? The public hearing will remain open. The request is front of us is for an advisory opinion which the City Council has requested us to comment on changing the parcel from the combination of a T-4 in the UR-2 to 100% T-4. Jamin Totino stated he sees no reason to belabor the point I think because the applicant is not available to address important questions regarding justification for the zone change and as a result we cannot determine justification for requesting additional time from the City Council, I move to issue a negative advisory opinion for the zone changes. Dan Gaba seconded the motion. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated that the point is well made that it is quite unacceptable to have this request and to inconvenience the neighbors yet again to not show up and as Brad indicated also that our hands are somewhat tied in that the City Council has given us a 30 day City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 12, 2008 - Page 13 of 14 time frame to respond and the clock is ticking. The applicant is not here to try to convince us that this is something we need to do, then so be it. We have a motion on the floor for a negative advisory opinion from Jamin and seconded by Dan Gaba. Is there further discussion? Amy Durland requested further information from Bradley Birge. I am in agreement with everything that Jamin stated, and I am inclined to support the motion but I just want to make sure that is really a substantive vote on the issue and I am wondering if this is more of a default negative advisory and I am wondering if you have any thoughts on how this should be framed or if our feedback to the Council should be taken in the form that the motion is or something else? Bradley Birge stated the zoning ordinance provides you with guidance as far as what should occur in order for you to provide a favorable advisory opinion. Those are the two criteria that you are familiar with that you evaluate for each one of these. That the revision is not contrary to the general purposes and intent of this chapter and the revision is not in accordance with the comprehensive plan. So those are the only two items that are within the zoning ordinance. In essence if you wish to continue with the motion you may want to identify the fact that perhaps for lack of sufficient information or description/presentation by the applicant that has led you to not be able to give a favorable advisory opinion. A discussion ensued among Board members regarding continuing with the motion. VOTE: In favor: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor Motion passed: 7-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES; Philip Klein made a motion to accept the Minutes of February 24, 2010 with corrections. Michael Perkins seconded the motion. Ayes all. Nayes none. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Clifford Van Wagner adjourned the meeting at 8:30 PM. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved July 14, 2010 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 12, 2008 - Page 14 of 14