Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2010 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: CLIFFORD VAN W AGNER, CHAIR; JAMIN TOTINO, VICE-CHAIR; AMY DURLAND; PHILIP KLEIN; DAN GABA, MICHAEL PERKINS; LATE ARRIVAL: SUZANNE BERNARDI-CLEARY ARRIVED AT 7:08PM STAFF: BRADLEY BIRGE, ADMINISTRATOR PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MARC SCHACHNER, COUNSEL TO THE PLANNING BOARD 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 stated 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. ANNOUNCEMENT OF POSTPONED/CANCELLED 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 26, 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 26, 2010. COMMENTS FROM CHAIR None. UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS/AGENDA WORKSHOPS: May 10, 2010 Planning Board Caravan 4:00PM followed by Workshop 5:00PM followed by Joint Land Use Board Meeting 7:00PM for presentation of 2 cell tower proposals, ZBA meeting to follow joint meeting. May 12, 2010 Planning Board Meeting 7:00 PM PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Clifford Van Wagner gave this opportunity to allow citizens to address planning issues not on the scheduled agenda. None heard.. A. APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION 1. 10.012 ALLEN DRIVE SUBDIVISION, Allen Drive, public hearing for a two lot subdivision in an Urban Residential-4 District. Applicant: Saratoga Affordable Housing Group, Inc., (SAHG) BACKGROUND: March 25, 2009, this Board granted site plan for the construction of 15 affordable housing units, on Allen Drive. The group has been approved by the New York State DHCR for financing to construct these housing units. Subsequently DHCR has notified the applicant that there must be a single owner entity, therefore the applicant is obligated to request a two lot subdivision. Nothing has changed in the character of the neighborhood that allowed us to approve the site plan in March of 2009. Simply for financing purposes they are requesting to be able to take this application and draw a line down the middle and divide it from one lot into two. It should be noted that there are no zoning requirements that will be needed to do this. Everything has met the requirements. The Saratoga County Planning Board was asked to review this because of the proximity to a County road. Their decision was “no significant county wide or inter community impact” review of this application on April 21, 2010. In March of 2009, this Board issued a SEQRA negative declaration and no additional SEQRA review is required. PUBLIC HEARING: Public Hearing is now open at 7:08PM. Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary arrived at 7:08PM. Agent: Lane Btooks with CK Dennis Architect PC, agent. Disclosures: None. Mr. Brooks agent, stated that Board Chairman Clifford Van Wagner explained the project perfectly. All we are looking to do is separate out a parcel to put on that 15 unit building. We’d City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 2 of 27 meet all the dimensional requirements of the UR-4 District and the remaining parcel also meets all the dimensional requirements. The only issues are the side yard setbacks and the dimensional requirements as far as square foot per dwelling unit and they both fall within the standards. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated the Agenda notes indicate the appllicant has requested a waiver of the application fee. This Board typically does not grant waivers. The exception to the rules have been not for profit organizations such as this. The Board waived the application fee in 2009 and we have a request from the applicant to waive that tonight. Chairman Van Wagner questioned If there were any questions or comments from the Board or staff? None heard. Chairman Van Wagner then questioned if anyone in the audience wished to make a comment on this application? Karen Tunkell, 26 Tompkin Lane, which is in Travers Manor. We did get a letter indicating that there would be some type of building within 250 feet of us which is why I came tonight. The big construction trailers that are parked behing the building, will those be removed when the construction is over? We did not see these prior to the trees being taken down for the playground which was built. Philip Klein requested Ms. Tunkell to point out on the map exactly where those trees were which were taken down prior to the park being built. Ms. Tunkell indicated on the visual map where exactly the trees were located. Ed Spiehalski, Executive Director of Housing Authority and also the President of the Affordable Housing Group. Part of the plan is to renovate the four buildings that exist and to put two new housing units to the right of the existing housing. On the left hand side we have secured funding to put lighting along the street line. That lighting is the same lighting that we put over on Jefferson and Vanderbuilit. Right now there is no street lighting on that street at all. I went to Public Safety and requested additional patrols over Allen Drive. We have secured enough funding to put in 10 pole lights on the left hand side. Our plan in the parking lot with the new building is also going include lighting on the right hand side. That is why the construction trailers are there. They are housing all the materails for the lighting installation. The trailers will be out of there as soon as the lighting is installed. Any other questions or comments? None heard. Motion by Jamin Totino, seconded by Amy Durland. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor, M. Perkins, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor Motion carries 7-0 2. 09.012 McDONALD’s REBUILD, 197 South Broadway, discussion of special use permit for redevelopment of a restaurant in a Transect-5 District. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 3 of 27 BACKGROUND: This application has been in front of this Board, Design Review and Zoning. In fact we entertained an application from this applicant in front of all three Boards last year in an attempt to clarify questions and concerns about procedure and what the various requests from the Board would be. They initially came to the Planning Board for a SEQRA determination which was granted on January 27, 2010. The Zoning Board was next on April 2010 with the plans they had at the time. They received use variances for 4 wall signs, 1 monument sign, and 2 menu signs. Area variances for nine different variances for relief from minimum front builid out to sign height and logo etc., etc., which was successfully done in April. They now need to get a Special Use Permit from this Board. Once the Special Use Permit is granted they will need Site Plan Review and approval by this Board. and onto to DRC. Our recommendation to simultaneously appear before both Boards so this application can move along more quickly. The Special Use Permit requires Public Hearing and that will be noticed for May 12, 2010, so tonight we will entertain comments regarding the special use for this building and expect that we would be voting on that at the May 12, 2010 meeting. We can also entertain discussion tonight on the 2nd application which is for site plan approval. Site plan cannot be granted until Special Use is approved. No action will be taken tonight. I fully expect that this applicant will be back in two weeks where this Board will action. Applicant: Clark Brink Agent: Chris Boyea Bohler Engineering; Sue Davis, SD Atelier, Francis Essian, McDonalds Chris Boyea from Bohler Engineering. I am a little taken back just listening to the status of of where we are at. I guess we are on a different page. We thought that we were here for action tonight so it sounds that we are not. We were last before the Board on January 27, 2010, and at that point we did receive the negative SEQRA declaration and then we did move on and obtained the variances. We went through a long history with this Board before SEQRA trying to work out site plan issues. So similar to the application that was just before us, a lot of the work has been done as far as site layout. We have submitted a complete site plan package, full set of sheets with lighting, grading, draingage, landscaping all the sheets that would be required based on the last plan this Board saw in January. I am still awaiting comments from the City Engineer. They are minor and technical in nature and we will be able to address those, and have those ready in time for the next meeting. The architecture has come a long way. The Board saw the architecture during the last presentation and had several comments and we have updated the boards. Sue has worked with the DRC. We have been in front of the DRC since the Planning Board saw this last. The DRC has looked at the elevations that you are looking at right now and has given us a thumbs up. We anticipate that DRC will approve this at their next meeting. There are more details and the signs are on their as they were approved. So, we have the building and the trellis all set up and are moving in the right direction. Sue Davis, SA Atelier, stated that she is presenting the building. Some of the issues with DRC will be worked out with DRC and that requires some of the materials like windows, awnings, etc. The basic image and configuration they were quite satisfied with. Philip Klein questioned if the applicant has this information to be presented on the screen. Chris Boyea, and Sue Davis said they did, however, no battery pack to plug in. Chris Boyea, stated that was correct and the current board shows the signage as accurately City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 4 of 27 approved by the Zoning Board. We were in front of the Zoning Board for a number of different items. The Board was thorough and every sign was accounted for including little signs like the welcome sign and the awnings above the entrances. Although we did not pick up on those as signs originally, they played it safe and gave us variances for those signs. That accounts for the number of variances. The site plan hasn’t changed since the plan was shown to the Zoning Board. It is the same layout as shown to this Board in January. Philip Klein again questioned the applicant to see if the power pack is available to enable the presentation to be shown on the screen versus the architects rendering. Chris Boyea stated to the Board that we are short on time and they thought tonite they would be moving forward. I can appreciate that there is a procedural issue I am not aware of. We were under the impression that the Public Hearing has been open for 18 months. So I am sure that the public that is here tonight can tell you that they have received plenty of notices. I would like to see how we can expedite this application. Chairman, Clifford Van Wagner stated we are moving forward. The public hearing was open before this for the SEQRA determination. This is for the special use permit. We are doing our best to move this along. As you indicated that Paul Male have given some comments which you will receive tonight, on site plan issues that indeed would not be voted on tonight anyway. Therefore, if we can proceed on special use on the 12th and vote on the site plan on the 12th you absolutely lose no time. We understand your time constraint and that is why this Board requested a Zoning, Planning and DRC meeting so that you didn’t have to go from one Board to another. Chris Boyea asked don’t we needed the approval from this Board prior to going to the DRC? Bradley Birge, Administrator, Economic Planning and Development stated that it was discussed with the DRC. Also more importantly we discussed today with Sue all of the desires the DRC had. The applicant is currently before the DRC on May 5, 2010. We went over a variety of the details that the DRC is still looking to have in their hands in order to render a final decision. Philip Klein has some concerns regarding the specific variances, could we review the variances that were granted by the Zoning Board. It has been some time since you were in front of us, there were small changes requested and the variances. Chris Boyea stated one of the big variances we received was for a non occupied second floor. The building is designed to look like a two story building and hold that architecture. Across the street frontage, however it is a false facade. There is not an actual occupied second floor behind that facade. So that required a variance. The other variances were for lot frontage build out. We are required in this district to have a 70% build out. Our building although we have done things through the Planning Board process to try to extend the aesthetics and the appearance of this building like a wall, a fence, and the width of the building has been added onto. The actual size and shape of the structure has been added onto. We have not met the actual frontage buildout. The other variances are in respect to signs. We initially had a lot more signs on this building. We have two signs approved for the front. We are allowed to have one and the other is a variance. Also, there is a little welcome sign right above on the canopy on the fascia of the canopy we received a variance for that as well. One M was approved on the north side of the building. No signs on the drive thru side which faces the hotel/motel and there is one sign on the back of the building as its allowed by right and it faces a public street which is the alley. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 5 of 27 Philip Klein questioned the windows on the second floor which is unoccupied space. Where did you end up venting the make up air unit intake? Chris Boyea, stated they are located in the back of the building on the roof so the front and half way down the building has the two story facade. Then we went with a higher parapet wall so we can shield the rooftop, kitchen equipment, blowers, fans, condensers, etc. There are two menu boards. The boards are a little further away from the motel. We are pushing it maybe 15 or 20 feet further towards the Dunkin Donuts. They are turned to face the alley so that the sound does go in a direction that is not intrusive to neighbors. Philip Klein questioned delivery and crossing the traffic lanes and how deliveries will be made? Chris Boyea, stated that deliveries for this location have been designed to happen in two different ways. We deliver with a couple of trucks. One of which is a very large 18 wheeler which is what we have designed for. The tractor trailer can come in the alley. We have provided a crosswalk and a direct concrete walk to the delivery doors. The delivery doors are the ugliest spot of the building and we have put them in the back. We have a landscape strip with higher vegetation in this area and that is done on purpose so that when you are looking at the building from Broadway or driving south on Broadway those doors won’t be so noticeable. Mike Perkins stated the images on the screen appear to be on the screen appear to be thinner and taller than the actual drawings. The applicant stated the paperwork scale on the drawings is correct. Chairman, Clifford Van Wagner stated that as usual Article 240-6.4 Standards for Special Use Permits are one through six. We wilI go through these, if the Board has any comments or questions we will address those and then we will open it up to the public. Jamin Totino questioned for clarification is the Board is now to evaluate this application in the context of the variances that have been approved? Bradley Birge informed the Board that this was correct. Before granting approval to any Special Use, the Planning Board shall consider the positive and negative impact of the use on the following characteristics: (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 is 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 use on vehicular congestion and parking, including the provision of adequate parking and the absence of hazardous parking or traffic conditions. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 6 of 27 Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated that the applicant has eliminated two curb cuts. Improvement in parking because one of the comments from the neighbors was the extra lot between the Dunkin Donuts and McDonalds was a gathering place. That has been eliminated as well.. (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. (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. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated that the applicant has made some diligent efforts to isolate and try to protect the neighbors from noise, and again the use of some significant buffering again it is what we have asked for. The brick wall to the north side will buffer parking. There again they have met the Planning Boards request.. (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. Any further questions or comments from the Board? None heard. Anyone in the audience wishing to make comment on this application? Al Collucci, 9 Lexington Road. I would like to make two comments regarding the improvements made here. Something I haven’t heard brought up here tonight and it may have been brought up in the past. If you take the current facility with its two entrances and the direction it is heading right now which is east and west versus north and south. If you go through there even now during lunch hour or peak season, you will find that the drive-thru lane backed up to the street, which causes the traffic and congestion on South Broadway. This would totally eliminate that problem. It would be a major improvement over the existing. As to Mr. Klein’s comment about deliveries, this is a 24 hour location and with McDonald’s corporation deliveries could be easily scheduled for 3:00am in the morning, which would not interfere with anything that would be going on at that time. It is quite common. I speak from experience I was with McDonald’s Corporation for 30 years and this is a much better design. Mike Perkins stated that the two big issues were the build out and the building height. Those were the two big issues they could not do anything about or address with us. They went to the Zoning Board and took care of them. With those items out of the picture it does fit with the criteria for the Special Use Permit. Dan Gaba questioned the location of the dumpster? Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated the dumpster issue will be reviewed in the Site Plan application. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated we will leave the discussion open. The applicant will be back on our agenda for May 12, 2010. We will vote on a Special Use Permit at that time. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 7 of 27 Bradley Birge stated that Saratoga County Planning Board will be reviewing this application currently. We anticipate a decision very quickly from them. 3. 09.013 McDONALD’S REBUILD, 197 South Broadway, request for Site Plan approval for redevelopment of an existing restaurant in a Transect-5 District. The Site Plan does not require a public hearing it requres a public comment session. We will open that tonight and leave it open. It can be voted upon once Special Use is granted and we will vote on that two weeks from tonight. Applicant: Clark Brink Agent: Chris Boyea, Bohler Engineering, Sue Davis SD Atelier ▪ Article 240-5.4 Site Plan Review Formal Submission F) The Planning Board’s review of the site plan shall include, as appropriate, but is not limited to, the following general considerations: (1) Location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings and signs. Adequacy and arrangement of area and security lighting in both on site and off site illumination. (2) Adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. (3) Location, arrangement, appearance And sufficiency of off street parking and loading. (4) Adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. (5) Adequacy of storm water and drainage facilities. (6) Adequacy of water supply, including pr3ssure and quantity. If supply is other than that provided by the City, information as to the quality of the water shall be provided. (7) Adequacy of sanitary sewer including size and inverts; or adequacy of sewerage disposal facilities, including if applicable, soil borings, perc tests, soil characteristics and certification as to proposed system adequacy as a permanent system. (8) Adequacy, type, size and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other landscaping constituting a visual screen and/or buffer between the project site and adjoining properties, including the maximum retention of desirable or specimen existing vegetation. Parking, service areas and loading and maneuvering areas shall be reasonably landscaped and screened from view of adjacent properties and from within the project site City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 8 of 27  (9) Adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones. Location and arrange- ment of fire hydrants, stand pipes, and/or drafting or pumping facilities. (10) Special attention to the adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated that the County Engineer has some departmental comments. DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS: ▪City Engineer: - need Letter of Credit estimates. - C-1: “what about porous paving in parking lot?”; show limits of curbing on South Broadway; locate tree, dumpster, other existing site conditions on rear portion of parcel; clarify size, height, type of existing lighting’ install curb, replace walk along Hamilton Street; - C-2: show dimensions as identified - C-3: identify existing water service; why are locations of water main/storm main identified as “approximate”; need rims/inverts on all storm/sanitary; add size of all utilities; see additional notes - C-4: identify how water is picked up at 2 locations; show elevation base - C-5: see notes - C-7: see notes - Lighting plan: why not use Sternberg outside district light details?; see notes - site survey: show existing storm, landscaping, utilities; identified grades are not accurate following Rte. 9 work; need certified to today’s date; see notes ▪ Department of Public Works: - Plans still show storm sewer in wrong location and does not accont for both 8” and 12” water mains - DWG C-2: operation?Maint. Plan note #4 references Vortechnic units – where are these being proposed? - DWG C-8: Note #2 seems to imply that the City will own/maintain water mains w/in limits of project? ▪ Public Safety: - Fire: “no comments at this time, reserve for construction” - Police: “no comment” - Traffic: “much better design, this addresses all of my concerns” - Code: “dumpster area does not have adequate secondary containment for storm water or grease spill; the time to upgrade this area is during construction” Chairman Van Wagner questioned the agent Chris Boyea regarding the dumpster location. Chris Boyea stated the dumpster for this location is not proposed to have any improvements whatsoever. The dumpster is a masonry enclosure with a concrete approach pad. It has functioned well over the years with the building orientation and the same way with the service doors in the back. It is functional and will be for the new building. It is close to the service doors City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 9 of 27 for trash and security purposes. It is shielded and buffered behind the building so that from Broadway it is unlikely that it will be noticeable or need any additional shielding. It is a separate lot back there, we are not proposing any improvements to. Jamin Totino stated that the Agenda notes said that from Public Safety Comments the dumpster does not meet existing code, it is not adequate for current use. Bradley Birge stated it was his understanding from the Code Enforcement Officers, they indicate that it does not meet the current standard. I am not sure exactly when those standards changed. With the construction techniques for secondary containment of storm water and any grease spillage that may occur outside of the dumpster itself. It might be something that can be resolved over the next two weeks. Chris Boyea again stated because of the tight time frame we’re hesitate to touch anything on that lot. It is a separate lot, a separate application. We’re self contained and I have a feeling that that might end up turning into a new trash enclosure per standards of today I am not sure where that is going. That might mean a roof over the trash enclosure that could be a structure. We are proposing to keep that trash enclosure just like it is today on that other lot. Amy Durland questioned if the applicant can get their building permit if its not up to code? Bradley Birge stated certainly one of the items that you normally and customarily review with restaurants is the location of site facilities and dumpsters. It is currently within your perview. If that dumpster were not servicing this activity it would be a different matter. I believe that it is servicing this activity. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated to the applicant this is like an open book test. You have comments from Code Enforcement which says they don’t think it does. I would say that it would be encumbent upon you to at least make a phone call to Code Enforcement or have Bradley Birge tell you who exactly to contact and at least open up the lines of communication. Sue Davis, SD Atelier, Architect questioned if this would be Code Enforcement , a building code issue? Bradley Birge ecouraged the applicant to talk to the Code Enforcement Officer, Dan Cogan. Sue Davis, SD Atelier questioned just who she should speak to because in all the meetings she has attended has this ever been brought up before because today is the first time I knew about this. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated this is the only time it would come up during the Site Plan. This is a part of an application for any type of a restaurant, whether it be a five star restaurant and this is something that the Code Enforcement has brought up. This is the first we have heard this as well. Philip Klein stated there is no problems where the dumpster is physically located. Chris Boyea stated he will take care of the Code Enforcement issues. Jamin Totino stated that the only way that you could not do anything to that dumpster is to put the dumpster on site. The fact that it is connected to the restaurant that you are proposing brings it into the pervue of the site plan. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 10 of 27 Amy Durland questioned the applicant regarding the dumpster. I don’t think we can separate Planning from the Building Code. If it doesn’t meet the building code I would say that as planners we would advise you to comply with the Building Code. I don’t think it is one against the other. Chris Boyea stated that his question is does the Planning Board have design guidelines for dumpster and trash corals. I believe the answer is no. Which then tells me that I need to go and work this out with Code Enforcement. Philip Klein has several questions for the applicant. When you are coming in the entrance on the right, the north end of the property, I notice all along the back open. What I am concerned with is people who are coming in the alley either try to buck in line or turn into there. I would think that you would to do a curb along that alley to stop people from doing that. Although you do need an exit I assume for people who are parked. If you could structure an area to turn out a left only into the alley I believe that is one way going south. Chris Boyea stated there are two things, one is truck deliveries. It would need to be some sort of mountable curb so we can get the truck in and our of here, second there is a curb cut right opposite Pizza Hut so it is not uncommon for people to use this as an exit. We do not want to block off Pizza Hut traffic from coming to McDonald’s etc., The third item is that this is a city owned alley and I know from snowplowing the city plows this and I don’t want to put up another curb for them on a narrow alley. We can look at it. Philip Klein stated everything is going counterclockwise, which is the way you want it to. You have people coming in the alley, there will be nothing to stop them from going down that way. Chris Boyea stated the alley does not get used much. Actually we do want people to go in that way. It is not a high source of revenue or traffic. We get one or two or three cars coming from the alley to the drivethru. I do not see that as becoming a primary entrance. Discussion ensued regarding traffic flow, and the consensus was that perhaps McDonald’s could use a raised area in the back near the alley somewhat like is used in the roundabouts for traffic control, yet the delivery trucks could easily ride over it. Philip Klein questioned snow removal. How do you plan on accomplishing snow removal? Chris Boyea stated we are overparked. We are one of the few businesses here that has too much parking. The whole lot in the back provides no value to the use of McDonald’s. Our snow storage can be in the back lot. Employees do park there. Philip Klein questioned if there were any signage on the interior parking lot to indicate that it is one way going west? Chris Boyea stated that there are ground markings only. That was discussed at the Zoning Board, because those would require additional signs. They are ground markings. Perhaps one could be marked showing one way in the alley. Any other questions or comments from the Board? City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 11 of 27 Chair Cliff Van Wagner stated we will continue this discussion of site plan at the next meeting, but this is an opportunity for the applicant to hear these concerns. These issues would come out in the discussion tonight, the site plan will be able to be acted upon in the next few weeks and come back to us with these items addressed. Jamin Totino requested the applicant to go through the lighting plan in regard to where the Sternbergs are and exactly how you are going to illuminate the parking lot? Chris Boyea stated that there are a lot of them. Originally we had standard what we call shoebox lights proposed and we went ahead and put in Sternberg type light fixtures which are the globe fixtures which perhaps everyone is familiar with in the town. So, that is really what is going to light our site. These light fixutes are numerous, I believe there are 20 of those. A lighting plan was submitted showing the photometrics of all of the lights that are anticipated here. Jamin Totino stated he questioned the lighting for the benefit of the public because there was some concern about the owner of the Carrriage House across the street with regard to lighting and that is part of the reason I asked that question. Amy Durland asked if the applicant could explain the pedestrian access to the building from any of the parking areas where they would be walking. Chris Boyea stated we have a sidewalk which is typical of Broadway. It is 100% along the frontage of the property. Heading north on Broadway an option is to take stairs up into one of the main entrances of the building. If an ADA path is necessary then you would access the gradual walkway into the building. As you are heading south on Broadway there is a sidewalk that comes into the outdoor pergola seating area and you have the option to go around and enter via a doorway there as well as another main entrance with a canopy over the top of it. Amy Durland questioned from the parking lot? Chris Boyea stated from the parking lot there are three entrances placed on various sides of the building. Amy Durland questioned if there way any concern regarding pedestrians moving in front of the pick up areas in the drive-thru. Chris Boyea stated this a fairly standard layout for McDonald’s and this type of use and the speeds are obviously slow, and people are stopped. Amy Durland questioned if the applicant anticipated any bicycle traffic? Is there any need for bike racks? Chris Boyea stated there is a bike rack provided. Amy Durland questioned the City Engineer’s comments regarding porous paving in the parking lot. Is that a possibility? Chris Boyea stated we have increased the greenspace on this site so much that typical New York State DEC rules and requirements would say that if you add 25% greenspace to your City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 12 of 27 lot, if you can take away that much pavement then you do not have do anything with your stormwater. That is a redevelopment rule and regulation. The City’s requirements are actually more strict so we actually have to go through and do it all anyway. So not only are we adding all the greenspace that you see on the drawings but we are actually are retaining additional stormwater above and beyond what is there. Impervious pavement would even be a further step and it is just not a functional assest with this type of business. You have many cars coming in and out, heavy salt and sand. We don’t want our customers to slip so we use a lot of it. It clogs the pores in the pavement and I am pretty confident that the amount of greenspace that we have added here is a huge benefit. Amy Durland stated that we recently came across this in a different application and I am under the impression that there have been some improvements and there are more options now and some are quite feasible. Could we broach this briefly with the City Engineer at the agenda workshop, since it was his comment and I would like to get his input on that. He also mentioned a tree. Bradley Birge stated that I think he was identifying on the site plan was that a lot of the foliage the trees were not identified as existing on the separate lot to the rear. It was just for clarification on the plans. Amy Durland stated that I assume you know that there are comments about storm sewer, etc. Chris Boyea stated that he would look at those. Chairman Cliff Van Wagner stated that there is no requirement for a public hearing but we have a public comment regarding the site plan application for McDonald’s. Does anybody in the audience wish to comment on the site plan, knowing that no action will be taken this evening. Mark Supronowicz, I reside right across the street at 198 Broadway at the Carriage House Inn. I have just one question. In terms of the site plan review is the construction any information about the actual construction of the project touched upon in that particular site plan review. The reason I bring that up is this is a little unique in terms of its construction phase because it is a noise factor, and a noise nuisance, the actual construction of the project. We do have vacationers directly across the street as well as vacationers on the motel side and my concern would be in terms of the timing of construction in the morning. I don’t know if it is appropriate at this point in time but I just bring it up and will bring it up at a later date if we get to that point. Certainly the thought would be if you were on vacation what time would you like to hear a backhoe and I guess it would be a reasonable time but I think I would like to discuss what is reasonable in terms of the actual construction itself. Amy Durland questioned Mr. Supronowicz if he had any suggestions? Mr. Supronowicz stated that he would think more like 8:30 range would be reasonable. I guess I am up for discussion on that. The other thing is sometimes the construction folks themselves are a little ambitious and don’t always go by the rules which would be set up and my question would be what would be the recourse if the construction started at say 6:30am. Is that where you would call the police or whom? Bradley Birge stated in this case you would be notifying the Building Department., and they would look into that and check the building permits and their inspections. As part of the implementation of the Building Permit part of the construction there is a construction meeting City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 13 of 27 with the applicant, contractors and the building department and the City Engineer. It is generally at that time when they discuss these types of activities and making sure that the neighborhood and the adjacent properties are not negatively impacted. Al COLUCCI, could you please clarify the dumpster issue again in the rear of the building. Is there is a new requirement? Chairman Cliff Van Wagner stated that the dumpster is a part of this application in front of us for site plan and as Jamin stated earlier if this application included the location of a dumpster on this tax parcel rather than the dumpster on the rear lot which is a different tax parcel it would not be a part of this, but because the special use and the site plan have this restaurant located on this site, it requires a dumpster, that dumpster happens to be on a different tax parcel then this Board and the City i.e., the Building Code Enforcement Officers have taken a lool at that and have made some comments on that dumpster. We are hearing that our Building Code Enforcement Officers are saying that the dumpster may need a little attention. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated that I am thrilled that this project has progressed to this stage. A number of us sat here a while ago and saw something that was much less in line of what we thought should be a mainstay a focus point of new development on South Broadway. I commend the applicant for that. I would like to say to Francis thank you for your patience. You have now seen this fine City in every season that we have. Chris Boyea questioned the Board if in its submission in two weeks they might be able to address their concerns in a letter, submit a final set of plans for signature, is there a need to resubmit 14 sets of 18 sheets for these minor comments. Bradley Birge, stated obviously we would prefer to have a full set of plans before the Board, but again they have seen most of this, and I think if the changes that are going to be completed on here are very clearly outlined and identified then what was currently on this plan and where it was identified on the plan and how it is going to be changed, as long as the Board is comfortable with that before them, and make the approval from that then certainly all your changes can be made prior to the signing of the Site Plan. That is fine. I am comfortable with that. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated you take these comments and list them in bullet form and here is your response. Chris Boyea stated that were on for DRC on May 5, 2010 and there is no way that they can act at that meeting. They need this first is that correct? Bradley Birge stated that is not correct. It depends upon the level of completion for your submission. The plan that you have submitted to the DRC as mentioned before reflects the information you passed on previously. They do not contain all of the details that they normally would have for final plans. If you are able to get those final plans before the Board, I encourage you to get those to me so I can get them to the Board as soon as possible. Amy Durland questioned if the DRC can take a final vote on this? Bradley Birge stated that is customarily how it is done. Amy Durland stated I would think there would be no project until then. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 14 of 27 Chris Boyea questioned if this Board could issue a memo to them stating that they are comfortable. We are literally counting weeks and I am just nervous and if there is something we can do to shave off three weeks that might be exactly what we need. I just wanted to ask that question before we leave. Amy Durland stated that she personally thinks the Board is moving fairly expeditiously now. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated it is not three weeks it is the 12th of May for our next meeting and DRC meets on the 19th of May, that all we are talking about. Chris Boyea stated that the only issue that we have is that sometimes, this is great it is a full Board tonight, but sometimes the Boards don’t have it and we would hate to have that be an issue and it is always a possibility. Maybe the chances are not there but we seem to run into them sometimes. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated we are not racing through this. We are walking through this and we are dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s, and we are still working on that aspect. The ball is now in your court, so we will see you on May 12, 2010. 10.013 WHITE FARMS ROAD BED & BREAKFAST, 66 White Farms Road, public hearing for special use permt for six room corridor bed and breakfast in a Rural Residential-1 District. Applicant: Jon Cromer AGENT: DAVID HARPER BACKGROUND: The applicant previously applied for a 5-room “neighborhood” bed & breakfast” – the current application is for a 6-room corridor bed & breakfast that would allow outdoor activities. Documentation in Planning and Building Department files indicate the possible operation of a bed and breakfast without appropriate approvals in 2004 and 2009. In 2007 a Certificate of Occupancy (09/11/0) issued by Building Inspector for the construction of habitable space at the basement level, under the eastern porch of this single family home indicated the following condition of approval: There is no approval for use of this space for office or home occupation purposes. There is no approval for use of this single family residence as a “guest house” or “bed and breakfast” or “bed and breakfast dwelling.” Issues to consider The applicant has requested that the fee paid for the 5-bedroom neighborhood bed & breakfast special use permit be applied to the revised/new application for a 6-bedroom corridor bed & breakfast. We discussed this at our workshop. Is there any comment from the Board? Jamin Totino’s comment which was brought up aptly at the Agenda workshop is that the application fee in large measure is meant to help cover and defray the cost of significant staff time that goes into generate or to deal with the applications. From my point of view I think the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 15 of 27 amount of time that was spent on the previous application was indeed significant on both staff and Board time and so in light of that matter I see no matter to entertain the idea of waiving that application fee. Earlier tonight we had done so for a previous applicant, but I must point out that in the rare occasions that we do waive application fees it is typically for a non profit organization and very unique cases where it seems appropriate from the Boards point of view. Mr. Harper I think the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance making the distinction between neighborhood and corridor bed and breakfast was amended approximately five years ago. I have a memo in my file from 2008 when my office was researching this. My office consulted with the Building Department and my memo written by my office states there is a review of what is allowed in an RR-1 and what is not allowed in the neighborhood bed and breakfast versus the corridor and based upon conversations with somebody in the Planning Department the distinction is if you have road frontage on route 50 in this zone you may be elibible for a corridor bed and breakfast but without that road frontage you are not eligible in this zone. I think there was a belief in 2008 that although the property has frontage on route 50 it does not have access on route 50. Therefore it was not possible to apply for corridor bed and breakfast. Now that comprehension may have been right it may have been wrong I don’t know how it came to pass. My associate Nick D’Allesandro was working on the file. I don’t know with whom he spoke in the Building Department but that was our conclusion then. A corridor bed and breakfast is permitted in the RR-1 district with a special use permit and a site plan. Based on that our initial application was for the neighborhood Bed and Breakfast. After that process got going, Jacklyn Haakes, gave us her formal opinion that we were eligible to apply for it because we have road frontage on Route 50. So that official determination was not made until we had already submitted our application and paid the filing fee. Right, wrong or indifferent that is how it came to pass. So, after we had that opinion from Jacklyn, my client and I discussed this. We have been before the Board a few times. We came to the conclusion that it would be appropritate to amend our application to be a corridor Bed and Breakfast. The distinction being one additional bedroom and having outdoor activities. I did speak with a member of the building department who gave me an informal opinion as to what I should submit and hypothetically a new filing fee would not be required. I submitted those documents I understand that there has now been a more formal discussion of the topic at the workshop. I would submit that yes there is going to be more staff time it’s got to go to DRC, go through SEQRA. I think there has to be a County Planning Board referral as well but it will be in some respects pro forma because the work has already been done. For all of those reasons and we will defer to the Board but in the interest of fairness to the applicant I would ask that the $1,000 application fee that he paid a few months ago be deemed applicable to this application. Chair Clifford Van Wagner, questioned Bradley Birge regarding notification public notice. That was my concern when we discussed this Monday night was now the public notice should indicate that outdoor activities are possible. With a neighborhood Bed and Breakfast they would not be. Based on that, I think it is a new application and I will defer to other members of the Board. Jamin has given his opinion. We are fortunate to have our counsel with us tonight. Amy Durland questioned the applicant if he would have applied originally for a corridor Bed and Breakfast if you didn’t have the impression based on this action that happened a couple of years ago that it wasn’t allowed. Mr. Harper stated that is correct. Amy Durland stated so your request for a waiver of the application fee is based on the fact that you were misinformed by the Planning Department. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 16 of 27 Mr. Harper stated that might be too strong a term we misapprehended the statute. I can’t tell you that a member of the Building Department said you absolutely cannot apply for this. I can’t tell you that, I was not there. I am just saying I have a memo in the file where my law office came to the conclusion that we could not, after talking with the Building Department we concluded that we could not apply for a corridor Bed and Breakfast because although we have frontage we do not have access. Amy Durland stated there is a little bit of a digression but is that in anyway legitimate? Is that an angle that we need to look at, or consider? Bradley Birge stated that it is our understanding a corridor Bed and Breakfast talks about an overlay zone. In this parcel whether it has access or not is actually encompassed and set by the overlay zone. Whether ultimately you are able to provide the additional activities under that overlay zone is encumbent upon the activities itself. Philip Klein stated is there any way that we could find out what the thought process was behind the overlay zone and the fact that this property doesn’t have access and whether it really does conform to the plan as it was laid out. Bradley Birge stated that a corridor bed and breakfast is defined as: “A supplementary use in a private single or two-family residential structure having a resident host which more than five rooms but not more than ten rooms are offered for rent and one or more meals are furnished to guests. Corridor bed and breakfast establishments may have regularly scheduled commercial indoor or outdoor activities such as weddings/receptions showers, business meetings, catered events, etc., with the issuance of a special use permit, based on individual project review by the Planning Board. In the review of a special use permit, the Planning Board shall establish th type of permissible act ivities, a maximum number of events/day on which such commercial activity can occur and the maximum number of people who can attend such events. When so approved by a special use permit the above commercial activities shall not require any additional off-street parking requirement.” Philip Klein stated that the only access that he has would be that foot bridge that is in proximity and is in the overlay area. In my mind it is not clear why he would be able to exercise the option of going with a corridor bed and breakfast. Mr. Harper stated it is not just the pedestrian bridge, we have actual lot frontage on Route 50. Philip Klein stated that he knew that, but you do not have any legal access. Mark Schactner questioned Chair, Clifford Van Wagner has there been a zoning determination that this property is within the overlay area and therefore is eligible? Clifford Van Wagner stated that is correct. Mark Schactner stated then you cannot pursue that angle because that determination has been made and not contested. The Planning Board does not have the right to change that determination. Keeping in mind what Brad stated that it does not necessarily mean that the applicant is ultimately entitled to approval but it has been demonstrated at least to the Zoning Board that the applicant’s property is situated within the overlay area that is eligible for the corridor use. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 17 of 27 Mr. Harper addressed Chair, Clifford Van Wagner, you raise a concern how in the neighborhood notification an issue about public notice regarding the outdoor activities. For better or for worse, the petition that we have already submitted in connection with the neighborhood Bed and Breakfast said the Bed and Breakfast may occasionally seek to have outdoor activities such as a party and/or a tent. Bradley Birge stated that the current application before you for a 6 room corridor bed and breakfast with select outdoor activities has been noticed and paid for by the applicant. The correct updated and revised information has been appropriately and legally noticed, and the neighbor notifications have occurred. Chair, Clifford Van Wagner stated the Board has to make a determination, is this a new application or not. Everything about it is a new application which you have so submitted. You are submitting a new application for a 6 room corridor bed and breakfast. So, right now we have to determine if that is what it is then. I have a comment from Jamin, that I concur with that the $1,000.00 application fee should be implemented for this and if that is the case, then that sets the tone on a go forward basis on how we accept any more comments. I think that if we deem this a new application, a $1,000.00 fee is part of our requirement. Neither Mr. Harper or Mr. Toohey can say as I submitted last month or as I submitted before this is a new application we start all over. Mark Schactner stated that they can say whatever they wish but for the sake of paperwork anybody not just the attorneys, but anyone who wants to submit something about the new application should submit whatever it is. That something may have been submitted before but I think for the purpose of keeping the record straight, narrow and clean the old application file exists, it has paperwork in it and should stay there. Anyone who wishes to submit something new at the appropriate time and place for the new application should do so. Jamin Totino stated that he believes this is a new application. There are two definititions, two different and distinct definitions in the zoning book and I think if it was anything other than a bed and breakfast we would not have the question, it would clearly be a new application. Mike Perkins stated his concern, I agree that it is a new application. I feel bad that they received incorrect advice and thus applied for the wrong thing, but my concern is that without something in writing and it is just notes that we go down a slippery slope if we start making decisions based upon that. Philip Klein stated do we treat it as a new application, if so fine. I can see that, but because there was advice given is that right? Mr. Harper stated he has a memo that his office wrote in which they came to that conclusion after research. Philip Klein stated if there was poor advice given out by our Land Use Boards then I think it complicates matters. If we could separate the fact that it is a new application and possibly the $1,000.00 fee that might be something we would want to look at that way. Marc Schactner stated I am not comfortable as is Mr. Harper. I do not think we have any objective evidence that there was a mistake made by anyone on the Planning Staff. The document that Mr. Harper has is a memo which was written by his staff for the record. I am not comfortable stating that an error was made by the City. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 18 of 27 Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated that it seems everyone is on the same page. I suspect that we do not need to vote on this. It is a determination by the Planning Board of two things, that it is a new application and the $1,000 fee will be required and thus as Mark Schactner has indicated any evidence submitted from this point forward will be evidence that is new. The old case is closed. We will go forward now. Before I turn this over to the applicant for his opening remarks I did say that according to our agenda notes the potential action tonight would be to initiate co-ordinated review with DRC and also to take a vote among the Board assume SEQRA lead agency if that is what we want to do. I would have a request that was brought up that came up on Monday evening, because of the volume of paperwork that this application has generated in the past, the Planning Board need time to get this information and read it in a timely fashion. Unless we get a paragraph about something that we have asked for in clarification of something it is not easy for us or practical to receive 7 or 8 or 10 pieces of paper that are evidence or pictures of or descriptions of what you, the applicate or in Mr. Toohey’s case what he is trying to bring to our attention. The information is fine. Here is a request that I am making. If you have information that is pertinent to this case that we need to review, if you can get it to staff by the Friday before the workshop, it can then be disseminated to us. We will then have a full 48 hours to digest it. It is just not practical for us to do this at the meeting. Bradley Birge stated if it is in a digital format we can disseminate it even quicker. Amy Durland stated she appreciated the Chairman making this statement and totally agrees. The other factor is that it also give staff a chance to review it before hand which is also an important factor. Mr. Harper stated that he would like to revisit the documents that are in the previous file. There are petitions, photographs, letters in favor, letters in opposition. Do you want us to copy that and resubmit it for the new application. Mr. Harper stated that he is not prepared to do that tonight. He will submit it in PDF format the Friday before the workshop. Marc Schactner stated the Board is not requiring you to submit everything. Whatever you wish to submit as part of this application should be submitted. Mr. Harper stated that the new application needs to be submitted to the Saratoga County Planning Board and was assured that it will be done. Bradley Birge raised a question regarding the letter we obtained from the Department of Public Safety regarding parking on White Farms Road. We would like to draw your attention to the letter we submitted from the Police Department which documents that there are public safety issues with overflow parking on White Farms Road and that in the opinion of the department on the occasions when Mr. Cromer has permitted parking on his lot that that has benefitted the public safety. The querry is why did we submit this? We are not asking the Planning Board for its permission to park cars on our property. I spoke about this with Brad at length. I think this is an area which is not addressed by and City statute. As we all know there is overflow parking all around the racetracks and I don’t think you could find a section of the any city code that says that it is legal or that it is illegal. The reason I submitted this is because in the last application there were discussions about possibly imposing as condition of an approval that there not be overflow parking allowed on Mr. Cromer’s property. So I am simply submitting that letter to show you Public Safety’s point of view on that issue . Jamin Totino stated just to be clear you are not asking for clearance from this Board or the City for in any way to deal with overflow parking from SPAC. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 19 of 27 Mr. Harper stated that is correct. Jamin Totino stated than your intention then is not to manage overflow parking. Mr. Harper stated no. That is not what I am saying. I am saying it is not part of the application and I am not seeking the approval of the Planning Board. John Cromer has asked me if he need permission to park cars on my parcel and I have gone to the City Attorney’s office, there is no section to deal with this. Amy Durland stated that she is not sure that she agrees that there is no statutory reference to this or a basis for either approving or disapproving that use. Certainly from a planning perspective in the RR-1 District the potential uses are identified. Then of course it states the prohibited uses, any use that is not a permitted use, suggests to me that this is not a permitted use and that it is not authorized. Chair, Clifford Van Wagner stated that I would agree that there is no statute that allows or disallows track parking, but based on what Amy is showing us in an RR-1 district we have an application in front of us for a Bed and Breakfast and it says permitted uses upon special use permit site plan. Prohibited uses as Amy said. Because we have an application in front of us in an RR-1 zone requesting a Bed and Breakfast that will additionally park cars. Mr. Harper stated the applicant is not asking for permission to park cars. If you deny our application, and there is no bed and breakfast Mr. Cromer may park cars. His neighbor may complain and we will go around in circles. I am just asking you to take into consideration what the Public Safety Department has commented on. Chair Clifford Van Wagner stated that he is trying to get this application on the right track here. Why don’t you tell us what you are asking for. Tell us what you would like to do with your application. Mr. Harper stated the applicant would like to have a 6 bedroom corridor bed and breakfast, which on occasion and by statute would have a right to have regularly scheduled outdoor events, which I understand to be parties outside, tents, possibly a van, and by statute the Planning Board has the authority to regulate the frequency of those, the hours of duration, and management overall of how they are done. It is impossible for us to say right now exactly what they would be, but that does not make it impossible for the board to say whatever you apply for down the road it will not run later than 11:00PM at night. Or you will not have more than 80 or 60 or whatever, it would be whatever the customer wants. If someone wants to rent the bed and breakfast for the purpose of having a wedding, then they would have to get a tent permit from the accounts department and would have to be issued within the confines of whatever restrictions the Planning Board has imposed. Chariman Clifford Van Wagner stated in the past the board has issuied a temporary permit to the Bachelor Mansion, they have on occasion come to us with a request to renew this. The accounts department has charge of recording how many events they have, what type of events they are and how many people. Bradley Birge stated as part of your condition is that you require them to maintain a listing of events and to keep all those records. It is part of their licensing, and this gives the opportunity to audit that, when and if they so wish. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 20 of 27 Chair, Clifford Van Wagner questioned if a home occupation is currently being operated out of the residence? Mr. Harper stated yes. Chair, Clifford Van Wagner according to our table of uses that cannot continue if the board grants the application for a corridor bed and breakfast. If you are successful in this it would be necessary in verbage in the motion to specifically state that the aforementioned home occupation is now considered an illegal use if the special use permit is granted. Marc Schactner stated it is not required but the Board can do that, and the applicant has indicated that the use will cease. By statute it would have to. Mr. Harper stated that if the Board in a few weeks or months were to grant this application there are some steps Mr. Cromer would have to take before it comes to fruition. Jamin Totino stated that the question he has is in regard to the parameters. What I would like to hear are what are the parameters that you are suggesting. I am thinking about the hours of the events, the number of tents, the number of cars, the number of events, time periods, days with which you want to be held accountable. The applicant at this point should tell the board the parameters which he is looking for and the board will evaluate those requests. If you are not prepared to do that tonight it is obviously not going to be decided tonight, that is what I am looking for. Philip Klein stated that you may not be able to recite a complete list of what you want. Mr. Harper stated that they will give it their best effort. Suzanne Cleary stated that it comes to mind as Jamin is speaking are we allowed to bring up questions that we had from the previous application? I am just wondering If you are still looking to sell or is that off the table now? Mr. Cromer stated that no one has looked at it, so the applicant would rather do the Bed and Breakfast. When I bought the house that is what I eventually wanted to do. Bradley Birge reminded the Board that the board is evaluating the use of the property. In all of your deliberations the zoning regulations regulate the use of the property, and not who owns it. I would encourage the board to focus on the use and whether it is appropriate regardless of who the owner is. Marc Schactner stated you cannot hold this applicant or any other applicant to the selling I am not selling. If the applicant says in totally good faith that the property is not on the market and I have no intention of selling, you can’t hold the applicant to that if the next day the applicant says things have changes and I am selling. This is not within your perview. Suzanne Cleary stated that whatever you grant that property goes with the sale of the house. Jamin Totino stated that the applicant stated one of the things that you would like to have is the possibility of having bands. Music, bands, and I know in the previous applications we have dealth with decibel level issues, lighting issues, is there going to be a stage, any issue that might come up around having a music band, type, if indeed that is something you are thinking about. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 21 of 27 Amy Durland stated she also has some questions that we would like addressed. First of all I believe on the long form that you submitted you omitted site plan review, and you of course know that site plan review is required, unless waived. In addition, we would want to know about the possibility of buffers, both visual issues and noise issues, if possible. Specifically, I assume that this has not changed but it would be useful to know what areas are to be developed. If the parking situation has changed with this new request for a corridor bed and breakfast and the possibility of large functions we need to know to what extent the parking may have changed, or do you have to provide more on site parking. Suzanne had mentioned at the workshop issues around the septic system, or whether your intent is to connect to the city sewer line. Also, are there any plans to facilitate or increast pedestrian access to SPAC since I think that part of your position was that the B and B might be appealing to people going to SPAC. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated that we should all plan to visit the site again. I know that we have all done a pass through on this property. I believe that there was still snow on the ground when we were there before. In all fairness that to stay on top of this I would recommend that all the Planning Board members do another site visit either via the caravan or independently. The caravans are anywhere between 3:30 -4:00 on the Monday of the workshop. There are some Planning Board members who cannot make those caravans based upon their work requirements and there are a few of us who work in town who avail ourselves of those. Amy Durland stated that the workshops are public meetings but we are advised not to discuss applications substantively at those times. Bradley Birge stated that the workshops are not public meetings. These are fact finding missions. The workshops following the caravans where discussions are held are public meetings. Jamin Totino stated the last time he visited the site, I was reluctant to go past there on my own. Is it okay if I walk around a little bit. Suzanne Clearly stated for clarification purposes the outside concerts and things you are looking to have are they related to the bed and breakfast or are they separate events? Mr. Cromer stated what my guests want when the rent the B & B would determine what the party would be. Philip Klein questioned if he might do a charitable fund raiser. Mr. Cromer stated he is a member of the methodist church and they have spoken about it. I am involved in Saratoga Crew and possibly a clambake for that. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner asked if there were anyother questions or comments from the board or staff? Anyone in the audience who wishes to be heard on the application for a 6 room corridor bed and breakfast in an RR-1 district. Mike Toohey, I am here on behalf of MaryLou Whitney and John Hendrickson, the immediate neighbors to the north, and some of the other associate people residing on the northerly side City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 22 of 27 of the property. Although the chair has indicate that I have not heard Mr. Harper verify it that the previous application has in fact been withdrawn. Mr. Harper stated that the application has not been withdrawn. Mr. Toohey stated that if it has not been withdrawn I don’t believe you can have two applications for the same property, going on at the same time. I don’t think that is proper under your own process. This is the beginning of an application process. That is why we are all here. I have never seen an application that can go forward when the application fee has not been paid. I am assuming from this evening that it has not been paid. So I am not necessarily sure that it is appropriate for this discussion or any vote to be taken at this meeting with regard to this particular project. I am putting that out really as part of the record. Is there a determination made by somebody in an official position that this property is in a corridor bed and breakfast overlay zone. I had not seen that and I don’t know who made that determination. Could I have some clarification as to that. Mr. Harper stated it was at a meeting of an earlier application Jacklyn Hakes stated in the record that we could have applied for a corridor bed and breakfast. It was based on her statement on the record that wheels started turning and we prepared this application. Mr. Toohey stated that he has not seen it in the minutes and unless there is something in writing I am again leaving up to questions. I was wondering if it was something that I had missed and now I know to what Mr. Harper is referring. Amy Durland intervened and stated that it is her understanding and it is very clear in the ordinance that this is a corridor with properties that front among other roads Ballston Avenue. That they are in that corridor bed and breakfast. I don’t have the exact wording but that is the jist of it. So I would assume that there is no question especially if the issue of access versus frontage has been addressed. Mr. Toohey stated that is probably what I am asking. Who has made that determination? Amy Durland stated about access versus frontage? Mr Toohey stated yes. Bradley Birge stated that it had not been denied by the Zoning Enforcement Office. That would not allow us to continue. Mr. Toohey stated but this has not gone before the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Again all I am saying is that a question was stated that somebody has made a determination. Mike Perkins stated that the minutes don’t have everything in it, but it is recorded and part of the record. It was said, that is my recollection and it is recorded, so you can go back to the actual recording. Mr. Toohey stated that one of the questions which would be helpful and it is in your agenda notes so I guess it would be appropriate having to do the operation of a home occupation on the property. It would be interesting to have an inquiry made as to how many employees this home occupation has. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 23 of 27 Mike Perkins stated is this relevant to that or is this for enforcement? Marc Schatner stated that he does not know what relevance that information has to the present application. Mr. Toohey stated he brough it up because it was brought up in the agenda notes. The question was is there a home occupation at this property? With that we will hold our questions until we have more detail. We will be very interested in seeing what is being submitted for the density of the use. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated there are two questions that Mr. Toohey asked that I cannot answer, if application #1 has not been withdrawn how do we handle two applications for the same piece of property for the same use? Bradley Birge stated that typically the City does not have an on occasion allowed an applicant to have a matter in abeyance based upon the determination of another request. Marc Schactner stated this might not be a significant issue it might be a practical matter because the previous application whether it is withdrawn or dormant, is not active and even if it were formally withdrawn clearly this board would not be granting approval for both, and would not even be processing the former application even if it is dormant and if Mr. Harper wanted to revive the former application they would have to start from scratch anyway other than submission of the application materials. Public notice, public hearing, etc., etc., Jamin Totino stated he interpreted what Mr. Toohey stated as there being an ordinance stating that there cannot be two applications. Mike Perkins stated can we make a decision or do we need to have the fees paid, or have we made decisions in the past for applications where fees have not been paid? Bradley Birge stated that you can entertain requests for waivers so if a fee is not paid then we will not proceed as required for a full appllication. Mike Perkins stated then today we are looking to make a determination whether we want to be lead agency. Mark Schachner stated that it is true, that we do not process applications without a fee being paid and a determination has been made only this evening that a new fee is required. I don’t see a problem with the board taking limited action that you take this evening. If this fee is not paid then don’t process it any further. I am uncomfortable continuing with this if what Mr. Toohey stated that there is something in our zoning ordinance that says that we cannot proceed with this application if there is a previous application that is not withdrawn. If there is I would certainly like to know that. Mr. Toohey stated that he has been doing this in practice. I have had this situation come up before probably four or five years ago in which this same type of scenario came through and I was told that I had to withdraw my application. I did not get that in writing because I withdrew the application and I was told that was the procedure in the City. The City will not entertain two applications for basically the same relief on the same property. Otherwise the City will get itself in a situation or the board will get themselves in a situation where people are layering applications. You have one application to make the presentation. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 24 of 27 Mark Schachner stated that he recommends to the Board that we get something in writing from the applicant representative indicating that the previous application is tabled/dormant whatever so that we are not subject to any attack or criticism for not processing that. I strongly recommend that we get something in writing saying please do not process that application. Chair, Clifford Van Wagner stated that the board understands their concern if this is not successful then they can fall back to the neighborhood. Now we have an agreement from Mr. Haper that he will get a written statement that tables application number #1 for the time being while application #2 is considered. The $1,000.00 application fee will not be waived. We can vote tonight at least on the SEQRA lead agency status, and I have no reason to believe that the applicant will not side with our request for the application fee. Any other questions from the Board or staff? Chair, Cllifford Van Wagner stated that we will now initiate SEQRA coordinated review with DRC. We will communicate with DRC and we will move on. We will wait to hear from DRC and secondly we do need to vote on a motion that members of the Planning Board would like to seek Lead Agency Status on this. Philip Klein made a motion, Jamin Totino seconded the motion. VOTE: Jamin Totino, in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Michael Perkins, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor Motion passes 7-0. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated that we have coordinated review with DRC. We have requested Lead Agency Status, DRC meets again on the 5th of May. Would you intend to be on our May 12, 2010 agenda. Bradley Birge stated if that is true than all materials must be submitted by the 7th of May. 13, Unless you would like additional time. Any questions or comments. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Clifford Van Wagner entertains a motion to approve the minutes of the March 10, 2010, and the minutes of the March 24, 2010 meeting as submitted with corrections submitted. Motion made by Philip Klein, seconded by Jamin Totino Ayes all, nayes none Suzanne Cleary would like clarification when the applicant went from a neighborhood Bed and Breakfast to a Corridor Bed and Breakfast, based upon information that was given to the applicant stated they could have gone to a corridor Bed and Breakfast. Based upon that assumption do we know that to be legally right. Discussion ensued, regarding neighborhood Bed and Breakfast vs Corridor Bed and Breakfast. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 25 of 27 Suzanne Cleary stated we are moving forward on the premise that he did have that investigated and looked at. Jamin Totino questioned Counsel regarding what if any mechanisms does the Board have to control within reason the length of the meeting. The Board is allowed to exercise all types of agenda controls. As long as they are reasonable, they are upheld. You are allowed to say that we are going to spend one hour on this application or limit public comment time and you have to allow people to comment if there is a public hearing, however you can limit the amount of time they speak. These agenda controls do have to be consistent. Amy Durland questioned if it was acceptable for the Chairman to allot say a half an hour for each application and get as far as you can on each one and the move on so that at least everyone gets to be heard. Mark Schachner stated that is really not a good idea because you never have closure on any one case. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated he was under the impression that once an application is completed then we are obligated to hear it within 60 days. Mark Schachner stated that the advise he gave was a state provision, there are provisions in our Zoning Code that impose certain time frames although those that are subject to public hearings they all measure the time from the public hearing. Bradley Birge stated he will check, however, he believes it is stated somewhere that applications will be heard within 60 days. Mike Perkins stated that he would like to make a motion that we finish all meetings by midnight, unless there is a circumstance where we are absolutely going to run into an issue. Those will be few and far between because if we know those are, put those on first on the agenda. Jamin Totino stated that we can set the agenda at the agenda workshops to get to those things first. We have the authority is that correct? Bradley Birge stated it is customarily the Chair that has been able to identify the priorities. Mike Perkins stated do we need to make a rule and submit to the City Council and change our regulation. Amy Durland stated she believes that the Zoning Board imposed their own time limit like 10:00PM. Bradley Birge stated you as a Board have the opportunity to make your procedures, rules and regulations. If you want to formally incorporate that into the rules and regulations you may. This is just the zoning boards practice. Chairman Clifford Van Wagner stated that procedurally it is my responsibility to control the meetings and to know that all seven of us realize that by the stroke of midnight we really need to move it along. Informally we will try to keep the midnight time frame for meetings. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 26 of 27 Philip Klein made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by all. All in favor, ayes all, nayes none. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Clifford Van Wagner adjourned the meeting at 10:00PM. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved July 14, 2010 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 28, 2010 - Page 27 of 27