Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 2010 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Chair Clifford Van Wagner called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M. PRESENT: Clifford Van Wagner, Chair; Jamin Totino, Vice-Chair; Amy Durland; Philip Klein; Michael Perkins; Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary LATE ARRIVAL: Dan Gaba arrived at 8:05PM STAFF: Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning & Economic Development Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Planning Board SALUTE TO THE FLAG ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING Clifford Van Wagner said the proceedings of this meeting are being taped for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. REPORT ON ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS BY THE CHAIR There was one administrative action which was approved. The Hampton Inn crosswalk, striping plan side street, the request was to modify the originally approved crosswalk to reflect the infield divisions that were necessitated by manholes and the electrical traffic safety boxes that are in the sidewalk. Both the City Engineer, and Department of Public Safety were in favor of that so I did approve that Administrative Action. PROJECTS ADJOURNED TO MAY 26, 2010 09.053 McKenzie’s Way Subdivision-Part I, East Broadway, continuation of public hearing on a 6-lot subdivision in an Urban Residential-2 District. 09.054 McKenzie’s Way Subdivision-Part 2, Cleveland Avenue, continuation of public hearing on an 8-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential-2 District. 10.021 Saratoga Cleaners, 228 Washington Street, public hearing for a special use permit for dry cleaning business in the Transet-4 District. Adjourned to May 26, 2010. 10.021 Saratoga Cleaners, 228 Washington Street, site plan review for dry cleaning business in the Transect-4 District. Adjourned to May 26, 2010. 10.026 Shanghai Grill, 175 South Broadway, public hearing for a permanent special use permit in a Transet-5 District. Adjourned to May 26, 2010. UPCOMING SCHEDULE Planning Board caravan will be held on Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 4:00 P.M. Planning Board workshop will be held on Monday, May 24, 2010 @ 5:00 P.M. Planning Board meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 26, 2010 @.7:00 PM. Planning Board meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 9, 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. 09.012 McDonald’s Rebuild, 197 South Broadway, public hearing for special use permit for redevelopment of a restaurant in a Transet-5 District. DISCLOSURES: Dan Gaba has disclosed that Chris Boyea has been a client of his in the real estate business. It is just a disclosure, no need for a recusal as indicated by our attorney. BACKGROUND: In January 2010, the Planning Board, as lead agent reviewed the SEQRA Full Environmental Assessment Form and issued a SEQRA Negative Declaration. On April 12, 2010, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a number of area variances and one use variance to permit wall signs. The applicant is now in front of us for two approvals. Items 1 & 2 on our agenda tonight. First is a Special Use Permit. We would note that the applicant has been to the Design Review Commission on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 and that Board granted Architectural Review Approval for the proposed building. Normally that is not done. Normally we need a Special Use Permit and then the DRC. The approval that the DRC gave them, I will read into the record. This action by the Design Review Commission is intended in no way to limit the Planning Board’s authority to modify this project under the Plannning Boards jurisdiction with both Site Plan Review and Approval. The applicant understands that any modifications to these details as necessitated by the Planning Board action on Special Use and Site Plan shall require additional review by the DRC. We opened the public hearing on Special Use Permit two weeks ago. We had a few outstanding questions and during that time the Saratoga County Planning Board has reviewed this application and issued the decision that there is no significant countywide or intracommunity effect. The Saratoga County Planning Board had to be notified because of the proximity of the applicant to a County road. Any questions or comments from the staff? City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 2 of 31 Applicant: Clark Brink, local owner/operator Agent: Chris Boyea – Bohler Engineering McDonald’s Representative – Francis Essian We did receive DRC approval on May 5, 2010. This Planning Board had provided some comments at the last meeting we were at and we have revised the plans. The plan changes were minor. They included provided some payment markings. The other item that we added was a one way sign. To let people know the alley is one way in this direction. The other item requested is a bike rack and it is located right next to the building in the concrete area. The other item the Planning Board requested was a mountable curb and we would finish the top with a durable material, so if trucks roll over it – it will remain intact. This will also help guide people down the alley as well as allow the truck to drive the trailer over that spot. The last item that was raised was just to contact the city regarding the trash enclosure and we have had some last minute negotiations right up until today to find out a little more information about the trash concerns and we have narrowed it down to the biggest issue there are grease problems and it is believed that the grease will run out of this trash enclosure and it stains the parking lot as it exits. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated this item is a site plan issue and we would like to hear about that later, however we will continue to go through the Special Use Permit at this time. This was very neat and tidy and you did what we requested. We appreciate that. Questions or comments from the Board? PUBLIC HEARING: The Public Hearing has been remained open, is there anyone in the audience who wishes to comment on the application of McDonald’s tonight for the Special Use Permit. Philip Klein questioned if it would be applicable to speak of hours of operation at this time, I believe someone from the pubic would lmay want to address that, not the hours of operation but the hours of construction and possibly lighting. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman questioned the applicant when might you demolish and begin construction? Chris Boyea, Bohler Engineering stated the question was raised at the last meeting about starting construction hours. To be courteous and thoughtful of possible residents at a local, hotel, motel and surrounding areas, I believe 8:00AM is an acceptable construction start time. Francis Essian, McDonald’s Corporation Representative stated construction start time could be scheduled to begin at 8:00AM but usually the construction folks start at 7:00AM and end at 3:00 or 4:00PM and that is there normal operating hours. Beginning construction at 8:00AM would be acceptable. Clark Brink, owner/operator stated we are very sensitive to our neighbors and we will do everything we can to minimize the impact of a relatively short term construction that will result in what we believe will be a significant improvement to the property in the neighborhood. I hope to begin the demolition shortly after labor day and hopefully open prior to the years end. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 3 of 31 Philip Klein questioned the applicant as to how long the construction will take? Clark Brink, applicant, owner/operator stated once again this is an unusual site, this is a one of a kind building, unique in over 30,000 McDonald’s in the world. You will not find another building like the one that we have worked on. I believe it will be about 120 days. Approximately four months construction time. Jamin Totino questioned the applicant as to where the staging area will be for the construction, I am assuming it will be in the back lot area. Clark, Brink, applicant, owner/operator stated that is correct the staging area will be in the back lot area. ERIC LAWSON - 11 Whitney Place, Saratoga Springs, which is one block behind Broadway. My only remarks are that I am delighted to see this new construction going up but I am little uneasy that the property was allowed to deteriorate rather substantially over the last couple of years. The framing timbers that support the architectural features on the front were allowed to rot and there was a great deal of deterioriation of the stone work and the masonry and the sidewalks. I am delighted to see the new construction coming but I felt compelled to make that observation when my predecessor at the microphone talked about his concern about the neighborhood. MARK SUPRONOWICZ – Owner of the Carriage House Inn directly across the street. Clark, 8:00AM seems fair to me from a start time. I am okay with that. I do understand we do not want to delay this project at all from a construction standpoint so if we start at 8:00AM maybe the workers go to 4:00PM instread of 3:00PM or even until 5:00PM I do not have a problem with that, it should not impact people staying here. That would be my only statement. Amy Durland Board Member questioned Mr. Supronowicz I noticed in reviewing the minutes of the Zoning Board that you had according to the document that I looked at that you had some concerns about late night noise, apart from construction noise. Is that the case? MARK SUPRONOWICZ replied that was previous to this plan so to speak. The late night noise really stemmed from the patio in front of McDonalds where the kids would congregate late at night. Also, the parking lot to the right. So it seems this new patio will be kind of enclosed and a little more secluded in fashion so that should cut down on that particular noise frrom a congregation standpoint. The way the new parking lot is setup it should alleviate some of the late night folks that just park there and kind of have a party. In that regard I would say that that would be helpful. The other thing is the deliveries that we had talked about, the late night deliveries usually are about 2 -3AM and it seems like those deliveries will take place in the back of the building now so that would alleviate that problem. I would say that is a positive. Anyone else in the audience who would like to comment on the application for the Special Use Permit from McDonald’s? Questions or comments from the Board? Amy Durland raised an issue which she still has some concern over and that is the precedent setting potential of the faux second story. I know the Zoning Board granted a variance for this to City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 4 of 31 only have one story and they identified within the variance the height which would be the height of two stories. I have always had some concerns that the design didn’t as clearly articulate a second floor as I would have liked to have seen. Even more than that my concern is that in this zone, there is a requirement that there be a usable second story, and the idea of making an exception for this project in my mind was always contingent upon being able to make the design extremely clear and to articulate what those exceptions would be so that this would not set a precedent in the future for others, especially South Broadway projects coming in and wanting to build and not do a true usable second story. I would just like to ask the Board in general if they feel that has been adequately addressed. I was looking through my materials and through the records and the Zoning Board motion and I really could not find anything. I know there has been some discussion about features that would be common to fast food establishments. Maybe another project coming in that was not a fast food restaurant you could make a distinction. Among fast food restaurants which I think is entirely possible we could expect other applicants to have a usable second story, but, I don’t see that we have made that distinction and that concerns me. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated my first response is that when we approached this many times in the past meetings with the applicant and we got what I thought was a very clear description of all the penetrations that will go through this roof in order to satisfy air handling, vents for grills, and cooking and cooling and that the utilizable second floor space would be carved up dramatically. That is the extenuating circumstance and the fact that the Zoning Board has granted an area variance for that space the actual variance for the height in my opinion has blessed this proposal and the fact that those penetrations through the roof do not allow for any type of other than maybe 100 square foot as the applicant had given us information before of utilizable space that is not broken up by handling units, or vents or fans or cooling towers or whatever. So, I think that they have and you are right about any subsequent development going south will hold anybody to that standard for sure. This is one of a kind in 30,000. We want it to be that because we wanted this to be the barometer for all future development going south of this. I think the applicant as painful as it might have seemed has put together a remarkable project, based on what has been presented to this Board a couple of years ago. So, I think they have done it. I think they have given us substantial reason to allow that and in fact when I think you commented on it earlier Amy the articulation of the second floor with those windows was not as definite as it is now and upon your comment they made a change to that drawing. To me that exactly, truly looks like a two story building and I think they have done what we have asked them to do. Philip Klein, stated beauty is in the eye of the beholder and in looking at the building I certainly as a non architect type person would look and to me that represents two floors, two stories. Usable is a term that needs to be defined, I guess, a little bit more suscinctly if you can use it to store dry goods or whatever the applicant might want to do it is up to the applicant how he uses that second floor. If it went through the Zoning Board and it went through Design Review, I don’t think we really have an opportunity here to second guess this. Amy Durland stated just for the record, you cannot use the second story in any way for storage or anything else? Chris Boyea, Bohler Engineering stated the second floor is not usable in this application. Amy Durland stated I think storage would have been acceptable. All I can say is that I still have a concern about the precedent setting nature. Again as I read in some previous minutes of our meeting the specific features that you mentioned Cliff, which were intended to make this City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 5 of 31 exceptional are common to fast food restaurants. So, I am still left with a concern about the fact that other projects will come along and use this as an example of why they don’t have to create a second floor. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated they can do that. They can ask all they want. As was in zoning every case stands on its own and whoever comes to this Board following this application for any use on this road where two stories are a requirement will have to satisfy the requirements of this Board, the Zoning Board and the Design Review Commission, and that application will not be the same as this one. It will be a new application. Personally, I am not concerned with that. I think the applicant has made the case for what they have done and again this applicant has dramatically changed this proposal from day one and I am not even going to guess when the first time we saw this drawing was. Its totally different and in my estimation a two story building and like Phil said it has been approved and blessed by both DRC and Zoning. Any questions from the Board? Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary stated as the newest member of the Board, I don’t have the history that all of you do. Could just share with me the original thought of the two story building was for appearances or for use. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated it is what the zone requirements are for a T-6. Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary questioned if it was because it’s within the zone it is mandatory that the second floor be used. My first impression as I visited the site a number of times, there is so much traffic there. Something else upstairs would be disrupt the whole flow of traffic. The new traffic pattern is ideal. I imagine it is going to flow and go really well. It is a beautiful buidling and it is just my thought that having office or something else upstairs might be a bit much for that location. I understand the zoning calls for that but personally I have some reservations about that. If it really were the case and there were offices or something there they would adversely affect the traffic and everything else that is going around there. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated I have to believe that the Zoning Board took that into consideration. Jamin Totino stated that he also shares and it is well documented that I share some of Amy’s concerns. The SEQRA process we had I don’t remember the exact verbage but we had built in some verbage there to help protect against that precedent setting potential. I don’t remember exactly what that was, I just wanted to mention that point. Michael Perkins stated I was just going to say that exact same thing. Agreed. Just going from memory I believe we stated in light of the zoning variances that were given ..... or being requested that this Board was willing to waive the requirements of the usable second floor. They then went to the Zoning Board and received the variances. Amy Durland questioned Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development if he had the original SEQRA document? Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated the usability of the second floor is a firm requirement for the zone in the ordinance, however, there is a general feeling that that would be okay to eliminate that requirement. At least my opinion was as long as we could make sure that it was not a precent setting feature. Again, I do recall there was City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 6 of 31 some discussion about the equipment that needed to come up so that it was impractical to do a second story being typical of fast food restaurants. So, that is the concern that I am left with, is that there maybe other applicants who are going to be coming in and using the same ideas to try to get an exception to that requirement. Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development stated that he does have the SEQRA negative declaration, however it does not include the items that you were referring to, but it might be found in the minutes. Amy Durland, Board member stated she did not wish to delay things and can sense the rest of the Board is comfortable with this so go ahead and call for the vote. Any further questions or comments from the Board? Clifford Van Wagner stated he will entertain a motion for the Special Use Permit to allow the redevelopment of the McDonald’s Restaurant at 197 South Broadway. Motion by Philip Klein, seconded by Michael Perkins. Any further discussion. Michael Perkins stated that he would like to amend the motion just a little bit more verbage around the motion in that the reasoning that we are approving it is that it meets the six criteria outlined for a Special Use Permits and taking into consideration the zoning variances. Philip Klein accepts the additional information to the motion. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated the motion is amended to also include: 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 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 use 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 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 negatives impacts on environmental and natural resources, including the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 7 of 31  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. 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. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated lastly in the motion we should recognize the offer of the applicant to begin construction at 8:00AM. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated before the Board votes we should formally close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING: At 7:40PM the public hearing is closed. Any further discussion. Clark Brink, owner/operator would like to state that our anticipated construction time is typical. I am not sure if that is part of the motion, obviously we are going to move as aggressively as we can within the time constraints of operation. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A.Durland, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner in favor; Absent: Dab Gaba Motion passes 6-0. 2. 09.013 McDonald’s Rebuild, 197 South Broadway, site plan review for redevelopment of a restaurant in a Transet-5 District. Applicant: Clark Brink, owner/operator Agent, Chris Boyea, Bohler Engineering DISCLOSURES: Dan Gaba. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman states there is no requirement for a public hearing on a Site Plan Review, but at the last meeting two weeks ago we had a public comment section and certainly we will have that again this evening. 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 are and security lighting in both on site and off site illumination. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 8 of 31 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 pressure 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 adjoiring 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. 9). Adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones. Location and arrangement 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. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated those are the minimum considerations that this Board needs to look at. The current site has 3 curb cuts on Broadway, we have eliminated one curb cut. One of the neighbors indicated the parking lot between McDonald’s and Dunkin Donuts has at times become problematic. The applicant remedied that. According to the site plan considerations we must look at buffering, the applicant has done a significant effort in making the building longer on Broadway, by adding the pergola and then that is followed by the stone or brick wall with fencing on it to get to the appearance of a 70% build out which they have obtained. The benefit is a good portion of the parking is shielded from Broadway. The applicant has been able to pull this project all onto that one tax parcel completely off the alley and has done some considerable landscaping with trees and shrubs. Again, from what we first saw to what is in front of us now is completely different and I think it is all positive, and I am pleased to see that this process is working. At the meeting two weeks ago it was noted that the Code Enforcement officer had a question regarding the adequacy of the dumpster which Jamin pointed out to us is on a different tax parcel across the alley to the west. I saw some communication going back and forth can you tell us what became of that conversation? Chris Boyea, Bohler Engineering. We did receive a list of comments. The dumpster was involved in one of those City Engineer comments. Traffic safety. One of the comments was that the dumpster should be investigated. There are some issues with the existing dumpster. From conversations with city staff, the emails, it appears that the biggest concern, was the unsightliness of what some might call goo. When rain comes down, it combines with the grease City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 9 of 31 stored in the dumpster and would migrate down on the parking lot outside into the pavement and then it would stain the asphalt as it migrated back towards Hamilton Street. What was not discussed in any of our conversations with the Boards on this project was some of the more high tech facilities that we will be installing at this location. When we redevelop a site, scrap it, rebuilt it and make this large of an investment, not only is there efficiencies in energy just by default. Our HVAC we use is new, it is modern it uses less energy. Our water fixtures are low flow fixtures. Our lights are on sensors. Our building is well insulated. There are a lot of benefits that happen to an existing redevelopment. Typically, we use less water, less energy. We have added a lot of greenspace. One of the other things we haven’t talked about is grease. It is kind of a specific thing we usually don’t get into it at Planning Board. With a location like this it is going to have a new grease system, which is much more high tech and much more efficient as well. It is typical for restaurants to have a grease dumpster outside right next to their garbage dumpster and that is where these issues come into play. This restaurant is going to have everything internal to the restaurant. So it is going to store its grease as well as dispel grease for disposal, right out of the restaurant never having any need for a grease dumpster out in that structure. The way that is done is almost like how CO2 is delivered to charge our soda machines. They come up to a valve outside the building, hitch up to it, charge our CO2 tank and it is good for a month or two. Same with the grease now. Those are all internal, where a truck is just going to come and remove the grease and collect the grease right out of a valve outside of the building. It is much neater, it is much cleaner and also it uses a lot less energy from having to cool and solidify, the grease is always in a warmer climate inside. It never has to be reheated. There are a lot of benefits. So the grease issue is going away. The space issue is going away because there will be more room in that existing trash corral. We won’t need that grease dumpster. The aesthetics of it, we weren’t really planning on doing anything for aesthetics to that lot back there. No improvements proposed as part of this project. It is a self contained project up front with parking. It is not very visible for the landscaping and it being located directly behind. The structure itself is in decent shape, I did take some pictures of it if the Board is interested in looking at it. Maybe it could use a coat of paint. It is a masonry enclosed structure. So it is a fairly solid structure. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated if you have the pictures we would be happy to look at them. Chris Boyea, Bohler Engineering apologized because the pictures date back to 2007, but are still adequate. Clark Brink owner operator stated we have gone from an open dumpster to a compactor, which is sealed and brand new and provided by Waste Management. So we have been able to contain any potential liquid that might run out because we have basically a brand new system as leased by the disposal company. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated and if a coat of paint is what you can do to that, that would probably serve it well. Chris Boyea, Bohler Engineering stated just to finish up the notes that we were provided, we did hand the response in, it was at 2:00pm via email so I am sure no one has had a chance to review them. We did want to go on record to state (1) we acknowledged the comments which were provided by the City Engineer and (2) that we are agreeable to meet and address those comments. The same with the DPW. They had one or two comments as well. Clifford Van Wagner stated that is the correct comment because the comments from staff City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 10 of 31 need to be addressed and as you well know that before the final mylar is signed by the chair staff review those drawings in detail to make sure that all those issues are adequately and correctly addressed. Any questions or comments from the Board on any of these items in the agenda notes? Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman questioned Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development, if a letter of credit estimate was available or was it forthcoming? Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated we do have some, I believe that they are still being finalized at this point. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated for the Board members to review the agenda notes specifically the Departmental Comments, those are the comments Chris Boyea of Bohler Engineering stated that they were going to address adequately. Let’s look at these and review these as a starting point for this discussion and the applicant has indicated that the technical issues identified by Public Safety and DPW and the City Engineer will be addressed. Are there any questions or comments from the Board before we have the public the ability to comment on the Site Plan. Amy Durland stated before we leave the topic of the dumpster, I saw just before the meeting started a communication from Dan Cogan. Cliff do you think this is worth reading into the record or identifying it in some way because he raises some questions and I just want to make sure they are addressed. Have you seen this Chris? Chris Boyea of Bohler Engineering stated he has seen the communication. Amy Durland questioned Chris Boyea of Bohler Engineering if he believes he has addressed this? Chris Boyea of Bohler Engineering stated we addressed the bulk of it. He had some comments about aesthetics. This is an older structure and has some cracking and aesthetically if we are going to put this much money into the facility why not spend more and do the dumpster. Micheal Perkins questioned Chris Boyea of Bohler Engineering if this was the letter he referred to when you said you responded today at 2:00PM. Chris Boyea, of Bohler Engineering stated that is correct. Clifford Van Wagner. Chairman, stated Amy Durland made a good point and just for the record these are Dan Cogan, Bujilding Code Enforcement Staff comments: Enclosure is dated and brick is degenerating and falling. The concrete is deteriorating and crackled from many years of grease and “juice” that seeps into the blocks of concrete. The drain trough just outside the doors is blocked solid with rocks and debris. There is evidence of grease migration in the parking lot. That has been addressed. The garbage compactor located in the opening of the enclosure, there is no room for cardboard beside the dumpster, it now sits in a parking space, that has been addressed because the grease portion of the dumpster is going to be eliminated. Why would McDonald’s build a new facility to serve massive amounts of fast food that generates tons of waste and ignore City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 11 of 31  the needs to process the waste by other means. You have addressed that. Why don’t they build the facility to the modern code standards. All of these issues except for the aesthetics of the dumpster have been solved and the biggest one is that the grease is going to be taken care of within the building on site. The current grease collection apparatus will be gone so that answers a number of these. My comment as chair would be if indeed this buiding is going to be one of a kind in 30,000 McDonalds when you get it done and you get a chance perhaps if you would just address the deterioriation of that and step it up a little bit. Philip Klein stated I was just thinking that Mr. Cogan makes a very good point that if you are going to demolish a building the size of the McDonald’s Restaurant that you propose to do, demolishing that dumpster enclosure and erecting a new one when you are erecting a building the size of what you want would seem like childs play and that you would want a new dumpster along with a new building. It just doesn’t make sense. Why not address that dumpster enclosure and have it look as new and modern and nice as the building. We are talking about a dumpster enclosure. A three sided seven foot tall probably maybe eight foot tall enclosure with no electric, no plumbing, no heating. Concrete that’s it. Put the compactor inside. Done. Something to give pause to. Clark Brink, owner/operator stated we would like to do that actually. That would bring us into a whole new phase of the project, with a whole new zoning, and a whole new tax parcel, a whole new review because we are sitting on a different tax parcel. We will have electricity, we will have a compactor there. No only for security but for safety, and the operation of that compactor. I will and commit to doing the right thing to dressing up that aspect of the building. I am going to be very proud of the outcome and what I have here. Certainly I am not going to let that one three sided structure bring down the elegance and character of Saratoga Springs that this building will represent. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated if you have made a commitment to do that, I am okay with that. I cannot imagine putting the kind of money you have invested in that building and not take care of the dumpster in the back. On good faith I will accept the fact that you will do that. Any questions or comment from the Board? Philip Klein questioned Chris Boyea regarding some talk having been said regarding replacing the walk along Hamilton Street? Chris Boyea, Bohler Engineering stated we did submit, I know no one has had a chance to review it, but we concur with all the comments and we will address all of them with the City Engineer and the respective departments that have submitted comments. We did address two comments. One was the dumpster which we clearly just reviewed and documented this in the letter. The only City Engineer comments that we have addressed with this Board, I would like to read into the record. As discussed on the 04/28/10 Planning Board Meeting we are not proposing any work on the rear lot or along Hamilton Street. We do not feel that porous paving will work well for our facility. We have provided a large increase in the amount of greenspace for this project. We will meet with the City Engineer to address the other comments noted. Those comments we wanted to address because the City Engineer phrased them as just City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 12 of 31 questions. We just wanted to make sure we discussed those items and I know that we did at the last meeting just to document. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated again there is no public hearing required, however we do have a public comment section for a Site Plan application. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment on the application in front of us for a Site Plan Review for the redevelopment of the McDonald’s Restaurant at 197 South Broadway. None heard. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated Mark Schachner indicated at our last meeting that perhaps the hours of operation were not appropriate for discussion in the Special Use Permit. Site Plan is the time to talk to that. Jamin had asked a question can you give us an idea what your hours of operation are now and if they are going to change at all? Clark Brink, owner/operator stated our hours of operation are 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 363 days a year and I have no intent of changing that. I don’t belive looking at the neighborhood and the current codes that there is necessarily a need to do so and it is a fundamental part of my business plan to be able to serve the customers as business dictates. Dan Gaba arrived at 8:05PM Any other questions or comment from the Board. Philip Klein, stated with regards to the comments from the City Engineer there are seven questions about the site and are we going to leave it that the applicant is going to work things out with the Engineer or are we going to address those? Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated it seems that all the technical issues raised by the City Engineer must be addressed by the City Engineer. Again the mylars must be signed off by the Chair once all the conditions are met. Philip Klein stated what about the lighting plan? Jamin Totino stated I wasn’t sure what the comment why not use Sternberg outside district light details? Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development stated that the current lighting details that are provided by the applicant are decorative street lamps, but they are not standard city sternberg lights. Chris Boyea, Bohler Engineering stated we will work these details out with the City Engineer. Our street lights are an exact replica of the Sternbergs. It is just a different manufacturer than Sternberg. If it is actually required as part of the Transect zone than we will certainly use the Sternberg model versus the approved equal. Philip Klein stated if these will all be satisfied by the City Engineer before he gives you the mylar to sign than that is fine. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated they have to be. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 13 of 31 Chris Boyea, Bohler Engineering stated he has reviewed these issues and we have already revised the plans and we will meet with the City Engineer. There is nothing in those comments that would change the picture that you are looking at. Curb lines, greenspace, or flow lines. There maybe a pipe underground that will get re-routed slightly, but again from a site plan standpoint I am confident that the plan that you are looking at is correct. Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development stated there are two aspects from Public Works has that might require some clarification. (1) is that #4 on the operation maintenance plan references technic units and the question from our public works department is where are these being proposed. Also, note #2 on C-8 seems to imply that the City will only maintain the water mains within the limits of the project which is on private property. It is something that is not normally done, but is it something that is specific to this project. Chris Boyea, Bohler Engineering stated with a brand new building like this we need to provide a complete fire sprinkler protection system, which the current facility does not have. So it will be a fully sprinkled building. When we do that it is a very large line. It is a 6” water line that would come into provide the pressure and volume that we would need. Many cities when you go to a larger line will require that they own and operate those bigger lines. It maybe from the comment I am taking that Saratoga does not want to own that line and that is fine with us. Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development stated normally it is up to the property line, and then it is the property owner’s responsibility past the property line. Chris Boyea, Bohler Engineering, stated we would then own that line and maintain it. Philip Klein stated for clarification purposes McDonald’s will own and maintain the water line – main that is on your property line? Chris Boyea, Bohler Engineering stated if the city so chooses yes. Amy Durland, questioned if Chris Boyea could quickly point out to the Board on this plan what the features of the landcaping plan are just quickly go over it. Chris Boyea, Bohler Engineering stated, the general landscaping currently out to the right of the building there is a sea of parking and through this process we have discussed that we would try to shield that parking from view. What we have done by eliminating a curb cut and placing it in a different spot we have opened up a space in the front to make green. Currently it is paved and we will make that a greenspace. Near the trellis there is a wall, with a wrought iron fencing to shield the parking on the other side. To soften that wall we have added landscaping in the front. In the back there was concern about seeing our delivery doors as you are heading south on Broadway. To hide those doors we have planted some higher upright shrubs. That will soften the building from the view in that area. Along the other side of the buiding it is very tight. We have a curb line that goes right up to a motel. We have been able to add a little greenspace here but we are not proposing any shrubs or anything of that nature it would just be grass. Between McDonald’s and Dunkin Donuts there was a comment that you heard from one of our neighbors that people will park here and congregate. We have put in a small greenspace strip here and then a wrought iron fence that we are proposing will be installed which will mimic the other wrought iron fencing to tie it all together and then Dunkin Donuts has a small wrought iron fence out front too, so it ties the area. Amy Durland questioned if there would be any street trees? City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 14 of 31 Chris Boyea, Bohler Engineering stated the City recently redid the highway in front of us, Broadway. So, we actually do have some nice street lights that are out front as well as a few trees that are out there. Now we are proposing to keep all existing street trees that are out there. The only thing that we are proposing to remove hopefully if you are familiar with our drive thru, it is somewhat unsafe because of the shrubs which are grown up right next to the sidewalk. You almost have to pull out into the sidewalk and it is kind of blind. We will remove those shrubs, but all trees will remain. Amy Durland questioned where are the trees located? Chris Boyea, Bohler Engineering stated that they are not all shown here. The applicant point our on the plan. They are both called existing to remain. I believe those are the only two out there. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated what are the requirements in a T-6. One every forty feet. It seems that you would probably need a few more trees. Can you tell us the distance between the two curb cuts on Broadway? Chris Boyea, Bohler Engineering stated I believe our property is approximately 300 feet in width. If that puts it into perspective. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated if the distance between the two curb cuts is 300 between the curb cuts is about 180 then we would need two more street trees. Amy Durland stated you should be aware there are some specific terms within the Transect Zone Regulations about those street trees. That they should have a height of 15 to 20 feet, and there are some details there that you will need to look at in the Transect zone section. Anyone wishing to make a comment on this application either from the Board or the public? Hearing none. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated we have in front of us a potential action to vote on a Site Plan tonight. The applicant has indicated they will address the condition of the dumpster. The other comments are technical comments the applicant has indicated that many of them have been already answered by submission today at 2:00PM. I will indicate that the comments which have been made by other city departments will have to be met before the final mylars are signed and again staff reviews these documents in great detail before they are presented to the Chairman for signature. If there are no further comments then I would ask if there is a motion to approve the site plan for the redevelopment of the McDonald’s on 197 South Broadway. Motion by Philip Klein, seconded by Dan Gaba. Any further discussion. Amy Durland stated I would like to indicate there are a couple of things that are elevated to a level of not supporting this. One, I am still disturbed by the dumpster. After looking more carefully at Mr. Cogan’s comments and his description of them not just unsightly but cracked and broken and deterioriating with a number of other issues. I really would prefer to have an actual commitment rather than an indication based on good faith that the applicant will City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 15 of 31 take care of it. A paint job in my opinion isn’t going to do the trick. I really would like to see that taken down and any damage that may have been done through grease migration or anything else remediated. The time to do that is during construction and not at some indefinite time in the future. I feel fairly strongly about that. The other thing is it was our City Engineer who had presented the possibility of porous paving, again it is true that permeability is almost certainly improved, I belive it is improved from what currently exists but I don’t see that that is a reason not to seriously explore the possibility of porous paving. I really did not hear the applicant indicate anything that would eliminate that as a possibility, so with those two features I am not going to support the site plan. Jamin Totino stated do we need to add in any of the other these points that we have discussed such as construction hours being 8:00am to 5:00pm, that the hours of operation will remain the same. There was a comment about the water line. McDonald’s will assume ownership and maintenance of the water line on the property, and that they will add two street trees. Philip Klein stated that the minutes will reflect that the applicant agreed to those comments. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated Mark what is your preference? Mark Schachner stated he agreed with Philip Klein that the minutes will reflect that but it is appropriate to include that in the motion and express in the motion that the applicant has consented to those conditions. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated we will review those conditions. Jamin Totino read the following: Construction hours beginning no earlier than 8am. Hours of operation will remain the same – 24 hours a day, 363 days a year. Dumpster area will be cleaned, painted and general repair and maintenance would be performed. Code enforcement issues concerning the dumpster be resolved. Maintain the water main which is on their portion of the property. Two street trees will be added between the two curb cuts. Confirm requirements regarding the Sternberg lighting requirements. Clark Brink owner/operator stated that is a different outcome than has been expressed here tonight, if my understanding is correct. I have not seen the correspondence as of 2PM so I am looking to Chris Boyea. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated the code violation is the grease issue. The grease issue has been removed from this dumpster in its entirety. Future grease issues will be handled through a new removal system. Chris Boyea, Bohler Engineering stated in our statement that we agreed to clean the dumpster corral. Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development stated just for clarification, we will confrim the issue regarding the Sternberg lighting requirements. Any other additions to this motion. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated we have a motion by Philip Klein and a second by Dan Gaba. Jamin Totino has added 6 additional points to the motion. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 16 of 31 VOTE: J Totino, in favor; A Durland, opposed; M Perkins, in favor; P Klein, in favor; D Gaba, in favor; S Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; C Van Wagner, in favor Motion passes 6 - 1 2. 05.057.1 Beaver Pond Village Subdivision, 98 Geyser Road, extension of preliminary subdivision approval in the Urban Residential-1 and Rural Residential-1 Districts. Applicant: Saratoga East Avenue Associates LLC Agent: Daniel Ruzow, Esq. DISCLOSURES: Mike Perkins, when this project came down for a vote he indicated that he would recuse during that approval process, so he has stepped away from the table and will recuse for the vote on extension. BACKGROUND This is a preliminary subdivision that was originally approved by this Board on June 10, 2009. That approval is set to expire on June 10, 2010. The preliminary subdivision approvals do have a one year expiration date. Upon the request of the applicant our code says the Board at its discretion may grant an extension of the approval. The length of the extension will vary depending on the basis of the request made. Agent: Dan Russo, Whiteman, Ossman and Hanna We have submitted an application requesting a one year extension of the preliminary plat approval. Following the Board’s approval of the preliminary plat last June, an Article 78 proceeding was brought against the City and the applicant by a number of the neighbors that had participated in the proceedings during the course of the 4, 5 or 6 years that we were before you. That action was subsequently dismissed by the Supreme Court and the Appeal time did not run until January. So we were held up in moving this along pending the courts decision. Subsequent to that and along the way we started preparing the additional application material requested by the Army Corp of Engineers and DEC and other involved agencies for which permitting is required and also Saratoga County in terms of the sewer connections, etc., We made over the last several months fairly good progress with them. They have been out to the site. We have had a couple of meetings with the agencies and the permitting is proceeding with them. The general impression was that the design of the project, which minimized the wetlands impact they were favorably viewing that. They had some questions about some of the storm water design, the details of culverts for the wetland crossings and some suggestions about the mitigation area and ways to improve it. We have been working on that with them. We have also been in discussions, we sought as again one of the requirements of the preliminary plat and zoning ordinance. We tried to start a couple of discussions with some of the land conservation groups locally that didn’t get us anywhere. They were not interested in holding the conservation easement that is required under the code. We were able to reach preliminary discussions with the North American Land Trust. They have expressed interest in it. We have started exchanging drafts of conservation easements that would meet both the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 17 of 31 Army Corp of Engineers requirements as well as theirs which are more strict. So we are making progress. All of that eventually will have to be approved by the Army Corps of Engineers as part of their permitting process so that we can come back to you with in effect approved permits. So we are requesting a years extension to give us time. The Army Corps time frame within which to act with regard to permits, there is no time frame within which they are to act. The relatively modest impacts associated with this project, takes on less of a high priority than other projects might take. In order to be conservative we wanted to make sure we had enought time to in effect land those permits. They do have to coordinate their review with other federal agencies. You may recall that we have the Karner Blue Protection area, we have an archeological protection area. So they have more paperwork in coordination to do and they have to do that. They do not start that until they are satisfied with the paperwork associated with the project. We are very close, we are exchanging additional drafts with them. So we are requesting a years extension. We hope to be back well before the expiration of that, so we can start the dialog on the final plat application. We have no reason to believe that there will be any material differences in the layout of the subdivision based on what we are hearing. Some plan details but not much more beyond that. We did have an opportunity to meet with the City Engineer and with Brad to go over where we are and what is being planned and we received some guidance from them. So we are underway, but it will take us some time before we can come back before you with the preliminary plat application. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated our code requires no public hearing for this but as always we encourage public comment. Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to comment on this keeping in mind that any comments need to be focused on the merits of the extension request specifically. Hearing none. Comments from the Board? Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated that we have heard from Mr. Ruzzo that the reasons for the delay. Article 78 slowed this process down. Once that was resolved than the DEC and Army Corps of Engineers have been involved in the negotiations. As our notes indicate they are waiting for feedback from the NYS-Department of Health, NYS-DEC and Saratoga County Sewer Districts and also working with a land trust for the conservation usage. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated is there a motion to approve a one year extension of a preliminary subdivision approval for a period of one year from June 10, 2010. Jamin Totino made a motion, seconded by Philip Klein. Any further discussion. Hearing none. VOTE: J Totino, in favor; A Durland, in favor; P Klein, in favor; D Gaba, in favor; S Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; C VanWagner, in favor M Perkins recused. Motion passes 6-0 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 18 of 31 Board recessed at 8:35 PM Board resumed at 8:45 PM 3. 10.022 KDI Properties, 104-106 Congress Street, SEQR coordinated review of mixed use building in the Transect-6 District. 4. 10.023 West Side Stadium Cafe, 112 Congress Street, SEQR coordinated review of new porch addition in the Transect-6 District. Applicant Dan Snyder, KDI Properties, LLC Agent: Michael Toohey This is a request to consider coordinated review a new mixed-use (retail, office, residential) building in a T-6 district. The applicant has already been to DRC. DRC initiated coordinated review and voted 5-0 to defer lead agency status to this Board. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated when we had this application in front of us at the workshop in the packet there was no site plan with it. My understanding is that the site plan was submitted to the office today at 2:00PM. Mr. Toohey stated we received a request at 11:00am today to submit an additional seven sets over the 15 that we had already submitted to the DRC. We submitted those and we also submitted the site plan applications for both buildings and the checks as required. All the information is there, plus SEQRA. We have done long form SEQRA that we submitted to the DRC. We submitted additional copies of that with what was submitted today. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked Mr. Toohey to provide the Board with an overview of the project. No one on the Board has seen the site plan and the information which was submitted today. If the Board so desires and we have a motion to accept lead agency status we can do that and you will come back at a later date to be back on the agenda and we will certainly by then have had time to review the information and staff will have time to make comments. My request tonight would be just to get an overview of the project which you are considering at 104-106 Congress Street, and the next item on the agenda will be the new porch addition to the West Side Stadium Cafe at 112 Congress Street. This is a Type I action – an Unlisted Action occurring substantially contiguous to any historic building, structure, facility, site or district that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Toohey stated most of the Board is familiar with the location of the West Side Stadium Cafe to the south of Congress and to the east of South Franklin Street. I am here this evening with Dan Snyder who is the D in KDI, and has been responsible for what is an award winning renovation of what used to be the S & M Market on that corner. He also owns the lot that is to the east running up to the west wall of Legends Cafe. We have received approval for a reconfiguration of the lots so that there is a building lot that is on the east side of the property. The configuration is such that it will allow the construction of a multi-use building residential upstairs, retail commercial office on the first floor consistent with the Transect-6 zone that this property is in. This property continues to be in the core downtown business district with the requirements and the lack of restrictions with parking that are encompassed within that City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 19 of 31 particular zone. The other application and it is important for you to recognize the entire process the desire to extend a patio to the south of the West Side Stadium Cafe and then to complete the architectural features that run along South Franklin Street on this side. It would be a continuation of the nature of the design that exists with regard to the west side of the existing building and would come down. There would be one entrance system on this side to allow people to come in, The reason it is valuable to think in the scope of one project that there is going to be a lot of cross lot easements that will exist with regard to the project. There will be parking on the site and there will be cross lot parking. So it is not really for the building at 104- 106 or for the West Side Stadium Cafe. It will be opportunities for everybody to park. There will also be cross lot access to the dumpsters that will be used by both buildings. The patio that is going to be built off the West Side Stadium Cafe is not really a raised porch patio it is a virtual ground level patio, so that as you come out the back door handicapped ramp you are almost at the level of the patio. The building design does not mirror the existing building but it is a plan that incorporates the same type, nature and feel but becomes a building that is significantly perpendicular to the street. Meaning that the thin side complies with the frontage requirements in this zone and runs on its longer axis from the street in a southerly direction. When we first made this application to the DRC it was my impression that because of the design nature of 104-106 that they may want to have lead agency status on this. There is not a lot of off site improvements that will have to be made because the infrastructure that is required for this type of building in use already exists within the road corridors on this property in that much of the exercise is an exercise in accepting the design so as to be consistent with the type, style and nature of massing of the buildings that they would like to have as they transition from the downtown district into a more neighborhood business. They declined that opportunity and have asked that this Board accept lead agency and if that is what this Board wishes to do that is certainly is fine with us. We are prepared to move forward either with an answer to the general questions that may exist as it pertains to the design either of the patio or improvements along South Franklin Street or the more significant of the two projects which is the construction of the building on the east side of the lot at 104-106 Congress. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated he feels the Board will not have many questions tonight due to the fact that we have not had the appropriate time to review the information. In consultation with Mark Schachner, Counsel. The fact that you are talking about these cross lot easements and shared parking. Maybe we should be considering both of these projects as one for SEQRA determination because of the involvement of the parking and the easements that are going to be required. I don’t think that changes your application to us. Mr. Toohey stated the reason we have done this is because they are on two different tax parcels and two different tax parcels that were designed to accomodate exactly this. My sense is that there maybe a desire to have a more significant review of the building that is being built than it is to have the patio that is being built. As a result if possible understanding that the two of them have to be talked about together because there are integral component portions of the project that involve both sites. I would like to reserve or have you reserve the right at some point when you see that the introduction of a patio on the back of the West Side Stadium Cafe is a relatively innocuous process and we’re here because we are disturbing more than 1200 square feet of land as opposed to the items that may come up with regard to the design of the building. Mark Schachner stated it is subtle but from my perspective an important distinction. I am not suggesting that the applications be looked at as one application, I’m suggesting that more to benefit the applicant than the Board. I am suggesting that in light of what Mr. Toohey City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 20 of 31 has candidly described as the functional interaction between the two it would preserve the integrity of the SEQRA review process, again for the Boards benefit but even more for the applicant’s benefit to have the SEQRA review consider both together. One environmental assessment form that describes both applications. It preserves the integrity of the SEQRA review process for the Boards benefit but moreso for the applicant who would be more at risk if somebody were to raise a segmentation type challenge. Amy Durland stated that any potential impact for each of these projects could be quire different. An outdoor extension of a restaurant versus an entirely new building and its configuration. Mark Schachner stated maybe so, but I would look at them together. Looking at all the potential impacts together whatever they maybe on both properties having the applicants counsel very candidly describe that there is some functional relationship between the two. Rather than go throught two separate SEQRA review processes we are ignoring the fact that there is some functional relationship and we are opening ourselves up to a potential challenge. Amy Durland stated that is fine with her, however the applicantions are quite different. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated again we can have a public comment session here. If there is anyone in the audience who wishes to comment on this application. There really is no action tonight other than to vote to assume Lead Agency Status on this and I am assuming that this Board would like to do that particularly in light of the fact that DRC has yielded to us. Amy Durland questioned if there were any implications for time frame for the clock starting to click if we accept Lead Agency Status. Especially since the applicant will not be available for the next meeting. Mark Schachner states since the applicants counsel is unavailable, I believe there would be an extension of any timelines. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated is there a motion to accept Lead Agency Status. Motion by Michael Perkins, seconded by Jamin Totino. Any further discussion. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor; Motion carries 7-0. 5. 10.016 Saratoga Eagle, 45 Duplainville Road, site plan review for addition to beverage distribution center in a General Industrial District. This is a request for a Site Plan review for a 29,900 square foot addition to a beverage distribution center in an Industrial-General district. Applicant: Saratoga Eagle Sales and Service. Agent: James Gannon, Scheid Architectural City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 21 of 31 BACKGROUND: The applicant was the recipient of a two-lot subdivision on January 9, 2008. Site Plan was approved on January 9, 2008. This Planning Board issued a SEQRA negative declaration on September 12, 2007. The applicant would like to add approximately 30,000 square feet. The agenda notes indicate that no additional parking will be required and that the site is cleared and compacted for the previous construction. The applicant is proposes to remove, preserve and relocate 8 evergreens currently on the subject site. The existing concrete patio will remain. This is the area to the left of the building which has lawn up to the wood line. Mr. Gannon states the project is just as Chairman Van Wagner described. It is 30,000 square foot addition to the existing warehouse, that is so new that even the latest technology hasn’t had time to update it yet. The project is very straightforward. 30,000 square feet of controlled environment warehouse, for a positive reason. Saratoga Eagle has grown and increased their volume of business, and they need to build this addition to store that product. The overall site development is about an acre and a half. That includes some area of dynamic compaction and some additional landscaping and there is some storm drainage work that would be tied into the existing storm management system via the swail. Bradley Birge indicated to me that there is some question regarding the design of the existing infiltration basin. That four bay and infiltration basin was designed originally to accomodate entire development of the site. There was a little forethought that this expansion might be coming so we planned for that in the original site plan. From an environmental standpoint we asked Roberts Environmental Consulting to amend their initial analysis of the site. We have included a letter from Deborah Roberts in our application package. The summary is that none of the site development whether it be existing or the proposed new will have any effect on the existing Karner Blue Butterfly habitat to the north which is along the electrical power lines there. There is one small area of the buffer that we created that just did not grow in as much as we had hope so we are going to infill that per her request as well. Clifford Van Wagner, stated when those of us who work in town are able to take advantage of a caravan on Monday’s we were out at your site and must admit we were duly impressed at how nice that site looks and the attention to detail and all the planning that has gone into your project. In light of that for the first time in my tenure on the Planning Board the departmental comment from the City Engineer said great plans. I have never seen that before. I would commend you all for that. I am please to see that your retention system there was built to accomodate future growth. Well done. The Departmental Comments are few. Public Safety, no comments, Fire Department will need to review building plan. Police, no comments. Traffic, none, Code, none. Amy Durland questioned the applicant if they had contacted Kathy O’Brien at DEC about the Karner Blue just to ensure that the expansion would have no impact on the habitat. Mr. Gannon stated that Deborah Roberts had a conversation with Kathy O’Brien and she was of the same mindset. Amy Durland questioned the applicant if they had any future plans or is this it for now or can you indicate? Mr. Gannon stated to the best of my knowledge there are no hard future plans. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 22 of 31 Jeff Euclid, Saratoga Eagle stated I believe this will accomodate any additional volume. We look at our territory and this 30,000 square feet should accomodate any future acquisition that we see down the road. We do not see anything further than this. Amy Durland stated that when we were at the site we were trying to figure out exactly how far it went and we were originally estimating it on the basis of the parking spaces that it was adjacent to. Then we sort of thought based on the size the dimensions that we had in front of us that it actually went beyond that. Jeff Euclid did a visual presentation explaining exactly where the property would be cleared to and the trees which would be relocated. There was no cut buffer beyond this point. Philip Klein questioned for clarification the addition is for warehouse housing additional products. Will you be increasing your labor force? Mr. Gannon stated our labor force is increasing at this site by 42 addtional people. Philip Klein questioned if there was adequate parking. Mr. Gannon stated yes, because out of those 42 additional people only about 15 will be full time working at the facility. The other people will be on the road. Jamin Totino questioned if the applicant had any estimate of the additional truck traffic that you will be getting out of the additional product that you will be shipping? Bradley Birge, Administrator Economic Planning and Development stated in the letter received from the applicant it identified 7 peak hour trips, expected to be generated and 11 additional delivery trips. Amy Durland stated that at the time of your original application a few years ago that one of the intersections that you had analyzed I think it might have been at Geyser and Rt. 50 was either close to or actually exceeded a level of service that was considered unacceptable. Do you have that information. The applicant stated it was an intersection that operated during the peak periods. It does operate with a level of service of CD which isn’t what the City of Saratoga likes to see something more on the C side but NYS-DOT, it is a state highway/roadway they do often accept less than a level D of service during peak hours. Amy Durland stated my question is does this application have an impact on that level of service? The applicant stated the number of vehicles that would be added it would not throw that intersection into a different situation than was there. The level of service would not change. Philip Klein stated you are builidng a bigger warehouse, so you are going to have to supply more product. Is that done during off hours, in the evening or is it continual? What are the hours of operation? The applicant stated it is continual all day long. It is a 24 – 5 operation. We are open Sunday through Friday. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 23 of 31 Philip Klein stated does your supply come in during the night also? The applicant stated correct. Philip Klein stated a lot of the vehicles for delivery purposes are going west and south. The applicant stated correct. Amy Durland stated could you please tell me again, I heard you say that this is probably the last expansion you will need. I thought I also heard you say something about clearing just in case there is future expansion. Can you please go over exactly what you are going to clear for what purpose now and for what purpose in the future. The applicant stated although we feel this expansion is fine for the time. We represent the applicant and feel we should be prepared for the unknown. This expansion obviously requires foundation and preparation of soil to take those foundations. This site and the soil type associated with the project is sand, which is not great for foundations. One of the methods we have employed to prepare that site is a technology called deep dynamic compaction. Basically it pounds the sand to the point where it can take the additional loads of the building. What we are going to do is clear an additional area and prepare that soil so that if whenever or if ever expansion should take place that soil is prepared to take those foundation loads. If we did not do this the expense to prepare that soil in the future right next to an existing building will be almost prohibitive. It is to prepare for the future if it may happen. Mike Perkins stated would it be safe to say that compacting that area after the building is there could compromise the existing building. Philip Klein stated then you will be compacting the soil out to the project area. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated there is no public hearing required for a Site Plan. Public comment is welcome. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to make a comment on this application. Hearing none. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated we will review Part II of a Short EAF: The applicant has stated this project will have not impact on the Karner Blue Habitat. The applicant will reasses the habitat that was put in place in Part I of their application. Amy Durland stated is it correct that there will be no impact on the quantity of energey used for this project. The applicant stated that is correct there will be no impact. Any other questions or comments. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 24 of 31 Jamin Totino made a motion 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 therefore one that will not have a significant adverse iimpact on the environment. Based on this I move to issue a SEQRA negative declaration for this action. Seconded by Dan Gaba. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P.Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor Motion carries 7-0. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated now we need to vote on the Site Plan. We have a second action on this. The applicant has absolutely addresed our questions. It is a fairly straight forward application for a 30,000 square foot addition. They anticipated this so that the compaction that was required for this addition has already been done, which means the original building will not be impacted by the new construction. In anticipation of not having this happen again, they have indicated that they will be clearing an additional 50 feet and doing the same compaction which will save the integrity of the addition in case there is a future addtiion. Any further questions or comments from the Board regarding the Site Plan Application? Anybody in the audience wishing to comment on the Site Plan Application for Saratoga Eagle? Hearing none. Motion for approval of the Site Plan as submitted, so moved by Jamin Totino, seconded by Philip Klein. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor Motion passes 7-0. 6. 10.018 Stock Studios Photography, 216 West Avenue, sketch plan discussion for photography studio in the Urban Residential-2 District. Applicant: Thomas Stock Agent: Scott Perkins, Esq. BACKGROUND: In 1962, this project received a Use Variance to expand a nonconforming use for construction of a building to be used for the sale of musical instruments, sporting goods, gifts and for use as a music studio. The applicant has been to the Zoning Board. We were there Monday night, some of us, for the Joint Land Use Board Meeting. Mr. Stock made an application for a Use Variance to operate a photography studio. Back in 1962 when that Use Variance was originally granted this area, this neighborhood is now a UR-2 district. The Use Variance was granted by the Zoning Board, site plan maybe required by this Board. This evening is a non voting no action. What we will speak about this evening is the Site Plan issues we cannot talk about the use because the use has to be approved by the Zoning Board before that can be a part of our deliberations. Tonight we will listen to your proposal. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 25 of 31 I am here before the Board to speak about being under contract for this particular project to operate a photography studio on these premises. I don’t intent to change anything from the site. No changes to the building, structure or the footprint of the building itself. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated when we visited the site on Monday, we were under the impression perhaps the carport structure to the south of the building perhaps would be enclosed. Mr. Stock stated that is correct. We are not going to change the footprint of the building but we are going to try and enclose the carport itself to use that as additional studio space. Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development stated, the plans that you have before you also indicated a proposed addition. That was something that was earlier contemplated by the applicant but I believe he no longer wishes to move forward with that portion of that. Mr. Stock stated if you look at the plan there is a dotted line which is a proposed larger addition to expand and we find that is not going to be currently economically viable to do that. So we are just going with enclosing the current footprint so it does not change the actual postage stamp on the lot. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated, please tell us about the small out building that are on the back side of the property. Mr. Stock stated currently one is a garden shed and the other is a lawnmower shed. They are just buildings on blocks right now. One of them is totally on the property. It turns out after the survey that the other one is only partially on the property and on the other adjacent lot. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated what is the intention with that? Mr. Stock stated since this is a discussion I was hoping to get your feedback on that because never having gone through this I would be happy if I owned it to move or demolish it. I am looking for my options. The survey line and the way that the two neighbors the current owner of the lot and the residential neighbor on Congress, the way they mow their property now it is believed that the shed is completely on the parcel that I am interested in. We know that the line now proves that it is not. Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development informed the applicant that he does have several options. One of which is simply to remove it, if they are not going to be used. The second option is to physically relocate those, in conformance with setbacks for accessory structures within that area. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated other site issues – parking – there seems to be some blue tape out there, there was during the caravan. It indicated plenty of parking. 6 slots and 1 handicapped spot. Bradley Birge, Administrator Economic Planning and Development stated part of the question of “use” is where does a photography studio fall under. Discussion to date have identified this similar to a professional law office, which would require one parking space for every 300 square feet as part of that. If that is the case, the existing wood frame structure at 1785 would require 6 parking space, the enclosure of the carport may increase that by one. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 26 of 31 Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated I suspect we will have to have a Site Plan application on this. It is rare now that we waive the Site Plan requirements. The applicant provided the Board a sketch of the signage which will appear on the property. Jamin Totino stated Congress Avenue is tricky. The traffic from the High School. One of the things happening in this neighborhood is that a lot of the kids will walk down the sidewalk and use the crosswalk to get to the Y. A lot of the other kids will walk down to Congress Avenue. The problem is there are no sidewalks. Until you get down further it is one of those areas where there are some sidewalks and then there are none. It seems if we were to go to a site plan that would be one of the things to look for is to at least get that spur going a little bit. It might prompt other neighbors. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman questioned the applicant if he knew the length of your proposed property. Mr. Stock stated he measured it at approximately 42 feet. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairma stated Jamin brings up a good point, people always ask why do you ask for sidewalks that go nowhere but until you put one in there is no place for them to go you might be the first one on the block. Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development suggested He will check with traffic safety regarding the recommendation for a sidewalk in this area. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated issues surround the outbuilding, either remove and relocate them or simply remove them, the issue goes away. The parking will be determined once the Zoning Board gives the use variance whether or not this exceed that threshold. Michael Perkins stated the one concern was regarding getting in and out of that parking lot and that is why I made a point of going over there during peak hours to see can you get in there with the proximity to the traffic signal, I was concerned. Getting in and out is not an issue. Jamin Totino questioned what would it take for the City to paint a crosswalk in this area? Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development stated that may be a recommendation from Traffic Safety. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated the Board does not have a lot of issues with regard to this application? Anyone in the audience wishing to comment on this application? None heard. 7. 10.017 124 Jefferson Street Senior Housing, 124-126 Jefferson Street, modification to site plan approval for single family housing in the Urban Residentail-2 District. Applicant: David Jelenik, Jelenick Contractors, Inc. Agent: Clark Wilkenson, P.E., Paragon Engineering, P.C. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 27 of 31 BACKGROUND: This is a two lot subdivsion approved July 27, 2005. Speical Use Permit for up to six senior housing units granted December 7, 2005. Site Plan approved March 15, 2006. Special Use Permit Extension granted May 13, 2009. Site Plan Extension granted May 13, 2009. The applicant requested Administrative Action for modification of the Site Plan and that after careful deliberation was denied because of the impacts it had on parking to the rear of the building and the width of the driving lane so that necessitated this application. The applicant tonight is requesting that the front porches of each unit be inset within the unit footprint to remedy the original porch location within the required 10’ front setback. Garages will extend out twoard the east side of the building. Parking for the 2nd car for each unit located directly next to the neighbors. The items for us to consider is the resulting builidng will have less of a facade articulation that what we originally approved. Impact of the new garage configuration to the rear. Clarification of “green space” surrounding the building. This project is known as 124 Jefferson Street, it is an 18,750 square foot lot, that was previously approved as six senior housing units. At that time, not only were the access way on three of those units the issue that we wanted to push them back but also the original architecture for that showed three whole stories of building as well that we have presented to the Board. At this point in time with an increase in the marketing of seniors to go three stories just did not happen so we have taken one of the full stories off and now are producing a two story building. Instread of the orginal three story building. Which is another change in the architecture and the footprint, necessitating moving the doors back, to move the garage back, and to also have room for all the things within the units. The increase in the actual floor plan or footprint of the building is approximately 420 ft plus or minus 5 square feet. That is a relatively minor increase in my opinion. The changes necessitated by moving that garage back, I slid the access back maintaining 24 foot clear between the ends of the cars on the outside of the garage and where you could basically back out into that area and have 24 foot clear to maneuver well. In doing so, it created a little bit more green between each units where I could create some green between the parking spaces. The acutal net in impervious area even though it was a 400 square foot increase in the building footprint is about 200 square feet. So, I have taken some pavement out from what was there previously. The next increase of impervious to this site with this change is about 200 square feet or about .6%. It goes from 28.8 to 28.2% green. With that being said we are here tonight to open up the discussion. Hopefully get an approval on the site plan from this Board. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated are there any questions or comments from the Board? There is no one in the audience to comment on this application. The Board reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman questioned the applicant regarding the mess that is on this site. It is worse now than it was before. The applicant stated there is a dumpster on site and people just feel that they can leave whatever they want. Some things turn up overnight. My object is obviously is to get this project underway immediately. The Board questioned the applicant regarding snow removal, emergency turn arounds, no dumpster service, trees, lighting, ramps, porous paving, etc. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 28 of 31 Amy Durland questioned what exactly inspired this change. The fact that you are reducing the number of units. The applicant stated three stories down to two stories. I placed stoops or what I thought were stoops on the front of the building and with the jogs the stoops actually became covered so they actually did not meet the zone, the were actually encroaching on the front setbacks. So we had to move those back to start with. Approximately 4 or 5 feet. Questions or comments. Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development, stated there were a few comments from the City Engineer mostly technical. It is going to require a full SWPPP. The applicant stated there are street trees and two Sternberg lights. Textured ramp detail. It also for visually handicapped people because the change in texture tells you there is a change in the slope etc. Porous paving is located in the emergency turnaround. There will be a Homeowners Association and individual utilities. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman would like to request a motion for a reaffirmation of the SEQRA negative declaration that was originally granted on March 15, 2006. Is there such a motion. So moved by Jamin Totino, seconded by Dan Gaba. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P, Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor Motion carries 7-0. Any other questions or comments before we vote on the site plan modification? Amy Durland stated that it was mentioned that this is much more aesthetically pleasing and you suggested that the design features of this are superior to your previous application. Can you just point out the differences in terms of the design features. Dave Jelenick, Jelenick Contractors, Inc. stated first there was a third floor on this building. Completely gone. The other one had a pretty straight facade that had the stoops, the covered porches that were out in front of them. In this design these were set inset and added some additional stone work for texturing to them and that made it a little more pleasing. The rear of the building sets up nicer with the gable ends instead of being just straight back. The garages come out a little adding some texture to the overall back of the building aesthetically and now we have the reverse gables in the front and gave it much more symmetry that it had before. More details have been added overall. Amy Durland questioned just how you increased the footprint by 400 square feet and also able to increase the square footage of impervious surface. The applicant stated he decreased the impervious surface. I decreased the paved area so that the net increase in impervious was only about half of what the building was, the building was 400 feet and the total impervious was about 200 square feet and that was by the inclusion of the green spaces in the rear islands. I created those islands and pulled them back to create a definite separation of where you drive versus where you park. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 29 of 31 Amy Durland stated you mentioned in your previous application the front of the project would have required variances. The applicant stated that the stoop was 5 x 5 covered and once the covered area exceeds 18 inches it is now considered part of the building. As part of the building, I am actually jutting out into the setback. That original plan had each one of these units basically jogged back and forth so that half of them were behind and half were in front. Jamin Totino questioned the comments from Public Works regarding rerouting storm flow from building south to building north across rear parking eliminating catch basin 2 and manhole 35. How will waste water be metered to the 6 units from individual fee and is 1 ½” service adequate. Why is 24” storm pip on west side of street perforated? The applicant stated he will speak with Mr. Flick to ensure all of his recommendations are understood and applied to this construction. Amy Durland questioned the original plan had tree planting and that has not changed. The applicant stated that has not changed. A few more trees have been added and significant ground cover. Motion for Site Plan modification for the projects 124 – 126 Jefferson Street, based on the information that was presented to us tonight. So moved by Philip Klein and seconded by Jamin Totino. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Bernardi-Clerary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor; Motion passes 7-0. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Clifford Van Wagner adjourned the meeting at 10:17 PM. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved July 14, 2010 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 30 of 31 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 12, 2010 - Page 31 of 31