Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Wednesday, June 9, 2010 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Clifford Van Wagner, Chair; Jamin Totino, Vice-Chair; Amy Durland; Philip Klein; Dan Gaba; LATE ARRIVAL: Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary arrived at 7:07 PM ABSENT: Michael Perkins STAFF: Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning & Economic Development Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Planning Board CALL TO ORDER: Chair Clifford Van Wagner called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING Clifford Van Wagner 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 09.020.1SARATOGA STRIKE ZONE, 32 Ballston Avenue, request to modify site plan to replace 3-pole mounted lighting fixtures in the rear parking lot with two 400 watt, high pressure sodium fixtures on existing poles – approved. Request to replace 6 pole-mounted lighting fixtures in the front parking lot with two 400 watt, high pressure sodium fixtures on existing poles-denied. APPLICATIONS ADJOURNED 10.013 WHITE FARMS ROAD BED AND BREAKFAST, 66 White Farms Road, public hearing for a special use permit for six room corridor bed and breakfast in a Rural Residential-1 District. 10.024 LOGISTICS ONE FLEX WAREHOUSE EXPANSION, 29, 31 & 33 Cady Hill Boulevard, site plan review of warehouse expansion in the IND-G General Industrial District. 10.028 CELLCO-VERIZON CELL TOWER, 81 Nelson Ave, SEQRA evaluation of potential environmental impact for a new 90’ monopine telecommunications tower and associated equipment in an Urban Residential-2 District. 10.026 SHANGHAI GRILL, 175 South Broadway, public hearing for a permanent special use permit in the Transect-5 District. 10.027 307 GRAND AVENUE MULTI-FAMILY, 307 Grand Avenue, public hearing on special use permit for multi-family housing in the Transect-4 District. 10.031 307 GRAND AVENUE MULTI-FAMILY, 307 Grand Avenue, review of site plan for multi-family housing in the Transect-4 District. UPCOMING SCHEDULE Planning Board Caravan and workshop has been cancelled for June 21, 2010 Planning Board Meeting has been cancelled for June 23, 2010 Planning Board Caravan, Monday, July 12, 2010 @ 4:00 PM followed by Workshop at 5:00 PM Planning Board Meeting, Wednesday July 14, 2010 @ 7:00 PM PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Clifford Van Wagner gave this opportunity to allow citizens to address planning issues not on the scheduled agenda. JOHN CROUSE, 227 Grand Avenue. This subject was brought up at the last meeting but it’s not directly associated with the proposed dry cleaning establishment on Washington Street but it came up in a discussion on that. It is in regard to the storm water runoff issue. I have done some analysis, viewed the site, took some pictures and prepared a report which I am prepared to turn over to you. It has some background narrative, it has a listing of what the issues are, some exhibits, it’s got a hand drawn schematic of the whole area and I would like to submit for consideration. It was brought up again because of the dry cleaner, but it is a much broader issue. Basically, I learned some information. I was concerned about the water drainage behind my property and ICAM, Roma’s, the paint shop, Pope’s and it seems as though there is a big long swale. It shows there was a drainage ditch which ran south off of Washington between the planned new dry cleaners and Pope’s. It runs through a marshland. It appears that after looking at the area there is a huge drainage ditch on Washington Street, which allows the storm water from Washington Street to run through the drainage ditch, through this pipe under the sidewalk, south through this marshland, with the catttails, into the swale that runs behind all these buildings and houses. I also understand the water collects from the backyards of the houses on St. Charles Place and runs into the swale and the swale just continues and stops at the southwest corner of the Roma’s property. It stops there and backs up there because there is a drain culvert that it plugged which runs underneath the parking lot. It looks like water on Washington Street that should be collected and drawn off in a storm sewer system isn’t. Philip Klein, interjected if you would meet with Mr. Scirocco, and go through this with him, that would be helpful. If it is a matter of a plugged line or something he might be able to fix it rather quickly. Any one else who would like to speak during the privelege of the floor? Hearing none. LETTERS OF CREDIT: City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 2 of 29 1. 04.099.2 MUNTER WAREHOUSE PARKING LOT-PHASE II, 49 Geyser Road DISCLOSURE: Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated John Munter is a Board Member of Wesley Development Committee where I work, as a Department Head I report to the Board so I will have to recuse from this application. Mr. Klein happens to be the President of that Board too, so he will recuse from this application as well. Vice Chair Jamin Totino will proceed. Jamin Totino, Vice Chair stated we have a letter of credit extension request from Mr. Munter. BACKGROUND: Original Planning Board approval was 11/17/2004 for the Munter Warehouse Parking Lot Phase II. Most recent Letter of Credit revision: November 2008. Existing Letter of Credit is in the amount of $11,500. SEQRA An extension of a Letter of Credit is a SEQRA Type II action requiring no additional SEQRA review. Applicant: John E. Munter, representing 49 Geyser Road. Requesting extension through December 2011. Reason for request applicant plans to extend builidng footprint that would eliminate parking lot in question is still actively being considered. Jamin Totino, Vice Chair, stated this is a straightforward request. It is in the City’s best interest to maintain these letters of credit. Any discussion from the Board? Jamin Totino requested a motion to extend the letter of credit extension. So moved by Dan Gaba, seconded by Amy Durland. VOTE: J. Totino, Vice Chairman, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Bernardi-Cleary, in favor Absent: M. Perkins Recused: C. Wagner, Chairman; P. Klein Motion passes 4-0. 2. 05.008.3 COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES – PHASE II, Central Avenue, request for Letter of Credit reduction and extension through December 2011. Applicant is not present at this time. We will place application on hold. APPLICATIONS: City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 3 of 29  3. 10.019 Saratoga Cleaners, 228 Washington Street, Site Plan review for dry cleaning business in the Transet-4 District. DISCLOSURES: None. BACKGROUND: Site previously received special use permit and site plan approval for Agway. Site previously received special use permit and site plan approval for Islander Pools. The Planning Board granted a permanent special use permit for this business on May 26, 2010. SEQRA The Planning Board issued a SEQRA Negative Declaration of environmental impact onMay 26, 2010. Applicant: John Scuola Agent: Greg Beswick, Tommell & Associates SITE PLAN REVIEW FORMAL SUBMISSION 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. 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 adjoining properties, including the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 4 of 29  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. Greg Beswick, Tommell & Associates, I will be as brief as possible. I would like to go through the comments that the Board had made at the last meeting. Discussion about two access points. We have eliminated the westerly access. In addition we have removed some additional existing pavement. We have landscaped the area in front of the parking space as requested. We have also added two additional trees in the areas that the pavement was removed. We added a dumpster enclosure. There was a comment from one of the neighbors concerning potential spills. What the applicant will do is buy a portable spill kit. He has copies of what he is proposing to buy. This will be able to be used either inside or outside in the rare event that a spill may occur. We discussed the number of employees that the applicant proposes to employee in the future. He was talking about a maximum of 17 employees. The question came up about where the employee would park? We had asked at the last meeting for a waiver for the 18 existing spaces that presently exist on the site. Buy using the criteria for a use of this type it is required that the site provide one space for every two employees. So if you had 17 employees you would have nine spaces required. With the 18 here that would leave 9 spaces for his customers. We have received comments from Paul Male, City Engineer, regarding storm water. He had a few minor comments on the Site Plan itself. We have made all of those adjustments as he requested and we have made that resubmission to him today. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated for the benefit of the Board as well as the audience, can you review those. Greg Beswick stated very few plan comments specifically, there was an existing piece of old broken down retaining wall that is wood, it was requested that be removed. It will be removed. There was a question about indicating on the plans that the existing ¾” water service would be shut off at the main. We complied with that as well. He had a question about the type of reflectorized marking on the handicapped sign, it has to be retro reflectivity, and we have addressed that comment as well. He had two comments as far as pricing on the site where cost estimate. We have adjusted those to meet his requirement. Finally the storm water management report that he wanted revised we did that. What that shows is that we have reduced the amount of pavement on the site by about 3%. We ran calculations for the condition as it exists now, and the condition as proposed. The existing storm water management system which is composed of a small basin which is interconnected to a larger basin is adequate both in the existing condition and in the proposed condition. In the proposed condition the amount of storm water leaving the site is less than what presently exists today. By removing that pavement we have reduced the amount of storm water leaving the site. Last thing I wish to comment on was we will obtain our DOT work permit as required prior to commencing construction. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated on the workshop on Monday, the City Engineer was present and we specifically asked him questions regarding the swale behind this project as well City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 5 of 29 as the one the gentleman in the audience spoke about behind Roma’s as well as Sherwin- Williams and Pope’s. The City Engineer had indicated that he felt that a rather not too costly solution to this could be a storm drain that is behind these properties. He stated that he would write a letter to these property owners which in this case are Mr. McNeary, Sherwin-Williams, Frank Parillo, and the owners of Roma’s to see if they would voluntarily participate in an exercise that would alleviate this storm drainage system problem once and for all. Our understanding is on the west side of the applicant’s building that the swale, will be mowed and maintained to further keep the water on site and down and not float to the back, is that correct? The applicant stated that is correct. Philip Klein stated I was not at the workshop on Monday, and I apologize, I was thinking if I am correct, that would be an absolute opportune place to put a rain garden especially if you are going to collect and drain the water from your site over to the other side of the property. If you put a rain garden you could eliminate a lot of the water from going into the swale and over. A rain garden to a retail establishment is a very nice looking arrangement of plants that count on a lot of water and it might be an opportune time to think about putting one there. They are inexpensive. Amy Durland stated they are fairly easy to maintain, a landscaper can help you plan one. It is quite a basic thing. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated all Philip Klein is suggesting in the right hand corner of the property, a little bit lower than the rest of grade and simply has some plants, bushes, and it just collects water. They look nice, we have had a few of them placed in much larger developments but they look good and they serve a purpose. The applicant stated he was planning on doing something to dress the area up. I think this is something we could do and maintain. Any other questions or comments from the Board? Dan Gaba questioned why is the sidewalk angled 90 degrees? Greg Beswick stated there is an existing sidewalk that we are connecting to. Jamin Totino stated what he would suggest is making an S turn so wheelchairs will not have to stop and make that turn. Any other questions or comments from the Board? Amy Durland stated she would like to understand a little bit more regarding the parking equation. I would just like to know will there be 17 employees. It just seems like such a large number to me. I would like to have a better idea about what those employees do? How many are there at one time? The applicant stated he made a copy of last weeks’ payroll report. Just to show you what I do at the other store. There are 15 on the list. This store is larger. Fifteen people will be there at one City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 6 of 29 time for the majority of the workday. When it comes toward evening the daytime people will go home and we will keep 3 or 4 people on at the counter. No production being done at this time. Philip Klein questioned if the applicant was going to start right at 15 or 16? The applicant stated no, I wish I could. Philip Klein stated about 7 or 8? The applicant stated 7 or 8 yes. Amy Durland thanked the applicant for providing the information regarding employees. It is not a matter of not believing you I am just interested in knowing what the employees do? It just seems like so many at one time. When I go to other dry cleaning establishments I never see more than a few people including tailoring. The applicant stated that is the difference between me and everybody else. I cater to the average working class people. My thing was and is volume over price. So you will be seeing me a lot more than you would be seeing your other cleaners. I am much more affordable. Amy Durland stated if you are going to have that number of employees all there at the same time, how do you square that with having enough spaces for customers? If there are 17 employees and there maybe overlap at any given time there may be most of these spaces taken up with employee’s vehicles? The applicant stated yes. Customers are usually there for four or five minutes at a time. The toughest part of the day will be in the morning people going to work, and coming home from work. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated are you worried about not having enough of parking spaces for your customers? The applicant stated as far as I am concerned you can never have too much. Jamin Totino stated what you are anticipating in a busy hour in the morning to have 8 or 9 people in at the same time. The applicant stated yes. Jamin Totino stated I think we have to keep in mind that being in Saratoga is what it is. With the sidewalks I would image some maybe not all maybe not even the bulk of them, but some employees will be walking or commuting in a different way then driving and parking. The applicant is on a bus route that connects to the whole city. There is also across the street parking on Newton. Amy Durland stated in our agenda notes there was a discussion of lighting, and it is indicated that the applicant is proposing 4 luminaries at approximately 50 feet spacing in the right of way which exceed the standard in our ordinance. Could you just briefly describe the lighting? Is it down facing lighting? Greg Beswick, the lighting along Washington Street is the standard luminaries, street lights. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 7 of 29 Amy Durland, stated in terms of lighting on your property? Greg Beswick stated there are two existing poles right now. Each with one 250 watt fixture, we are proposing. The poles will be taken down, repainted, and reinstalled. Those lights face the building so they will light the parking lot. Amy Durland questioned if they face down so that they will not create a problem for the neighbors? Greg Beswick stated yes it is a shoebox type fixture. Dan Gaba stated we had a call or comment from the neighbors regarding odors. Would you please go back through that for us? The applicant stated he runs a closed loop system. Clothes go in dry and come out dry. Everything is reclaimed within the machine. We have carbon absorbers that at the end of the cycle get deodorized. So it is actually odorless. Dan Gaba stated so there will be no other odors or anything exhausted outside? The applicant stated no, no odors. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated while the Board is looking at their notes, is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment on the application tonight for Site Plan for Saratoga Cleaners? John Crounse, 227 Grand Avenue. I want you to understand I am trying to be constructive in my comments, in order to get a problem solved. It was mentioned that you can turn that cattail area into a rain garden, clean it up and put plants in it that will absorb more water. What about the drainage along the west side of the building and the property that runs into the swale? Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated the applicant has indicated to the City Engineer, who informed us at our workshop on Monday night the applicant was willing to remove the cattails, mow that area and maintain the area so that it is more able to absorb water rather than just have standing water there. So the area along the west side, the applicant will maintain. Jamin Totino stated in addition the applicant is taking out a curb cut so thereby opening up some green space. Mr. Crounse stated he like what he heard about the proposal in discussion with the City Engineer to put a sewer drain in the back that would drain the swale but you have to work with the property owners, which could be time consuming and isn’t going to happen right away. My questions where does that sewer drain connect to somewhere out on Washington Street? Lastly, in my proposed solution I was suggesting that you block off the swale at the back right corner of the property and reverse the direction of the water. Mike Gooley, 17 St. Charles Place. I just found out about this tonight actually, this afternoon. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 8 of 29 I would like to know a little bit more about the air and the water. Is there going to be any more pollution of the air with this operation? Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated we discussed that two weeks ago at the Special Use Permit application. Which, if that was negatively voted on by this Board they would not be in front of us this evening. The application and the minutes will reflect that. There will be no pollution either water or air pollution at all. Mr. Gooley questioned if there were any studies done on the possible effect of the parking, or could we have a study done on the parking to see how that is going to effect the area? Is there going to be overflow onto the street? Clifford Van Wagner stated, there is no parking on Washington Street. Mr. Gooley stated there may not be enough parking on the premises correct? Clifford Van Wagner stated there may not. The formula that our code maintains this applicant is providing double the amount of required. Mr. Gooley stated it may meet the requirements but what I am concerned about is traffic interference because of the number of employees here. There could be other issues. I am just wondering if a study could be done on the impact of the parking? Jamin Totino stated just a couple of things to keep in mind about this particular area is that the applicant is providing double of what is actually required. In addition to that, the use on this property in regard to what has previously been there such as the pool place and Agway was will produce less traffic than those previous companies did. In our discussions we have covered those type of things and from my perspective I don’t think there is anything to be concerned about. Mr. Gooley questioned if a study could be done? An independent study? I am concerned about a number of things here. I just found out about this operation and I am worried, they say there is no air pollution but how do you know? Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated unfortunately you missed the last meeting and the Special Use was discussed at that meeting. The applicant brought in an drycleaning consultant and we had a ½ hour explanation and dissertation which was very interesting to learn how this industry works. You have to realize that we learned there are regulatory agencies that are involved in this. These regulatory agencies dictate how they do their job and can come in and do inspections at any given time. I am sorry you did not hear about this before. We are not here to talk about the use tonight. Philip Klein stated I believe if you view the webcast and listen to the testimony from the expert it will probably answer the vast majority of your questions. Mr. Gooley questioned another concern I have is the rain garden. Is there to be standing water on this site. Philip Klein stated no, it is a garden that flourishes because the plants need a considerable amount of water. The plants use the water. They absorb it. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 9 of 29 Mr. Gooley questioned what about the lighting, is it going to be lit at night? What type of lighting? Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated there are two existing lights in the front, that will remain. They are shoebox type lights that casts light down in the front of the building. The parking lot will be lit. The other lights will be decorative street lights as required by the City code. Mr. Gooley questioned if there is going to be a security system on site? I am worried about loitering when the store is closed? Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated is there loitering now? Mr. Gooley stated I don’t know, I am just asking questions. The applicant stated there will be a burglar alarm. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated in reality if this building stays in the shape that it is in now and no work is done on it, than the condition that exists is going to stay. The applicant has made some strides to improve what is there today and that is what we are considering for this Site Plan Application tonight. So they are going to improve existing conditions by including sidewalks, street trees, street lights, and going a long way to help out the drainage, eliminating the curb cut. You mentioned your concern about traffic there will be one less curb cut which is a safety factor. A significant portion of blacktop is now going to be eliminated and it will be made permeable by adding landscaping and grass, and the rain garden and maintaining the swale on the west side of the building. I think the applicant has gone a considerable distance to improve what we saw when we started this process. Amy Durland stated could I just ask you, did you receive notice of this project? Mr. Gooley stated no I did not. Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development stated perhaps he is beyond the boundary required for notification. Amy Durland stated based on some information received there are some concerns about proper notice having been given. Mr. Gooley stated again the parking is a concern, will people be honking their horns, on the street, trying to get in and out of the place, I am just not sure there is enough parking. I am really not comfortable with it. I understand the requirement. I would like an independent study done to see if this really and truly is adequate for this type of operation. It is a major concern. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated personally I am not sure what a study of a small parking lot is going to yield. Again we have to look at the code and the code requires x amount of parking spaces. We are also looking to limit egress and ingress and we have done that, which we don’t have the opportunity to do on many site at all. We have also had the opportunity to increase green space and permeability and a study is going to be subjective in nature so. We also heard from our Vide-Chair that other modes of transportation can be utililzed including the bus and also there could be parking for employees across the street. I can’t image if the applicant will allow his employees to fill up this entire parking lot and hear complaints from his customers that they do not have a place to park, that is poor business and if that is the case City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 10 of 29 than the owner is going to have his employees park off site and if that is on one of the side streets that’s ok. Mr. Gooley stated well again there was a concern about the parking. I am concerned about it. You have your opinion and I have mine opinion. I would like to request a special, independent study be done, to see if this parking is adequate for the volume of employees and the volume of customer coming in and out of this store. I don’t know it would not take that long to do. It is important for the City of Saratoga, for everybody not just for me. If there is a concern maybe we can address it. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated, so noted. Robert Braim, 24 St. Rose Court. I beg the Boards patience regarding this question. I attempted to go back on three separate occasions and watch the webcast of the last Planning Board Meeting, and for some reason the first sequence on the web cast has to deal with porta potty’s with the White Farms Road Bed and Breakfast, which is item 7 on the Agenda. The first six items are missing from the webcast. I attempted to go back and review it to make sure what I recalled was indeed correct. My question actually is the hours of operation which was brought up. Could I please have a clarification of what the actual hours of operation are and the days of the week by the applicant? The applicant stated the hours of operation will be Monday – Friday, 7AM – 7PM. Saturday 7AM – 4PM. Any one in the audience who has a question or comment on the application of Saratoga Cleaners? Mr. Gooley, stated will there be any toxic drums or anything like that stored on the exterior of the building. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated no. Philip Klein stated the neighbor that expressed the concern with the lighting. I do have a question with regards to that for the applicant. Are you going to have any lights on the rear of the building for security purposes, motion lights or something like that? The applicant stated no, unless there is a need for it. Amy Durland questioned it is indicated that the applicant is proposing two street trees and that the Transect zone standard is an average of 40’ on center. So I am wondering if that has been revised or can you tell me where the trees are and why you are not doing more to comply with the Transect standards? Greg Beswick stated there are two street trees shown. It is getting pretty crowded in that five foot strip with the amount of street lights that we have shown to put additional street trees along this frontage. We have added two more trees in the back of the same type that are on Washington Street which we would hope would suffice. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated if you do the math and I am not saying that is the case, but if you eliminate this driveway have they then met that standard? City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 11 of 29 Amy Durland stated it looks like they are doing about half of what they are supposed to be doing so my assumption is that at least one more tree would be required according to the Transect zone standards. The applicant will agree to one more tree. Any further questions from the Board? Jamin Totino questioned if all the other technical pieces been dealt with as far as the City Engineer is concerned? The applicant stated yes. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated the dumpster is adequately addressed. The applicant stated yes. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated if there are no further questions or comments from the Board we are being asked to consider a Site Plan for Saratoga Cleaners. I would entertain a motion for Site Plan with some conditions we discussed tonight which would include a rain garden, one extra street tree on Washington Street, the fact that the applicant has agreed to remove the cattails and the wooden structure on the west side of the building, maintain that to promote additional drainage and absorption of the water, and the motion should also include a waiver for parking, and an s turn sidewalk for handicapped accessibilty, dumpster enclosure as shown, hours of operation are on record as Monday – Friday 7AM – 7PM, Saturday 7AM – 4PM. No hours on Sunday. All other technical items have been addressed. Is there a motion? Jamin Totino made a motion, seconded by Philip Klein. Any further discussion. Amy Durland stated she wants to clarify her vote on this project generally. My position for the SEQRA and Special Use Permit at the last meeting was that I wanted more time to understand and verify the information given by the applicants industry consultant. He had given us a lot of information at that table and I felt and still feel that it would have been helpful to have more time to absorb and understand that information. This is Site Plan which is a different standard of review and I do think that the applicant’s have made a number of concessions including reducing the curb cuts, and adding more landscaping. So, I am going to support this motion despite the fact that I voted against it in the other vote. Any further questions or comments from the Board? Jamin Totino would like to add that in regard to the neighbors comment about doing a parking study I respect your comments I humbly disagree. I think in this area, this use fits in well with the zone, the T-4 zone and I think it is compatible with the business around it and it is lesser impact than the previous businesses that have been in that site. Just on that point I would like to make that comment. Philip Klein stated he would like to add one comment. In the future if you feel that you need to have some type of lighting to prevent vandalism, or vagrancy in the rear of the building that City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 12 of 29 you strongly consider the neighbors and make sure the lighting shines down, because they are going to be your customers. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor Absent: M. Perkins Motion passes 6-0. 4. 10.022 KDI Properties, 104-106 Congress Street, SEQR coordinated review of mixed use building in the Transect-6 District. 5. 10.023 West Side Stadium Cafe, 112 Congress Street, SEQR coordinated review of new porch addition in the Transect-6 District. Applicant: Daniel Snyder, KDI Properties LLC Agent: Michael Toohey SEQRA: This appears to be a Type I Action – an Unlisted Action occurring substantially continguous to any historic building, structure, facility, site or district that is listed on the National Registrer of Historic Places. Applicant has submitted a SEQRA full EAF as required. The SEQRA Full EAF identifies the Design Review Commission as an involved agency. SEQRA coordinated review is required in conjunction with the DRC. On April 21, 2010, the DRC initiated coordinated review and voted 5-0 to defer Lead Agency Status to the Planning Board should the Planning Board request SEQRA Lead Agency. On May 12, 2010, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to accept SEQRA Lead Agency for the coordinated review of this and the West Side Stadium Café as a single action. Michael Toohey, an attorney in Saratoga Springs, I am representing KDI with regard to their next application. The application has to do with the construction of a building at 104-106 Congress Street, this is on the south side of Washington Street. It is located in the business core zone for the City of Saratoga Springs and does not require the supply of any off street parking. Dan Snyder is here with me, who is the D in KDI, and has been responsible for the rehabilitation of the old market that was located immediately to the west of this property which is the home of the West Side Stadium Café and other businesses which a portion of the questions having to do with the second application that is joined in this. The property has been subdivided out so that the property that we are talking about now which is located on the east side of the lot is an independent lot and the building that we are proposing on the lot is zoning code compliant in all ways. It is a mixed use building. We have supplied copies of the elevations of the building to the City. One of the unique parts of this is that there will be a shared parking concept between these two structures so that there is no designated parking specified for either one of City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 13 of 29 the building but general parking for both of the buildings. That is also consistent with what will happen with regard to the dumpsters that are located to the west boundary of the property, so as to conserve space. There will be one entrance to and from this site which will be from Congress coming in which is the entrance that exists presently onto the site. The site that is being proposed will be paved and there will be storm water that will go into the city system. Both buildings will be serviced by municipal services, which already exist at or about the site. We have supplied to you renderings of both the site plans and elevations of the buildings. Although mildly different in design that what has already been done with the building on the corner the design for this building is intended to be consistent with that feel for the Transition zone from the core taller buildings in the downtown area and to the more residential area that is in the next zone to our west. The primary view of the building from the west side looking toward the east that is where the entrance will be for the office or retail uses. Part of this agreement is there will be two easements. One will be a cross lot parking easements between both those buildings and cross lot right to utilitize the dumpster. These easements will not only be placed on the map but they will be filed in the County Clerk’s office. Amy Durland stated one of her concerns about this configuration is this is a Transect zone. There is a strong standard for having the frontage face the street and also for having the parking in the rear or at least not facing the entrance. So, in this case I see a couple of problems. There are in my opinion not minor. One is that there is no frontage on Congress Street except for the one small entrance on the corner for the residential. In terms of the entrances to the commerical establishments they are within the property not fronting the street and furthermore there is parking right outside which strikes me as something that is strongly discouraged in the zoning ordinance. Mike Toohey stated the frontage you spoke about has to do with the lot width. The lot has been approved and subdivided so it is a legal lot within the City of Saratoga Springs to guess that the frontage is that frontage that is on Congress Street and we are in compliance with the requirement. It is a design frontage, frontage does not denote where doors are, frontage means that you have to have frontage along that side of the property that is adequate to be in compliance with the requirement with the building on it. The lot was designed specifically so as to have this building be in compliance for that. Amy Durland stated the main entrances to the commercial establishments. The one that will identify the property and the one that virtually all of the customers will use are the ones inside not on Congress Street but inside the parking area. Mr. Toohey stated there is not a requirement, I believe the doors have to be on that side. It states that in the width of the lot, we have to occupy a certain percentage of frontage. It would be physically impossible to put a building in here that does what you want. Amy Durland stated she does not necessarily know that’s the case that it would be impossible. If there were frontage on Congress Street, I even think there is the ability to use the parcels if the commercial establishments are inside the building, and people walk through to get to them similar to the downstreet market place. Mike Toohey stated again there is dual frontages on Congress Street. Amy Durland stated I guess it depends on how you define frontage. It may suggest the side of the building is on Congress and it primarily fronts the parking area. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 14 of 29 Mike Toohey stated the side of the building is on Congress Street. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated lets look at the elevation on Congress Street and see exactly if it denotes the side of the building. Mr. Toohey stated as you look at the front will have a balconed area that is very unique to this area. There are windows and street entraceways on Congress. Amy Durland stated the prinicpal is that you don’t want parking smack in front of the main entry to a building. That in my opinion is what exists with this configuration. So, I suppose reasonable people might be able to disagree about what is meant by frontage and about the value of the small doorway on the side of the building that faces Congress Street, but you can’t get away from the fact that the main entrances to the commercial establishments are immediately in front of the parking lot and I don’t believe that is consistent with the Transect zone standards. Mike Toohey stated the second question has to do with parking. One of the things that is always a question I have is the fact that we have virtually 100% buildout right within all of these lots except no one is supplying parking. The city is supposedly supplying you with adequate parking. The code says you do not have to supply any parking. It is beneficial both to this site and also to this neighborhood that we utilize as much parking as we can and to a certain degree the parking that is being supplied can be shared between the nature of the uses. The more retail with regard to 104-106 and the more late afternoon nightly use for the building on the corner. Also the idea that there is parking that would be available for the residential units thus making this a true mixed use type of structure. Again I haven’t had anybody complain about an attempt to supply parking in the core downtown area. Amy Durland stated just out of curiosity what would be my concern and what would address what I am talking about without any ambiguity is if you had taken parcel one if you had more frontage on Congress Street and put the parking in the back where the rear half of the building is now. Then it seems if one of your objectives is to mimick or make compatible the design of the existing building on the other side of the entrance then it seems you would have more opportunity to do that. The parking would be hidden in back, which I believe is a major goal of our ordinance and you would have more street frontage and you could have the entrances directly in the front. The applicant stated the problem with this site is that it drops off quite a bit. So building this building this way improves the lot and the parking. We’re increasing the parking that we have now by doing this. Mr. Toohey stated we are attempting to put parking behind the building. As you look on the plans that we supplied this entire back side will be screened in so that the parking in fact does disappear behind the existing building. The view sheds for coming up Congress Street will be blocked by the new building. The view sheds coming down Congress Street will be blocked. The view sheds over on the side streets will be blocked, and as you know these streets do not align very well. I think it is more important especially in this area where we are transitioning into a more residential zone to supply as much parking as we can for the use and utilization on the site. Jamin Totino stated I do not disagree with Amy in essence but I guess the way I am trying to approach this is that they are indeed two seperate pieces of property and there is no parking requirement so I agree and actually expressed it on Monday that I have some concerns about City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 15 of 29 parking on the West Side in general. I happen to live a few blocks away and I think as it develops and the City isn’t providing any additional parking and more and more is ending up on the street and it is becoming somewhat congested over there especially around this particular area and I think had there been two seperate property owners here and there was an agreement of some kind to share some parking I would view that as a positive thing. In light of the fact that this building in itself does not require parking and meets all the other guidelines, I guess to Amy’s point I share the concern about the intent of the zoning ordinance is to have primary frontage on the street and that that serves as a primary frontage. That said, I am also thinking that if the situation was reversed and the entrance to the commercial space was off the street and the entrance to the apartments were on the side I don’t think I would personally have less of a problem with that. So in my mind I am thinking so what is the difference if the front of the building has a true facade serves a legitimate purpose, has an entrance to the apartment building it accomplishes the same goal and as we have talked about it would not be the only property in town that has entrances to commercial space off the side of a building that faces a parking lot. This current building was extremely well done and was a historic building that was in my estimation saved. I don’t think there is any potential of building that up to a full frontage on that building. I am trying to find the middle ground in my mind and I can’t help but think this is a pretty good proposal. Mr. Toohey stated the other problem with the idea that this becomes a primary entrance for the entire building is that that would cause there to be a huge long corridor entrance. I think your losing a lot of function within the building. Dan can speak to that better than I. Again, the way this lot is configured, I think for the people who will in fact see parking I think it is sheltered about as well as it can, in a situation where parking becomes important. Clifford Van Wagner, stated in view of what Jamin stated you have to consider benefit versus negative impact. I suppose that we could say let’s go back and do another lot line adjustment and lets move this property line further west so that your building goes out to the edge of the parking that you are showing and then eliminate the parking. You would still have your building there would be no parking. The building would get bigger which you could do. There would be no parking. I think a lot of planning is compromised and if we are on 150 acre site and masterplan all this, yes I agree all this would not happen. What we have here is an existing building which used to be the meat market way back when, they have kept that building and done a nice job renovating it. I think this is a compromise. I think to totally 100% adhere to no parking on that west side is more of a negative impact than the benefit of having some parking provided to mitigate the parking issue that arise there. It is a shared parking scheme that when people go to the Cafe for dinner that the retail places will probably be closed and you can pick up some extra parking. I look at compromise and I think is a pretty good compromise by still providing parking in an area where they are not required to provide any. It is not perfect. Jamin Totino stated he does have some concern and it relates to what Amy is getting at too around the treatment to this portion of the building and how for lack of a better word loud it would be because I think there is like Cliff said benefit versus negative impact I think there is potentially negative impact if this is overstated to such a degree, because right across the street there are residences, and all back there are residences, that is not going to change. I would also add too that that this area of the parking lot, the facade of the building is somewhat industrial, you are adding the porch on which will bring some life back there to some extent, but this side of the builidng is relatively flat and there is not any treatment on that side of the building and so I just am curious as to how that will balance out in the end. I guess I can’t help but wonder if there is a way, and maybe it would involve losing a space or two but to create some City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 16 of 29 greenspace to help mitigate the impact of having these two entrances to the commercial space out there. I agree, I am looking for compromise and I think parking is important and even if we do lose a parking space or two I think overall it is never going to provide all the parking that you need for both these businesses anyway. As it is the parking happens for the restaurant across the street at Sam’s Tires in the evening. Even as it is without this building we are not providing adequate parking on site for the operation of both these buildings. The applicant stated what if to soften this side we move some of the windows. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated assuming you get through this process we have to get through DRC and they will discuss exactly what Jamin brought up and they are the experts at that. So, you very well might have to step that back and tone it down in order to make it compliment surrounding properties. Mr. Toohey stated if you look at the window structures on the west side they are very consistent with the windows structures vis a vis numbers of panes, etc., with regard to the building that is on the corner. That has been done purposely so as to have there be a blend between those two buildings. To be very honest with you we thought this would be very pleasing so that it does highlight to a certain positive degree a relatively bland side of the S & M market that is there and again offers a better view shed. One of the things that is very often considered in this is what angles are things being see at. That east side of the old S & M, West Side Stadium Café this building 112 is really not visualized especially once this building is put into place because of the nature of the way that comes up. You are absolutely correct that that is the blandest side of the building and will continue to be the blandest side. I have to tell you that if there is a complaint that I thought we would be hearing this evening is that there has been an overloading of street parking on the west side. All the improvements that have been made on Beekman Street, are lovely. They have done a great job over there. It provides virtually no parking and as a result becomes load within the neighborhood. We really thought that one of the positive aspects of this in a core downtown business area was that we are providing as much parking as we reasonably can within the sites so as to help eliminate that neighborhood overload. The other part of this is there will be infact a green buffer along the front of this building that will shield that. I am not necessarily sure that taking out this parking spot so as to put a clump of grass that would be 10 x 18 in there is necessarily going to make this feel like its part of an urban landscape. Amy is correct that there is a preference for parking in the rear, it does not say that is a mandate. What they do not want is parking in the front and that is what we have attempted to do. Maximize the amount of parking that is available in an area that does not provide parking for a site that will be utilized in a pretty busy fashion and create a greenbelt along here and build a building that is consistent in design so that you have a melded feel for this entire side even though it is two separate parcels. Jamin Totino stated by no means was I intending a clump of grass so to speak. I am thinking about across the street where the old railroad station is that Lance Phelps built the pocket park there and there is some interesting treatment over there. I am just trying to find a way that would help mitigate the impact of the side entrances a little bit and I agree with the view. I think the one view of this portion of the building comes from South Beekman Street as you come up Congress Street and so if there was some type of treatment in this area that might help with that visually. Mike Toohey stated we could do that, that makes sense. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 17 of 29 Philip Klein stated I notice that you have 2 dumpsters 4 yd containers over in the corner. If I were sitting on the deck I wouldn’t mind looking at the relocated existing storage shed seeing how you more or less moved that over to the corner but what about putting the two dumpsters over in the area next to the handicapped parking. It is no further for the restaurant people to walk. Is there a reason it is not there? The applicant stated it is more for snow storage. It will melt and flow downward to the storm drain. Discussion ensued regarding placement of the dumpster and the fact the waste management service does empty those at 5 AM being so close to a residential area. Perhaps moving the dumpster to another area on the property should be considered. Amy Durland questioned if these were Site Plan issues versus SEQRA issues. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated Amy brings up a very valid point, we probably got the cart in front of the horse here by looking a Site Plan issues. Mr. Toohey stated he understands the cart is before the horse but it is very helpful for the applicant to have these types of discussions. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated you heard where we are leaning. Amy Durland questioned if there are drainage issues on this site for example problems with storm water? The applicant stated right now or in the future. There are no issues right now. So that is why we have to get into the storm drain which is down the street, there would be a connection into that. Amy Durland stated has Paul Male taken over this? The applicant stated he is not sure if Paul Male has taken over this or Al Flick who suggested we do this. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman questioned Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development as to whether these were the drawings reviewed at the Monday evening workshop that Paul Male struggled with? Bradley Birge stated yes. Again, lets not confuse Site Plan issues with the SEQRA review. Certainly the applicant is going to be required to tie into the storm water. The City Engineer has asked for greater clarification of the plans. Mr. Toohey stated Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development, was kind enough to contact us on Tuesday. We have contacted the engineer to have the engineer talk to Paul Male so as to clear up whatever questions he has. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated obviously we are going to be looking at this for a couple of meetings. We have some additional items to look at. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 18 of 29 Amy Durland stated before we leave Paul’s comments he said plans are unacceptable., incomplete, wrong details no shading, cannot read. The thing in his list that bothers me the most is wrong details, and incomplete. Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development stated some construction details are part of this, the lights, storm water, etc., Amy Durland stated so he wasn’t referring to something more fundamental. Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development stated correct. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated another one of this frustrations were different scales. One application on one of the large sheets that had three different scales. Certainly not anything that is SEQRA driven, certainly Site Plan issues that will have to be remedied before Site Plan. Mr. Toohey stated we will make sure that the engineer speaks to Paul Male, City Engineer. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated we should have a somewhat brief discussion on the porch addition to the existing West Side Stadium Café because eventually whenever we do this we are going to a SEQRA determination on this as one project. SEQRA will cover the new building that we just heard about and the existing building that they want to put a porch on the rear of. Why don’t we have the applicant talk about the proposal for the porch. Mr. Toohey stated the application for 112 Congress Street merely has to do with the introduction of an ongrade seating area to the south of the building. Incorporated in that are design features that do not exist on the site right now that run along the street that is immediately to the west of the site. The purpose for that is the same as every café outdoor seating arrangement in the City of Saratoga Springs. During nice weather, people who operate restaurants like to have the opportunity for people to sit outside. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated when you say on grade do you mean it is really not a porch? The applicant stated it is more of a patio. It is the same elevation as the ramp. Jamin Totino questioned the operating hours of the West Side Stadium Café? The applicant stated 12 PM until 2 AM. Mr. Toohey questioned if the Board wanted the specific information it can be obtained for him. Jamin Totino stated no he was concerned about the neighbors in that area, with this being a residential area. The applicant stated the patio will not be open that late. Jamin Totino questioned if they are proposing specific hours for the patio? The applicant stated they have not yet. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 19 of 29 Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated that is something we should probably look at, based on its proximity to the residential area. Mr. Toohey stated one of the things that has existed here is I am sure many if not all of you have been in the restaurant, the relationship that has existed with regard to the adjacent neighbors has always been very good. We have discussed these plans with the people in the neighborhood and we have not received any negative feedback from them for any of these questions. Again the closest home across the street, stop and look at the design of the three buildings that will exist there purposely, kind of sympathetic to each other with regard to the materials that are going to be used, the clapboard construction of the three of them. You have the scrap yard behind them but the buildings that go further down the side street again there has been conversations with those people as to the owners and the people who reside there with regard to what we are doing. We are not trying to surprise anyone with this. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated in light of that comment is there anyone in the audience who wishes to comment on this application tonight for both KDI Properties, for the mixed use building and also for the proposed patio to the West Side Stadium Café. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated we are required to start the SEQRA Full Environmental Assessment Form. Is there additional information that we want the applicant to come back with? Philip Klein would like to see a better feel for moving the dumpster and the shed so that it is not next to the residence. It is farther away from the patio and that it is closer to the commerical space, if it is possible. Amy Durland stated obviously I seem to be the only one concerned about the fact that there is not more building frontage on Congress. Parking in back. We have already spoken about compromise. There might be one or two fewer parking spaces with different other issues that have been discussed here. I don’t think that losing a couple of parking spaces should drive the design of this project. To me providing more frontage on Congress Street, and having the parking in the back unambiguously is much more consistent with what the ordinance suggests. Frankly, I think it creates a better environment for the new porch area too. It emphasizes pedestrian access, it has much more consistency with what the Transect zones represent. Because we are treating this as one project for purposes of SEQRA review, because the property owner owns both parcel one and two. I am not minimizing the need to make adjustments according to our standards I don’t know if a variance would be required or a lot line adjustment. I haven’t thought that through, but it still seems to me that if that is a possibility it would be worth considering. If it is not a possibility I still say the frontage has become the side of the building and the parking is in front of it. I recognize that it does not seem to be a concern to the other Board members but it is still a concern to me. In terms of asking what we are asking for again I am obviously the minority member in this regard, but what I would ask for if I had my druthers is a different design. I think this could be an incredibly great project if that were taken into account. I think it would be a real enhancement to the area and it would be really consistent with what we are aiming for in the ordinance. As it is now I just see those commercial entrances with the parking right in front and it would be my desire to see that altered in some way. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 20 of 29 SEQRA Amy Durland stated she had a few questions prior to beginning Part I. Number 7 – I just want to make sure the Gideon Putnam Cemetary is not considered a historic landmark. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated it is a City designated historic area but it is not on the national historic register. Amy Durland also stated, another thing, the project description on page 5, the letter I indicates a 40 foot height, 30 foot width, 81 foot length. Bradley Birge stated there are two SEQRA documents, you are evaluating them as a whole. You have one document that represents the change in each individual project. Amy Durland stated my question really relates to the height. In our agenda notes it indicates that proposed new building 3 stories and 31 feet high at peak. Is that correct? Mr. Toohey stated that has to do with parcel 112 Congress Street, West Side Stadium Cafe. which is higher. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated the one for the West Side Stadium Cafe existing shows that the structure is 40 feet high, 46 wide and 66 long, and the proposed new building states 40 feet high, 30 feet wide and 80 feet long. We sat in the parking lot and looked at what was Legends Cafe and we noticed that it looked like there were at least 10 foot floors in that building. So three stories up took it, to 40 feet. So, now we have two Part I’s for each project. Amy Durland questioned the building that is being proposed for construction is in fact 31 feet. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated the description on page 5 letter I should be changed to 31 feet high 10 feet along the front facade and 23 feet along the rear of the building. We are going to do a Part II for both projects at once. Keep in mind the patio and the construction of the proposed new building. SEQRA DETERMINATION No large or important impacts were identified by the Board. Amy Durland stated I disagree with #19, I do think the proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. That is my point about having more street frontage and not having the parking facing the main entrances to the commerical portion of the project. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated the consensus of the board regarding risk vs. negative impact. If we were to ask the applicant to do a lot line adjustment, push the western property line over for the potential new building further we would be eliminating six or seven parking spots. I think the consensus was that even though the T-6 district does not require to provide parking that any parking that can be provided especially in a shared use opportunity with the existing Cafe. Jamin Totino, stated as I mentioned before I don’t disagree with Amy necessarily I guess for SEQRA purposes I would mark item #19 as small to moderate impact because I think it does bring into question some of those comments and some of the intent of the ordinance. I don’t see it as a game stopper personally. I would be comfortable marking it as small to moderate impact. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 21 of 29 Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary stated actually I liked what Amy was saying about the frontage. I thought that was an excellent idea. I was confused, I am really happy because I thought that was the property line and I am happy that you cleared that up. The other thought I had, didn’t we say that this first property had some historical value, or was it a historical site that was being spoken about. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated The West Side Stadium Cafe? I am not sure that it has any historical significance. Bradley Birge interjected that it does have local cultural significance more than officially historical significance. Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary stated after we went through SEQRA. I am thinking as a property owner, if the person ever wanted to sell off one property and sell it to someone else maybe keep one piece of property and then you are fooling around with the property line. When can you do it if it has some sort of historical or cultural impact you’re moving the line, I don’t know if that is right. It was just an impression I had and as we were going through SEQRA, we might have really crossed the line on some of those cases, but the way it is now we are not. I think the applicant has done a good job in trying to meet the rules of this area. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated it is a compromise. Any other questions or comments regarding this application? None heard. Is there a motion on this PARTII. Jamin Totino stated Mr. Chair based upon the information provided by the applicant PART I of the SEQRA Full Environmental Assessment Form and analysis of the information provided and presented in PART II of the SEQRA Full Environmental Assessment Form I move that the project will not result in any large and important impact and is therefore one that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based upon this I move to make a SEQRA Negative Declaration for this action. Seconded by Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, opposed; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor Absent: M. Perkins. Motion carries: 5-1 Board recessesd at 9:22PM Board resumed meeting at 9:27PM 7. 10.027 307 Grand Avenue Multi -Family, SEQRA evaluation of a new 12-unit residential structure in the Transect-4 District. Applicant: Dave Jelenick Agent: Clark Wilkinson, Paragon Engineering DISCLOSURES: None. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 22 of 29 BACKGROUND: There was an application before the Board in 2007 for a 14 unit 3 story residential structure. The Planning Board issued a SEQRA Negative Declaration. Then they received a Special Use Permit with a 4-3 vote, that approval has expired. So we are now looking at a new project a 3 story 12 unit, 18 parking spaces. The difference between this applicantion and the previous one is the last application was dependent upon a shared driveway for the connecting road to the back of the Westview Apartments which was never finalized. Now, this application is requesting a 22 foot driveway off of Grand Avenue straight in. Mr. Wilkinson stated this is a 0.38 acre site that is zoned in a T-4 District and as Cliff stated we did have approvals on this back in 2007. Those approvals have expired and we currently have a existing variance that we are actually asking for modification as part of this which is why the coordinated review is to take place on this project. That application is in front of the ZBA because we have slid the entire building to the west approximately 10 feet to make room for the 22 foot access drive directly onto Grand Avenue. The access drive was placed as far to the east of the lot as we could to try to separate or get separation between the West Avenue intersection and the adjoining access to Westview. We are trying to break that up so there was enough access room so that one car in each of these two driveways could use one space. Tonight we are hear again looking at coordinated review. We are seeking that action from this Board. Again, the only changes from that original approved are the reduction of two units from fourteen down to twelve, and the movement of the building to the west, other than that the outside appearance is identical and the parking is practically identical. Also that slid a little to the west along with the building. Clifford VanWagner, Chairman, stated concern about the location of the access and the exit from the property in this configuration because now I think it shines right into someones front window. Mr. Wilkinson stated it aligns with their driveway pretty close. It also uses the existing driveway opening that is there. It is two way. I made application today for Site Plan and a Special Use Permit which has full details. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked for questions or comments from the Board. Philip Klein stated the applicant decreased the number of apartments and the reason why? Dave Jelenick stated one of the issues was that the parking was congested and so obviously development in this district, you almost have to back into your parking spaces so to make it work and be sellable, we reduced the amount of units. Philip Klein stated the dumpster pad has been moved to the other side. You are losing at least one parking spot by moving that dumpster, why couldn’t the dumpster area stay where it was originally planned? Mr. Wilkinson explained the trucks will not have enough of room to maneuver back there. Philip Klein stated the reason I mention this is that if you put this dumpster in the same proximity of Westview Apartment dumpsters it moves it away from the neighbors who live on Michael Drive. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 23 of 29 Mr. Jelenick stated it is fluid at this point and we can make changes. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated you show 7 parking spaces outside and 11 parking spaces under the building. Mr. Wilkinson stated correct. Amy Durland stated these are fairly small units. My calculation is 1300 sq ft. Mr. Jelenick stated they are more like 1100 sq. feet. Amy Durland questioned if these were affordable? Mr. Jelenick stated about $300,000 and under. Amy Durland questioned who these are being marketed to? Mr. Jelenick stated first time home buyers, we would hope. It is still economically affordable for a different segment of users. Two bedrooms, perhaps some one bedrooms. Amy Durland stated she wished the applicant could have provided this scenario with the proposed structure built in so we could see it in terms of the size, and configuration. What it looks like relative to Westview and the residential areas. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated I think Amy brings up a very good point. In order to do the SEQRA evaluation of the impacts, part of this concerns the impact on the neighborhood the way to really see that is to superimpose a scaled building onto this pretty small lot. That was my concern in 2007. We had concerns regarding the density, the size and mass. Clark Wilkinson, Agent stated at that time there was a SEQRA done on that building, the only difference is that we have moved it ten feet, and reduced the number of units by two. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated and put a driveway up the middle. Amy Durland questioned Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development what the effect of a previous SEQRA vote on a new application. Do you have any idea about that? Are we either obligated or encouraged to review that past vote in the context of what we are doing now or is it a completely new application just clean slate? Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated it is a completely new application, however, it is really your choice how you should determine it. You have every right and ability to look at each individual question as you did the first time if you feel that it’s necesarily and significantly different. By all means you can go back and rescrutinize each and every question. On the other side, if you feel that it is essentially similar you can review it in the context of the previous one for example saying the reduction of units is the difference, and then focus in on that area. So the reduction of the units, the placement of the building and change in the access you might find that the three specific areas then focus on those. Amy Durland stated there are new board members now, I am just trying to figure out how to approach it or if we are supposed to approach it in a certain way, according to planning principals or legal. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 24 of 29 Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated it is really up to the Board as far as which way to go. The Board has made a decision on a very similar project it is up to you to decide if you think it is substantially similar or substantially different? Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated we have three new Board members. My question is what would the Board be comfortable doing? We can certainly start the PART I. I for one would like to see a superimposition. A scaled drawing of this before we finalize PART II, because I think that would show us truly an impact as you look at Westview and then the houses not only to the west but those across the street. Dave Jelenick stated there is also an approval for this before the Design Review Commission, that is still in effect as we speak. I am looking for some timing here too to get this thing rolling. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated how can there be an approval for a project that does not exist at 307 Grand Avenue. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated DRC approval was based upon the previous set of plans. The plans have changed, it is no longer the same project. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated so I would say you do not have DRC approval. Dave Jelenick, applicant stated he had spoken with Brad Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development months ago. I was under the assumption that the approval was still in effect until it expires or I could go back and get an extension for it as well and not have to go through that process again. Considering that the building, the mass, scale and architectural features of the building have not changed at all. The only difference is that it is moved over five feet to the left from where it was previously. So why would I have to go through that process again? Jamin Totino questioned if the DRC provides extensions the way we do? Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated the DRC does have extensions. They have approved projects for up to 18 months on two separate occasions. Again when they approve projects it is based upon the submitted plans. The location on the lot as well. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated I believe it is more than that. There is no project. There cannot be DRC approval. Amy Durland stated maybe the DRC would look at it and treat it as a proforma, I don’t know, I am not going to speak for them, but there is a possibility that they would. Dave Jelenick, applicant asked instead of wasting our time is it beneficial for us to come back with the overhead and plan and three or four sided views of what it looks like in relationship to the other buildings that are there to make the process that much easier? Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated we have always been a visual Board and people do well visualizing how a project sits not only on the parcel that you own but also showing it in comparison with everything else. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 25 of 29 Amy Durland asked the applicant you said this is the exact same building? Same size, you just reduced the number of units? Dave Jelenick, applicant stated that is correct. The inside reconfiguration changed the square footage of the building did not change, just the number of units. Amy Durland stated so I am sure you are aware on the last SEQRA vote the Board voted 4-3 and the rationale at least that I gave in my vote that it did not provide enough of the transition in terms of the size. I felt it was too big. In terms of the density, the units per acre and in terms of the height. One of my questions is what is the height? Dave Jelenick, applicant stated about 40 feet. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman questioned the Board if they would like to see this project scaled out on this overhead drawings that shows the scale size in height of the proposed building relative to surroundings before we do the SEQRA to evaluate the impacts? Dan Gaba, stated I as a new member would prefer to have the Planning Board review the SEQRA, the notes from the meetings prior regarding SEQRA. Dave Jelenick, applicant stated we are treating this as a new application. Then you need to take the old meeting notes and throw them out don’t you? Do you get to use them as a tool as you feel fit. That is unfair. It is either this is a new application moving forward and the old application is dead. We are moving the building over and you have to treat it as such. If you would like more detail we are willing to provide and come back. Jamin Totino stated yes it would be helpful, I know the building has not substantially changed but it has been a number of years since we saw that and I don’t think it seems to be that costly in terms of timing because tonight we would have only dealt with SEQRA. Amy Durland stated I want to be very clear with you and I think what you are asking is it worth it to you to put that effort into it? Dave Jelenick stated no I am not asking you that, I am telling you that I am going to do it. I am asking if you would like me to do it and the answer is yes. See you in a few weeks. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated we will hold off one PART I and PART II, so that we can get a better feeling for how this will fit. This will help with visualization. Anyone in the audience wishing to be heard on this application tonight? STAN KATZ 306 Grand Avenue, I am the driveway across. I have a personal concern. I heard the word density, I guess that is my concern. The block of Grand has gotten a little crowded with Westview. It is not overly crowded but noticeably cars, people, and I am concerned about it. Group condos, and I understand people do have to make a living and I know this but it seems like it will be pretty crowded to me. That is my personal input and I would like to have that on the record. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated just for your information we will not be meeting in two weeks are meeting four weeks from tonight, July 14, 2010, so you can contact the staff and/or check on the website. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 26 of 29  8. 08.044.1 30 Gick Road Mixed Use Development 30 Gick Road, request for a special use permit extension for mixed use development in the Transect-4 District. Applicant: Kwang Pai DISCLOSURES: None. BACKGROUND: We have a considerable history with this project. In February of 2008 the Zoning Board of Appeals granted an Area Variance to permit subdivision. That was approved by the Planning Board and Site Plan was approved by this Board in 12/08 and it appears that no letter of credit was established and the approved site plans were not signed within 12 months as required. Applicant will need to apply for a new site plan approval. What we are being asked to do tonight is to extend the Special Use Permit which is the permit which allows the use of the land as this applicant has requested. Thte Special Use Permit was granted in May 2007, and in July of 2008, the Planning Board approved a modification of the Special Use Permit and extended it May 16, 2010. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development has informed the Board that this application was received prior to the May 16, 2010 expiration, so these folks are in front of us to request an extension. Kwang Pai, owner of Pai’s Tae Kwon Do and 30 Gick Road. I have been on this project for about 3 or 3 ½ years. At that time we actually had David Leeman had a prospect that wanted us to build a building for someone. We were just going to go with a small size building and so I came up to Mr. Geoff Boernemann, City Planner at that time and I asked his advice and from that point on I have been bleeding money. I don’t know why this has gone this way. I don’t understand, it is getting to be too much. I just found out that the Site Plan has not been signed and now you have a new rules each condo is paying a registration fee of $1500.00. To talk about this project I am not really a developer I own this commercial property on 30 Gick Road. A prospect tenant was found, and I just wanted to put a little building but Mr. Boernemann said this is T-4 you have to have four stories high. He actually drew out pencil sketched and everything, go get somebody and masterplan this and get hire an engineers. I ended up spending a little over $200,000 and here I am going nowhere and I know that I was supposed to submit the application extension for Special Use and so on. I called in last year and spoke with Jaclyn Hakes saying what it up with my case, and she said she is working on mine. I’ll find out and let you know. So, I have been calling. I wanted to follow what the planners are saying and what they tell me and guide me. I waited and called, left messages and I even spoke with them. In March or April of this year I found out that Jackie Hakes is no longer here and that is when I spoke with Mr. Birge in April or May. This is where we are at. So, we are asking for Special Use. I believe I stated on the application that with the recession being what it is there are no people who are interested in building a building. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated we have two issues. I sympathize with you and I respect the issues you present and the fact that you have spent a considerable amount of money and have nothing yet to show for it. The first thing we need to deal with tonight is the request to extend the Special Use Permit. I do not have an issue with this application being extended, procedurally we can extend this for 18 months. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 27 of 29 Any questions, comments or concern with the request for an 18 month extension? None heard. Jamin Totino made a motion, seconded by Philip Klein. VOTE: J.Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; P.Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor Absent: M. Perkins Motion passes 6-0. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated I would suggest that you sit down with staff, Brad and Susan and have a conversation. Procedurally we need to have you discuss at more length with staff what you would like to do. It appears that what you would like to do is to have your Site Plan extended. If there is any way the City can waive the rec fee hook up. These are things we cannot determine at this table tonight but staff is very willing to help. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated now we will go back to item #2 on the agenda the Letter of Credit. It frustrates me that no-one bothered to appear for this but it is in the City’s best interest and the Planning Boards best interest to extend this Letter of Credit because a Letter of Credit is the only power we have over an applicant should they choose not to comply with some of the Site Plan Issues. 2. 05.008.3 COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES – PHASE II, Central Avenue, request for Letter of Credit reduction and extension through December 2011. Applicant: Dean DeVito Applicant is not present at this time. DISCLOSURES: None. BACKGROUND: Original letter of credit is $464,500. Most recent Letter of Credit reduction 01/09/08 to $184,300. Extension is requested through December 2011. Reduction requested to $150,300. The City Engineer has informed the Board it is ok to reduce the Letter of Credit to the amount of $150,300. Motion made by Dan Gaba seconded by Jamin Totino. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor S. Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor Absent: M. Perkins Motion passes 6-0. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 28 of 29 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Clifford Van Wagner adjourned the meeting at 10:15 PM Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 9/29/10 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2010 - Page 29 of 29