Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 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; Dan Gaba LATE ARRIVAL: Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary arrived at 7:06 P.M. STAFF: Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning & Economic Development 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: 09.067.2 FASIG TIPTON site plan modifications: walkway finished and planting revisions. This action basically kept a tree which was slated to be removed. This action was approved. PROJECTS ADJOURNED TO JULY 28, 2010 04.076.2 EXCELSIOR PARK-PHASE 3, Excelsior Avenue, review of special use permit extension for mixed use development in the Transect-4 District. 10.022 KDI PROPERTIES, 104-106 Congress Street, SEQR coordinated review of mixed use building in the Transect-6 District. 10.023 WEST SIDE STADIUM CAFE, 112 Congress Street, SEQR coordinated review of new porch addition in the Transect-6 District. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADJOURNED PROJECTS WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 10.013 WHITE FARMS ROAD BED AND BREAKFAST, 66 White Farms Road, public hearing for 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 Avenue, 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. ANNOUNCEMENT OF UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETING /AGENDA WORKSHOPS: Planning Board caravan scheduled for July 26, 2010 at 4:00 PM. Planning Board workshop scheduled for July 26, 2010 at 5:00 PM. Planning Board Meeting scheduled for July 28, 2010 at 7:00 PM. No meetings are scheduled in August. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Clifford Van Wagner gave this opportunity to allow citizens to address planning issues not on the scheduled agenda. Amy Stock, 11 East Broadway, Saratoga Springs. I have been asked by the East Broadway Neighborhood Association to be the spokesperson this evening. The neighborhood has written up some points regarding Chloe’s Way. There are some concerns regarding McKenzie’s Way which has already been approved. A few people in the neighborhood did not receive the notification letter and/or were not aware of all the ongoing proceedings. Would Mr. Ethier the developer, consider including the McKenzie Way development a no cut 24 foot buffer greenspace between the existing homes on Cleveland Avenue and where the new proposed development will be? Also there are concerns regarding the paper road. Originally that parcel was land locked but now that property has been acquired, our community is very concerned about safety. We realize the paper road is intended for emergency vehicle access and turnaround but we would love it if there could be a reconsideration to either include a cul-de-sac or see if that road is really needed. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated it is unlikely that anything can be done now since this project has been approved. It would require an amendment to the site plan. However, you can make your wishes known when the application for Chloe’s Way is presented. Amy Durland questioned if the Board does in fact have verification of notification of that project? Did it follow the appropriate rules and regulations. Faulty notificaiton may require additional consideratioin on the part of the Board. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated to our knowledge the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 - Page 2 of 20 notifications were done correctly. If there are individual members who would like to give us a call, we certainly can double check. We will review it to make sure that all the addresses have gone out. Sometimes there are PO Boxes and sometimes they go to the addresses that are identified on the tax roles. Charlene Berger, 10 Cleveland Avenue, Saratoga Springs. We also have a residence in Florida. I spoke to the City Engineer and let him know that we did not receive any notifications. In fact, I called several times. The City Engineer verified our name was on the list. We even had the Florida address listed but we did not receive it. When we returned in June, we heard that on May 26, 2010, the plan had been approved. We have small grandchildren, and that street does not have sidewalks. It has broken sidewalks, so everyone winds up in the street. We are concerned about safety. All of our neighbors do not want that road to change the character of our street. APPLICATIONS: Clifford Van Wagner stated due to technical difficulties, we will defer this application until later in the evening. We will hear the application on Slade Creek/Ballestero Subdivision first and then return to Chloe’s Way Subdivision for their presentation. 2. 08.005.2 SLADE CREEEK/BALLESTERO SUBDIVISION, Buff Road/Route 9N sketch plan review of 15 lot subdivision in the Urban Residential-1 and Rural Residential-1 District. Applicant: Michael Ballestero Agent: Jere Tatich, Élan Planning/Design/Landscape Architecture PLLC Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated the Planning Board previously entertained sketch plan discussions on this property on 04/29/09 (17 lots) and 04/09/08 (21 lots). The site (approximately 5.9 acres) contains 2 parcels: one vacant and one containing a single family house. The application was withdrawn. This is a new application. This is a sketch plan discussion. There will be no action taken this evening. These are non-binding discussions. The applicant is allowed to have two sketch discussions and at the Planning Board discussion if you would like more information before a full set of plans is submitted we can waive that maximum and have another sketch plan review. This site is split by two different districts. The Conservation Development District which requires conservation analysis including identification of constrained lands, identification of areas/features recommended for conservation, calculation of base density, preservation of minimum 50% of unconstrained land, units to be clustered on remaining 50% of unconstrained land; maximum 0.5 units/acre of unconstrained land. Medium Density Residential – 1: maximum 3.5units/acre. Site is split by 2 Zoning Districts: RR-1 minimum 2 acre lots – subject to conservation subdivision requirements; and UR-1 minimum lot size 12,500 square feet minimum mean width 100’. The reason for a sketch plan is to allow the applicant to appear before this Board without having to put together a full set of drawings. Although a public hearing is not required for a sketch plan discussion we do open the meeting for public opinions. DISCLOSURES: City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 - Page 3 of 20 Philip Klein disclosed he does live at the corner of Walter Drive and Buff Road. He has no financial interest in this project whatsoever, so there is no need for recusal. Agent: Jere Tatich, Élan Planning/Design/Landscape Architecture PLLC. We are the lead consultant for the project. We also have the owner as the Civil Engineer for the project. The project is Slade Creek/Ballestero Subdivision which is 17.26 acres on the site of Buff Road. The site has two conditions, a flat wooded portion that parallels Buff Road to the west. The other portion is Slade Creek which is at the bottom of an embankment. There are NYS DEC designated wetlands along the creek, and 70% is at a slope of less than 5%. That is the portion that borders Buff Road. There are two zoning districts that fall within the project site. Rural Residential towards the back of the site down by Slade Creek and adjacent to Buff Road we have Urban Residential which takes up about 13.94 acres. There is an existing home that is on the site and this will fall within the rules of the subdivision. The project sponsor will renovate the structure so it will remain. The character that is seen around the existing house is what you would see for the subdivision presented here. Mature trees will remain as buffers. We are proposing a 15 lot subdivision. There is a paper street on Woodbridge to the south. Driveways will require utilizing Buff Road and access onto Route 9. We will focus our development on the front of the site along Buff Road. By building next to Buff Road we are avoiding the sensitive area of Slade Creek, the embankment, the wetlands and habitat area. Minimum lot size of 12,500 sq feet which is a quarter of an acre. We are proposing an average lot size of 1.12 acres. This is a very heavily treed site and we will attempt to keep all the mature native vegetation that we can. This is the first of two concepts. The concepts are basically the same, except for some of the lot configurations. A visual demonstration was provided by the agent to the Board. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman questioned the agent as to how many curb cuts are proposed? Agent Jere Tatich stated 13. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman questioned the agent if he had given any thoughts as to utilizing shared driveways to reduce the potential traffic impact of multiple curb cuts on Buff Road . Discussion ensued. Amy Durland stated, my question is similar to that of Cliff’s regarding the building envelope. When this project came before us about a year ago, we identified, it is certainly in the minutes that this is a very environmentally sensitive area to develop. I have similar concerns about the actual building envelope as opposed to the lot size. In some of those areas the top of the embankment comes up very quickly and it slopes. The embankments are very unusual and fairly rare and special environments for various habitat. I am really concerned about the narrowness of some of those areas especially lots 6, 7, 8 in that area in particular. The environmental features identified in your presentation, by regulation, the Planning Board is obligated to be the identifier of the environmental features that are considered to be important. Ultimately I just wanted you to know it is our call. There is a slope down the embankment at Buff Road as well. What is the percent of that slope? The agent replied 15-20%. Amy Durland stated that is off limits according to our regulations. I would also be interested in knowing in each case for these lots is it your assumption that you will be building or the area to City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 - Page 4 of 20 be built or to be providing lawn to the vegetation that is there now would go right up to the buffer? The agent stated this will vary from lot to lot, depending upon the vegetation that is on the site. It is not a uniform density. Amy Durland stated I would like to get more information regarding this. I am pleased that the number of lots has been reduced still there are enough lots here, in some cases a fairly small building envelope. I would be very interested in how we can achieve some retention of the native vegetation that is there if that is the intent. I know there is a fairly sophisticated dirt path along the top of the embankment. I can’t speak for the Heritage Manor Development but I know when that development was built, part of the approval of that subdivision was a trail. I could be wrong, maybe it was just mentioned. Perhaps a condition of approval or an assumption or expectation that it would take place. The obvious place for that trail to go already exists. A make shift trail that goes along a lot of the portion along the top of the embankment. I would prefer to see trails on the top of the embankment rather than down along the wetlands, where any trail is going to interfere with the more sensitive environmental elements. Is there any way to consider a completely different arrangement since clustering is allowed in the UR-1 district to permit a variation in lot size and housing type to encourage design flexibility, reduce the curb cuts, and allow some true clustering on either end. Is that a possibility because it would meet a lot of objectives, in terms of curb cuts, in terms of clustering, in terms of avoiding the more environmentally sensitive areas in the middle. A year ago April I had recommended a geotechnical report to make sure that the embankment stability can be verified. There were comments from City staff about erosion of the embankment. It seems to me that should be undertaken if it hasn’t already. I can understand why you had these two different versions of the site layout. It is better in terms of the number of people who maybe involved in the RR-1 portion of the project. I still see that virtually all of the lots that are in the other proposal are involved in some way in the bottom of the slope, if not the creek itself. So in other words, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13 all have some property that goes below the embankment. Even though some of the properties have a larger percent of the creek it still presents a similar problem. A lot of homeowners are going to have that slope. I am worried about people dumping garbage or leaves or whatever. I am worried about homeowner education and obstruction verification and documentation of what their responsibilities are. This is sketch plan and so almost anything goes, therefore, I hope that you are not so committed to these plan that there isn’t some willingness to consider some clustering at the ends of this project leaving the more sensitive environmental elements in the middle less or not developed, and reducing the number of curb cuts. Suzanne Cleary thanked the agent for the presentation. When you are saying that you would reduce the number of extended lots to about four I was curious as to which ones they would be. The applicants agent stated lot 11 and 12. Suzanne Cleary questioned the applicant regarding if they had a clear line of site as to the cost of these homes and the demand for these types of homes. There is a lot of building going on and you just do not want to see homes being built and not being sold. This is beautiful property. Does the owner have any idea whether these will be high end home, or some idea of the price range? The applicant’s agent stated the price range $400-$600,000 with sewers and public water. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 - Page 5 of 20 Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development stated the applicant is welcome to volunteer any of that information if they wish. Market study is really not under the Boards jurisdiction as part of the criteria in evaluating the application. The concern is impact on sensitive areas or natural features that is within the legislative boards pervue to try to protect that. Jamin Totino questioned is the mean lot width is about 100 feet wide for lots 3 -8. Can you elaborate what that width would be along Buff Road? The applicant stated lots 3-8 would be approximately 100 foot width. Philip Klein, stated there are a lot of similarities here on a smaller scale that look like the problems we had with Beaver Pond. That is because of the topography and the extreme change in the topography that we really have to be careful and Amy stated it pretty well with regards to where the building envelope is going to be and how it affects the rest of the lot. When we go forward we will need a lot of detail regarding boundaries, where the driveways would be, and if there would be sidewalks. With the sidewalk and the 30 foot setback front and rear, the building envelope is pretty succinct and we need to be very cautious. I also think that you are still pretty heavy on the lots, and I would love to see something a little bit more in the 10 - 11 range rather than the 12 – 15 range. Knowing the constraints on the financial aspects of building we do need to identify these details so that we can come up with some sound reasoning and modifications if necessary. Jamin Totino stated he agrees with Philip Klein. Part of my concern about the 100 foot width is it is still too crowded. Perhaps you need to come down to 10-12 lots and I also echo many of Amy’s concerns too. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated you are on the perimeter of the city which is heavily wooded. With these lots 100 feet wide with a cookie cutter It doesn’t really allow room to take advantage of some of the unique characteristics of this land. In caravan we went by this the other day, and as this project moves along we are going to want to do that again when and if you decide to go in with a few less lots. I think this board would like to see dimensions with some tape that shows the various lots. Four corners, with orange tape and then with different color tape outline where the lot line of the building will be built. Then we can see where the driveways will be. This might give you an opportunity to take advantage of the comments. There is no required public hearing but obviously we like to keep this applications as open as possible so we will call this a public comment session. PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION: Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, questioned if anyone present would like to comment on the sketch plan this evening? Valarie Thompson, 30 Staffordbridge Road, Saratoga Springs, my question was brought up something about a trail system? What experience do you have with successful trail systems and elements, I am thinking about LizAnne Drive and Joshua Road. Are there developments in the City that have been successful? Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated LizAnne Drive would not be one of the successful ones. We do have other experience with some trails, its a lot of work but it can be done. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 - Page 6 of 20 Tom Tario, 3 Woodbridge Court, Saratoga Springs, questioned how many lots are next to the Woodbridge homes backyards? The agent stated 2 lots that abut Woodbridge. Tom Tario, stated when I bought the house it was a paper road and never going to be developed but that is not part of your proposal. One of the neighborhood concerns is not to have that road coming in. We have a lot of small children on that road. Nate Wolfe, 4 Woodbridge Ct., Saratoga Springs, I share the same concern as Mr. Tario. My house is directly across the street from where the street would be. My main concern is that any car coming out of that street would be shining directly into my house. Donald Braim, 5 Woodbridge Ct., Saratoga Springs, I have some concerns that in the event this is not adopted in its present form, and there are changes made I have the same concerns relative to the paper street. That paper street separates my piece of property and Toms and I can tell you for a fact that we were both told by the realtor and the builder that street would never be utilized. Dan Gaba questioned lot #1 is it in an area where you have a lot right now. My concern if someone clears out a house site, you have a tremendous amount of noise coming in from Route 9N which will now continue to access up through the rest of the cleared lots where there are homes. Designs or ideas for buffering off of 9N or the possibility of eliminating that lot altogether just to maintain that vegetation along 9N. Mike Perkins questioned for clarification purposes there have been some concerns expressed regarding the building envelope near the steep slope. Are all the buildng envelopes outside the RR-1? Amy Durland stated the reference that she made earlier regarding the need for a geotechnical report on the stability of the slope. March 26, 2008 this was first discusssed and brought before the Board as a sketch plan. It refers to a Department of Public Works comment that steep sandy slopes to rear of proposed lots subject to significant erosion as evidenced by discharge from 36 inch stormpipe. If there is going to be some discussion about building even with the buffer at the top of the embankment that this be addressed. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated one comment at the meeting a year, year and a half ago, if I recall correctly on the south side of lot #15 is there some sort of a storm drain pipe that accesses or basically runs east–west along the south side of lot #15? The applicants agents stated yes, it goes all the way back. Donald Braim, in reference to a walking path back there that piece of property would have to be walked. Between the end of my property line and that dropoff is about 30 feet where that storm drain presently located there is only about 20 feet there and it goes to a point on the top where you run out of existing trail. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated again there will be no action taken this evening, The neighbors have had an opportunity to hear the presentation and comments have been made. The applicants will take this information and when you have information that you feel is City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 - Page 7 of 20 sufficient you can certainly contact staff and present another sketch plan. Board recessed at 8:10 PM Board readjourned at 8:15PM 1. 10.032 CHLOE’S WAY SUBDIVISION, East Broadway near Garfield Street Public Hearing on a subdivision of 5.9 acres resulting in 31 residential lots in a UR-2 District. Applicant: Stephen Ethier Agent: Brett Steenburgh DISCLOSURES: None. BACKGROUND: The Board entertained sketch plan discussion on this project on 01/27/10. SEQRA: Action is a SEQRA Type I action requiring coordinated review among “involved” agencies as NYS DOH has created its own list of type I actions including this “reality subdivision” NYS DOH is the only other involved agency Applicant has submitted SEQRA Full EAF as required Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated, the only action that can be taken this evening is for the Planning Board to initiate coordinated review. There is another agency involved and it is the New York State Department of Health so we will request their involvement. The Board is confident that the Department of Health will acquiesce to us being the Lead Agency status. We will vote to seek that tonight and they have 30 days to respond. Steve Ethier developer of Chloe’s Way. I want to give you a brief rundown on some issues and then I will turn it over to the engineer. This area was always designated to be a subdivision. It is compatible with the comprehensive plan and its a UR-2 zone. There will be no zoning relief required for the project. Three sketches were done with the road as requested after the road was blessed by the traffic safety, the engineer and the board. Curbs and sidewalks on both sides of the road, victorian street lights, we all agreed on 28 foot road width. I deeded the city a sewer easement. I have also given access to the park. There has been an environmental study and there is no impact with the Karner Butterfly, and other issues as far as environmental species. There has been an archeology study done, and parks and recreation has given us a no negative impact. A lot of these homes existing on East Broadway are still on septic. There will be brand new water and sewer brought in to take a lot of these old existing homes off the well and septic. I will be willing to work with the neighborhood on the 25 foot tree buffer all the way around. We are more than willing to put sidewalks in but there are some great trees there too. I will go with whatever the Board and the neighbors decide. I know this is a sensitive area some people want sidewalks, some people want to leave the trees. I will stay out of that but I will accommodate if I can help you all out. Brett Steenburg, I am the engineer for the applicant, Steven Ethier, in the proposal for the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 - Page 8 of 20 Chloe’s Way. The parcel is located off of East Broadway, to the west of Jefferson Street, right near the terminus of East Broadway. This area is owned by the State of New York State Park, there are trails in this area which meander around the property boundary. The parcel size is just under 6 acres in the UR-2 Zone with minimum lot square footage of 6600 square feet. Lot frontage of 60 feet, front yard setback of 10 feet, 20 foot side yard setbacks total 8 foot minimum and a rear yard setback of 25 feet. It is proposed to develop 31 residential building lots along Chloe’s Way which will come in off East Broadway, loop around and come back out and tie into the end of East Broadway. It would be serviced by municipal water, municipal sanitary sewer which would be connected near the intersection of Cleveland Avenue and tie into the City’s low pressure sanitary sewer main which runs along the westerly property boundary of the subdivision. City of Saratoga Springs Schools. Storm water will managed on site. The soils in this area are extremely well drained soils, very conducive to dry wells and infiltration which is NYSDEC’s recommended standards when available for storm water management basically recharging the ground water which is one of our natural reasources. One of the things we are showing here is a minimum of 25 foot treed buffer all the way around the perimeter of the site. There are beautiful trees on this site and we would like to save them, and make them part of the subdivision. For the people in the audience who abut this site, this will give you a 25 foot treed buffer before you get to the neighboring houses. We will be under 5 acres of disturbance, with both the subdivision and the utility work which will be done on East Broadway. All the lots will meet the UR-2 Zoning requirements. There will be a 40 foot deed right of way with five foot easements both sides so that the City has access to fifity foot right of way. The new curbed roadway will be constructed with a pavement width of 28 feet. There will be sidewalks both sides, street lighting as required, and street trees as required by the City. The applicant also will be providing and easement access from the end of East Broadway to the land of the State of New York. The catch basins will be designed with sumps to try to take out some of that initial turbidity and any trash so that it does not get into the dry well system. We will be asking the Board and the City Engineer to grant a waiver since the City has a requirement that the dry wells need to maintain a five foot separation from ground water. We are able to maintain the NYS DEC requirement of three foot and we would be requesting a waiver from that guideline. Ground water is pretty stable but it is more shallow than we would like to see it. It is down about 7 to 8 feet so to get these dry wells in we have four foot deep dry wells we are able to maintain that three foot but to get that five foot would be next to impossible. The only other option would be to raise the road and put in some type of pond. Raising the road add a whole different level of grading impacts and clearing impacts. We are trying to keep this as close to the natural grade as possible to minimize those impacts. To briefly go through some of those impacts: Traffic - The proposed subdivision will add approximately 31 trip ends in the peak hour to East Broadway. Visual Impact – Maintain minimum 25 foot tree buffer around the entire perimeter of the site, to minimize the potential visual impacts. Noise – You will get the typical residential neighborhood kids playing. Ambient noise levels in the neighborhood they will not be significantly impacted. Storm Water – Managed on site. Ground water recharge system. No increase in flows off site for any of the storm events. Ground Water – Ground water recharge system will be provided to ensure that we are City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 - Page 9 of 20  not adversely impacting the ground water levels. Environmentally Sensitive Areas – There are no NYS DEC freshwater wetlands or US Army Corp of Engineers jurisdictional wetlands on the parcel. Archeological Assessment – Has been performed and approved by SHIPO. There are no areas of significance identified. Determined there are no threatened or endangered species on the parcel. SHIPO correspondence as well as the threatened endangered species correspondence we did include with the SEQRA documentation in the submission. Recreation – We will be providing easment access to allow pedestrians to access the state lands through the parcel out the end of of East Broadway and we will be maintaining a 25 foot buffer along the state lands to the west. Referral to Saratoga County Planning Board is required. They have not yet acted upon the request. Chairman and Staff has received the following correspondence: Clyde Jasisnki, 5 Daggs Lane, Saratoga Springs. Maria Billis, 11 Doten Avenue, Saratoga Springs Marco Moschini, Jefferson Street, Saratoga Springs Gardner Cummings, owner of 51 Doten Avenue & 170 Jefferson Street. Bradley Birge, Administrator Planning and Economic Development stated there was a late submission this date from the East Broadway Neighborhood Association which was included in the Boards packets. Amy Durland stated, when I looked up the sketch plan information that we went over in November of 2009, and other information I could find, I thought two plans were presented and they were for 26 units each and now this plan has 31. Am I missing something? Applicant Steven Ethier replied there was two plans there was a grid and a U. After meeting with the City Engineer and traffic safety they wanted the U and I know some of the Board prefered the grid. You are right there was a 26 but there was more land acquired. Amy Durland questioned the configuration was a bit different and one of the reasons I was interested in accessing the minutes is because I was in favor of the grid. Applicant Steve Ethier stated Traffic Safety and Public Safety were adament about not using the grid. Amy Durland stated she read the analysis by the environmental engineer but there was no reference to contacting DEC and Kathy O’Brien. I am not interested in proceeding with something that is continguous to an endangered species site without getting intput from Kathy. Applicant Steven Ethier, stated Deb Roberts did the project. I just pre-empted this project. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 - Page 10 of 20 I hired Deb Roberts who does a lot of environmental studies. When I asked about the DEC release, she says there is no impact but if you prefer a DEC release I can have them come up there. Amy Durland stated perhaps the City can have a conversation with Kathy O’Brien and the endangered species unit just to make sure. My understanding of the Karner Blue is that it is not the exclusive area in which they thrive. There are nectaring plants nearby that they also access, and I would just like to make sure that we are positive that there isn’t even a secondary habitat concern from Kathy’s point of view. You also mentioned that we will try to keep some of the mature trees. I would like to see some firm plans and documentation regarding the trees and keeping as many as possible. How do you intend to enforce the buffer around the perimeter of the project, when they are part of the lots. My concern is that people will cut it down. Applicant Steven Ethier stated deed restrictions could be imposed or put in the homeowners association but as any law it can be broken. Amy Durland stated I am hoping when there are environmental features built into a project that we can go beyond the deeds and address some ways of communicating and educating people about what is required. So that when people buy they are not just relying on the deed because so many times people don’t bother looking at the deed. Mike Perkins stated if the no cut buffer is also indicated on the plot plan so it is in the deed and on the actual diagram, I think we can avoid a lot of the issues. PUBLIC COMMENT: Amy Stock, 11 East Broadway, Saratoga Springs. The East Broadway Neighborhood Association has asked me to speak. We have 23 people who have reviewed the list of comments and concerns which we will be presenting to you and are in support of. We are here to work with the Planning Board and with Steve Ethier to make sure that our needs are met in light of recognizing that this parcel is in the comprehensive plan and designated as an area for development. We are thrilled about the 25 foot buffer around the perimeter. One of our concerns is that whole area is now a lovely greenspace that provides habitat for a lot of birds. It is adjacent to the state park. Many of us bought here including myself because it is a very quiet residential neighborhood. We would love trail access. A lot of people from East Broadway, Cleveland Avenue, and this whole area access the state park through this area. There are some Karner Blue butterfly habitat restoration here. The impact and the change that this development will have on the existing neighborhood is one of our biggest concerns. There are no sidewalks and people walk in the road to get to the park. There is a real concern about bringing that many people and vehicles. 31 houses is a minimum of 31 vehicles. One of our requests is to have a detailed traffic and safety study done. Wally Berger 10 Cleveland Avenue, Saratoga Springs. I just want to expand a little bit on what Amy said on the East Broadway situation. That road at the intersection of Cleveland and East Broadway is around 18 feet wide. If there is a vehicle parked there on one side it becomes a one way road. There are about ten homes there right now. One of the things the neighborhood is concerned about is not only these 31 homes that are in Chloe’s Way but there is another 14 homes in McKenzie Way, that will also have the same access. Basically you are adding 45 additional homes to a road that services ten homes right now. There are no City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 - Page 11 of 20 sidewalks, on East Broadway so all those concerns associated with safety and traffic flow are really exacerbated by the fact that there are two subdivisions going on at the same time. Christine Donnolly, Northway Court, Saratoga Springs. My concern is the buffer. Who is going to maintain that. It does require some maintenanace or that forever wild will choke a lot of vegetation. By looking at that property I am just questioning how small the lots are to then add another 25 foot buffer. Amy Durland stated her point is that there is very little if any back yard on a lot of those houses. The applicant stated that the building envelope of the lots could hold a 4,000 square foot house. Many homeowners today want no maintenance. Zero clearance lots. Judy Cokum, 7 Cleveland Avenue, Saratoga Springs. I am also concerned about the buffer, and I will be the enforcer. Kendra Homburger, voiced concern about an area where there currently is not a 25 foot buffer and will there be a 25 foot buffer added and who polices that? Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated it is on the record, and signed off on the site plan someone from the City will go out and check to make sure there is 25 feet. Until there are 25 feet the plan will not be signed. We have heard comments from the neighbors and, comments from the Board. We need to initiate coordinated review. We will contact the NYS-DOH and they have 30 days to respond They have never responded in the affirmative yet so we are assuming that they will defer to us and at the same time we will vote to seek lead agency status for coordinated review. Jamin Totino made a motion, second by Dan Gaba to seek lead agency status. Ayes: C. Van Wager; J. Totino; M. Perkins; P. Klein; D. Gaba; A. Durland, S. Cleary Nayes: 0 Motion passes 7-0. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated this application is on hold until a response is received from the NYS-DOH and then the applicant will return. The public hearing is open and will remain open. Board recessed at 9:20 PM Board resumed at 9:25 PM 3. 10.034 LEONARD BUS FACILITY, lot 2 Grande Industrial Park, site plan review for industrial bus maintenance and storage facility in the Industrial-General District. Applicant: William McNeary IV Agent: Creighton Manning Engineering – Pat Mitchell DISCLOSURES: None. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 - Page 12 of 20 Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated in March we entertained a four lot subdivision on lands owned by the Munters. At the time we approved this subdivision. We did condition that it shall be the responsibility of applicants seeking future development of these lots to install all necessary improvements. Each of these lots will require site plan review. There are some points that we had indicated that we would follow up on which included but not limited to Hydrologic conditions, buffers, impact on Adams Road or lot #3, potential for trail and trail connections to adjacent properties and trail systems. Also communication with NYS DEC regarding potential impact on any endangered species. In March we did issue a SEQRA negative declaration but that was on just the subdivision, no reference to any project proposed at the time. All the requirements for a full site plan submission were noted. Saratoga County Planning Board has been notified and they have approved it with the following conditions “A DPW curb-cut/work permit will be required for construction of the extended county road. It appears that a future extension of the county road beyond the depicted hammerhead may conflict with front yard parking that may be within right of way and/or front yard setback (labeled as a side yard setback). The site plan depicts no landscaped frontage (what will eventually be Duplainville Road). Such buffering should be provided, particularly as parking area appears to conflict with future road extension.” Pat Mitchell, here representing Bill McNeary. This project is located at the extension of Duplainville Road. The access to this project does not exist. It was approved as a sub-division back in March. Along with the road as part of the infrastructure would be sewer and water would be extended to this site. We would be looking at service connections here only, not public mains. Leonard Bus takes new buses and they fit them for different school districts. They do some routine maintenance, they do the lettering, they clean them, they fit them with whatever apparatus would be required for each school district. They come to the site, and maybe there at times for a couple of months on site. In the summer they typically get a heavy load when the buses are not being used. 6-8 buses a day. Employees identified as 18 full time, and 8 part time employees. The site is located in the Grande Industrial Park. It is an industrial use and does meet all the zoning requirements. The green space is just under 50% it is required to be 30%. At the rear of the site a easement or right of way for the National Grid Company. Within the right of way there are two separate wetlands on this site. Army Corp of Engineer wetlands and DEC wetlands. The wetlands have been delineated they have been maped and have been signed off on by both the corps of engineers and the DEC. DEC requires that there is a 100 foot buffer for there wetlands. The corp does not require that. There has been in the past Karner Blue Butterflies identified on this site. We have had the site walked and a report from North County Ecological. They have looked at the habitat back there, unfortunately the easement from National Grid does not maintain the area so the habitat is for the most part gone. Amy Durland questioned why the Karner Blue Butterfly habitat has gone away? Pat Mitchell, stated it is overgrown back there now. Typically the habitat requires some sandy soils. We had that delineated and the report is done by North County Ecological Services. Amy Durland stated there will be interest in the City contacting Kathy O’Brien to get to the bottom of what happened here. She will need access to the information that the applicant has provided and has a chance to comment and factor in on that. Perhaps it is possible to remediate some of that site and restore it since I know there is a lot of activity for restoring habitat for the Karner Blue. This maybe an ongoing issue. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 - Page 13 of 20 John Munter, Middlegrove. Interjected and explained the original subdivision. I have also met with Kathy O’Brien at the site. I have actually met with her and walked different regions of the site and discussed the power lines and other things with her. I can fill you in on that later following the presentation. Pat Mitchell continued with his presentation. At times there will may be as many as 300 buses parked there. The bus traffic would not occur during peak hours. The only traffic that there would be during peak hours would be employees. We have done a traffic study, it is in a draft format right now. We are only seeing 32 trips during the peak hours but when we get the study which will probably be the biggest bone of contention here due to not just this project but the Industrial Park as a whole. The other project that we are aware of going on in the area or at least being contemplated. We did traffic counts at Geyser and Cady Hill and also Route 50 and Geyser. That intersection at Route 50 and Geyser operates in general at a level of Service E today. The turning movements if you are heading east on Geyser and take a left onto Route 50 today that operates at a Level of Service F already. That turning movement already fails. Obviously anything that we bring to that intersection is going to make that condition worse. Mike Perkins stated Level C is the lowest level the City would like to see. Amy Durland questioned Mr. Mitchell to point out on the aerial map some specific areas of concern. Storm water management on this site, DEC considers this use a storm water hot spot. The same level of storm water management that would be required at a gas station. Typically we would want to infiltrate as much as we can. DEC does not allow you to infiltrate when you use storm water hot spot type design. Now there are some caveats with that. What we are proposing is a bioretention facility. These ponds we actually dig these deeper than required and we put a bioretention media in the bottom of that pond. DEC says that if you do that you can treat your stormwater through that media collect it and discharge it and it has been treated. So since they allow you to do that, the goal is to infiltrate as much as possible. We have designed it as such that we can infiltrate everything but the worst storm event, which is a 100 year storm event. We would infiltrate the bulk of that as well. This can be done twelve months of year. Amy Durland stated the embankment goes down to the Rolland Hollows Creek. Mr. Munter appeared before us and explained the subdivision. The Rolland Hollow Creek is a water course protection overlay district. I do not have in front of me what that suggests in terms of additional protection. I know that we had indicated numerous times during that application that any of these laws maybe subject to additional environmental protection based on the potential presence of an endangered species as well as the water course protection overlay district. Do you happen to have that information? While you are talking about swales and creating them I am not 100% sure that something that is a permitted activity as an overlay district. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated the watercourse protection overlay runs 50 feet on each side from the center line of that stream. They prohibit a variety of activities such as dumping, clearing, cutting and that sort of thing. It allows a whole variety of activities with a permit. Pat Mitchell stated this project is well outside of that. There is a 100 foot DEC buffer. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated we have a very good start and idea of what the application is all about. More information will be forthcoming. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 - Page 14 of 20 Applicant Bill McNeary, 22 Beacon Hill Drive. This is a very low impact use. The bus company buys buses and sells them back to the school districts. This is a storage lot as they make their purchases. Those buses come in new from the factory and they build up during the summer. They go through and do their inservice to get them ready to go out to the schools. When September comes around and the school budget are passed they go out and sell the buses to their various customers. This is a car lot for buses. They buy the buses, they do their analysis of what they think they can sell and then sell them. If a district has an issue with one of the buses they come back and do that repair. It is not like an autobody shop. These are new vehicles that are coming in. As far as the use is concerned it is about as benign as you are going to get in an Industrial Park. We are not talking about any factories, no emissions, no fueling tanks. These buses don’t even have much fuel in their tanks. The come from the factory virtually empty. The area in the back that we are talking about has been overdesigned. Because of the classification that Pat just described because we have to build this to the specs of a convenient store gas station but are nowhere near that type of risk. You have much better protections all the way around with the way it is designed and you have as little impact as you are going to get as far as traffic that you would have in an Industrial Park. There are no big trucks coming and going here. They get parts delivered once in a while. The traffic is based on their employees coming to work in the morning and going home in the afternoon and when the buses come in new from the factory. The reports have been done by DEC, they have reviewed everything there is not much more to discuss. Mike Perkins, questioned if the Board has received the Traffic Study, and the Environmental Study? Mr. Mitchell stated the Board has not received the traffic study or the Environmental Study. Bill McNeary stated we were the former owner of the Industrial Park for over two decades. Kathy O’Brien and I have met on numerous occasions. She has walked through our park a hundred times. Every year she comes into my office and asks permission to go on the property with a butterfly net and she counts butterflies. This whole corridor has been completely examined by Kathy O’Brien. Mike Perkins stated the other point that has to be brought up. Even if this generates no impact whatsoever, you already have an existing condition that is not acceptable. We have an Industrial Park where we want to do these kind of things but we have a traffic issue. This is something we have to deal with. Bill McNearny stated we are prepared to do get together with all the members of the Industrial Park and the Mayor and look at what is available. Allocation of tip funding for a project out here. What we do not want to do is hold hostage project that is the result of 30 years worth of development that hasen’t been dealt with along the way. If we are going to make this into a three year process of trying to decide what we are going to do in the interesection then there will be no industrial development in this industrial park. CME is involved with their study and there are several other corridor studies that are going on. We just need to be told in what direction the City wants to proceed with this. John Munter stated he spoke to Brad about this. I suggested that we could possibly set up a meeting with some of the leaders from the most significant companies in the Industrial Park to try to pinpoint what expansion plans they might have. Maybe the Planning Board Chair or any other members interested the IDA, the SCDC to really sit down and have a conference on what potential impact we have. What potential funding sources, we could go after to get money to do City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 - Page 15 of 20 Geyser and 50 improvement and also try to relate into the recent study that has been done on the route 50 corridor that is underway. There has already been some money spent on that. It would be a start to really get a direction on where some money can come from, what people can expect coming in for an approval. It would also give the board some direction to a solution. We would be willing to organize that in the very near future and I have already spoken to the people in the IDA and some other members in the Park and they will be willing to attend. Clifford Van Wagner, stated we do have some environmental issues. We are going to need to talk to Kathy O’Brien, that will be one of the determining factors as we look at the Part I. There are many questions that need to be answered now that we have heard exactly what this operation would be. We cannot finalize that part until the above questions are answered. Philip Klein stated what I would like to see are the approximate number of buses that were on their site on a monthly basis for the last two years. I would like to see that flow. One of my concerns is if you end up with x amount of buses on the site. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated we will leave the public hearing open. It is an exciting project something that we need some more information on. 2. 10.030 FROST MULTI-FAMILY, 153 Grand Avenue, request for site plan modification for multi-family in the Urban Residential-3 District. Applicant: Helena Frost Agent: Mike Phinney, Phinney Design Group DISCLOSURES: None. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated this is a property located in a UR-3 District which allows one and two family structures. Site previously contained a non-conforming 4 unit residential structure that was destroyed by fire. The applicant received a use variance in July of 2008, to construct a three unit structure. The use variance was approved and site plan review and approval was required. Before the applicant received approval for the the three unit structure the applicant was notified that if the building that was going to be built was a two family structure a site plan was not going to be required, no use variance would be required and the building basically could just be built. The applicant built a three unit structure, site plan approval was granted by this board. In 2008 the site plan was submitted and approved and included the following: 2 red maple trees, 2-2.5” in diameter at chest level in accordance with City standards. One decorative street ight be installed and the owner would be responsible for electrifying the system. Installation of a 90’ section of concrete curb with a driveway curb cut. Submission of required as-built drawings. Those are the items that have not been complied with. The applicant requested an administrative action by the chairman to approve site plan even though those four items were not completed. That action was denied. Applicant has sought redress through a number of public officials. There are no maple trees, there is no decorative street light, the 90’ concrete curb has not been installed to meet the requirement therefore the as-built drawings have not been submitted and signed off. We are being asked to modify and approve site plan. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 - Page 16 of 20 Mike Phinney, Phinney Design Group. Everything Cliff said is accurate. I don’t believe a specific discussion regarding electrical tie in and paying for electrical service happened at that meeting. l would like to give you some background from the applicants standpoint. The fire did happen. Ms. Frost bought the property four or five years prior to the fire. She spent $300,000 to buy a four family existing non-conforming building. Helena replaced the back porch and renovated the apartments getting them ready for rental and code compliant. When that was done a $600,000 investment is what this became. When the fire occurred there was $682,000 appraised value there based on the refinancing and remortgaging of the property, a $300,000 mortgage and the replacement value and payout with the insurance company was about $324,000 after two months of fighting with the insurance. The insurance company gives you one year to replace the building. There is rental recovery or mortgage payment recovery for one year. We were hired to redesign a new structure. We fast tracked it due to the schedule. It took one year to get all the approvals and permits from the City of Saratoga Springs. Helena was two months into paying the full mortgage on air before she could put a shovel into the ground. The reality is she is retired, she has no income, she has no ability to go out and refinance. The only way she can get the higher replacement value is to agree to build a three family. The insurance company wanted to see a four family because that is what the value was based on. Otherwise she could have taken the payment, paid off the mortgage, and all of her additional monies put into the property and equity she built in the property would vanish, which was approximately $398,000. This is now considered a commercial property which required site plan approval. It also required a $1500 recreation fee, a $1500 storm water management fee, because the City of Saragtoga has a law that if you disturb more than 1/10th of an acre which is more restrictive than the state DEC law you have to do a SWPPP. To perform a SWPPP on such a tiny lot would be ridiculous. So there was a $1500 fee paid for that. In addition there is a bond for the value of all the site improvements. The bond was placed at $17,200. Ms. Frost is retired had no income, her ability to get a bond financed was denied. The only choice she had was to pay the bond in full in cash out of savings. That added with the administrative attorney fees of about $700. that are paid to the City and the inspection fees, etc., that is about $23,000 cash in order to obtain the building permit which the insurance company does not pay for. The City still has her $17,000 in cash, they have had it for two years. I didn’t think it would be best for Helena to come here and represent herself tonight. Helena will be the first to admit that she did not communicate herself very well at City Hall and she apologizes for that. Three issues remain, we have submitted a site plan. We could not submit an amendment so we had to file an entirely new application and the fees associated with that to discuss three issues the two maple trees, the curbing and the street light. The applicant has chosen to put double the amount of plantings that were proposed and approved. The red maple trees which were planted by the landscape contractor are not of the caliber which the City requires. The area where these trees were to be planted is significantly smaller than other areas of the City, the area is only 20 inches. The area could not accomodate the larger maple trees the City requires so a smaller version was planted. The trees are in. All of Grand Avenue for many blocks in either direction the only form of street lighting are the overhead cobra lights. Regarding the curbing, it matches the curbing of the surrounding areas. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated let’s discuss the street light. The problem that we have is that we have rules and regulations. We are being asked to waive a specific caliber of trees, a decorative street light and a portion of concrete curbing. I realize it might be the only street light there and it will continue to be the only street light there if we don’t start somewhere. Someone has to be the first one. We typically do not waive those requirements. Mike Phinney, the agent for the applicant stated that this is essentially a new application. We are requesting you to look at this with an objective set of eyes. Helena has committed to paying City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 - Page 17 of 20 for that right. Regarding the street light, as a tenant I would hate to have this light here. There are two master bedrooms for these units, and they are 15 feet from the street light. The City street lights are glare bombs. They throw bright light in every direction. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated, other members of the Board? Dan Gaba, board member stated there are more plantings than required. While I can appreciate that, it certainly would have been nice to have done what was asked or required. Philip Klein stated the two trees that are planted are red maples. They are growing. As far as I am concerned, considering the narrowness of the tree lane, I think the effort that the applicant made with regards to planting these maples which are slightly smaller than what we had required, I can live with it. Amy Durland stated we looked at this during the caravan. It looked extremely vulnerable to me. Jamin Totino stated let me ask this for clarification, those trees were planted last year. They have survived through one entire growing season. Mike Perkins, stated I think that the points the Chairman made are appropriate. Also your comment that this is a new application and I am treating it as a new application and as such being consistent with this and what we do with others. If we were just to waive things that we do waive for other people, it is like a City without laws. I agree with Phil, I think the planting strip is thin in that area and I would support waiving the requirement for the maple trees to be of that caliber. Jamin Totino, stated ever since the beginning I have been trying to find where is the middle ground because I think sometimes sitting on the Board, I forget about what it costs for an applicant to complete projects. I appreciate the information about the experience with the mortage company. I am thankful I haven’t had to live through that and I hope that I never have to live through that. Having some awareness of that I think gives me some more motivation to try to find middle ground than I had previous to tonight. Along those lines I agree as far as the trees go my experience with maples is that they do go rather slow for the first couple of years but then the start to grow rather quickly. Mike Phinney, agent for the applicant stated this is a perfect example of why a waiver should be granted. This was a four family, existing non conforming house that was a four family for 34 years that this woman chose to invest in and because of the fire and a complete loss and could not be rebuilt she lost her grandfather status, and is now kicked into a commercial building. We tried back then to circumvent zoning variances, to just go to the Planning Board, and the way the City was at the time those Boards were divided down the middle. No one could agree on anything. It took a year to get all those approvals and permits. Amy Durland stated she does not have any problem with the trees that are planted there. The fact that they have survived one winter that gives some additional impetus. Jamin Totino questioned if the decorative street light could be tapped into a City line? Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated currently there are no direct lines to that. The note on the approved plan indicated that it is responsibility of the owner or developer to maintain it and power that. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 - Page 18 of 20 Amy Durland stated the argument about the light being too bright in front of the house may have some merit. Jamin Totino questioned if there is some flexibility in what light can be used? Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated it is a standard decorative light. Throughout the City you have a decorative district. That includes residential areas as well as commerical. The wattage is standard. There are abilities to shade to curtail some of the lighting. If you want to move the light and the architect agrees with that, it is possible as well. Jamin Totino stated, here is where I stand on the last two items. I think there has been occasion where this Board has waived the condition of curbs that are in similar condition as these. Maybe with some patching but not necessarily replacing. I would rather see the light go in, and the curbs patched. I am fine with moving the light. I would put it over by the driveway. Philip Klein stated, he also goes along with both Jamin’s recommendations. Amy Durland questioned if curbs can effectively be patched? Is that a realistic option? Jamin Totino stated, it is not ideal but they can be patched. Bradley Birge stated DPW can and does replace curbing. They do a lot of work over on the West Side. If you contact them and present the information they maybe able to help with a slightly lower cost than other contractors. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated I agree with Jamin that the light needs to be there. We can ask DPW to put a shield on it. Perhaps we can move it a little to the east. There is 70 feet of curbing left. I think it is a benefit to the house to have this replaced. The consensus of the Board is the red maples are acceptable as planted due to the narrowness of the planting strip. The decorative street light will be required. Amy Durland stated before the Zoning Board financial hardship is an issue for many applications. The Planning Board is really not in a position to take that into account or else that would be a factor in each and every single application that we get. It is not in fact written into our standards that financial hardship is a consideration. Jamin eloquently said what we are all feeling, which is it is great to hear this because we need to be sensitive to this but the truth is it is difficult to act upon it in any significant way because it is not our role to do that. Mike Phinney agent for the applicant stated I think it is important to be here tonight so that this is noted in the City’s record books. There needs to be some different process for someone who had a total loss in a fire. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated he will entertain a motion to vote on the requested modifications to the site plan and those modifications are: two red maples, are acceptable, as planted, the existing 70 feet of curbing be replaced and the street light will be installed so that the light is not directly in front of the house, moved in an easterly direction and a shield placed on the north side of it, location to be determined by the applicant. Motion by Philip Klein, seconded by Dan Gaba. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 - Page 19 of 20 VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor. Motion passes 7-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES; Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated he will entertain a motion to approve the following minutes with changes as submitted: April 14th, April 28th, May 12th, and May 26th. Motion by Amy Durland, seconded Dan Gaba. AYES: J. Totino, A. Durland, P. Klein, D. Gaba, S. Cleary, C. Van Wagner ABSTAIN: M. Perkins. Motion carries 6-0-1 Abstaining ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Clifford Van Wagner adjourned the meeting at 10:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 9/29/10 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 - Page 20 of 20