Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Clifford Van Wagner, Chair; Jamin Totino, Vice-Chair; Dan Gaba; Philip Klein; Michael Perkins; Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary ABSENT: Amy Durland STAFF: Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning & Economic Development Kate Maynard, Principal Planner 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. INTRODUCTION OF NEW CITY PRINCIPAL PLANNER: Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman introduced and welcomed the City of Saratoga Principal Planner Kate Maynard. APPLICATIONS ADJOURNED: 1. 09.038.1 MEADOWVISTA SUBDIVISION, 520-546 Grand Avenue, extension of 21 lot subdivision in the Rural Residential-1 District. [Adjourned to 10/13 at applicant’s request]. 2. 10.023 WEST SIDE STADIUM CAFE, 112 Congress Street, site plan review of new porch addition in the Transect-6 District. [Adjourned to 09/29 at applicant’s request]. 3. 10.022 KDI PROPERTIES, 104-106 Congress Street, site plan review of new mixed use building in the Transect-6 District. [Adjourned to 09/29 at applicant’s request] APPLICATIONS POSTPONED AWAITING 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 WAREHOURSE EXPANSION, 29, 31 & 33 Cady Hill Boulevard, site plan review of warehouse expansion in the IND-G General Industrial District.  10.026 SHANGHAI GRILL, 175 South Broadway, public hearing for a permanent special use permit in the Transect-5 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. 10.027 307 GRAND AVENUE MULTI-FAMILY, 307 Grand Avenue, public hearing on special use permit for a 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. COMMENTS FROM CHAIR UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETING/AGENDA WORKSHOPS: Next Planning Board Caravan, Scheduled for Monday, September 27, 2010 at 4:00 PM. Next Planning Board Workshop, Scheduled for Monday, September 27, 2010 at 5:00 PM. Next Planning Board Meeting, Scheduled for Wednesday, September 29, 2010 at 7:00 PM. PRIVILEDGE OF THE FLOOR: Opportunity for citizens in the audience to address planning issues not on tonight’s agenda. None heard. A. LETTERS OF CREDIT 1. 09.014.1 SPA HOTEL II, LLC, 11 and 47 Excelsior Avenue, Saratoga Springs. DISCLOSURES: None. SEQRA: An extension of a Letter of Credit is a SEQRA Type II action requiring no additional SEQRA review. Agent for applicant: John Lapper Request for extension of Letter of Credit. The City Engineer has asked for an increase in the Letter of Credit secondary to increasing costs. We will present some proposed modifications later on this evening. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated this is a request for an 18 month letter of credit extension. The City Engineer made a recommendation to increase the amount of this letter of credit to $98,900. There are no other comments from any other departments. Is there a motion to extend this applicant’s letter of credit? Jamin Totino made a motion seconded by Philip Klein. No further discussion by the Board. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 8, 2010 - Page 2 of 16 application? None heard. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba; S. Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor Absent: A. Durland Motion passes: 6-0. APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 4. 10.032 CHLOE’S WAY SUBDIVISION, East Broadway near Garfield Street, public hearing on 31 lot subdivision in the Urban Residential-2 District. The Board entertained a sketch plan on this project on January 27, 2010. In July this Planning Board requested Lead Agency Status, the other involved agency the New York State Department of Health has deferred to us. In the past we have discussed the width of the road, buffers and an easement on the west side of the project. The City Engineer and staff spoke about the SWPPP Plan and that remains on the agenda for tonight. The applicant has contacted Kathy O’Brien from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the applicant has a letter from Kathy O’Brien stating that there is no impact on the Karner Blue or the Habitat. We did ask the applicant to provide this to the Board. A referral to the Saratoga County Planning Board has been made and their response was approved, no objection to this project. STAFF HAS RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE FROM: East Broadway Neighborhood Concerns Clyde Jasinski, 5 Daggs Lane, Saratoga Springs, NY Maria Billis, 11 Doten Avenue, Saratoga Springs, NY Marco Moschini, Jefferson Street, Saratoga Springs, NY Gardner Cummings, Owner of 51 Doten Ave, & 170 Jefferson Street, Saratoga Springs, NY Wallace Berger, East Broadway Neighborhood Petition NYS OPRHP William Engleman, Round Lake, NY – Independent Naturalist Applicant: Stephen Ethier Agent: Brett Steenburgh DISCLOSURES; None. Mr. Steenburgh reviewed the location of the new subdivision. We previously discussed the 50 foot buffer, which will provide homeowners with privacy, it will add for a more aesthetically pleasing subdivision by retaining some of the trees in the area and will also allow for minimizing the disturbance on the site. Discussions with Mr. Male, City Engineer and the Planning Board about maintaining less than five acres of disturbance have been held. If the applicant stays under five acres they are required to provide a basic storm water pollution prevention plan rather than a full SWPPP. This results in less rigorous treatment of the storm water leaving the site. It also results and lessens the inspections during the construction. We have been able to adequately maintain that five acre threshold by preserving a greenspace in the center of the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 8, 2010 - Page 3 of 16 site. The greenspace buffer around the entire perimeter of the site will help delineate the rear of the property line and the cut or clearing limit line. The residences along Cleveland Avenue and Northway Court, will have a nice greenspace buffer in the back which they do not currently have. Mr. Ethier has agreed to leave that area green to provide the buffer not only for the existing residences but for the future residences of Chloe’s Way. Essentially we are actually at 4.94 acres and that includes full restoration of East Broadway from Cleveland Avenue to the southern entrance to Chloe’s Way. Removal of the asphalt section and removal of any sub base material that is in the roadway. Core samples will be analyzed per the City Engineers recommendation. Mr. Ethier has agreed to widen East Broadway which currently varies in width from 18 -20 feet to a consistent 24 foot wide width from Cleveland Avenue to Chloe’s Way and Shaw Drive. This will be a standard widening, no curbs or wing gutters proposed along it. No curbs or wing gutters currently along East Broadway. There were also parking concerns along the street. This plan shows two cars in each driveway plus each home will have a two car garage. So there is potentially four spaces available for each residence with no cars parking across the sidewalk. Also we will be proposing alternating one way parking along the street on odd and even days. At the last presentation plan we had shown large very large footprints 4,000 to 5,000 square foot homes on these small lots. Knowing what the market is and knowing realistically what will likely be built on these lots we have reduced them back to 2400 square foot houses on the average. Yards behind the homes will be approximately 15 to 30 foot treed lots. We would like to propose a deed restriction along the 25 foot rear yard setback and that would prevent anyone from cutting down any trees within 25 feet of the rear of the property line. Discussion ensued regarding the deed restriction, rear yard setback, proposed fencing and possible signage. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated in correspondence from Kathy O’Brien, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation her recommendations were an 6 foot high chain link fence restricting direct access to the park. Brett Steenburgh proposed to delineate the access to the state land and along the entire westerly property boundary a 4 foot high split rail fence that would blend into the natural environment. Brett Steenburgh the agent for the applicant continued with his presentation. All the lots meet the UR-2 zoning requirement. Right of way will be a 40’ deeded right of way with 5 foot easements both sides. The curbed roadway with a pavement width of 28 feet, pedestrian easement access to the state lands will be delineated by some sort of fencing to be determined. Street lighting as per the City’s requirement. Chloe’s Way westerly access will be aligned with Shaw Drive. Storm water quantity will be managed on site with a series of dry well and catch basins which is an infiltration practice which is NYS-DEC’s preferred method when possible to try to recharge the ground water system. Storm water quality is not required because we are under five acres. East Broadway will be widened in this project to 24 feet from Cleveland Avenue to Chloe’s Way as it starts to narrow down. No Noise impacts. No NYS DEC fresh water wetlands or US Army Corp of Engineer Jurisdictional Wetlands on the subject parcel. Archeological assessment has been performed and there are no areas of significance. It has been determined that there are no threatened or endangered species on this site. Ms. Debra Roberts will speak shortly regarding her inspection of the site the Karner Blue Butterfly and her discussions with Ms. Kathy O’Brien of NYS DEC. Pedestrian access to the state lands to the west, and a 25 foot buffer will be maintained along the state lands to the west. Request for a waiver for the separation distance from the bottom of the dry well to the high ground water elevation. NYS DEC standards are three feet in a non sole source acquifer area, this is a non sole source acquifer area. We have maintained DEC standards of three feet, however the City City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 8, 2010 - Page 4 of 16 of Saratoga Springs has a requirement for five feet which they can waive, and that was discussed last evening with Mr. Male, the City Engineer. Ms. Debra Roberts, owner of Roberts Environmental, I have a PhD in Biology. I looked at this site early in the spring and there is no habitat for the Karner Blue Butterfly on this site. The letter from Kathy O’Brien, NYS DEC which the board has received also concurred with this due to the thick overstory on the site. There is no habitat on this site, therefore there are no butterflies and there is no potential effects of disturbance of endangered species by building on this site. DEC has extended its concern to adjacent habitat offsite, in the comments and letter from Kathy O’Brien and the desire to put a buffer and fence along the property line not to protect any disturbance from construction of this subdivision but to protect future projects in the state park land. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated there has been some additional correspondence from the State Park whose intent and goal is consistent with DEC as far as protecting future habitat. One of the concerns the state parks has identified is trying to curtail vehicular access back there. There have been some issues with ATV’s and they have suggested a split rail fence. Any questions or comments from the Board? None heard. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there were any comments from the audience regarding this application? None heard. WALLY BERGER, 10 Cleveland Avenue, Saratoga Springs. At the meeting on July 14th we presented to the Board a document and petition. We have taken two additional actions since the 14th. One was to invite the Board to come visit and spend a little time with us and Mr. Ethier walking the neighborhood. We also invited Mr. Ethier to meet with the neighborhood to talk about some of our concerns. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated that the Board was there yesterday. The board is diligent and does visit every site, either as a group or individually. To have off site meetings without public record is a little tenuous and the board opted not to do that, no disrespect noted but the Board has visited the site more than once. Mr. Berger stated the entire neighborhood is concerned about development, not just this subdivision. Quite a bit of development is going on over at Doten, on Taylor on Broadway there are some houses to be built, Chloe’s Way Development and the Shaw Development. In total that is about 60 houses. Right now East Broadway has about 10 houses fronting it. We will go from 10 houses to 70 houses that will use that road. Doten is a very narrow street, with a lot of older homes built very close or on the right of way.It is very congested right now with construction vehicles and there is only two houses being built. There is definitely a traffic issue here. There are no sidewalks. Children now play in the street. We have proposed in one of our meetings some solutions to that which includes a traffic study and also sidewalks, which we will provide to the Board. Mr. Ethier has this information as well. One other issue is we do have a high water table on this side of the road and also on Doten Avenue. There has been flooding in people’s basements numerous times especially on Doten Avenue. We are concerned with the water and sewer runoff. JUDY COCA, 7, Cleveland Avenue, Saratoga Springs. Two points I would like to make. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 8, 2010 - Page 5 of 16 Two cars per household, so a subdivision of 31 with all good intent is probably going to have a minimum of two cars. This is a point I would like to make regarding the impact on that street. AMY STOCK, 11 East Broadway, Saratoga Springs. I am on a corner lot. I concur with Judy’s concerns regarding the increase in traffic both during construction and also just in general. I would really like to see planning looking at not just extending the sidewalk to Cleveland but to look at how do we make this whole larger neighborhood more walkable. My other issue is the noise level. I don’t know there are time restrictions regarding construction. CHARLENE BERGER, 10 Cleveland Avenue, Saratoga Springs. I was very interested in your discussion of the fence between Chloe’s Way and the park. We have lived in the past on a park. We had occasion to see how people behaved about a park that does not have a fence and what happens is people make pathways that go from their house over to where they want to go in the park. Also, they let their dogs, cats and children go where ever they want. There are woods behind us now, we have seen all kinds of wildlife in our backyard. Foxes, groundhogs, chipmunks, rabbits and I am sure that they have the same kind of animals in the park. I think you should really consider protecting not just the butterfly but all the wildlife in the park. I think there are lots of very attractive fences aside from split rail and chain link that would keep the wildlife on their side and keep the dogs and cats on their side. Discussion ensued regarding placement of sidewalks. Bradley Birge, Administrator discussed the City’s regulations in placing sidewalks, street trees and street lights in subdivisions. DR. ROBERT NIELSON, 7 Cleveland Avenue, Saratoga Springs. I agree totally with what has been stated here about safety issues. Not only do we have our own kids on the end of Cleveland but the people from Taylor Development and Doten come walking down to our area. Bike riders, kids, dog walkers. The other issue here is that at the end of East Broadway where it meets Jefferson is a bus stop. There are no sidewalks along East Broadway to get to the bus stop. Anyone wishing to use that even from the new development has to walk in the road, and I really do think it is a safety problem as well. My understanding is that at one time there was supposed to be sidewalks along Jefferson, as well which have not been built. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated there will not be a final determination on the subdivision tonight. We have to come to a decision on sidewalks, but the bigger issue is the storm water prevention plan. We need to have Paul Male weigh in on this with our staff, and take another look at this. Fencing, the buffers. I appreciate your comment on the chain link. Bollards at the end of East Avenue to restrict vehicular access. Easement has been granted to the City, however a full dedication to the City would be appreciated. We will revisit the site. We will keep finessing this until the application is the best for all parties concerned. We appreciate the neighbors input. We will place the application on the agenda in three weeks. PUBLIC HEARING; Public Hearing remains open. The agent for the applicant requested the Board to vote on the waiver for the ground water separation that will allow the application to move forward and finalize the storm water pollution prevention plan. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated that at the workshop the city engineer indicated in many instances that is not doable in the City, he did not have a problem with the Board granting the waiver for a full SWPPP. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 8, 2010 - Page 6 of 16 Jamin Totino, Vice Chair made a motion to waive the groundwater separation requirement. Seconded by Dan Gaba. Any further discussion on the waiver. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P,Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Cleary in favor; C. VanWagner, in favor; Absent: A. Durland Motion passes: 6-0. Jamin Totino, Vice Chair, stated Mrs. Berger made some references and recommendations for other fencing aside from chain link and split rail and he concurs with her thoughts. Perhaps some middle ground can be found between cost and still creating enough barrier. I believe something must be considered in the middle area to delineate it as a no cut zone, some type of barrier. The Board recessed at 8:15 PM. The Board reconvened at 8:20 PM. 5. 10.034 LEONARD BUS FACILITY, lot 2 Grande Industrial Park, site plan review for industrial bus maintainence and storage facility in the Industrial-General District. Applicant: William McNeary IV. Agent: Rob Osterhout, Creighton Manning Engineering DISCLOSURES: None. This site is identified as “lot 2” of the 4-lot subdivision granted by the Planning Board on March 24, 2010. Mr. McNearny pointed out at the last meeting this is a large storage facility that is basically going to have buses that will be detailed and retrofitted during the course of the summer and end the end of the summer the buses will be sold to specific school districts. There will be no underground gas storage at this facility. These buses are simply purchased and brought to the site. Mr. Osterhout stated subsequent to the meeting in July, with the feedback we received and the comments from Mr. Male relative to the site plan review we made a subsequent submission on August 5, 2010, to the Board. There were numerous items in that submission and I would like to go through those briefly. We submitted revised site plans to the Board. We performed a traffic evaluation, traffic being one of the bigger issues discussed. We submitted the response to comments to Mr. Male site plan review comments and application comments and amended storm water pollution prevention plan. We submitted a letter from the Army Corp of Engineers relative to their review of the project and their determination of no impact. We submitted a letter from Ms. Kathy O’Brien of DEC regarding the Karner Blue and frosted Elfin Butterfly Habitat on the property. We also submitted a report on threatened and endangered species from North County Ecological Services City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 8, 2010 - Page 7 of 16  We submitted a supplemental follow up letter dated August 5, 2010 from North County Ecological relative to habitat creation on the site. We submitted an updated cost estimate, and a review fee for the SWPPP. There are NYS DEC and Army Corp of Engineers wetlands on the rear portion of our site. The Army Corp letter that we submitted documents the Army Corps position on the site. We did not submit information relative to the NYS DEC jurisdiction on the property. It is shown on our plans the boundaries of the DEC wetlands and 100 foot adjacent area. We have no impacts to those. Just as a matter of documentation I wanted to submit to the Board this evening, some copies of the formal plan that NYS DEC signed off on relative to their jurisdiction on the site. This provides additional documentation. Mr. Osterhout presented a recap of the site plan for the Board. The Trip Generation Summary is based on the existing Leonard Bus Facility located in the City of Mechanicville. That is the same facility that will be relocated to the Grande Industrial Park. We had the benefit of having a use in a place that we could actually count the actual usage rather than rely upon a theoretical figure based on other sources around the country. 20 peak hour trips in the AM and I believe 14 peak hour trips in the PM. We related that to the Cady Hill and Geyer Road counts and related it to the Route 50 Geyser Road intersection as those were the two areas the Board and the City were concerned with. What we found with those numbers is our impact is such that at the Cady Hill, Geyser Road intersection we have anywhere from 1 to 2% of the existing traffic being contributed as new traffic in the peak hour. On Route 50 and Geyser Road we had 1% or less being contributed depending on AM or PM peak hour. There is a real minor impact to those intersections because we find that variations at a normal intersections can vary by 10% or more on any given day. So the impacts from this project are well under the variations that are found at any give time at a normal intersection. In addition, CDTC in conjunction with the state and the city with the county is currently undertaking the Route 50 southern gateway study and that has progressed along at this point, to a point where they have actually identified a couple of alternatives for the Route 50 and Geyser Road intersection. One of those alternatives involves a round-about while the other involves some other intersection improvements but there are major capital projects opportunities being looked at right now as part of a bigger picture. This project has such a small impact, our traffic evaluation noted these studies being undertaken and recommends that that project be pushed forward. It is a great opportunity to make an improvement not only from a gateway perspective but also to address the capacities issues that maybe present at the intersection. This summarizes the traffic component. I do have Wendy Cimmino with me tonight who prepared our traffic evaluation and can answer any further questions if you have any. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman questioned the peak hour PM and AM trips that were spoken about, would that simply be employees. The buses that would be there are to be worked on. Agent, Bob Osterhout replied the buses coming in and out of the facility were counted at the same time. Wendy Cimmino, Creighton Manning Engineering stated any traffic coming in and out during those peak hours were counted. The counts that were done counted any vehicles in and out of the existing site, assuming that there would be some employees and other trips during that time period. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments from the staff? City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 8, 2010 - Page 8 of 16 Philip Klein questioned the permeability aspect of asphalt. You indicated that there was a delineation between the crushed stone, and asphalt the rest. Is there any reason you could not do crushed stone all the way around the building? Agent Bob Osterhout, Creighton Manning Engineering replied the high traffic areas of the site have been proposed for asphalt pavement. What we have actually done is evaluate the entire site as if it was asphalt pavement so that in the future if there is a decision made by Leonard Bus to pave the remainder of their lot from a storm water management perspective, we have already taken that into account and designed the management facilities to accomodate that. Regarding permeability is concerned although there is potential less runoff from that gravel parking lot because some of it will infiltrate through the parking, we have designed the site to accomodate full buildout of asphalt. Philip Klein questioned if there was any thought about doing the whole thing in gravel? Mr. Bill McNearny, 22 Beacon Hill Drive. I would love to do it all in gravel it would be a lot cheaper. It is the tenants requirement that they have asphalt around the building itself. It is for cleanliness and aesthetic reasons they want it to have a finished look. The threatened endangered species evaluation. As I mentioned there were a few items in our submittal package relative to that. After the meeting we contacted Kathy O’Brien, at DEC, submitted a plan to her, she kindly responded in a prompt manner. She addressed the fact that there is no potential here for habitat. We followed up because there was not a specific item in her response relative to creation of new habitat on the site. We followed up with North Country Ecological Services to provide some feedback relative to that because there was a specific concern raised by the Board. That documentation has been provided as well. In summary the bottom line is that after reviewing the site there is no habitat there today, the potential for creation for habitat and the location that we are talking about here would be at the rear of the site where the power lines are located down off the back side of the steep slope to the rear of the site. So we have no impacts proposed down there. We are not doing any work down there. We still looked into this matter because it was an important issue to the board. There is no habitat potential down there based on the evaluations that were done both by the NYS DEC and North Country Ecological Services. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak regarding this application? None heard. SEQRA: Part II SEQRA form was reviewed. No large or important impacts were identified. The Board notes that this applicant has agreed to participate in a Traffic Mitigation Study for the intersection of Geyser Road and Route 50. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman noted that a number of the property owners have met regarding the current and future transportation needs of the area, and that all are working on a shared cost solution for envisioned improvements at the intersection of Route 50 and Geyser Road. Philip Klein, questioned #5 on the SEQRA questionnaire regarding the water usage of 400 gallons a day. In June, July or August you might use more than 400 gallons of water a day. The Board and applicant discussed the probability of using more than 400 gallons of water per day. The SEQRA review form was corrected and adjusted to reflect the correct usage. Also Mr. Klein mentioned where the bus facility will be located at the end of the hammerhead City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 8, 2010 - Page 9 of 16 would it be possible for the applicants to consider some type of screening right at the entrance way, more specifically the west side of the entrance way so that when you drive by the view of the buses is blocked. The agent Bob Osterhout, Creighton Manning Engineering revealed the landscaping plan visually to the Board and revealed their landscaping design and use of current vegetation, trees etc. and will enhance current landscaping with the addition of trees and plantings. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board? None heard. Jamin Totino stated 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 on Part II of the SEQRA Full Environmental Assessment Form I move that the project will not result in any large or important impact and therefore is one that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based on this I move to make a SEQRA negative declaration for this action. Seconded by Dan Gaba. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor: D. Gaba, in favor; S. Cleary, in favor; C. VanWagner, in favor Absent: A. Durland Motion passes: 6-0. Clifford VanWagner, Chairman stated now we have site plan. We have just received some information on landscaping and buffering, which is an important part of this. We have spoken about the drainage. There will be some gravel which will be somewhat permeable. Mr. McNearny stated that his client, would like blacktop as you get closer to the facility for cleanliness. The engineer has indicated that the disturbance for their project is well outside the 100 foot buffer for the Army Corp. There is no disturbance there. We have clearance on the butterfly issue. Are there any questions or comments from the Board on the site plan? Dan Gaba stated he has a question with regards to one of the public works comments. In the vehicle washing area, are there floor drains which separate water and oil? The agent Bob Osterhout, Creighton Manning Engineering stated they were aware of this and this was one of the city engineer’s comments as well. Anyone in the audience wishing to comment on the site plan review for this application? None heard. Dan Gaba made a motion for approval of the site plan as presented. Seconded by Mike Perkins. No further questions or comments from the Board. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 8, 2010 - Page 10 of 16 VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Cleary, in favor; Clifford VanWagner, in favor; Absent: A. Durland Motion passes 6-0. 6. 10.035 SLACK CHEMICAL-PROPOSED NORTH WAREHOUSE, 21 Grande Boulevard review of site plan for warehouse in the General Industrial District. Applicant: Slack Chemical Company Agent: Frank Palumbo, CT Male Associates, P.C. DISCLOSURES: None. The Planning Board back in 2006 granted special use permit and site plan approval to allow up to 3,800 sq. ft. of outdoor storage of empty pallets and containers. In May of 2008 the Planning Board amended site plan for construction of an accessory structure. We are now being asked to consider site plan to enclose and add some storage space. Agent, Frank Palumbo, Ct Male Associates, P.C., and also present is Stuart Field, the owner of Slack Chemcial. We are planning at the existing site the expansion of a 9,375 sq. ft warehouse. This will be a warehouse for more efficient storage on site. As you have already noted we have been here before for some outdoor storage. This will just continue the operation as is but give more practical storage for the business. The site is still well underdeveloped. We are well below all the allowable densities on the site. There will be no new truck traffic. This is the same number of vehicles will be entering and exiting the site. This does not increase the flow to the site. Most of those vehicles are traveling off peak hours. We have met and received a letter from DEC regarding the Karner Blue Butterfly which in each one of our applications in the past has come up and we received from DEC notice that they do not see an impact from the project as it has been developed to this point. Other factors, it is all crushed stone where the vehicles will be adding to get to the warehouse so there will be no new asphalt on the site. Stormwater management plan has been reviewed by Mr. Male, and we believe we have provided all the answers to the initial comments and that was resubmitted for his final review. Philip Klein asked the agent for the applicant to reiterate exactly what will be stored at the additional space? Mr. Field the owner of Slack Chemicals stated the type of products that will be stored are a lot of bagged products particularly ice and snow melts in the winter, lime and soda ash, bicarbonate soda and things of that nature. That is part of our current product line. This will allow us to expand those types of products into this warehouse. These items are palletized bagged material. Mr. Fields explained they do have a number of plastic drums on site. Those products are used for swimming pools and are cocooned in the winter, cleaned wrapped and prepared for the next year stored in the most recent expansion. The other thing which is very important for the Board to know is that the entire building will be a containment area. It has been designed much like the original building that we have so that everything flows down into the building. If there were a liquid product, the building itself would hold something approaching 80,000 gallons the way it is designed, whether it be a spill of dry product or if it be some residue from a drum, it will be contained inside the building. There is no way it can leave the building. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 8, 2010 - Page 11 of 16 Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman questioned Mr. Fields regarding if those containers are filled at the site? Mr. Fields stated yes we do. Dan Gaba questioned in the new storage facility is there some sort of a venting system if something were to spill? Mr. Fields stated there is no ventilation other than the doors. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked the chemicals that are being stored fairly non hazardous? Mr. Fields stated they are all non hazardous chemicals. Mike Perkins stated Kathy O’Brien DEC recommended a 20 foot vegetative buffer betweent the building and the edge of the tree line. Mr. Palumbo, agent for the applicant stated it is maintained. There is one small location where a catch basin had to be placed. Her final statement was if the buffer along the north side of the project area is kept intact as I indicated then I do not forsee a negative impact to the Karner Blue butterfly from this project. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board? Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated in conversation with Ms. O’Brien today and she wanted to encourage a thickly vegetative barrier minimum 20 foot if at all possible between the tree line and the building. Mr. Palumbo stated we have shown that and we have no problem committing to that. What we were hoping for this evening is approval or a negative declaration and also if you would consider the site plan approval. We also have supplied revised information on proposed letter of credit amount as well to Mr. Male. SEQRA: Part I of the SEQRA short form was reviewed. No large or important impacts were identified. Jamin Totino stated based upon the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEQRA short environmental assessment form, and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part II of the SEQRA short environmental assessment form I find the project will not result in any large or important impact and is therefore one that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and wish to issue a SEQRA negative declaration for this action. Seconded by Mike Perkins. No further questions or comments from the Board regarding this motion. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor Absent: A. Durland Motion passes 6-0. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated now the Board will move forward to approve the site plan. This will be a 9,375 enclosed structure with containment in case of spill. It will not City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 8, 2010 - Page 12 of 16 increase the variety or types of chemicals. It will give the applicant the opportunity to store more in a protected environment. There are no hazardous chemicals being stored on site. Parking, buffering, etc., are on the site plan. There is no increase in traffic. Simply storage. Philip Klein requested a listing of the chemicals stored in the facility. Mr. Fields reiterated what was on the narrative, chlor-alkayde products, i.e., sodium hydroxide, aka, lye, caustic soda, sodium hypochloride and chlorine and various other products such as rock salt, calcium chloride i.e, snow melt products, and filter sand products. Lot of the products are on the store shelves and used in driveways or pools. They are non hazardous. The Board reviewed some of the departmental comments. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman questioned if anyone in the audience would like to comment on this application? None heard. Dan Gaba made a motion to accept the site plan application as presented for Slack Chemicals. Seconded by Jamin Totino. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor Absent: A. Durland Motion passes 6-0. 7. 10.038 SPA HOTEL II, LLC, 47 Excelsior Avenue, review of a site plan for banquet facility in the Transect-5 District. In 2006, the Planning Board approved a special use permit for a restaurant and banquet facility. In 2007, the Planning Board issued site plan approval, along with subsequent modifications through 2009. The applicant has now modified the proposal removing the connector bridge between the proposed building and existing hotel. The 16,752 sq. ft 2-story restaurant and banquet faciltiy will now stand alone but contain the restaurant and banquet facility as previously proposed. As the structure has changed, Architectural Review by the DRC is also required. SEQRA In July of 2006, the Planning Board issued a SEQRA negative declaration for a project that did include a banquet facility. In 2009 when the project was slightly altered this Planning Board reaffirmed the SEQRA negative declaration. It would appear that a reaffirmation of the SEQRA negative declaration for a smaller building same footprint would be the first item to be entertained in order to move to the site plan review. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Plannning and Economic Development suggested that the applicant give a small presentation to reaffirm the fact that the uses are equal if not less than previously presented. Applicant: Spa Hotel II, LLC Agent: John Lapper City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 8, 2010 - Page 13 of 16 DISCLOSURES: None. Mr. Lapper gave a small presentation to the Board, reaffirming the banquet facility is the same footprint, the same building the same parking lot and the same retaining wall in the back. The cost of the bridge and connecting it to the roof and having elevator banks unfortunately is more costly than can be justified. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman questioned accessibility to the banquet facility? Mr. Lapper stated the new banquet facility can be accessed by entering the hotel and taking an elevator down to the lower level and access a sidewalk to the new banquet room. Jamin Totino, Vice Chair advocated checking the slope of the sidewalk when exiting the hotel to ensure compliance with ADA standards for wheelchair access, if standards are not met, recommends adding additional handicapped parking spaces on the lower level parking area. A discussion ensued regarding parking availability, adequacy and convenience. Mr. Steve Overmeier spokesperson for the Spa Hotel II, LLC informed the Board that parking has not been an issue for the hotel. Dan Pattain, Architect with HCT Architects provided an aerial view of the project for the Board. Jamin Totino, Vice Chair made a motion to confirm the previous SEQRA negative declaration seconded by Dan Gaba. No further discussion by the Board. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor ABSENT: A. Durland Motion passes 6-0. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated since the two original lots were combined into 1 and the connector has been removed, the applicant is seeking a waiver from the Planning Board to permit more than 1 principal building on the lot. This is a technicality since the project was approved in its entirety, now the connecting link has been removed. There is no negative impact to the City. No questions or comments from the staff. Michael Perkins made a motion to permit more than 1 principal building on the lot. Seconded by Suzanne Cleary. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor Absent: A. Durland Motion passes 6-0. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman reviewed with the Board Article 240-5.4(F) necessary for site plan review. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 8, 2010 - Page 14 of 16 The Board did recommend some buffering on the west side of the parking lot. Also concern was raised regarding the amount of green space in the area. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development interjected that the sidewalk is being extended so that it meets up with the crosswalk. There is no street light at the crossing portion. A light is recommended at the crosswalk to Warren Street for safety reasons, per the recommendation of Principal Planner Kate Maynard. The applicant has agreed to the addition of the street light at Warren Street. No further questions or comments from the Board. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman questioned if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application? None heard. Philip Klein made a motion to approve the site plan as amended, seconded by Jamin Totino. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor Absent: A. Durland Motion passes 6-0. 8. 10.037 SARATOGA ROWING ASSOCIATION SCULLING PAVILION, 543 Union Avenue, advisory opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals for sculling pavilion in the Interlaken Planned Unit Development District. Applicant: Saratoga Rowing Association Agent: Bill Thompson, Thompson Fleming Land Surveyors Eric Catalano, Executive Director for Saratoga Rowing DISCLOSURES: Michael Perkins disclosed his wife and daughter are members of SRA. He does not have any financial interest in the application and will not impact his ability to be objective. Therefore, no need to recuse. Dan Gaba, disclosed his children row. He does not have any financial interest in the application and will not impact his ability to be objective. Therefore no need to recuse. Advisory Opinion request from the Zoning Board, for approval of 2,400 square foot sculling pavilion on the siting of the structure. Mr. Thompson stated the Saratoga Rowing Association is proposing to build a sculling pavilion. The proposed area is close to the water for ease in launching boats. There is a small berm and some trees in that area which we are looking to save and we wanted to put the sculling pavilion between the trees and the property line to the Saratoga Boatworks. The setback is 10 feet, we would need a variance with 6 feet of relief for a 4 foot setback. It would be five feet from the property line to the building but there would be a one foot overhand on the building. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 8, 2010 - Page 15 of 16 Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, questioned if the updated NYS DOT drainage easement had been obtained? Mr. Thompson said they are currently working through the process with NYS DOT. This sculling pavilion will be totally enclosed cold storage of sculls. There will be electricity to provide lighting only. The thought currently is to build the structure on piers with leveled timber floor and timber ramp, grading minimal with no need for retaining wall and grading. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman informed the Board the Advirsory Opinion is non binding. The site currently is being used for outside activities with the boats now. It is probably the only use that is compatible with what exists there today. It is obvious that the Saratoga Boat Works is working with you. Letter from Saratoga Boatworks stating approval for the pavilion as well as a letter from the Homeowners Association of Regatta View also giving their approval. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman questioned if there was a motion granting an positive advisory opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the siting of the proposed 2400 square foot sculling pavillion. Suzanne Cleary made a motion to grant a positive advisory opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the siting of the proposed 2400 square foot sculling pavilion. Seconded by Dan Gaba. No further discussion by the Board. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor Absent: A. Durland Motion passes 6-0. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Clifford Van Wagner adjourned the meeting at 10:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 9/29/10 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 8, 2010 - Page 16 of 16