Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Clifford Van Wagner, Chair; Jamin Totino, Vice-Chair; Amy Durland; Michael Perkins; Dan Gaba; Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary ABSENT: Philip Klein STAFF: Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning & Economic Development Kate Maynard, Principal Planner City of Saratoga Springs CALL TO ORDER: Chair Clifford Van Wagner called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING Clifford Van Wagner said the proceedings of this meeting are being taped for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. REPORT ON ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS BY THE CHAIR 10.015.1 POSIE PEDDLER, 92 West Avenue, action to: - Demolish and rebuild rear room of existing building within same footprint and per approved site plan - Add an accessory deck to southeast corner of same rear room, used to support a flower cooler - Install a 10’ high fence around deck and dumpster Action: Approved 10.016.2 SARATOGA EAGLE, 45 Duplainville Road, action to: - Construct additional 8,400 square foot concrete slab loading dock to rear of site to serve previously approved warehouse expansion. - Install retaining wall north of site. Action: Approved ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADJOURNED PROJECTS ADJOURNED AT APPLICANT’S REQUEST 09.038.1 MEADOWVISTA SUBDIVISION, 520-546 Grand Avenue, extension of 21 lot subdivision in the Rural Residential-1 District. (Adjourned to October 13, 2010). ADJOURNED – 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 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, October 11, 2010 at 4:00 PM. Next Planning Board Workshop, Scheduled for Monday, October 11, 2010 at 5:00 PM. Next Planning Board Meeting, Scheduled for Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 7:00 PM. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR: Opportunity for citizens in the audience to address planning issues not on tonight’s agenda. WALLY BERGER, 10 Cleveland Avenue, Saratoga Springs. Expressed concern related to access onto Cleveland Avenue from McKenzie’w Way an existing approved subdivision. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated that his concerns will be discussed with staff. Either Kate or Brad would look into it and be in touch with him. LETTERS OF CREDIT: City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 29, 2010 - Page 2 of 15  1. 00.0051.2 HERITAGE MANOR SUBDIVISION, 29 Buff Road. Applicant: Belmonte Builders This subdivision was approved 07/20/2001. Last credit revision was approved 03/31/2009. Currently requesting reduction from $117,900 to $21,950. The original letter of credit for subdivision was $550,685 and was reduced to $117,900 on 09/12/2005. The current letter of credit is already $19,800 less than allowable letter of credit limit. The City Engineer has recommended the current amount of $117,900 should be retained. Currently requesting an 18 month extension to April 1, 2012. Jamin Totino made a motion to extend the letter of credit in the amount of $117,900 to April 1, 2012. Dan Gaba seconded the motion. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor ABSENT: P. Klein Motion passes 6-0. 2. 04.069.2 MEADOW BROOK SUBDIVISION, PHASE IV, 131 Meadowbrook Road Applicant: Belmonte Builders – no one appeared before the Board for this application. This subdivision was approved 10/24/04, and 12/07/05. Letter of credit curently is for $169,100. The applicant is requesting a two year extension. The maximum allowed is 18 months. DISCLOSURE: Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, disclosed that he does live in that area. No reason to recuse. Michael Perkins made a motion to extend the letter of credit in the amount of $169,100 to April 1, 2012. Jamin Totino seconded the motion. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor ABSENT: P. Klein Motion passes 6-0. APPLICATIONS: 1. 10.023 WEST SIDE STADIUM CAFÉ, 112 Congress Street, site plan review of new porch addition in the Transect-6 District; and 2. 10.022 KDI PROPERTIES, 104-106 Congress Street, site plan review of new mixed use building in the Transect-6 District. Applicant: Daniel Snyder, KDI Properties, LLC Agent: Michael Toohey SEQRA: City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 29, 2010 - Page 3 of 15 On June 9, 2010 the Planning Board issued a SEQRA Negative declaration of environmental significance for the combined project (porch and new mixed use building). This property is within a T-6 zone. No parking is required. The applicant is proposing to include a total of 12 spaces in conjunction with adjacent property under the same owner (West Side Stadium Cafe). The proposed new building is 3 stores high. The 3rd floor is stepped back to a two story height along the front facade, and stepped back to 2 story height along a portion of the rear of the building. Adjacent properties to the east and west are two story stuctures. Access to the 2nd and 3rd floors is a doorway on Congress Street facade. The property is adjacent to the Westside National Register District and is in proximity to the Gideon Putnam Cemetary, a City “landmark” property. Architectural review and approval by the DR is also required. On June 9, 2010, the last appearance at the Planning Board the Board requested additional information. Clarification on the intended hours of operation for the porch addition? Alternative locations for the dumpster/shed currently proposed along S. Franklin St. More attention to green area and buffer along Congress Street north and west of proposed building and in front of parking. Street trees along Congress Street and a tree along South Franklin Street, streetlights, and the portion of the property which extends into the pavement of South Franklin Street possibility of conveying to the City. Paul Male, City Engineer, issued a memo recommending extending the existing public sanitary sewer line and it’s location. Agent: Michael Toohey, provided a visual presentation to the Board. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, asked if the Board had any questions or comments. Discussion ensued regarding fencing in this area, and the Board agreed that a shorter more aesthetically pleasing fencing should be placed on the west side of the property. Amy Durland, questioned the screening of the parking lot, near Congress Street. On Congress Street, by regulation it needs to be screened by a street wall or continuous hedge between 31/2 and 4 feet in height. Are the hedges continuous? The applicant stated that the hedging was almost continuous, and he will plant to ensure that the city regulation is met. Jamin Totino, stated that if the applicant placed 4 foot high fencing on the north side and 6 foot decorative fencing on the west side and shrubs, this is the same type of fencing by the cemetery. Across the street there is a pocket park that also has the same type of fencing, that would bring a nice tie in to the whole neighborhood. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman questioned the applicant as to the intended hours of operation for the outdoor dining on the porch addition? The applicant answered outdoor dining would be available until approximately 10:00 PM. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated two street trees along Congress Street, and one street light along South Franklin Street. Street lights need to be added along Congress and South Franklin. A portion of the porperty extends out into the pavement of South Franklin Street. This is an apportunity to convey this to the City? City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 29, 2010 - Page 4 of 15 The applicant will take this under consideration. Any further questions or comments from the Board? Jamin Totino would like to review the impact on the building that now houses Legends Cafe. When you lay the foundation for the new building, how will that be done? How is the foundation of the building that houses Legends is going to be protected? What happens if that becomes damaged? The applicant stated, a wall will be built next to the Legends Cafe, to help stabilize it. We have looked at it, spoken to the owners, and will work very closely with them. Amy Durland requested clarification of the entrance on Congress Street and if any of the proposed parking space will be dedicated to the residential units? The applicant clarified the entrance on Congress Street and also stated one parking space for each rental unit will be designated for residential parking. Anyone in the audience wishing to comment on the Site Plan for the deck proposal for the West Side Stadium Cafe or the the mixed use building on Congress Street? None heard. Clifford Van W agner, Chairman, stated this is for site plan approval for a new porch addition on the south side of the West Side Stadium Cafe. The conditions that we have spoken about are to put a decorative six foot high fence with decorate shrubs placed on the outside of the fence along the west property line behind the deck. 10:00 PM hour of operation for outside dining. Also, decorative fencing which mimics that of the fencing on the cemetery. Jamin Totino made a motion to approve site plan approval of a new porch addition in the Transect-6 District. Seconded by Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary. Any further discussion. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor ABSENT: P. Klein Motion passes 6-0. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated the second action is the request for site plan review of a miixed use building in the Transect-6 District. The applicant is keeping 12 parking spaces. A continuous hedge not less than 3 ½ feet to be immediately planted on the north side of parking space one. A decorative 4 foot height decorative fence installed behind the plantings. Greenspace is in existence on the south side of the fence on the north side of the parking lot. The applicant has moved the dumpsters to the rear of the site. Note that the sanitary sewer line will upon further review by staff will be reviewed but the information we have from the applicant is that is indeed a new 4” line on the site which connects to a 6” line in a southerly direction off site and that is a new line. We need an cross lot easment. Street trees every 40 feet off center. Street lights per code. Sidewalks are already in place. Any further questions or comments from the Board? City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 29, 2010 - Page 5 of 15 Dan Gaba made a motion to approve site plan of a new mixed use building in the Transect-6 District. Seconded by Jamin Totino. Any further discussion. Amy Durland stated she is not going to support this motion for the reasons that she explained in great detail several meetings ago. As she has stated on the record and fairly abundantly, she believes that the ordinance indicates that all lots should have frontage on a street and the main building entrances should face the street and be easily identifiable and scaled to the size of the building they front and she thinks as she has indicated before that the prinicipal is that you really don’t want to put parking in front of a main entrance to a building. The fact that the parking, as laudable as it is, has been provided although that is mitigated against the loss of some parking spaces for the residential owners. She does not think that the fact that people will be leaving the commercial establishments to face a line of parking is consistent with the transect zones or certainly not the T-6. There could have been a way to reconfigure the building and to make it front more of Congress Street and have the parking in the back. If it had been redesigned in that manner it would have been a better project and because site plan includes design within the perview of the Planning Board, She will not support it. In addition, she does have concerns about the ambiguity of the sanitary sewer issue given the City Engineer’s comments. So, for those reasons she will not be supporting this motion. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor;M. Perkins, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor OPPOSED: A. Durland, opposed ABSENT: P. Klein Motion passes 5-1. 3. 10.032 CHLOE’S WAY SUBDIVISION, East Broadway near Garfield Street, public hearing on 31 lot subdivision in the Urban Residential-2 District. This is a continuation of a public hearing on a 31 lot subdivision in a UR-2 District along East Broadway near Garfield Street. We have had several hearings on this project. We have had sketch plans and we have again asked the applicant to return to us with additional information. This Board has visited the site several additional times. Most recently at a caravan on Monday afternoon. Items include the buffers around the perimeter of the proposed subdivision, the type of fencing on the west property line which would separate the potential sub division from the state park lands, The treatment of the existing pavement known as East Broadway both its current condition and width. The concern regarding interior buffers inside the horseshoe for those parcels and also the adjacent neighbors expressed concerns regarding the lack of sidewalks along East Broadway. In that time frame the applicant has met with staff and has made some changes. City Engineer is aware that the applicant has requested a waiver from preparing a full SWPPP report because the disturbance is less than 5 acres. The City Engineer indicated that is acceptable, as long as the no cut buffers are intact. The applicant is proposing a special assessment district functioning as a drainage district, this would require City Council approval and oversight. Applicant: Stephen Ethier Agent: Brett Steenburgh, Engineer DISCLOSURES: City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 29, 2010 - Page 6 of 15 None. SEQRA: This is a Type I action requiring coordinated review among “involved” agencies as NYS-DOH has created its own list of Type I actions including this “realty subdivision”. NYS-DOH is the only other involved agency. Applicant has submitted SEQRA Full EAF as required. The NYS-DOH, has deferred SEQRA Lead Agency status to the Planning Board. Mr. Steenburg stated the applicant was before the Board two weeks ago and the Board had some questions. In the meantime we have met with the City Engineer. We are proposing reconstruction for East Broadway to Cleveland Avenue and to the westerly access to Chloe’s Way. The applicant is proposing pavement width of 20 feet which is the standard for a one way street, with no parking on both sides. The pavement will meet with City Standards for a roadway. The sidewalks will be extended from Chloe’s Way all the way to Cleveland Avenue including two additional parcels. (Includes this subdivision and McKenzie’s Way approvals). This will provide an opportunity to extend sidewalks and complete the pedestrian connection on East Broadway to the park, avoid gaps the would remain or be the City’s to construct. Sidewalks will be the City’s standard size sidewalks. Additionally we discussed the right of way to the state lands. Originally we proposed an easement. The applicant has chosen to offer up a five foot deeded right of way to the state lands. We would be planting some plantings along this deeded right of way. There is very little vegetation in this area. We are proposing a split rail fence along this five foot right of way and along all the properties boardering the state lands. Discussion of inadequate buffer in this no cut buffer zone. We will augment plantings with white pines approximately 5 to 6 feet high 15 foot on center in a saw tooth pattern to provide a more adequate buffer where the vegetation is very limited. Questions or comments from the Board? Amy Durland questioned less than 5 acres being able to exempt from a full SWPPP. What about that five acres is it open space? Not cleared? Left in its natural state. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated as far as part of this project right now they are not clearing that portion between the 25 foot rear no cut buffer and the identified tree line. They are not clearing this to stay below the 5 acre area. In the future the property owner does have the option whether to leave it or to change it, but cannot encroach on the 25 foot no cut buffer zone. Amy Durland questioned how will you convey to the property owners that a 25 foot no cut buffer zone exists? The applicant stated it would be clearly delineated on the subdivision plot, on the survey and within the deed as a deed restriction. Amy Durland stated she really would prefer to see more effective ways of ensuring that property owners understand the restrictions on their properties some type of information sheet, or instructions regarding the no cut buffer zone not just on the deed. Amy feels that some property owners do not read their deed. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated there is one additional option that you might use is posting. Very often for protected lands they will post City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 29, 2010 - Page 7 of 15 approximately 10 feet high within that tree, similar to a no trespassing sign a no cut sign. This is fine with the applicant. Any further questions or comments from the Board? PUBLIC HEARING: Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated this public hearing has been kept open. We will now open up this portion of the meeting for comments from the public. A request is that if you had commented at the last meeting or prior meetings all those comments are part of the permanent record and there is not reason to repeat these comments. Wallace Berger, 10 Cleveland Avenue. Our main concerns are traffic. Safety concerns regarding children playing and people walking. Also a concern regarding the high water table. Judy Coca, 7 Cleveland Avenue. I have no buffer by my home. Additional plantings perhaps in this area, even though Mr. Ethier was not the builder, would be appreciated. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked Mr. Ethier if he would be willling to satisfy this neighbor and plant a few more white pines in the southerly direction for a few more propety owners. Mr. Ethier was more than agreeable to accomodate the neighborhood residents. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman began the discussion regarding fencing. Questions arose regarding split rail fencing all the way around the whole perimeter, and no chain link fencing at all. The developer is in agreement with placing split rail fencing around the entire perimeter and white pines along the east property line. Kendra Homburger, 3 East Broadway. I was speaking to the Planning Board regarding doing away with sidewalk in front of my house. I have two large pine trees in front of my house. I would like to know exactly where the proposed sidewalks will be going. Val Woods, 55 Doten Avenue. I am wondering about sidewalk proposal and where they will be going. I strongly object to having sidewalks. Amy Stock, 11 East Broadway. I have spoken with Steve, and Kate and Brad. I have two large trees in front of my home and I wonder if there could be some creative design around those two trees. I am looking to save at least one of those trees. Perhaps we could have a regulation regarding parking. Another concern is traffic flow. Wally Berger, 10 Cleveland Avenue. I want to clarify my numbers. These 31 houses are part of approximately 60 homes that are going to be built in this neighborhood. Shaw Development, McKenzie Way, and a number of vacant lots on East Broadway itself. Right now on East Broadway there are ten houses that have access to that. Now we are going to have 60 more aded to that. Nobody can deny that there is going to be a significant change in the traffic pattern in this area. Would like a professional traffic engineer to study the impacts of all the development in this area. Bob Nielsen, 7 Cleveland Avenue. I am impressed and pleased with what Mr. Ethier has proposed tonight. Down Doten into East Broadway has been used as a cut through to access the Racino. What is the City’s part in this. Will they do West Broadway and Doten which both need work. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 29, 2010 - Page 8 of 15 Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman and Bradley Birge, Admininstrator Planning and Economic Development both advised homeowners to contact the Commissioner of Public Works. PUBLIC HEARING: The public hearing remains open. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated there are concessions by the contractor, the interior of the horseshoe has been identified to have a 50 foot deed restricted, no cut buffer. Proposal to improve and widen East Broadway from its western end easterly to Cleveland Avenue to improve it to a 20 foot width, and basically mill it and bring it up to City’s standards. 25 foot deed restricted no cut buffers around the perimeter to be noted on each individual survey. Additional plantings of white pine trees along and up to the first three properties to the south of East Broadway. A split rail fence proposed to go on the east side and the west side. On the west side some sort of impenetrable mesh along fencing. Street trees and street lights according to City’s standards. Interior sidewalks on Chloe’s Way on both sides. Applicant will also install a 5 foot wide sidewalk on the south side of East Broadway from the state park and all the way up to Cleveland Avenue. The applicant will work with the owner of 11 East Broadway in an attempt to maintain large trees on the property in order to continue the sidewalk. Signage along the no cut buffer. Amy Durland stated according to Kathy O’Brien’s letter the information sent did not include a site plan for the development of the parcels, therefore she could not specifically comment on potential impacts. She recommend the developers of this subdivision engage her office and Office of Parks in consultation prior to offering a finished site plan to the City Planning Board. Steven Ethier, applicant and developer stated when he received her communication he certified her a map of the subdivision. Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated he also reached out to Kathy O’Brien before the last meeting, per the Board’s request and she indicated that her concerns were more about ATV access and animals crossing back and forth. Amy Durland stated that she does still have several concerns and she certainly senses that Steve Ethier has made significant effort to reach out to the neighbors and to try to address their concerns to the extent possible, and that is greatly appreciated. There are several issues. She is becoming convinced that a traffic study isn’t a bad idea given the accumulative effect of the development in this area. It has to do with the fact that the development in this area is somewhat confused. It is an urban development and yet every effort is being made by the people in the area to keep it rural. We are getting rural road widths, that do not allow parking. We are getting an urban design but it is not in a grid pattern. It is urban development but we are creating rural buffers to try to seclude the project from the rest of the neighborhood because people are interested in trying to retain some rural feel. There is some confusion about traffic. Some of the issues, such as road widths, such as whether parking should be allowed or not, and also signage. She is really not happy with the fact that the SWPPP has been waived given that the criteria was that there would be under five acres of no cut buffers proposed when already it seems to me that some of those no cut areas are compromised. She is not blaming the developer, but she has a hard time with the idea that the SWPPP is being waived, because it is determined it isn’t needed as long as there is under five acres of disturbance, when the no cut buffers are highly questionably in my mind and even with the signs, but she believes and City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 29, 2010 - Page 9 of 15 has a hard time believing that those neighbors aren’t going to be wanting a larger back yard and it doesn’t matter what markers are up. This is a configuration or a design that not likely to succeed in the long run. The letter of this requirement is being met, it seems that the point of it to exempt a SWPPP in an area that apparently has drainage and flooding issues it makes no sense to her. I just want to say that these are lingering concerns. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated, Paul Male, City Engineer who is our SWPPP person is ok with this. City Engineer, Paul Male, is the certified SWPPP engineer in the City of Saratoga Springs, and he has indicated that it is acceptable to give a waiver from preparing a full SWPPP. Amy Durland, stated this is not a criticism of the City Engineer, but she is obligated as a Board member to have her own observation which is the disturbance that is being discussed is a basis for that seems to be tenuous. Mike Perkins does not understand where it appears tenuous. It appears that he is disturbing less than 5 acres. If you disturb less than 5 acres you do not need a SWPPP. We are talking about a no cut buffer. It sounds like we are saying just because it does not have trees on it that it shouldn’t count. It is not being disturbed. He doesn’t think those areas have been disturbed. It is not a question about whether there are a lot of trees on the buffer, but whether it is disturbed. It is 4.88 acres, less than five. You have the State that sets the limit in certain areas and the applicant has abided by that. He doesn’t see how we can force him to do a SWPPP. Jamin Totino stated in one point he agrees with Amy on is with regard to the traffic piece. He thinks some of the neighbors brought this up and I don’t think it should be tagged to this particular project. Is there a need for a traffic study in this area, he is not sure, but how does the City deal with that as a global issue? Is that just under the comprehensive plan under the zoning requirements or is there more to it? Bradley Birge, Administrator, Planning and Economic Development stated the way it is handled is basically project by project. Certainly the City has the ability to do it on a larger scale and that is done through a particular study for a particular reason. It can be done on a wider scale. One of the things that you as a Planning Board is to evaluate that this is part of the urban structure, so the network is already designed and the City already has the right of way to accomodate road widths, to accomodate this level of density within that. To what extent do you then trim that or tailor that based upon the needs of this development. You have in the past and in this instance looked at allowing lesser street widths, that is going to contract and make it more restrictive as well. Some of the larger traffic considerations are reviewed by Traffic Safety, through the Department of Traffic Safety. Very often they will recommend four way stops, or signage of some sort as part of their recommendations as they feel it is necessary. The larger traffic mechanisms such as streets lights are for much larger higher traffic areas. It is just not for this scale. Traffic safety has reviewed all of this and you can see their recommendations and they do look at that. Jamin Totino stated in response to some of the other points Amy brought up, one of the other things that I also wrestled with was the streeet width in relation to no parking on it, because we typically do agree on some of those issues when you’re looking to create an urban environment you are looking to create a grid as much as possible. The reason why we feel like this particular case this presents a unique challenge in that it not only borders the park, but also borders another development that didn’t have paper streets and also had a loop. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 29, 2010 - Page 10 of 15 Amy Durland asked the applicant/developer if he can identify any hours of the day construction can take place. This is a long period of time for the neighbors to deal with construction. Do you have any thoughts or comments on how to mitigate that? Also, I just want to be assured that there will be no pesticides or herbicides used in this project, as indicated in the SEQRA document. Steve Ethier, applicant and developer stated we are going in develop this area in phases. We are not going to go in and clear cut. We will go in a clear enough to put in about nine or ten houses. The market is tough right now. We will adhere to the noise ordinance. SEQRA: Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman questioned if anyone has any questions regarding Part I of SEQRA. PART I Regarding Part I of SEQRA is complete to the Planning Board’s satisfaction noting the time and phasing is based on market conditions. PART II No large or important impacts were noted. Jamin Totino based upon the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEQRA full Environmental Assessment Form and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part II of the SEQRA Full Environmental Assessment Form. I 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. Based on this I move to make a SEQRA negative declaration for this action. Seconded by Michael Perkins. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor OPPOSED: A. Durland, opposed ABSENT: P. Klein Motion passes 5-1. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated we have a request for a 31 lot subdivision in the Urban Residential-2 District. We are pleased that the applicant has made concessions based upon what the neighbors have requested such as sidewalks, he has agreed to improve the overall construction of East Broadway, put the buffers in, put the fences in, include interior buffers. Mr. Etheir appears to have an open door policy and if there are any questions or concerns, you should keep in contact with him. Any further discussion by the Board? Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman moved that the application for a subdivision Chloe’s Way be approved with the congtingency that the 20’ foot width of East Broadway be acceptable to other departments in the City. Seconded by Jamin Totino. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 29, 2010 - Page 11 of 15 VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor OPPOSED: A. Durland, opposed ABSENT: P. Klein Motion passes 5-1. The Board recessed at 10:00 PM The Board reconvened at 10:10 PM Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary, Board member left at 10:00 PM. 3. 10.039 WASHINGTON COMMONS, Washington Street and Central Avenue, public hearing for a special use permit for a mixed use building in the Transect-4 District. and 4. 10.040 WASHINGTON COMMONS, Washington Street and Central Avenue, sketch plan discussion of a mixed use building in the Transect-4 District. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated the public hearing for special use permit was noticed. Also the Board will be looking at sketch plan this evening as well. Applicant: Stephen Ethier Agent: Brett Steenburgh Architect: Bob Landsburg Brett Steenburgh began with a brief overview of the Washington Commons project. Washington Commons is a 1.48 acre parcel located along Washington Avenue just to the East of West Avenue. Proposed to construct 3 principal buildings separated by courtyards and accessory garages. Each building will have 5,000 square foot of office space, for a total of $15,000 square foot of office space/retail space. Each building will have 4 residential units for a total of 12 residential units on the site. They will be on the second floor. There will be 12 garages on site and 65 open air parking spaces will be provided. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated regarding the waiver for parking. We will be seeking an opinion from Mark Schactner to see if that is indeed what is needed and for more clarification regarding the fact that parking is not permitted in the side and rear setback areas. Parking quantity and location shown will be likely impacted by the 24’ rear setback. Mr. Landsburg, Architect, and structural engineer gave a visual presentation to the Board of the project. Steve Ethier, applicant and developer of the property. As Cliff said earlier we are just trying to take the T-4 information and try to interpret it the best as I can. I had some brief conversations with Brad. We are just trying to get it going, down the right path. The T-4 in my opinion we are trying to blend with the residential. Minimize the cuts from washington avenue so we are only proposing one all the way to the east and one out to Central Avenue. We are trying to lay out the buffers for the neighbors to the north and brought the buildings right up on the corner. We are open to any suggestions from the Board. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 29, 2010 - Page 12 of 15 Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated that the point Kate brought up really drives a good portion of this on the front end which is how do we as a Board react to the request for parking on the west side and also a few spots on the east side. How we can move along on the sketch plan egress and ingress and the things that you are talking about is really going to be determined by your conversation with Mark Schactner. We can move along if he says it is a Planning Board waiver. If its a zoning board request you will need to be advised of that as well. Discussion ensued regarding courtyards, parking, buildouts, garages, egress and ingress. This application requires Saratoga County Planning Board input and has been sent to them for their review. They have 30 days to respond. Jim Butkus, 9 Outlook Avenue. I have a few concerns. I like the buffer area. I also have concern regarding the dumpsters. Question regarding sidewalks in the area. Staff will research the lack of sidewalks in this area. Amy Durland stated she is not concerned about the three buildings being too many, because this is a T-4 zone and she is more interested in making sure it complies with the philosophy and design sense that you get from the T-4. The T-4 standard talks about the block grid typical of the existing urban areas accessed by alley ways. This is an ununusual situation, where she actually thinks the design of the building is extremely important because in some ways it doesn’t lend itself to having a bunch of different single family homes or even multi-family homes back there. How they look, how the facades look and hopefully DRC encourages a little variation in the design of the building so that it doesn’t look blocky and just three big buildings. The other thing is pedestrian access seems extremely important especially since you are planning on office and retail. How this project relates to pedestrians is something she will be keeping an eye out for. General feeling is that this is okay for now. Mike Perkins stated they spoke about the courtyards as optional designs but he would caution the applicant to still be cognizant of the build out requirements in our zoning ordinance. Whatever changes you make just try to keep the buildout so you do not require a variance. Jamin Totino reiterated what Amy stated regarding pedestrian traffic, and just finding ways and how inordinately important that is. The Kamen Center around the corner, right wrong or indifferent, had trouble pulling in business and the coffee shop has done reasonably well partly because of the student base out of the high school. One of their challenges is the parking in the back which is of course encourage and what we want in a T-4 district but the more pedestrian friendly you can make it, that does have to do with the walkable connectivity especially to the new neighborhood. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman spoke regarding increasing the number of garages and the size, there is no set back issues, and no zoning issues. More income, more space for storage. PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing for special use permit will remain open. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated hopefull this has given the applicant some direction. That is the intent of the sketch plan, it is non binding. You are entitled to at least one more sketch plan review. If you request an additional sketch plan that can be granted as well. When the applicants are ready to return to the Board they should contact staff and request to be placed on the agenda. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 29, 2010 - Page 13 of 15 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated he will entertain a motion to approve the following minutes with changes as submitted: June 9, 2010 AYES: J. Totino, A. Durland, D. Gaba, C. Van Wagner ABSTAIN: M. Perkins. ABSENT: P. Klein, S. Cleary Motion carries 4-1. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated he will entertain a motion to approve the following minutes with changes as submitted: July 14, 2010 AYES: J. Totino, A. Durland, M. Perkins, D. Gaba, C. Van Wagner ABSENT: P, Klein, S. Cleary Motion carries 4-0 Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated he will entertain a motion to approve the following minutes with changes as submitted: July 28, 2010 AYES: J. Totino, A. Durland, D. Gaba, C. Van Wagner ABSTAIN: M. Perkins. ABSENT: P. Klein, S. Cleary Motion carries 4-0 Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated he will entertain a motion to approve the following minutes with changes as submitted: September 8, 2010-10-09 AYES: J. Totino, M. Perkins, D. Gaba, C. Van Wagner ABSTAIN: A. Durland ABSENT: P. Klein, S. Cleary Motion carries 4-1. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 29, 2010 - Page 14 of 15 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Clifford Van Wagner adjourned the meeting at 11:10 PM. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved 10/27/10 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – September 29, 2010 - Page 15 of 15