Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 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; Michael Perkins; Philip Klein; Dan Gaba LATE ARRIVAL: Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary arrived at 7:05 PM STAFF: Kate Maynard, Principal Planner SALUTE TO THE FLAG ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING Clifford Van Wagner said the proceedings of this meeting are being taped for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. REPORT ON ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS BY THE CHAIR There are no actions by the chair. POSTPONED PROJECTS 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 23, 2010 at 4:00 PM. Next Planning Board Workshop, Scheduled for Monday, October 23, 2010 at 5:00 PM. Next Planning Board Meeting, Scheduled for Wednesday, October 25, 2010 at 7:00 PM. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR: Opportunity for citizens in the audience to address planning issues not on tonight’s agenda. None heard. 1. 09.038.1 MEADOWVISTA SUBDIVISION, 520-546 Grand Avenue, extension of 21-lot subdivision in the Rural Residential-1 District. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated this subdivision was approved July 9, 2008 by this Board. On September 9, 2009 a 12 month extension was granted and we are now being asked to consider another 12 month subdivision extension to September 9, 2011. Applicant: New York Development Group, LLC Attorney Mike Toohey The idea for this subdivision being the largest conservation subdivision approved by this Board in the City of Saratoga Springs has not changed. What has changed is the economy of New York State and this area making it very difficult to move forward with opening a specialized subdivision such as this. Their intention is to continue to stay with the project, continue to attempt to market it, continue to push this forward because the good idea that you approved in 2008 is still a good idea in 2010 and will be a good idea in 2011. We hope the economy gets better for this type of subdivision. All the plans have stayed the same, there has not been any drastic change in the area where this is located. There has not been a change in the relationship with regard to the dedication of the lands for public purpose or them being accepted as was originally laid out. The only thing that has not come to fruition is the economy that will allow a specialized 21 lot subdivision and the associated costs that go with that. It is my clients intention to move forward within this one year time period. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated an 18 month extension is allowed here. Is there any reason why you would not want to take advantage of the full extension? Mr. Toohey stated the applicants will accept the 18 month extension. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated we have a request for an 18 month extension on a prior approved 21 lot subdivision on Meadowbrook Road. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to comment on this application? City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 13, 2010 page 2 of 10 None heard. Jamin Totino made a motion to approve an 18 month extension on the Meadowvista Subdivision. Suzanne Cleary seconded the motion. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor Motion passes 7-0. 2. 10.046 SHAFER SUBDIVISION, 718 North Broadway, subdivision extension in the Urban Residential-1 and Urban Residential-2 Districts. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated the subdivision approval was granted October 28, 2009. Request is for a 12-month extension of approval. The applicant does have the right to an 18 month extension. No modification to approved plans being proposed with this request. The applicant wishes to accept the 18 month extension. Applicant: Susan Shafer Ms. Shafer stated the reason for the delay is her house is not sold. Her intention was to sell the main house, and then renovate the carriage house to live in. The market being what it is, it simply hasn’t happened yet. Anyone in the audience wishing to comment on this application? None heard. Dan Gaba made a motion to approve an 18 month extension of the Shafer Subdivision. Amy Durland seconded the motion. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor Motion passes 7-0. Application #4 preceeded application #3 since the applicant’s agent was not present at this time. 4. 10.043 BEYER SUBDIVISION ADVISORY OPINION, 199 West Circular, Advisory Opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals for subdivision in the Urban Residential-2 District. Applicant: Donald Jeffrey Beyer Attorney: Michael Toohey City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 13, 2010 page 3 of 10 Advisory opinion required per General City Law Section 33. Classified as a use variance due to 240-14.4 A. (1) [6] “Any request for an area variance which shall effect a change in density shall be applied for and considered as a use variance and decided under criteria of the same.” Seeking dimensional relief from the minimum lot size requirement triggered this. If the variance is approved it will allow for a 2-lot subdivision to be considered. Proposed new lot would be compliant with UR-2 zoning at 6,600 square feet. Existing lot occupied by single family residence is proposed at 5,700 square feet. Variance is requested for 900 square feet. Mr. Toohey gave an overview of the project and the concepts they are looking for in this project. When the applicant purchased the property in 2008 he renovated the property into what it is today. It is the Zoning Board’s desire for an advisory opinion so as to determine whether or not the lot is in fact suitable in and of itself for a second home to be placed upon it. Clifford Van Wagner, stated the applicant is asking for a subdivision, our code forces the Zoning Board to ask us for an advisory opinion to go back to them to make it official. This Planning Board has to look at planning issues. Access is one of those issues, ingress and egress to the lot. Does it create a drainage problem for adjacent properties, and the biggest issue here is we are being asked to basically say aye or nay to the creation of the substandard lot. That is the hurdle we need to overcome. Questions or comments from the Board? Jamin Totino has some issues regarding drainage, ingress and egress and creating a substandard lot. The point of the zoning code is to move in the opposite direction away from substandard lots and not towards them. As much as I appreciate that those conditions do exist around the City, one of the things that comes to my mind is the reason for those changes in the zoning code among others is partly fire safety. If your house is too close to the house next to it and there is not sufficient distance, it creates a fire safety issue. Creating a substandard lot here despite that it is mirrored across the street, is not a wise decision for us. Recommending creation of a substandard lot, I do not think is in the interest of the Planning Board nor have we done that in the past. I do not see a convincing reason to do that here. Michael Perkins, to my recollection when we have had things come before us, such as lot line adjustments, if that would result in the creation of a substandard lot, we have always voted against that. Philip Klein, concurs with the substandard lot creation. It goes against everything we have done in the past and precedent is something that needs to be considered. How can we control the size of the dwelling that is going to be built on the created lot, the larger of the two lots. Zoning controls that to a certain extent, but we really have no control over that. Also, drainage is mentioned. Before I would be willing to vote for something like this I would want to have our City Engineer weigh in with regards to how they intend to alleviate any drainage problems. Just because the neighbor to the north filled in his yard and it did not create any drainage problems for any of his neighbors. I would want to have the backup statistics on how he was going to alleviate or assure us that there would not be a drainage problem. Amy Durland said Jamin Totino stated the issue well when he stated that the Board is generally charged with moving away from non-conformance and toward conformance and not in the opposite direction. If there is an argument here as a matter of policy there are reasons to allow substandard lots, then what I would say without getting into the substance of those arguments City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 13, 2010 page 4 of 10 at all is that we are the wrong body to be dealing with that. It would be the City Council to decide, not the Planning Board. The other issue, that alleyway in terms of access. We saw it on the caravan, and I am not convinced. I need more information and need to be convinced that the alley way would really adequately provide access. It looked really small and unimproved and not necessarily something that would work in that situation. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated that Jamin just stated that we do have one letter that was forwarded to me on October 8, 2010, from Rory O’Connor, 200 West Circular Street, Saratoga Springs, New York. Mr. Toohey, stated in terms of the fire safety issue, what he can tell us is that the house is already built on the eastern side. It has almost twice or three times what the rear yard setback is required for that particular house and any new house that would be built would have to have the required side yard setback for a house in that zone. As a result the physical proximity to the house on those two lots would be further apart than that which is required under the zoning code. With regard to the size, I believe by the time we get back here we can stipulate to you and the Planning Board and the Zoning Board as to the square footage of the house that would be built. With regard to the alley way as indicated, this alley way is already being used as a driveway to this property and others in the area. You do have in existence a public street, a public alleyway. Paving would be indicated. One of the concepts of zoning is to go from nonconforming to conforming, however this neighborhood does have in existence right now lots of varying sizes. Introduction of a house, on that lot in this configuration does not fly in the face of zoning. This is not unique or precendent creating because if nothing else the neighborhood itself has defined what the zoning should be. Pre-existing or not, the neighborhood is the neighborhood. It has been the neighborhood since prior to July of 1960 when zoning came into Saratoga Springs. Secondly, the introduction of this is unusual as opposed usual with regard to this neighborhood. Every other lot that is in this neighborhood configuration is a lot that is not in compliance. So we are not asking you to deviate from that which exists. We are asking you to recognize that just as these other lots were subdivided we are asking for this lot to be subdivided. Drainage will be submitted back to the Board, reconfigured so that the drainage problem that Rory O’Connor identifies as well as the Board can be addressed. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application, which is an advisory opinion? None heard. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated he cannot get over the creation of the substandard lot. The increase in the density is a factor. We are being asked for an Advisory Opinion by the Zoning Board. The fact that this is a creation of a substandard lot which this Board in my tenure has always strayed away from and denied whether it was a lot line adjustment or subdivision has never been approved in my 5 ½ years. If there is no other discussion I would ask is there a motion for an advisory opinion to go back to the Zoning Board. Jamin Totino stated while he can appreciate the arguments and he feels that some of them do hold merit, he can't escape the idea that the site as it is doesn't present any challenging problems from a planning perspective in my point of view. Subdividing the property and creating a substandard lot does create challenges around some of the issues we have spoken about. We would be creating an issue where we would be problem solving. Drainage is one, traffic another. The site as it is, a standard lot, or larger than a standard lot does not create any issues. You have an easy ingress and egress onto Hyde Street. It does not have any current City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 13, 2010 page 5 of 10 drainage issues. There is a house there now. I agree and I will make the motion based on those. Jamin Totino made an motion for an unfavorable advisory opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Michael Perkins seconded the motion. Discussion: Amy Durland stated, regarding whether it is possible to stipulate the size of the house,I am quite sure that it would not carry onto subsequent sales or purchases of structures on that lot. I believe what Cliff said is correct. We do not have any control over that. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor Motion passes 7-0. 3. 10.041 CORNERSTONE OUTDOOR FITNESS CENTER, Southwest corner of East Avenue and Excelsior Avenue, sketch discussion for fitness center in the Transect-5 District. SEQRA: No SEQRA requirement with sketch plan discussion. BACKGROUND: Special use permit will be required as well as site plan. DRC architectural review will also be required. T-5 Neighborhood Center: Mixed use neighborhood centers accommodate a wide variety of residential and non-residential uses, building types, and lot sizes. Neighborhood centers must incorporate residential uses, building types and lot sizes. Neighborhood centers must incorporate residential use, create a public realm conducive to pedestrian activity, and provide linkages to adjacent neighborhoods. Neighborhood Centers may vary, however, in the balance of neighborhood and regional scale non-residential uses based on their location with regard to major thoroughfares and residential areas. Ground floor retail including sales, service, restaurant and offices with walk-in clientele are required along key frontages in the zone. Applicant: Matthew Conroy Agent: Matthew Hurff, Frost Hurff Architects This is a T-5 zone which has not really been developed as of yet. What we are proposing is very consistent with that scale of development and we wanted to check in with the Planning Board and make sure everyone is on the same page. We are proposing a three story mixed use building on the corner of Excelsior and East Avenue. The activities of the building all would be under a single umbrella organization, but they would include a range of activities, including rock climbing, fitness gym, juice bar, yoga studios, and some classrooms that could be used for City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 13, 2010 page 6 of 10 multiple purposes. Because of the particularities of some of the programs inside we want to make sure that the structural design of the building is flexible so the building can be converted into a multitude of uses if that should become necessary. That is part of our design intent. There was some concern about the property's history in terms of contamination. This site was not contaminated. In terms of alley development, there are two pieces of property immediately behind this one which would be ideal for the development of an alley. I am not sure what the policy is in terms of this. There is a parcel that the City owns immediately behind this lot which runs to the entire block and it would seem to me that if the goal was to make an alley rather than waiting until each person comes along and has to make an improvement on the property if we can do this all in one shot seems more sensible to me. I am also concerned just because the lots are not particularly deep. This project as proposed we are asking for 17 off street parking spots based on our current usage, we would ordinarily be looking for 23 based on the Zoning Ordinance. If it were to get developed into a full office building that would kick up to 47 spaces. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board? Amy Durland stated regarding the contamination issue. Do you know if you need any permits from either DEC or the Feds on that contamination site? I think what you just said is consistent with my understanding too that the site, somehow was determined not to have any contamination on it. I think there were adjustments to their findings in other nearby sites at some point. Do you know if this requires any permits of any kind? It would be good to know before you start out and get further into this. The other thing is this is a pretty wet area. I know a SWPPP would be required. I do think you should be aware of concerns regarding drainage on that lot, and this is something that should be explored again. This will be a contributing property to what was the Excelsior Avenue corridor study which was a transportation plan to have properties in that area contribute funds for traffic and other kinds of transportation improvements. An effort should be made for pedestrian and bicycle improvements as well. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman questioned the applicant as to how they arrived at the parking requirements. The agent for the applicant stated he used 400 square feet for space. Discussion ensued regarding parking. Kate Maynard provided clarification on parking requirements within the Transect zone. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated are there any further questions or comments from the Board? Anyone in the audience wishing to speak regarding this application? None heard. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated the applicant is allowed one more sketch discussion. At the approval of the Chair you can come back for additional sketch discussions. The applicant should further define the size of the building, and exactly what you want to do and if you can do research on parking for an exercise facility. Mike Perkins questioned if the sidwalks extend the entire length of the property on both Excelsior and East Avenue? City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 13, 2010 page 7 of 10 The agent for the applicant stated yes, they would put sidewalks in on both streets the full length of the property. At the gap between our property line and existing sidewalk on Excelsior we will make it continuous. The Board recessed at 8:15 PM. The Board reconvened at 8:22 PM. 5. 10.045 SKIDMORE COLLEGE- NORTHWOOD VILLAGE, 815 North Broadway, site plan review of parking in the Institutional-Education District. SEQRA: Action appears to be unlisted. DISCLOSURE: Jamin Totino disclosed that he does currently have a relationship with the Office of Student Academic Services and provides consultation services to the Coordinator for Services with Student with Disabilities. I in no way believe that relationship compromises my ability to be objective to this application or any other Skidmore application. We have consulted with the Planning Board attorney. Applicant: Skidmore College Agent: Mike Ingersoll, Partner LA Group Mike West from Skidmore, and Dave Carr, partner from the LA Group. The application in front of the Board is a site plan amendment to shift some parking from its current location. Visual presentation was made to the Board. The proposed parking is further removed from buildings and activity. The college is encouraging a more pedestrian friendly campus. Additional lighting and security will be provided. Skidmore has over 2,000 cars parking capacity on campus. This does not impede any future drives, or areas of proposed buildings. This is consistent with Skidmore's Master Plan, which enhances the school's ability to provide parking in a better location and gives flexibility for future thinking. The goal is to consolidate parking, accessibility to living units and the goal is to keep the students from driving to class. Philip Klein asked about the proposed staging area and what the plans for that would be. His thoughts are a two year time line to make a determination for the plans for the staging area so it does not get lost. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman questioned if anyone in the audience wished to speak regarding this application? None heard. Any further questions or comments from staff? Saratoga County Planning has verbally communicated they do not perceive issues or comments with the application, however we have not had a written response. Jamin Totino questioned is there 10% greenspace? City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 13, 2010 page 8 of 10 The applicant stated there is at least 10% greenspace within the parking area. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated the applicant has provided a PART II long form. What we will proceed to review each of these items. SEQRA: No large or important impacts were noted. Jamin Totino, stated based on 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 that the project will not result in any large or important impact and therefore is one that will not have a signicant adverse impact on the environment. Based on this I move to make a SEQRA negative declaration for this action. Seconded by Dan Gaba. Any further discussion by the Board? VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor Motion passes 7-0. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated now we have a site plan application. The applicant has explained what they want to do. It appears to be entirely within the best interest of the college. The applicant has indicated that there is an increase of only 30 spaces. It is encouraging that the storm water experts on the applicants side have stated that they can bring the drainage for this portion of the project up to current standards. It appears to be a fairly minor request. Amy Durland, stated that in terms of crosswalks, and bike paths are those are taken into account in this plan. It maybe that the addition of this parking is not an appropriate to be addressing the larger issue but maybe when you get into Scribner Village it will be more clear. She asked if this plan is consistent with Skidmore’s master plan, in terms of the total number of parking spaces. The applicant stated that part of the campus plan is a part of what you have stated and we actually are in the process of finalization of a new sustainability coordinator and that is a key part of our work in that next year. Also, I agree with Phil's comment about a two year time line for a determination of that staging area. I don't think it should just drop. The applicant stated if within the two year time frame there is no other building project that would discuss that, Skidmore would put money in the initial letter of credit to return that 70 cars to grass. It will be added to the plan. Clifford Van Wagner asked if anyone in the audience wishing to comment on the site plan portion of this application? None heard. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 13, 2010 page 9 of 10 Michael Perkins made a motion to accept the site plan with the following conditions: 1). An addition to the letter of credit to return the 70 car parking lot to grass if the Scribner Village project is not constructed within 2 years from approval. 2). Contingent upon Saratoga County Planning Board approval of this project. Seconded by Philip Klein VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; M. Perkins, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; S. Bernardi-Cleary, in favor; C. Van Wagner, in favor Motion passes 7-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There be no further business, Clifford Van Wagner adjourned the meeting at 9:10 PM. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 10/27/10 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 13, 2010 page 10 of 10