Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2011 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Clifford Van Wagner, Chair; Amy Durland; Philip Klein; Dan Gaba; Howard Pinsley ABSENT: Jamin Totino, Vice-Chair; Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary STAFF: Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs CALL TO ORDER: Chair Clifford Van Wagner called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING Clifford Van Wagner stated 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. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADJOURNED PROJECT ADJOURNED AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST: 10.052 CDJT WORKFORCE HOUSING, Citywide, City Council request for advisory Opinion for review of Zoning Amendment Proposal request for workforce housing. 10.040 WASHINGTON COMMONS, Washington Street and Central Avenue, special use permit for a mixed use building in the Transect-4 District. 10.049 166 JEFFERSON STREET, 166 Jefferson Street, site plan review of 10 unit residential building in the Urban Residential-4 District. 05.057.2 BEAVER POND VILLAGE, 98 Geyser Road, final review of 85 lot subdivision in the Rural Residential-1 and Urban Residential-1 Districts. 1 ADJOURNED – WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 10.058 SIRO'S, 169 Lincoln Avenue, special use permit for outdoor entertainment in the Institutional-Horse Track Related 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 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 THE CHAIR: Upcoming Planning Board Meetings/Agenda Workshops: Planning Board caravan, Monday, February 7, 2011 @ 4:00 PM Planning Board workshop, Monday, February 7, 2011 @ 5:00 PM Planning Board Meeting, Wednesday, February 9, 2011 @ 7:00 PM PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Opportunity to allow citizens to address planning issues not on the scheduled agenda. None heard. 1. 10.054 DYER LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, 22 DYER CIRCLE – Lot line adjustment. Applicant: Dan Dyer Agent: Bruce Fleming SEQR: Action appears to be an unlisted action. Applicant currently owns 3 separate parcels. These lots are currently non-conforming. Property is in a two acre minimum zoning district. Proposal is for lot line adjustment with no increase in density proposed. The lots are: Current Proposed Lot 1 4 acres 2 acres Lot 2 0.59 acres 2.064 acres Lot 3 0.39 acres 1.324 acres Mr. Dyer, the applicant stated currently he is working on bringing these lots up to code, with city water and new septic. New 4" water line proposed to serve new structures. There are 2 currently more than one principal structures located on existing lots 2 and 3, with the approval of this action there will be 1 principal structure on each lot. Plans state current structures to be removed prior to CO of new structures. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated the City Engineer, Paul Male has indicated that a SWPPP will need to be done, since overall disturbance of proposed activities is greater than 1 acre. Septic expansion area needs to be provided for proposed home on Lot 1. Recommend a 6" water line with two fire hydrants to serve area. City would then maintain the line and assume ownership. Applicant is encouraged to speak with neighbors regarding any additional water service needs, sharing of cost to provide upgrade in water lines to parcels. This would also allow for the provision of a fire hydrant closer than currently located. Homeowners insurance will be decreased with close proximity of fire hydrant. Also, street signs on private Dyer Switch Circle and Fishview would need to be provided by neighbors. This could be petitioned to City Council to adopt as a private road on official street map. Mr. Dyer stated that he has been in touch with the LA Group to handle this SWPPP; they are also working on the water line and details with the easements. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated the Board is in receipt of a letter from Mr. J. Tabor Ellsworth, citing some recommendations for property exchanges. He is in support of the lot line adjustment. Mr. Dyer stated he spoke with Mr. Ellsworth this date and they had a lengthy conversation regarding the plans for the property. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there are any further questions or comments from the Board? Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated there are some areas that need to be clarified, such as the easements, water line, SWPPP. Demolition for two structures currently on the property is scheduled for next week. The applicant will return to the Board with clarification on all questions as soon as the information is provided. 2. 11.003 SARATOGA HOSPITAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY OPINION, 211 Church Street, advisory opinion to the City Council regarding PUD Zoning Amendment. 3. 11.006 SARATOGA HOSPITAL/SARATOGA GOLF AND POLO CLUB, 211 Church Street, advisory opinion to the City Council regarding Zoning Amendment. The Saratoga Hospital is proposing to amend its' PUD legislation and boundary in accordance with the proposed zoning amendment below in order to 1). Remove a portion of the land which is currently located in the PUD and to add the additional portion or property being received from the lands of the Saratoga Golf and Polo Club, Inc. (SGPC). 2). Increase the size of the proposed C-2 building by 10,000 square feet based on additional 0.6 acre property to be proposed for additional parking. 3). Provide modifications proposed to update and streamline the legislation. This includes the removal of portions of the legislation which are either no 3  longer applicable or consolidating sections that have the same purpose and intent. Part 2 of the application is the hospital proposed to exchange 1.15 acre parcel of land from the hospital campus on the west side upon which the Gold and Polo Club has their driving range. This requires a zoning change in the current hospital PUD to institutional parkland recreation. In exchange for this piece of land the Golf and Polo Club will provide .61 acre of an L shaped portion of land to the hospital. This portion of the land is proposed to be utilized by the hospital to connect the parking lots located on Myrtle Street and to expand the available parking for its staff. This action requires a zoning amendment from Office/Medical/Hospital Business District to be a part of the hospital PUD. If these two applications are successful a subsequent application for a lot line adjustment will be submitted. Applicant: Saratoga Hospital Agent: Stephanie Ferradino, Jones, Ferradino, A representative from CT Male and a representative from Saratoga Hospital DISCLOSURE: Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated that his wife is employed at Saratoga Hospital but that it will not affect his decision making process on this case. A visual presentation was made by Stephanie Ferradino. This proposal will allow the increase from 30,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet for the C-2 building. This will allow an increase in parking as well as expanding the uses of the C-2 buildings, allowing many of the offices such as finance, patient accounts, human resources, and family health administration to be moved to this area creating more space in the hospital for actual patient care beds. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application? None heard. Amy Durland questioned the removal of approximately one acre of lawn and adds about one third of an acre of paving. Has there been any consideration about the ways to mitigate the impact of the additional paving. Ms. Ferradino stated that this application will return to the Board for site plan approval and these issues will be addressed at that time. Clifford Van Wagner stated this appears to be a very simple land swap with both sides being amenable. The hospital is growing and this is part and parcel of that growth spurt. They have a huge investment on that portion of land now. Personally I recommend that we send a positive advisory opinion back to the City Council that they entertain the Zoning Amendment to swap land with SGPC and to make the Polo Club more in compliance to having a driving range on their land and not on Saratoga Hospital land and thus having the hospital accept a 0.61 acres and move along and return to this Board for site plan. Kate Maynard provided an update regarding the lot line adjustment inferred through this action, but that will need to be approved by the Planning Board chair to legally change the 4 parcel boundaries. The Hospital is now looking to merge additional parcels into one within the PUD boundaries. Motion made by Philip Klein, for a positive advisory opinion to the City Council regarding PUD Zoning Amendment. Seconded by Dan Gaba. VOTE: A. Durland, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; H. Pinsley, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor ABSENT: J. Totino, Vice Chair; S. Bernardi-Cleary MOTION PASSES: 5-0 Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated another motion is required. Answer to the request for an advisory opinion to the City Council regarding the Zoning Amendment. Motion made by Howard Pinsley, for a positive advisory opinion to the City Council regarding a Zoning Amendment. Seconded by Dan Gaba. VOTE: A. Durland, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; H. Pinsley, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor ABSENT: J. Totino, Vice Chair; S. Bernardi-Cleary MOTION PASSES: 5-0 4. 11.004 ASH STREET SUBDIVISION ADVISORY OPINION, 108 Ash Street, Advisory Opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a subdivision in the Urban Residential-2 District. Applicant: Matthew McPadden, Vintage Bungalow Applicant is requesting an area variance of 30' for a proposed 3 lot subdivision. Proposed variance would not provide for an increase in density from what is allowed per UR-2 Applicant alternate layout-confirmation of ability to subdivision into 4 lots that meet existing UR-2 minimum standards. Variance would provide for 3 lots that would access off of the current paper street Maple Street. City DPW would strongly urge developer to provide for construction of the street to City standards. This is not the City's responsibility. Mr. McPadden stated he is here to discuss the subdivision of the property at 108 Ash Street. At the time we were building on two separate lots across the street, 50 x 144's. My initial reaction was 3 piano key lots, since we are doing the exact same thing across the street, and pave a 12 foot alley to the three garages that would be accessed from Maple Street, the paper street at the rear of the property. That seemed the most fitting to the neighborhood. I contacted John and Julie Paznik the people who live in the center of the whole block. Their driveway goes down the paper street right now, which is approximately 10 or 12 feet wide. They have maintained it for 22 years. When I spoke with Mr. Paznik on the phone I indicated that perhaps we could just extend the driveway to cover the three garages we would build much like that across the street. We brought this to the Zoning Board. The garages in the back, really gives it a Saratoga feel. We are asking for 30 feet relief 10 feet for each lot. 5 Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman is asking for this Board to comment on the applicant's three lot configuration which would not have any curb cuts on Ash Street, would utilize the Maple Street paper street to the rear of the property for garages. Currently the house which exists on Ash Street has a garage that is accessible off of Ash Street. These lots meet the minimum square footage in a UR-3 which is 6600 however they are each 9,000 plus. The mean lot width is required to be 60 he shows 50. You would then be requesting an area variance from the Zoning Board from 60 to 50 or 10 foot waiver. The four lots that we saw in the workshop requires no zoning variances. Each lot is in excess of 6600 square, the meet the mean lot width the difference is four lots would be created there would be two curb cuts on Ash Street, and two garages accessed off of the paper street. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak regarding this application. Michael Toohey, attorney for the Paznik's. Speaking with regard to the three lot subdivision on Ash Street. In the code there is a provision which states any area variance that will increase the density of a piece of property has to be considered as a use variance. The definition of density within the zoning code specifies number of units so any area variance that would act to increase the number of units on a piece of property according to the code that you are charged and asked to interpret in this situation, would be an increase in density and as a result has to be considered by means of a use variance. Within the application that this party has put forth the reason for the request is that the present owners of the property can make more money if in fact this is divided into three lots. That is not the basis for a use variance. Our position is according to the code, and the precedent set, is this cannot be granted because it is an increase in density as that is defined in the Zoning Code in the City of Saratoga Springs. Mr. Toohey had referred to the Beyer Subdivision application several times in this presentation and the fact that the Board denied the subdivision for basically the same issues as presented here. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the zoning enforcement officer referred to this as an area variance. Several issues which make this distinct from the Beyer Subdivision are minimum lot size. With the Beyer subdivision there was the question of minimum lot size not being met for both of those potential lots. His report does mention the portion of the total land area. There is a portion of that, so the substandard discussion, the Boards decision, at least in her interpretation, is the impact minimum lot size not being met so that the underlying density or what could be provided for the standards of that district being met. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated his concern and what he proposed for the Beyer Subdivision is that a lot that was less than the prescribed square footage dictated by the Zoning Code was being proposed. This Board chose to give a negative advisory opinion back to the City Council on that based on a lot that was less than 6,600 square feet. The lots that we are looking at here are in excess of 6,600 square feet and are in effect 9,265 square feet each. They are ten feet less in mean width than that zone requirement but again the zoning officer has sent this to us as an area variance. This is a non-binding advisory opinion that goes back to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Zoning Board will make the final decision on this. Philip Klein stated that he feels the three lots lend itself more to the character of the neighbor and is in favor of granting a positive opinion to the Zoning Board. 6 Discussion ensued regarding the ambiguity of the paper street. When and if the applicant returns to the Board for subdivision this will be an issue which will need to be resolved. Philip Klein made a motion for a positive advisory opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the three lot subdivision on Ash Street. Seconded by Dan Gaba. VOTE: A. Durland, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; H. Pinsley, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor ABSENT: J. Totino, Vice Chair; S. Bernardi-Cleary MOTION PASSES: 5-0 5. 11.002 BUFF ROAD SUBDIVISION, BUFF ROAD AND ROUTE 9N – public hearing for a final 15 lot subdivision in the Urban Residential-1 and Rural Residential-1 Districts Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated in April 2008 we heard a presentation for a 21-lot subdivision. In April 2009 we heard a presentation for a 17-lot subdivision. In July of 2010 we heard a 15-lot subdivision. Today the applicant is before us for a final 15 lot subdivision. The parcel of land in this application tonight is split by 2 Zoning Districts. RR-1 is a minimum two acre size, subject to conservation subdivision requirements. The parcel which faces Buff Road is a UR-1, which is a single family minimum lot size of 12,500 square feet. In sketch plan discussions we heard conversations regarding rain gardens; Buff Road is a main collector road that connects Route 29 and Route 9N. What the project proposes in its current configuration is 13 curb cuts along Buff Road. Currently the proposal does not continue to the sidewalk along the project frontage. DISCLOSURE: Philip Klein stated that he does live on Walter Drive which is within 250 feet of the proposed development and feels he can be objective regarding this application. Applicant: Michael Ballestero Agent: Jere Tatich, Principal ELAN Planning and Design Lisa Nagle, Principal ELAN PLanning and Design Mr. Tatich requested SEQRA Lead Agency Status determination status this evening. Visual presentation was given to the Board by Mr. Tatich. Conservation Development District: any development requires conservation analysis, preservation of 50% unconstrained lands, units clustered on remaining 50% of unconstrained Medium density residential: maximum 3.5 units/acre. Site is split by 2 Zoning Districts. RR-1 minimum 2 acre lots, subject to conservation subdivision requirements. UR-1 minimum lot size 2,500 sq ft minimum mean width 100' Clustering is allowed in the UR-1 district with water and sewer provided more flexibility in shape and form of lots. No setbacks or minimum lot size required. All proposed development on UR-1 portion of property, RR-1 portion 7 proposed for permanent conservation by deed restriction. Buff Road serves as a main collector road for existing neighborhoods as well as connection between Church (9N) and Washington St. corridors. This project proposes 13 separate curb cuts along Buff Road. Concerns for safety/access management continuing other developments within area. Accessibility for driveway is less than 50 feet from 9N are a concern for safe access. Concern mentioned by Board previously regarding noise buffer, and potential suitability of leaving estate lot intact (Lot 1 and 2) 2002 City of Saratoga Springs Open Space Plan – Slade Creek is identified as a proposed pedestrian connection. Ability/desire to provide local walking path for project length. Storm water management rain gardens proposed as storm water management. 15 lots are being proposed UR-1. Paper street off Woodbridge Ct. – reconsider access from the road for some/all of the lots. 12' main across Church Street providing connection at 9N. Rain gardens place throughout the site. Native plants and the maintenance of those will be signed off by the individual homeowners. Waivers requested for sidewalk portion and curbing and 20' utility easement for storm line. A geotechnical evaluation was completed as per the request of the Board. Results were distributed to the Board. No issues with the soil in this area, due to the fact that the applicant is building outside of the 100 foot buffer. PUBLIC HEARING: Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, opened the public hearing at 8:50 P.M. Anyone in the audience wishing to speak regarding this application? Jay Verro, 33 Evergreen. Buff Road from 9N heading towards 29 slopes down. Right now with the snow and everything when we try to pull out of Evergreen to head south you can barely see a decent line of site until you are already out. So having that crosswalk there makes no safety sense whatsoever because of the slope of the street, and the speed at which people travel. It is not impossible for someone coming down the street above the speed limit to hit somebody walking. The nature of the neighborhood is to have sidewalks. I agree with Phil that not everyone keeps their sidewalk on Buff snow blown. My other concern is that it is a busy street; on either end of Buff and Evergreen are school bus stops. Speeding traffic is an issue as well as adding 13 more driveways on the other side of Buff where there currently are none. Criag Klocek, 2 Evergreen Drive. The sidewalks shown on the east side of Buff Road does actually go to 9 N. As a runner I know this. This is the best proposal that I have seen yet. I like the curb cuts; I believe it keeps the flavor of the neighborhood. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated the public hearing will remain open. There will be no action taken this evening. We will request Lead Agency Status. NYS-DOH is involved in this because of the number of lots that are being created. We will notify NYS-DOH and they officially have 30 days to respond to the Board's request. 8 Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked the applicant to consider a porous paved sidewalk on the west side of Buff Road. Increased signage which delineates this as no cut buffer zone. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the Saratoga County Planning Board referral was sent but has not receive written confirmation, however, she was informed verbally that there response would be no inter-community impact. They did bring up the question of the curb cuts along Buff Road. Philip Klein did bring up the addition of more shared driveways. Perhaps the applicant could give some thought to adding several additional shared driveways to decrease the number of curb cuts. Amy Durland stated she has concerns about this property. I have requested this geotechnical report some time ago. I will review this paperwork but upon initial review I am not sure it answers my original questions about the stability of the slopes. Some of the areas I have concerns about this property this geographic configuration of a ledge and going into wetlands and then a creek is loaded with sensitive environmental issues. There are a lot of arguments to be made for an extended buffer beyond 100 feet. How will the restrictions placed on the land be quantified or enforced. It seems there are potentially harmful actions by homeowners such as dumping leaves down the slope, pesticides on the lawn, which will runoff into Slade Creek and then Kaydeross. There is not even going to be a deed restriction much less a conservation easement, without some of these protections, I do not see how we can rein in some of the concerns regarding the environmental integrity of the project. If this area of 100 foot buffer and the creek is intended to be dedicated open space or remain untouched then I do not understand why it should be dedicated open and if so why wouldn't it include the buffers as well. At the very least it needs to be recorded in the deed. Maybe there could be a conservation easement. The top of the ledge is really important to ensure that there are no disturbances. I think it might be advisable to consider plantings or filter strips at that point, not just to stabilize the top of the ledge but also to provide a filter. Clearing guidelines need to be clearly articulated. There is an organization called Friends of the Kaydeross, since Slade Creek is a tributary of that, I know that organization is available and they have science based people who have done various analyses and have recommendations about stewardship of that area. It might be worthwhile to consider consulting with them. I have concerns regarding the trail as well. What I would like to see when you return is perhaps a graphic, being extremely clear where the top of the slope is. Where the buffers are so we can see what the building envelope would be. Michael Ballestraro, applicant, stated the building line is approximately 80 - 100 foot back from the top of the bank. The wetlands delineation is basically right at the creek, and the bank goes up the hill. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed trail. Any other questions or comments from the Board? Amy Durland questioned the applicant as to the stream classification. Mr. Tatich stated the DEC wetlands classification is 1. Amy Durland stated this is considered the most valuable most in need of protection. 9 Dan Gaba made a motion to request Lead Agency Status from the NYS-DOH. Seconded by Amy Durland. VOTE: A. Durland, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; H. Pinsley, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor ABSENT: J. Totino, Vice Chair; S. Bernardi-Cleary MOTION PASSES: 5-0 9:15 PM the Board recessed. 9:30 PM the Board reconvened. 6. 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. SEQR: This appears to be a Type I Action – an Unlisted Action occurring substantially contiguous to any publicly owned or operated parkland, recreation area, or designated open space. Applicant has submitted a SEQRA Full EAF as required. On April 28, 2010, the Planning Board initiated SEQRA coordinated review with the DRC and requested to be lead agent; on May 5, 2010, the DRC voted to defer SEQRA lead agency to the Planning Board. Planning Board accepted lead agency at May 26, 2010 meeting. Planning Board identified additional information needed from May 26, 2010 meeting. Specific parking location identified, tent location, band location, lighting locations and the public sewer connection. Due to the time frame that has passed since last before Board, noticing was completed for tonight's meeting. Applicant previously applied for a 5-room "neighborhood" bed & breakfast" – the current application is for a 6-room corridor bed and breakfast that would allow outdoor activities. A corridor bed and breakfast is permitted in the RR-1 district with a special use permit and site plan. Corridor bed and breakfast is defined as: "A supplementary use in a private single or two-family residential structure having a resident host which more than five rooms but not more than ten rooms are offered for rent and one or more meals are furnished to guests. Corridor bed and breakfast establishments may have regularly scheduled commercial indoor or outdoor activities such as weddings/receptions/showers, business meetings, catered events, etc., with the issuance of a special use permit based on individual project review by the Planning Board. In the review of a special use permit, the Planning Board shall establish the type of permissible activities, a maximum number of events/day on which such commercial activity can occur and the maximum number of people who can attend such events. When so approved by a special use permit the above commercial activities shall not require any additional off-street parking requirement. 10 Applicant: Jon Cromer Attorney: David Harper, Engineer Stephen Smith Mr. Harper wanted to check if the Board had the correct version of the site plan dated 01/05/11. It does show the proposed location of two tents, portable bandstand, proposed location of mobile rest rooms, and does show lighting poles. This information was not present on the Boards site plan maps. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated the problem is the Board has not had sufficient time to review these changes. The Chairman requested an overview of the project and the Board will take the updated information and it will be reviewed over the next two weeks. However, the Board has based their review on the information submitted and distributed. So, I think this poses a procedural problem. Mr. Harper asked for clarification from the Board regarding submission of information. What is the best method to supply this information? Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated the best way is to send the information electronically by email. The best way to present it is before the meeting. What we are discussing is considerably more technical information. Staff, both Kate and Paul Male would also review this and provide comments. Finally, the staff would then go out on caravan and see it. The difference is the magnitude of information presented. Whenever there is a major submission we like to see it a week before the meeting. There is not a lot we can move on this evening. Mr. Harper did present the Board with information concerning the Port-A-John, per the Board request at the agenda workshop. Mr. Toohey stated he has presented before the Board before as well as Mr. Harper. Mr. Toohey stated that he has been chastised at these meeting and told you can't do that. Now, what I am seeing is a site plan that has never been seen before. He hasn't had the opportunity to review either. I went through the process – FOIL – to obtain information. I have a client that is very serious about this and if there is a major change to the plans which I have been provided and reviewed I need to have an opportunity to look at that. Philip Klein requested the applicant furnish an extra copy of the new site plan revision to the City to be handed over to Mr. Toohey before he must go through another FOIL. Mr. Harper will provide the requested information to Mr. Toohey. Mr. Harper proceeded to answer some of the questions posed at the agenda workshop. These involved parking issues, number of events planned, etc. The applicant will be placed on a future Planning Board Agenda. 11.001 420 BROADWAY, (LILLIAN PARKING LOT), 420 BROADWAY, site plan review for-mixed use building in the Transect-6 District. 11 Lillian's' parking lot is currently City owned. Sale agreement signed June 2, 2009 that provides for conveyance of property Bonacio with specific conditions (Agreement for sale of property included in packet). SEQR: Encompasses both the conveyance of property form City to private owner as well as the proposed project. Project appears to be a Type I action ("any unlisted action occurring wholly or partially within any historic building site, district listed on the National Register of Historic Places") with the City Council, and DRC as other involved agencies. Applicant: Bonacio Construction, LLC Agent: Mike Ingersoll, LA Group Mr. Ingersoll stated this project proposes infill development at central Broadway location. Architecture, size, and design important portions of project. Public space along the frontage of Broadway currently a gathering point midway along Broadway, chance to integrate this in to concept. Mr. Ingersoll gave a visual presentation of the project. The site is currently utilized for public parking. 44 spaces. Proposed parking will private, underground, 28 spaces. The building will be 4 floors. One for retail, the second for office space, and two floors will be apartments. New water and sewer lines. Private entry. Central lobby. Roof top gardens with parapet railing. The applicant has agreed to assist in the landscaping of Gardner Lane. Motion by Howard Pinsley to initiate coordinated review and seek Lead Agency Status with the City Council and DRC as involved agencies. Seconded by Dan Gaba. VOTE: A. Durland, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; H. Pinsley, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor ABSENT: J. Totino, Vice Chair; S. Bernardi-Cleary MOTION PASSES: 5-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Philip Klein made a motion to accept the minutes of the January 12, 2011 meeting with correction and/or changes. Seconded by Amy Durland. VOTE: A. Durland, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; H. Pinsley, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor ABSENT: J. Totino, Vice Chair; S. Bernardi-Cleary MOTION PASSES: 5-0 MEETING ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 P.M. 12 Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski 13