Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2012 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Clifford Van Wagner, Chair; Tom L Lewis, Vice-Chair; Amy Durland; Philip Klein; Dan Gaba; Howard Pinsley, ABSENT: Mariesa Coppola STAFF: 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, Chairman 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 PROJECTS ADJOURNED AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST: -11.022 181 PHILA NEIGHBORHOOD ROOMING HOUSE, 181 Phila Street, public hearing for special use permit for neighborhood rooming house in the Urban Residential-3 District. -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. UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS/AGENDA WORKSHOPS: Planning Board Caravan, Monday May 7, 2012 at 4:00 P.M. Planning Board Workshop, Monday, May 7, 2012 at 5:00 P.M. Planning Board Meeting, Wednesday, May 9, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR: Opportunity to allow citizens to address planning issues not on the scheduled agenda. None heard. APPLICATIONS: 1. 12.001 124 JEFFERSON STREET, Proposed Zoning Map Amendment from UR-2, to UR-4A, request for advisory opinion from City Council. Applicant: CDJT Development, Dave Jelenik and Charlie Touhey Agent: Tonya Yasenchek, Engineering America SEQRA: SEQRA action not required with an advisory opinion. BACKGROUND: Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated we have a parcel which was approved in 2005. The applicant returned at a later time and asked for a density bonus to put in senior housing on this site. It was approved. Rather than having the ability to build two units the applicant received approval to build six. Now the applicant cannot sell these parcels and they have gone to the Zoning Board to take away the senior housing component to be able to sell these. This will be a non binding advisory opinion from this Board to the City Council answering their question which is will we approve an advisory opinion to change this from a UR-2 to UR-4. The Planning Board heard initial presentation from the applicant at the April 11, 2012 meeting. We requested additional information regarding construction and listing dates. Noticing was provided to neighbors within 250 feet of subject parcel. Ms. Yasenchek gave a quick review of the proposal and a visual presentation. The applicant feels this is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and will increase the diversity of the area both socially and economically. This is a high density residential area. This does not change the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Touhey stated he will provide a recreational stipend per unit to the City, which the City has not requested. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the proximate area identified by Ms. Yasenchek as UR-4A is actually UR-4. There is a distinction between the two zoning districts, primarily a difference in minimum lot size and area requirements. Ms. Yasenchek cited this is a high density area. There is an approved construction project for housing units in this area as well. Areas were shown that were rezoned for higher density areas and were previously zoned for moderate density. Kate Maynard Principal Planner asked if Ms. Yasenchek could state what project she is referring to. Ms. Yasenchek stated the project of Steve Ethier's. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated this approved constructed projects to this one is considered workforce housing and has received a density bonus. It was a specific example more akin to the current situation of the subject parcel in which a public benefit is provided, and an additional density bonus was provided. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 25, 2012 Page 2 of 7 Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated we as the Board are very clearly directed on our deliberation this evening. We have two questions to answer – whether this is contrary to the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and is this in accordant with the Comprehensive Plan. We really can't look at the information regarding the real estate issues, constructions costs and the inability to sell. This project was given a density bonus to put in senior housing and now the applicant is requesting that the public benefit of senior housing go away. The Zoning Code has several questions which we must answer in order to respond to the City Council in our Advisory Opinion. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board at this time. None heard. Charles Touhey, stated my effort to try to show good faith to the City was to suggest a public benefit back to the City. I am trying to ask this Board to undo something which probably should never have been done. To answer a question brought up earlier the construction began on this project in July 2010. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated again this Board cannot do anything that has been done. This is an Advisory Opinion to the City Council. It is the City Council who will make the ultimate decision. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to comment on this application. Amy Miller, 121 Madison Street. We do not have anything like senior housing in this area. It is a great idea. I believe it should be kept as such. If this is changed to a UR-4A zone which means families could move in, there is no green space for children in this area. There is only a one car garage and most families have two cars. They have been given a density bonus for senior housing and it should be kept as such. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there were any further comments from the Board. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the Board is in receipt of correspondence from Concerned Citizens dated April 18, 2012. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated we have been asked by the City Council to offer an Advisory Opinion. Does anyone on the Board have any questions or comments from the applicant or Kate Maynard, Principal Planner regarding the procedure here. We have two questions to answer here: Is this contrary to the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? Is this or is this not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan? The applicant has been given a density bonus for this project for senior housing. The density bonus is 4 additional units. Discussion ensued regarding spot zoning. Dan Gaba asked when did the definition for senior housing change. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated in August of 2007. This project was approved in 2005. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there was any further questions or comments from the Board. Philip Klein questioned if there is a technical definition regarding the age of a senior. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the City of Saratoga's prior definition of a senior is age 62. Under federal standards 55 and over is considered eligible for senior housing. PUBLIC HEARING: City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 25, 2012 Page 3 of 7 Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:35 P.M. Howard Pinsley made a motion to issue an unfavorable advisory opinion be made to the City Council related to a proposed map amendment from UR-2 to UR-4A at 124 Jefferson Street. This unfavorable advisory opinion is based on the following two points: 1. The proposed amendment is contrary to the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance due to the lack of proximate UR-4A areas, and relationship to the surrounding land uses. 2. The revision is not accordant with the Comprehensive Plan. According to the City's Comprehensive Plan, "State law mandates that zoning must be in conformance with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This means that the zoning for a particular area must be equal or less than that stated on the Development Plan map of this document. When areas are to be rezoned, the uses and the densities permitted within the zoning district must be compatible and exceed the ranges presented in the land use category of the Development Plan." The parcel is MDR-2 (3.5-6.7) dwelling units/acre) per the Development Plan of the Comprehensive Plan. The project is actually 6 dwelling units/.43 acre. With removal of the public benefit as "reason" for the higher density, the proposed would be roughly double, even triple this density. This is therefore inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Philip Klein. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Philip Klein in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, Vice Chairman, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 2. 03.078.1 139 MEADOWBROOK (MODIFICATION OF LOT 13 FROM MEADOWBROOK MANOR 139 Meadowbrook Road, public hearing for modification of a subdivision in a Rural Residential-1 District. DISCLOSURE: Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman disclosed that he does live on Rollingbrook Drive. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated the project in front of us this evening is a request to modify a conservation subdivision. I will make some clarifications because there are some errors in some assumptions. The project is on Meadowbrook Road. It is a little over two acres. In 2003 a request was made for a conservation subdivision of three parcels. One parcel is for the area where the barn is located, one the parcel to the east which has the yellow farmhouse on it, and the parcel to the west which is an open field and I am assuming that it belongs to the folks who own the property next to it. The subdivision put a conservation easement on this parcel. They required that 42,921 square feet be in a conservation easement. The subdivision was approved. The conservation City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 25, 2012 Page 4 of 7 subdivision requirements at the time in 2003 state that if the barn is either demolished or moved that the applicant has to return to the Planning Board and that is why the applicant is here. The applicant is requesting permission to move the barn about 90 – 100 feet back and take off the L portion of it and use that for his garage. He is asking this Board to amend the conservation portion of the rear lot by 50 feet. This parcel is in an RR-1 parcel as is every parcel in Meadowbrook. The table of regulations which everybody in an RR-1 district has the following restrictions, they must be a two acre lot, the mean width must be minimally 200 feet. Maximum lot coverage by principal building 15% accessory building 5%. Minimum setback dimensions front yard 60 feet, the rear yard setback is 100 feet. One side yard setback has to be minimally 30 there needs to be a total of 100 feet. Height restrictions also apply. 80% of the lot shall remain permeable. The applicant in his paperwork is proposing to conserve more than the 42,921 feet and will go to 43, 734 feet. He is asking for a relocation of conserved land. He is not requesting to touch any trees in the rear 100 foot setback. No request to remove any buffer. Those are the points I wanted to make for clarification. Applicant: Bill Moreau Agent: Brett Balzer, Architect with Balzer, Tuck Architecture. Mr. Balzer stated he is here tonight representing the applicant Mr. Bill Moreau who is the current owner of the property. On a personal note my intentions are to purchase the property from Bill Moreau and create a home out of the existing barn for my family. A visual presentation was provided to the Board by Brett Balzer showing the location of the barn and the location of the proposed new home for the barn. The barn will be moved to the new location through a path in the trees. Several trees will need to be trimmed but no trees will be removed in this relocation. Buffers, conservation easement area relocation, location of the carriage house garage and the home were included in this presentation provided to the Board. Septic system location was discussed and the desire to bring in city water. The Preservation Foundation was contacted for their thoughts on this move and idea for the barn. Amy Durland stated she believed the minutes of the meeting held when the Conservation Subdivision was approved regarding the barn stated that the barn should be seen to retain the rural feeling as well as the history of the area. She read some information which leads her to believe all construction should be well set back on the property and take place behind the barn so the barn could be preserved and visible. She is not stating that this is will cause her to vote against this application merely bringing forth information. Tom L Lewis, Vice Chairman stated what is being done here is great and he commends the applicant. Amy Durland stated one of her concerns is since we are talking about the conservation regulations, I believe we treat the conservation subdivisions a little differently now than we did then. Since the conservation area, the mass is more to the back of the property instead, by reducing that and putting it more along the side in my mind you are reducing the conservation value of the conservation easement. The more contiguous mass you have the more it will accomplish the purpose of the conservation subdivision by providing a larger contiguous wooded area for wildlife corridors. What is the benefit of reconfiguring the conservation easement. Brett Balzer stated to keep the trees along the side and add them to the conservation easement. The Board discussed the conservation easement area, and what will be included in the conservation easement modification. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 25, 2012 Page 5 of 7 Butch Marcelli, 7 Rollingbrook Drive. He is happy to see the barn preserved and the sensitivity to the neighborhood and the surroundings and he welcomes him to the neighborhood. Tom Phillips 136 Meadowbrook Drive. Original goal regarding urban planning is the barn is to provide character. Happy to see the barn being used. Chuck and Deidre Chuckrow, 5 Rollingbrook are concerned with the buffers, and the conservation easement. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, for clarification the basic foundation in terms of the conservation subdivision is that a conservation analysis is done at the beginning portion of the project. Ideally that is where you are really looking at the most important features of the site to be protected. Logical progression of the areas to be protected and in what manner and the site features. One of the things for you to consider is that this conservation easement is a permanent feature and has to be filed with the County and this would be a potential modification. Does the proposed modification maintain/ enhance original intent of the conservation subdivision? There is a note from the plans in 2003 which is why they are before us here this evening. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated we spent a lot of time speaking of trees at the Joint Zoning Board and Planning Board meeting on Monday night. One of the conditions without putting restrictions the more trees that are saved the happier we are. One of the conditions placed on the K of C is that if in the future any of the trees are requested to be cut down because they are diseased or damaged that they would be tagged, identified and the owner/applicant would go to the Planning Department and ask if they could be removed. If there is one tree it would be accomplished by Administrative Action if there was more than one it would return to the Planning Board for review. Discussion ensued regarding adding this provision as a condition of this motion. Dan Gaba made a motion to reaffirm the SEQRA negative declaration issued on 11-19-2003. Seconded by Howard Pinsley VOTE: Philip Klein, in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley in favor; Tom L. Lewis, Vice Chairman, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 6-0 Tom L. Lewis, Vice Chairman made a motion to approve modification of a subdivision 139 Meadowbrook Road as outlined below and shown on the submitted plans, for Lot 13. Conservation Easement area square footage will be increased with the caveat that the buffer on the right side of the barn will include all the existing trees. Include trees on the north east property boundary, a crab apple tree, a pine tree, and a silver maple to become a part of the conservation easement as well as any trees to the north of that which are along the stone gravel area that will be the driveway. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 25, 2012 Page 6 of 7 The applicant has agreed he will not cut any trees to the rear of the property with the 100 foot buffer between the house and the field which shall remain in its natural state. The applicant has indicated that where possible he will spade out Oak trees and replant them on the right side of the barn where the driveway will be located and at least 3 out of 4 minimally will be in the conservation area. The conservation easement modification needs to be filed with the Saratoga County Clerk's Office within 62 days after the signing of the final Mylars. Septic Plans need to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Note on the drawing indicates that the applicant desires to leave the group of trees that are west of the current location of the barn. Once the barn is moved, the note indicates that he will be required to notify the Planning Department to discuss any tree removal. This is conditioned on the land not the owner. Seconded by Dan Gaba. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Philip Klein, in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley in favor; Tom L. Lewis, Vice Chairman, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 6-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Clifford Van Wagner made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 11, 2012 meeting as submitted. Seconded by Philip Klein. VOTE: Philip Klein, in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley in favor; Tom L. Lewis, Vice Chairman, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 6-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss, Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:09 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 5/23/12 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 25, 2012 Page 7 of 7