Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES (FINAL) WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 2015 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Mark Torpey, Chairman; Robert Bristol, Vice Chairman; Clifford Van Wagner; Dan Gaba; Howard Pinsley; Janet Casey LATE ARRIVAL: Tom L. Lewis arrived at 7:18 P.M. ABSENT: Robert Bristol, Vice Chairman STAFF: Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney CALL TO ORDER: Mark Torpey, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the proceedings of this meeting are being recorded 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. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADJOURNED PROJECTS ADJOURNED PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 14.010 SUBDIVISION OF LANDS OF HARRISON, 180 Meadowbrook Road, public hearing for a two-lot subdivision in the Rural Residential District. 14.059 77 EXCELSIOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, 77 Excelsior Avenue, Special use permit for commercial and residential uses in a Transect-5 (T-5) District. 14.067 STONE PROPERTY, 68 WEIBEL AVENUE, 30 Church Street, site plan modification in a Transect-6 (T-6) District. 14.074 UNION FOX APARTMENTS, 72 Union Avenue, Site plan review for multi-family residential in an Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. 15.003 BROADWIN PROPERTY, 131 LINCOLN AVENUE, Advisory Opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals in the Urban Residential-1 District. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS/AGENDA WORKSHOPS: Planning Board Caravan, Monday, March 23, 2015 at 4:00 P.M. Planning Board Workshop, Monday, March 23, 2015 at 5:00 P.M. Planning Board Meeting, Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 7:00 P.M. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR: None heard. APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 2. 14.053 21 PARK PLACE CONDOMINIUMS, 21 Park Place, Site plan review for multi-family residences in an Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. BACKGROUND: Project proposes the construction of 4 additional units contained within 2 structures. ZBA issued variances from maximum principal building coverage, and minimum front yard setbacks. While historic review is not required for the project, DRC issued an advisory opinion which provided that the “DRC does not believe that this project will result in any large or significant adverse impacts to the nearby National Registry District nor the historic qualities or general character of the neighborhood” and provided four recommendations. The recommendations were reinforced in the applicant’s November 13, 2014 response letter, and which were required to be “incorporated into the final design of the project” as a condition of the variances - Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation provided November 14, 2014 correspondence to the ZBA Correspondence to the ZBA related to their considerations for the project. - Josh Dulmer, City Arborist provided recommendations related to the successful preservation of the 150+ year old trees on the site. SEQRA: Planning Board and ZBA involved agencies. Planning Board deferred SEQRA lead agency to the Zoning Board of Appeals, ZBA issued a negative declaration on December 15, 2014. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated this project has been seen by this Board previously. We have received the DRC Advisory Opinion and Correspondence from the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation as well as correspondence from the City Arborist. The applicant has received the appropriate variances requested as well as SEQRA Negative Declaration from the Zoning Board of Appeals dated December 15, 2014. They appear before this Board tonight for site plan review. Additional information requested by the Board was provided. 4 separate curb cuts are proposed for the site. One change on the revised plans is a turnaround which has been added which allows cars to exit the site front out. Two curb cuts proposed on Regent Street, all vehicles will need to back out of parking spaces into the road. Storm water management has been clarified on the revised plans. Proposal of brick sidewalks and further information will be provided by the applicant this evening. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE BOARD: Correspondence received from Tom Denny, Sustainable Saratoga, received March 11, 2015. Correspondence received from Kathryn Oppedisiano, 79 Pepper Lane received November 15, 2014. Applicant: Dave Guarino and Linda Haner Agent: Frank Owen, Rexford Engineering Mr. Owens reviewed the engineering portion of the project history for the Board. The applicant obtained zoning variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals as well as SEQRA Negative Declaration on December 15, 2014. This application was seen by the DRC and an Advisory Opinion was provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals. We have incorporated many of their suggestions as well as those of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation. There are a lot of design modifications which were incorporated into this project. Site plans have been prepared incorporating these changes. Mr. Owens, site consultant reviewed the site plan proposal, ¾ of an acre project. Visual presentation provided. Two units, two structures are proposed. It is a developed lot. The impervious area will be increased to City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – March 11, 2015 - Page 3 of 10 50%. 85% is allowed in this district. Two approved zoning variances have been granted for this project. The applicants are proposing some infrastructure improvements; the applicants will be relaying the brick sidewalks to preserve that aesthetic on the corner. The applicants are proposing 180 feet of curbing as well as 2 Sternberg lights. There are 11 trees currently on the property. We are proposing to retain 8 of those trees. We will be adding 6 new trees in the right of way. Adequate off street parking is being provided for these units. 5 spaces will be offered inside and 6 will be outside on the driveway. A turning radius template has been provided. Construction will take approximately 9 – 12 months. Detailed construction plans will be provided to the Board, as well as a sediment control plan. Storm water management plan was discussed. Very well draining soil, infiltration trenches will be added as well as rooftop gutters to drywells, and vegetative channels. We will treat water runoff. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed plan for preserving the on-site trees, and staging during construction, as well as access for fire trucks. Linda Haner, applicant provided a visual presentation of the details of the design. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated one of the recommendations from the DRC is that the design not look like cookie- cutter homes. Linda Haner, stated these are sister buildings which frame the courtyard. The courtyard will be redbrick on gravel. All elevations were reviewed. Ms. Haner reviewed the DRC recommendations concerning the water table, and how they are to be implemented, lowering of the roof pitch to enhance the focal point of the Gothic qualities of the adjacent house, more robust corner boards, and fascia and frieze boards. Minimizing the pitch of the gable pediment so the little roof is visible atop the pediment. Consider the use of metal in lieu of shingles. Consider color, material detail changes to distinguish one new building from the other, minimizing the mirror image appears of the two new buildings. These structures will be clapboard sided, color studies were done. Dark colors were chosen a warm charcoal grey for one building and dark cadet blue will be used for the other building. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated just for the Boards information this application will not return before the DRC. Ms. Haner reviewed the differences between the two buildings. Windows are different as well as doors, garage doors and trim elements. One building has attached garages. Janet Casey questioned if the DRC made any suggestions concerning the fronts of the buildings. Ms. Haner stated they did not; the basic symmetry of the design was not questioned. Material information was provided to the Board. Trash receptacles and fencing materials were also discussed. All penetrations will be through the roof, only the chimneys will be vented out the sides of the buildings. Mark Torpey questioned the location of the air conditioning units and condensers and how this will impact the neighbors. Ms. Haner stated there are several other options for the location of the air conditioning units. Discussion ensued regarding placement of air conditioning units, size of the driveway, and ingress and egress of emergency vehicles as well as snow removal. Mark Torpey, Chairman questioned the status of the HOA documents. PUBLIC HEARING: City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – March 11, 2015 - Page 4 of 10 Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Beverly Mastroianni, 125 Regent Street. Ms. Mastroianni stated she cannot get out of her driveway as a rule now. Traffic is a major problem. Parking is a problem as well. Alice O’Brien, 23 Park Place. Concerns regarding parking. This is a very busy road and very dangerous. The air conditioning units and the periphery of the trash receptacles are also of concern. Residents on the periphery will be most affected by the air conditioning units. The reality is the trees will not survive this construction. Noise – this is making a bad situation a lot worse. Please consider the neighbors when you make your decision. Johanna Anderson, 20 Park Place. Problems exist with sewage and water. Very concerned about additional water and storm water on the site. We have an aging sewer and water system. Deidre Ladd, 113 Regent Street. Additional traffic with the schools, soup kitchen. Vehicles have been hit on Regent Street. A 4-way stop increased traffic and congestion. We are on the historical side of the Street. This is an important intersection – Congress Park. Michael Ladd, 113 Regent Street. We moved here in 1998. We have seen the evolution of the neighborhood. Speed limit signs have been installed on Regent St. Our area is great. These homes are treasures and the property surrounding it and unique treasures and very distinctive homes. Andrea Gardner, 105 Regent Street. I have lived here since 1977. I have watched the traffic situation. It is not an adequate intersection and there are so many accidents. Adding extra curb cuts will create a worse situation. Linda and Dave are in the business of rentals. They rent their home out. They are creating a burden to the rest of the neighborhood. Ashleigh Gardner, Ballston Spa. My Mom owns 105 Regent Street. This corner has beautiful estate homes and beautiful lawns. Zoning variances were granted. There is not adequate property for trash, snow, air conditioning units and the driveway. The site is not adequate for this project. The Board should listen to the DRC meeting regarding this project. Field Horn, 50 Granite Street. I am not impacted by this project. The home currently on this property is one of a few of Gothic Revival Houses in Saratoga. Proposal for the two new buildings do have some balance and symmetry but it is not Gothic in style. There is a massiveness to this that takes away from the existing building on this property. Marne Onderdonk, 37 Park Place. I have lived here for 17 years. We live on a majestic street. This proposed construction is completely out of character for the neighborhood. Parking is also a concern. Encourage there be some dialogue in the City on how new construction can move forward when we have dilapidated properties that exist yet approve construction which is out of character for the neighborhood. Tom L. Lewis stated the four curb cuts will have a negative impact on the neighborhood. This is a great project as far as planning it. It is odd to me how the density is out of character for that neighborhood. Most of the difficulties could be minimized if only one building was built on this property. Clifford Van Wagner stated he has been on Land Use Board for over 23 years. I have always recognized property owner’s rights to building on their land. We have just listened to a project which speaks of concessions. 5 point turns, cars backing out, trash receptacles moved from behind a house to a courtyard. The four curb cuts are not compatible and will eliminate parking spots. The comment that a fire truck can blow through a hedge if necessary that is a concession. The Planning Board is not about making concessions, but making a project work from the get go. This is incompatible with the neighborhood it too much for this majestic site. I cannot support this. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – March 11, 2015 - Page 5 of 10 Howard Pinsley stated he agrees with the other board members. Dan Gaba stated it just does not fit. When you speak about snow a ten foot driveway, air conditioning units, cars backing out into the street, with the schools and children and traffic. From my perspective it would be irresponsible for me to condone this project. There are some great ideas, but they just do not work on this site. Janet Casey stated she is also in agreement with the other board members. This is too dense. I am concerned about the parking and the traffic in this area. There are too many curb cuts. I am not happy with the mirror image routine. It is aesthetically they look like any type of condos you could see in any development. I am not satisfied that in fact they lend anything to the unique character of the neighborhood. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated he agrees with all the board members. David Haner, applicant stated we are zoned to have 7 additional units on that property. We are building 4. We are not maximizing the site. We are not going with the density that is allowed. The design by the setbacks is for a massive 7 floor structure 70 feet high. We are intending to build the nicest condos for this site. Air conditioning units can be relocated, future porches can be developed. We can alternate Regent Street driveway reconfiguration. The applicant was encouraged to review the Board’s recommendations. The Board recessed at 9:00 P.M. The Board reconvened at 9:09 P.M. 3. 14.060 HOFFMAN CARWASH FACILITY, 2216 NYS Route 50, proposed special use permit for a car wash Facility in the Highway General Business (HGB) District. BACKGROUND: Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the site is between an existing used car sales directly to the north, Adirondack Trust Bank directly to the south. Site is at the southern boundary of the City just north of Route 50 and Northline Road intersection. The site is in the Highway General Business District and within the Gateway Design Overlay District. Special use permit, site plan review and architectural review by the DRC are required for this application. You previously reviewed this application for sketch plan review. Since the last appearance before the Board you have received additional materials in the form of Creighton Manning Traffic Report; correspondence from Adirondack Trust; information concerning the wetlands on the site, and more information on noise mitigation measures from the applicant. Question regarding tying into Ballston Spa Water. Applicant: Martin Hoffman, Hoffman Development Agent: Gavin Vuillame, Environmental Design Mr. Gavin Vuillame, Environmental Design provided a visual presentation to the Board of the site. Concept plan was provided to this Board in November of 2014. Plans have changed somewhat due to the feedback received from the Planning Board. Plans were submitted in December and they were forwarded to Barton and Louguidice to be reviewed. They have since completed a technical review of the project. The site access is a shared access with Adirondack Trust. At this point, no variances are required. The building location has been placed on the site to meet all the current setback requirements. We have relocated the dumpster/trash enclosure. We have moved the location of the parking spaces from the front to the back now. We have reduced parking from 21 spaces to 19, which will be adequate parking. Two stop bars have been installed to control traffic as well as directional signage. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – March 11, 2015 - Page 6 of 10 Discussion ensued regarding the shared access agreement for the driveway. It was the determination of the Board a formal approval must be received from Adirondack Trust prior to the approval of the special use permit. No vote or determination on this project will occur this evening. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner reviewed the criteria for special use permits for the Boards review. The second item which is particular with this project is when this parcel was subdivided and the access was created there is some language which gives some authority to the Adirondack Trust Company. Mr. Vuillame reviewed the utility plan which involves a connection to the Saratoga County Sewer Line. The sewer district is in favor of the project. The water is a 1” water service on the site. We will be looking into a well for the water for the mechanical portion of the car wash. Storm water management on the site will include green infrastructure and was reviewed by the consulting engineers. Landscaping plan was reviewed as well as including buffering along Route 50 and some screening along the entrance by the bank. Land disturbance remains at .19 acres in this area between us and the railroad. We will remove the berm and create more wetlands. We have submitted these plans to the Army Corps of Engineers and a response is forthcoming. Visual presentation of the proposed building was provided to the Board. Clifford Van Wagner asked if the applicant thought of switching the traffic flow of this carwash 180 degrees, have the cars enter on the south and exit on the north and just get away from that common driveway. This would create another curb cut. Alanna Moran, Creighton Manning reviewed the traffic study they completed. Shared access is good, it minimizes curb cuts and is supported by the NYS-DOT along their roadways. Adirondack Trust was concerned regarding the intensity of the land use. This use is seasonal peaking on nice days in Spring and Summer and a different level of use on snowing winter days. Peak operations for the two businesses only coincide in the peak evening hours on Thursdays and Fridays, and until noon on Saturdays. Otherwise the bank closes at 3 PM other days. There are other permitted land uses for this parcel which would generate more traffic and those are a fast food facility; which would generate 105-115 PM peak hour trips on a regular basis. This site currently generates on a Thursday evening peak hour 20 trips entering and 20 trips exiting that driveway. Level of service analysis with that volume in a Level of Service B. With this proposed project on a typical day the car wash would generate 30 vehicles evenly entering and 30 trips exiting the site, for a total of 100 trips. This results in a Level of Service C. There is a 3 second delay on Thursdays and Fridays when both the bank and the carwash are both open late. Discussion ensued regarding what the Level of Service is at the intersection of Northline and Route 50. Ms. Moran stated she can provide that information to the Board. The applicant will return before the Board when additional information requested has been provided. 4. 14.076 19/23 WASHINGTON STREET DEVELOPMENT, 19 AND 23 Washington Street, (Adelphi Hotel Redevelopment), Sketch plan review and consideration of SEQRA lead agency and SEQR review for Hotel and Group Entertainment Facilities. Applicant: Adelphi Hotel Partners, LLC Agent: Tony Stellato, CHA; Kristina Downey, CHA BACKGROUND: Project site consists of 2 separate parcels that are directly proximate to Universal Preservation Hall to north, Rip Van Dam expansion site to the south, and Druthers’ to the east, Bethesda Church across the street on the south side of Washington Street. Site is within the Broadway National Registry District. Washington Street site is transitional between approved 6 story Rip Van Dam hotel expansion, and 2 story stone mansion. Proposed project consists of City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – March 11, 2015 - Page 7 of 10 a 6 story 14,000 square foot hotel, 4,500 square foot banquet facility, and refurbishment of existing stone mansion for use as a hotel facility or rental. Project seen for sketch plan review by Planning Board on 01/28/2015. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type I action due to its location within a National Historic District, ZBA (Variances), DRC (Architectural Review), and Planning Board (site plan review) are involved agencies, DRC and ZBA pro-actively deferred lead agency status. Planning Board consideration of accepting lead agency status. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the ZBA and the DRC have deferred SEQRA Lead Agency to the Planning Board. Mr. Stellato discussed the reasoning behind the fact that these are three distinct parcels. He believes this was for financing purposes. If that is a concern we can pursue that. Mr. Stellato provided a visual presentation for the Board’s review. He reviewed all the buildings encompassing this application. Mr. Stellato reviewed each building and the proposed use for each. Parking demand calculations were provided citing 65 spaces. Valet parking will be provided to the hotel guests. Kristina Downey, traffic engineer with CHA. Traffic impact analysis. Trip generation estimate was provided for a Saturday which resulted in 17 trips, for this project only. Valet parking doubles the trip generation figures. We also looked at parking for banquet functions, 25% of attendees at the banquet functions will be hotel guests. There are approximately 70 trips before a function at the banquet facility, a nominal amount of exit trips for drop offs. 30 trips total for the hotel, 15 in and 15 out. 84 total for the banquet facility. The peaks of the hotel and the banquets are not anticipated to occur at the same time. Hotel guest’s arrival peaks earlier than the average banquet. Each of these uses individually is below a threshold of 100 trips and that is standard practice. Ms. Downey did review the valet practice the hotel will use. 36 entrance trips for the valet and 36 exit trips for the Saturday peak hour were calculated. A complete traffic assessment report was provided to the Board for their review. Mr. Stellato requested the Board opinion on whether the applicant has provided the information necessary or is there more work to be done. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated he appreciated the time and effort expended. He would like to see more qualitative and quantitative assessments completed. This route does not allow us to do anything more with this street regarding traffic mitigation. Clifford Van Wagner stated no one has spoken regarding the truck traffic which is a concern. No one has addressed this issue. This is an approved truck route. The development on this street is just too much. It is the wrong site. Traffic and parking is an issue here. There is nothing to convince me otherwise. We are doing a disservice adding more traffic to this one or two block area. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning traffic and valet parking. The applicant stated they will return before the Board. 5. 15.001.1 SARATOGA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL, 459-539 Lake Avenue, Consideration of SEQRA Lead Agency status and environmental review in the Rural Residential (RR) District. BACKGROUND: Original 3 phased project for school facilities considered for site. Use variance granted for the school February 26, 2003. Site plan approval for Phase I approved April 30, 2003. Area variance granted June 10, 2003. Architectural review approval October 2003. Variance modification is currently proposed. Applicant’s intent is to then proceed with review of Building 2 site plan review and DRC architectural review will be required. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – March 11, 2015 - Page 8 of 10 SEQRA: Planning Board served as Lead Agency for the required SEQRA review considering 3 phases of the project and issued a negative declaration on January 22, 2003. Currently ZBA considering a request to modify findings of use variance based on increase in number of students from prior assumption of 100 students to currently proposed 250 students and 35 total staff members. ZBA and DRC have pro actively deferred SEQRA Lead Agency Status to the Planning Board. INVOLVED AGENCIES: - Army Corps of Engineers. - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - New York State Department of Health - New York State Department of Transportation - Saratoga County IDA Applicant: Saratoga Independent School; Felice Karlitz, Director Agent: Libby Corrino, Attorney, Jones Firm; Bill McMorty, Construction Management Committee; - Ken Siverson, Architect; John West; Alana Moran, CME Ms. Corrino provided a brief visual presentation of the proposed project. Currently the school enrolls 106 full time students. In January of 2003 the Planning Board as Lead Agent issued a Negative Declaration for all Three Phases of the project under SEQRA. This allowed 42,000 square feet of classrooms, office, recreational and assembly space. Visual presentation included an overview of the current site, proximity to wetlands, and forested areas. This information and concept plan has recently been submitted to the ZBA because we are in a Rural Residential zone operating under a use variance. Rendering of the buildings were provided to the Board. 87% of the site remains permeable. Prior to this expansion the original plan was a campus style feel. Currently we are proposing connecting the facility together to form an east and west wing. Due to the success of the school the enrollment is increasing to approximately 250 students. This results in small increases in traffic trips, water usage per day, wastewater and storm water runoff, all of which are small and can be mitigated. All other environmental issues we believe we can stay in compliance as set forth in the 2003 SEQRA Negative Declaration. More students on site under the existing metrics. 40% of the students are bused to school. 60% are driven to school. Traffic assessment report was submitted for the Boards review. The proposed new project will be two stories and 8 classrooms will be fitted and completed. The remainder 8 classrooms will be framed but not finished. DEC forwarded correspondence regarding the wetland delineation boundary, they feel there will be no further intervention necessary. Mark Torpey, Chairman reviewed the SEQRA and the SEQRA Negative Declaration issued on January 22, 2003. There are two areas of the paperwork which need to be updated to include the new revisions concerning the ten year construction time frame and the area stating the new construction will be two stories. Tom L. Lewis made a motion to continue as SEQRA Lead Agency for this project. Clifford Van Wagner seconded the motion. Negative Declaration issued on January 22, 2003 and updated Part I and Part II on March 11, 2015. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor; City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – March 11, 2015 - Page 9 of 10  Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 Howard Pinsley made a motion to amend SEQRA Negative Declaration issued on January 22, 2003 with an updated Part I and Part II with the following revisions: amend the ten year construction time frame, and the area stating the new construction will be two stories. Tom L. Lewis seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the next Planning Board Meeting scheduled for March 25, 2015. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Mark Torpey, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11:26 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 5/27/15 City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – March 11, 2015 - Page 10 of 10