Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES (FINAL) WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2015 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Mark Torpey, Chairman; Dan Gaba; Clifford Van Wagner; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman; Tom L. Lewis; Janet Casey ABSENT: Howard Pinsley STAFF: Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs 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: 14.052 CITY CENTER PARKING GARAGE, High Rock, Lake and Maple Avenues, site plan review of a parking Facility in the Transect-6 Urban Core (T-6) District. ADJOURNED PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 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. 14.010 SUBDIVISION OF LANDS OF HARRISON, 180 Meadowbrook Road, public hearing for a two-lot subdivision in the Rural Residential District. 15.041 77 EXCELSIOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, Excelsior Avenue, Site Plan review for mixed use Development with 101 units and 1,300 sq. ft. of commercial space is the Transect-5 (T-5) District. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS/AGENDA WORKSHOPS: Planning Board Caravan, Monday, November 9, 2015 at 4:00 P.M. Planning Board Workshop, Monday, November 9, 2015 at 5:00 P.M. Planning Board Meeting, Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 7:00 P.M. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR: None heard. APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. 14.027.1 HOLIDAY INN RENOVATIONS,232 Broadway, Extension of site plan approval in a Transect-6 (T-6) Urban Core District. BACKGROUND: Planning Board issued site plan approval for expansion and renovations on June 11, 2014. An 18 month extension expiration is December 12, 2015. Requesting an 18 month extension until June 11, 2017. SEQRA: No further SEQRA action required with an extension. Applicant: Holiday Inn, Cindy Hollowood Agent: Mike Ingersoll, LA Group Mr. Ingersoll stated the applicant is requesting an 18 month extension. The project was held up with corporate reviews and timing. There are no changes in the project. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any questions or comments from the Board. None heard. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Clifford Van Wagner made a motion in the application of the Holiday Inn Renovation we approve an 18 month extension of site plan approval. 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; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 2. 15.004.1 OAK RIDGE FINAL CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION, proposed 72 lot final conservation subdivision within the Suburban Residential-1 (SR-1) District. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 28, 2015 - Page 2 of 14 BACKGROUND: The property was rezoned from RR-1to SR-1 on November 4, 2002. On May 7, 2003, the Planning Board provided approval for a 42 lot cluster subdivision on the property. The design contemplated a full build out including street network, lots, civic space, open space areas, and site access from Dyer Switch Road 2 points and Meadowbrook Road. Submission is for preliminary subdivision required for conservation subdivision. SR-1 requires 35% of unconstrained lands be preserved for permanent protection. Revised Conservation analysis provided 05/04/15. Full revised will be required for review. SEQRA: SEQRA Phase I issued a negative declaration on May 7, 2003. SEQRA review for current Phase 2 project is required. Planning Board initiated coordinated review and request for lead agency at 04/08/15 meeting. Awaiting agency input. Project contemplates 72 additional lots. 64 are provided within the density calculation. An additional 8 units (8%) are proposed as a density bonus in exchange for the permanent public access to the proposed trail. Mark Torpey stated this is a 72 lot final conservation subdivision representing Phase II of the project. Outstanding items are the Land Management Plan and the Conservation Easement. Applicant: Jeff Snyder Agent: Dave Carr, Mark Tabor, LA Group; Frank Williams and Rob Coughlin Mr. Carr stated we are seeking final conservation subdivision approval. The project received SEQRA Negative Declaration and Preliminary approval on May 27, 2015. In the interim we have submitted the Conservation Easement. We have responded to all the city’s engineering questions. We will provide you with a short visual presentation. The Master Plan was provided outlining Phase I which is 42 building lots. Phase II is 72 building lots. We have three road connections, 2 on Meadowbrook and 1 on Dyer Switch Road. There is a mix of lot sizes, alley lots which are the smaller lots, conventional lots and also more custom or larger lots. The conservation subdivision allows us to mix lot sizes. The entire site consists of 134.1 acres, constrained lands, as defined by the city consists of 36.6 acres. Unconstrained land is 97.5 acres. The developed areas are 63.4 acres and undeveloped areas are 34.1 acres. The requirement is 35% of the unconstrained land needs to be preserved in a conservation easement. The conservation land is approximately 70.7 acres total. Of this, 34.1 acres is considered usable land which could be developed. Mr. Tabor, project engineer provided a visual presentation of the site. The Management Plan has been provided to the Board recently. In general it provides guidelines to the HOA or management on how to manage open space lands, for certain things to be accomplished. Our Management Plan first identifies the open space. Identifies what exists, natural resources, structures, etc., and goals for management of those lands. It also provides recommendation for implementation of those goals. Specifically, the goals for this Management Plan are conservation of the natural resources that exist, woodland buffers, and the provision of public access and the opportunity for passive and active recreation. In terms of implementation the Management Plan identifies the boundaries of open space to be protected. Typically in the form of signage posted such as no trespassing, or protected open space. Allow the lands to exist in a natural condition, not to interfere with its right to exist in a natural non-managed condition. Build and maintain a public trail and also to provide direction for public use. These are the implementation steps. The trail can be accessed from Meadowbrook, one within the development, one at the trail head where there are parking spaces and one on Union Avenue and Route 9 P. This connects to sidewalk system City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 28, 2015 - Page 3 of 14 within the development, also to Meadowbrook and Dyer Switch Road. The condition of the forest in that area is very nice it is quite open and easy for trail implementation. Mature trees, wide open spaces which overlook the wetlands and easy for 4 wheeler type trails. We are proposing a thin layer of wood chips to demarcate the trail. That can be supplemented with blazes on trees for markers if needed. Maintenance of the trail is the responsibility of the HOA. It is simply an annual inspection and to keep it in good working order. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated he feels it is important to note the importance of the view shed area of trail. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated materials provided to Tony Izzo for review by the City Attorney. No feedback has been received concerning the draft. Mr. Carr stated the HOA will own the land. The conservation easement the code says it has to be offered to the City If the city chooses not to accept it a third party would hold the conservation easement. That would be a condition of approval. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner provided several examples of conservation easement ownership. Mark Torpey, Chairman questioned if there was any discussion on a deed restriction placed on the properties as well a 10 ft buffer. Mr. Carr stated the addition of an accessory structure setback within these lots. We have no problem with the 20ft. accessory structure setback. In the preliminary approval the agreement was a 10ft. no cut buffer, the city is requesting a 20ft. buffer, the applicant is offering 15ft. buffer. Mr. Torpey, Chairman questioned the trail connection to 9P and Meadowbrook Road. 9P is very busy road. Concern for children and pedestrian safety along this busy road and to maintain a safe connection. Mr. Carr stated this trail has been in this location since 2003. Our feeling is this is a connection on 9P, not a trailhead. There are people who run and walk in this area and we thought this would be a cutoff. We came up with an alternative. We are completely permitted and have a boardwalk. We are committed to Union Avenue because the Army Corps and the DEC propose we take the shortest distance. If the Board has a concern we could create a dead end here with an overlook and hold off building this connection to the trail until the City and the Board feels safe with this connection being constructed. There would still be 3 points of connection. Clifford Van Wagner stated this is a very busy street. The cars travel at a high rate of speed and I don’t feel safe having anyone cross here. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner states the trail can be a great amenity for the area and community as well. The City looks for the local trail to connect where possible, an inner connective trail. The green belt trail is looking for a second connection. It brings people directly accessible off a highway. People are going to be accessing it off this point with or without a trail. A striped crossing does bring people to cross in one area. If this is not addressed at this time it is possible it will remain unconnected. The green belt trail is looking for a north south connection east of the Northway. We did reach out to DOT. Kevin Novak from DOT stated he would like to speak more fully about this, it is a work permit process and would like to coordinate with the City. Clifford Van Wagner stated this is the first time this was spoken about being connected. How much can you ask an applicant to do on this. This project is 10 years old. Mr. Ingersoll stated what the applicant is proposing earmarking money in the Letter of Credit, our fair share solution will be provided for a global solution to cross 9P in the amount of $5,000. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 28, 2015 - Page 4 of 14 Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments from the audience. Bruce Thieves, Attorney representing Eric and Ashley Kavozi. They own property 13 Oakridge Blvd. in the Phase I subdivision. Ron Bova is also here, he is an engineer hired by the Kavozi’s. There are deficiencies in the Kavozi’s driveway. Two violations exist. One violation of the existing approval in 2003 and a separate violation Concerning the subdivision regulations with respect to the driveway. The Kavozi’s are in a private dispute with Mr. Snyder over the construction of their home. There is a 12% requirement in the City’s standard detail for maximum driveway slope. Mr. Bova’s analysis shows in excess of 18%. In all areas in excess of 13%. This does not comply with the 2003 requirement. The Kavozi’s children as well as other children in the area play in this area and the area around Micanthus Lane. Due to the slope of the driveway a car could slip out of gear with disastrous results. The Kavozi’s have also sustained damage to their vehicles exiting the driveway. Photographs were provided to the Board for their review. Mr. Thieves stated a portion of the subdivision regulations which specifically pertains to this. The Kavozi’s home is between Phase I and Phase II of the subdivision. If this goes forward there will be a violation of the regulations once the street becomes a city street. What we are asking for is a condition to be placed on this application for Micanthus Lane to be raised approximately 2 ½ feet by the Kavozi’s driveway to bring it into compliance. It will not require the entire street to be changed, just this particular area. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we are aware of this situation and we do not know if the road is too low or the home is too high. We are not in a position to put a condition on a resolution. Tim Wales, the City Engineer will determine the solution to this problem. Robert Kaufman, attorney with Towne Ryan and Partners, attorney for Mr. Snyder, and a resident of Greenfield Avenue. There is nothing new here that has not been submitted to the arbitrator. The Kavosi’s are seeking a substantial sum of money claiming excessive slope of the driveway. As built drawings will be filed. This is a private matter. Transcripts can be submitted on this issue. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the question is where Phase I and Phase II interface. The additional lots which are proposed in Phase II which will also access off of Miscanthis Lane, without knowing if the road will change. Discussion ensued regarding the responsibility of the Planning Board concerning this issue. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated perhaps our motion should state our approval is contingent upon the final design. Any further questions or comments concerning this application. Ron Bova, President, Bova Engineering. I conducted the survey mentioned in the matter. There is a simple solution to this issue and that would be the vertical curve needs to be adjusted which would affect only 50% of Miscanthus Lane. Mr. Carr stated we are aware of the issue; we had no part of the house or the driveway design. The road was there first. Whatever the motion is when it comes to filing an as built it does have to meet city codes. If Tim Wales, City Engineer does not accept the as built, if it does not meet city code, the applicant does not get his letter of credit back. That is how our workings with the city have been. With respect to the trail, our intent is to build this trail within two years of the filing of the plat. Even if homes are not built, the trail will be built. We want to fulfill our responsibility concerning the trail and that is our intent. Mark Torpey, Chairman reviewed the conditions the Board has set for this application. TBD is the owner of the owner of the conservation easement. 20ft. accessory structure setback, for the properties on the ridge, 15ft. no cut buffer for the properties along the ridge. This would be within the deed itself. The area around Miscanthus Lane a maximum of 5 lots that that construction is held off until the City Engineer makes a determination on how this is to be corrected. The Planning Board finds that Micanthus Lane a street that services lots in both Phase I and Phase II of the Oakridge subdivision is currently under review for potential technical deficiency. With respect to Section 2 Subsection O (4) of City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 28, 2015 - Page 5 of 14 Appendix H of the City’s Subdivision Regulations. Specifically the residential lot abutting Micanthus Lane has a driveway constructed in a manner that does not allow adequate vehicle clearance. Because of this, this Boards approval of Phase II is specifically conditioned on the remedy of the aforementioned Phase I discrepancy prior to constructing lots #99, #100, #101, #102, and #103 accessing from Micanthus Lane. The issue shall be deemed corrected upon receipt of report from the City Engineer. Trail will be built within two years of the filing of the plans. Trail design monies set aside $5,000 for future trail improvements. Acceptance of proposed public street will be subject to DPW and DPS approval. City attorney acceptance and City Council approval of the proposed conservation easement will be required. Plans will be provided to City Engineer and Planning Staff satisfaction. Conservation easement shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Council, City Attorney or Planning Staff. This includes the designation of any grantee of the easement. Clifford Van Wagner made a motion for a 72 lot conservation subdivision with the conditions as stated by the Chairman. PUBLIC HEARING: Mark Torpey, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:15 P.M. 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; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 The Board recessed at 8:20 P.M. The Board reconvened at 8:25 P.M. 3. 15.045 MOORE HALL ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ZBA, UNION AVENUE, Advisory Opinion to ZBA on conversion of existing building to a 53-unit apartment building in the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. SEQRA: Action appears to be classified as a Type II “replacement, rehabilitation or reconstruction of a structure or facility, in kind, on the same site, including upgrading buildings to meet building or fire codes,” and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Mark Torpey, Chairman this building is considered preexisting nonconforming in a UR-4 district. Two variances are currently considered by the ZBA. One is for minimum lot size and the second is for parking. Our job is to provide an advisory opinion. No decision. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the project is proposing an adaptive reuse of a former dormitory building. The building is considered preexisting and nonconforming. Variance requested for the building is not required. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 28, 2015 - Page 6 of 14 The UR-4 district multifamily homes are permitted with site plan review. DRC Historic Review is required. Received to date are the application and illustrations and a traffic generation and parking demand analysis from GPI. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE BOARD: Beverly Mastroianni, 125 Regent Street, Saratoga Springs. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the ZBA is not required to but did request an Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board for the variances they are currently considering. Your job is not to consider the merit of the variances but looking at your broader experience and what you look at in regular application to provide any assistance or clarification to the ZBA, consideration of the Comprehensive Plan, sustainability and use of existing structures and adaptive reuse. Neighborhood context and parking, as well as traffic circulation. This is to offer guidance to the ZBA, not to give approval for the project. Clifford Van Wagner asked what the ZBA is asking of the Planning Board. Mark Torpey, Chairman read the ZBA’s request for an Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board as it relates to the relief requested from the minimum parking requirements associated with the conversion of the dormitory use to a 53 unit multifamily residential use. That is what we are being asked to evaluate. Applicant: Sonny Bonacio, Larry Novak, Bonacio Construction Agent: Michael Toohey, attorney; Mike Ingersoll, LA Group; Brett Balzer, Balzer Tuck Architecture; Peter Faith, Traffic Engineer, GPI. Mr. Toohey stated the City in the newly created Comprehensive Plan encourages the adaptive reuse of vacant Buildings and infill. Secondly, they encourage an increase in housing diversity and affordability as well as neighborhood vitality. Moore Hall is largest vacant building in the City of Saratoga Springs and has been for a number of years. Mr. Toohey provided some background and history of the building. The likelihood of that building coming down is not something that is viable with regard to its future use. The utilization of this building which is in a UR-4 District. A multifamily zone is such that it falls into the category of two things. It is an adaptive reuse of a building which was constructed in the City between 1956 &1957. This will present a diverse population within our community with affordable housing with an easy reach of the downtown corridor. This is not subsidized housing. We are taking a building and constructing smaller units, called micro-units that give a pleasant place for people to reside within walking distance of downtown. Secondly, this will eliminate the need for the use of automobiles. The property backs up to North Lane and is the exact same configuration as it was in 1957. The building, the parking, the parking surface, the lighting plans, the number of parking spaces, all of those things are pre-existing nonconforming uses. The existing building and parking lot is not being expanded so the configuration of the site is as it has been since 1957. All units are 12 feet wide. 53 units are proposed, 49 units would be one bedroom approximately 675sq. ft. and would likely require only one parking space per unit. All the remaining units will be single bedroom units. We have 54 pre-existing parking spaces associated with this building, some of them are on North Lane. This leaves us with a deficit of 27 parking spaces, which ould be accommodated by on street parking. What we have is a unique building in a unique location. Mr. Peter Faith, traffic engineer, Greenman, Pederson, Inc., stated I have 37 years of experience in traffic engineering and consulting. I am a licensed professional engineer. I have performed a traffic generation and parking analysis. I referred to the Institute of Traffic Engineer, ITE publication called traffic generation for land uses. There is no breakdown for micro-apartments, therefore I used a midrise apartment calculation which is between 5 and 10 stories high for this calculation. This estimate includes the likelihood that up to 10% of the trips will arrive and depart via walking, biking or transit and this is consistent with the US Census data for Saratoga Springs. Based on this analysis, the project is expected to generate an additional 14AM peak hour trips, 19PM peak hour trips and 28 trips in City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 28, 2015 - Page 7 of 14 the Saturday peak hour. Peak hours are typically 7:30AM-8:30AM, 4:30PM-5:30PM and Noon to 1:00PM on Saturdays. These additional trips are not expected to result in any significant traffic impacts. New York State Department of Transportation and the Institute of Traffic Engineers suggest that a threshold of 100 peak hour trips when a proposed development would warrant a detailed traffic impact analysis as projects that generate less than this amount of traffic is unlikely to have any significant impacts on the level of service. Moving on to Parking Demand. The Institute of Traffic Engineers has parking demand data we can use concerning various land uses as well as the current city zoning requirements form the basis of this requirement. The current zoning requires 1.5 spaces per unit, or a total of 80 spaces for the 53 proposed units. The Institute of Traffic Engineers demands for a typical low/mid rise apartment complex is 1.23 spaces per unit or a total demand of 65 parking spaces for this project. With 53 parking spaces being provided as part of the project, this creates a deficit between 12 to 27 parked vehicles. Logic would dictate that the micro-apartments would have less of a parking demand. To assess if there is adequate parking supply to accommodate the additional 27 spaces need to meet the Design Parking Demand an appropriate area study needed to be determined. The National Parking Association published an article “How far do you need to walk” to find a parking space which defines a Level of Service approach to this question. Study area map was provided for the Board’s review. Parking Level of Service Walking Distance A 400 ft. B 800 ft. C 1200 ft. D 1600 ft E More than 1600 ft. Regarding the potential impact to the neighborhood, the on street parking demand represents 11.2% of the minimum currently available parking spaces within 1600ft. of the project. With the project fully leased and the parking demand equaling the maximum required by zoning, there will still be a minimum of 214 on street parking spaces available within the study area. The redevelopment of Moore Hall to provide 53 apartments along with 53 dedicated off street parking spaces is expected to generate 14 new vehicular trips in a typical AM peak hour, 19 new vehicular trips in a typical weekday PM hour and 28 new vehicular trips in a typical Saturday peak hour. This level of trip generation is less than traffic planning guidelines consider significant as it is less than the 100 trip threshold that would require a detailed Traffic Impact Analysis. Based on current zoning that requires 1.5 spaces per apartment, 27 spaces will need to be accommodated within the nearby on street parking supply. Surveys of available on street spaces indicate that the 27 spaces can be easily accommodated within a reasonable walking distance without a significant reduction in the available parking supply for the adjoining neighborhood. Mr. Toohey stated another parking study was performed by the applicant which entailed an entire week. Copies of the study were provided to the Board. We took a full sampling area, four times a day. This encompassed the street and side street and the alley, 400ft from the site. The parking ratio is 2 to 1. On Saturdays it is 3 to 1. There is more than ample parking, in some cases twice or three times. We went to Empire State College twice and we spoke about the parking, and the idea of shared parking. They indicated they are not interested in a shared parking concept. Mike Ingersoll, LA Group approached the Facilities Director of the Empire State College who is a long time client. They are not in a position to discuss shared parking. It is a state owned facility. Mr. Toohey stated the neighbors have asked and several members of the Zoning Board have asked what happens If you eliminate the cafeteria. One of our ideas was to park cars in front of the building on Union Avenue, fully landscaping and buffering this parking space. Several examples of this exist on Union Avenue. This would entail the Board considering this parking area. By eliminating the cafeteria we would eliminate 4 apartment units and 6 parking spaces. This area properly screened can provide 20 parking spaces. There would be no intrusion on neighbors. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the Board can consider this and request other iterations of a plan. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 28, 2015 - Page 8 of 14 Mr. Toohey stated if the Board does consider this it is a UR-4 District, multifamily zone, allows for parking. Parking would be within the setbacks from the side and Union Avenue. We would not have any problems with that. Access portal off of Union Avenue. We believe there is ample parking within a close proximity to this building. The building is in a zone that allows this. We are trying to adaptively reuse a building which currently exists. Mark Torpey, Chairman questioned if there is an option to open the single story area in the rear. Mr. Toohey stated this building has a full basement underneath. This is more expensive. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. John Boardman, White Street property owner. My concern is around how we got here today. In 2006 the property was rezoned from INST-EDU to UR-4. This was predicated on the plan proposed at the time. This plan is in no way similar to what was presented at that time. Jeff Bendavid, 37 Clark Street. One year ago I bought a condo in a 10 unit condo. We have 2 guaranteed parking spaces. Because of what goes on there during the summer. Congestion is horrible. To put this in a congested area it creates huge problems. It is an issue for this area. Mickey Mahoney, 55 White Street. I walk this area. The parking lots do get a lot of use. Beverly Mastroianni, concerned regarding the schools, churches and the traffic is horrible. There are a lot of children in this neighborhood. Too much traffic in this area, this project has too much density. Bob Wright, 37 Clark Street. Parking is awful. Union Avenue is the gateway to the City. Lets keep it a gateway to the City with beautiful Victorian Homes. Sue Rodems, 84 White Street. The density is too big. There is not enough parking. They should follow the law. These are not affordable units $1100 to $1400 per unit plus utilities for a tiny one bedroom apartment. In this neighborhood you can do better. Brian Rodems, 84 White Street. The parking study was a very small parking study for a very small period of time. This is too much density. John Kaufman, 44 White Street. Mr. Toohey stated we all purchased our properties with the building in place. It is unfair to characterize this as it is here. I am sympathetic to a plan which creates more parking in terms of taking down that building. Jeffrey Allen, 48 Union Avenue. Parking is an issue. North Alley is very busy and I have concern with the increase in traffic and parking. Sue ? 37 Wright Street. What about snow. It is a disaster. I am concerned how this impacts parking. Naomi Allen, 48 Union Avenue. The traffic is very dangerous. Traffic congestion and parking are issues. Jeff Maynee, 48 Union Avenue. Parking proposal this evening is going in the right direction to provide some parking spaces as well as lowering the number of units. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 28, 2015 - Page 9 of 14 Steve McIntyre, 30 Regent Street. Last winter my daughters can while parked was totaled. There were several successful teardowns in the city, perhaps they could look into this. Jane Wie, 44 White Street. I am concerned with the character of the neighborhood. Introduction of all this traffic is a huge impact. Concerned with the traffic and parking. Alison Backum. 48 White Street. Parking is very bad. We have been 35 years in our home. Traffic is bad. Alex Michaels, 37 Clark Street. Attest to the traffic issues. It is always important to look at peek parking season. Cannot find parking spaces. Joe Martuccio, 123 White Street. Lived here 30 years. Concerned with the density and traffic. Snow is an issue. No visitor parking available. As a landlord it is very much my concern. I provide off street parking due to this issue. Melanie Hurder, Traffic an issue, consider the density. Mike Ladd, 113 Regent Street. Nobody pointed out, I live next to the Beagle School. It is like the Bronx zoo during drop off and pick up. No one is against Sonny doing a project. This one is not his proudest if it is built this way. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated this is fairly complex project. With this it seems there have been a number of designs, and a number of apartments unit and how many handicap spaces to be included. My feeling any advisory opinion we provide to the Zoning Board really needs to have more details in order to make the right decision. We need to be comfortable with the turning radius, entrance and exit into the Union Avenue parking area and the size of the parking spaces. I think that we should be asking for much more detailed presentation, perhaps a Joint Meeting with the ZBA something which gets to the details we need to see. Discussion ensued regarding the need for site plan review. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated in discussion with Steve Shaw, Building Inspector that such an increase in parking demand, is one item triggering site plan review. Mr. Toohey stated considering no changes in the site that there is no requirement for site plan review. The question is whether or not there is adequate parking in the public realm. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated this has been designated as a Type II action. Tom L. Lewis stated this is a case of a rare adaptive reuse. We have a building that has been vacant for a decade. How many people have said can’t we do something with that building. This is a rare opportunities. My opinion is It is legal non conforming. This is allowed. If this is denied it will sit there for years. I am very much in favor of a positive advisory opinion to the Zoning Board. Clifford Van Wagner stated I agree with Tom that the readaptive use of this unique. The St. John Neuman project is also a readaptive use. To tear it down would require six figures or more. Neighbors for the most part bought their homes after the existence of the Pink Palace. That is disingenuous. If this does not happen then this will remain as is. The cost is the cost. The Comp Plan recommends an adaptive reuse. I agree this is a preexisting nonconforming use. I agree with Tom Lewis, kick this over to the ZBA. This is a unique opportunity to use a building that has been here a while. This is the best use of this building without a demolition. Janet Casey stated in a perfect world I would like to see this torn down. We can’t go back and rethink. Adaptive City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 28, 2015 - Page 10 of 14 reuse I am all for it. I would much rather have the building used rather than see it vacant, and sit there for another decade. The applicant has suggested that perhaps some parking could be put in the front with proper landscaping and buffering. Maybe this is a reasonable accommodation for the use of the site. Dan Gaba stated that Sonny has always done a good job of reaching out to the community whenever he has a project such as this. Looking at putting parking in the front would be a great proposal. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, stated in the early 70’s there were different thinking and proposals for this part of town. The pink palace was never good. Texas architecture got it wrong not only the design but the use of the materials. I would hate to see this remain and live with us for the next decade. I have been in the community for 40 some odd years and I think as this project progresses, Sonny will make some right decisions here. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated he likes the project. It is a good project for the city. In terms of adaptive reuse and infill development it does seem like a good project for the city. If it does come back to this Board I would like to see how it all fits together. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner would like the Board to articulate what you would like in the written correspondence to the ZBA. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we spoke about creative ways to meet the parking requirement, angling the cars, parking spots out front, smaller spaces for compact cars. Removal of the dining hall, I would encourage the ZBA to seek out information before they make their decision to see if this makes sense in terms of parking. Mark Torpey, Chairman read the ZBA’s request for an Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board as it relates to the relief requested from the minimum parking requirements associated with the conversion of the dormitory use to a 53 unit multifamily residential use. That is what we are being asked to evaluate In terms of an Advisory Opinion. Tom L. Lewis stated he would make a motion to approve the variances; it is a legal nonconforming use with review of onsite design options for parking. Janet Casey stated she would add encourage the ZBA to consider as much as possible creative reallocation of parking. I am balancing the positives of the project against the negative of density of the parking. I would like it to be clear in our positive advisory opinion to the ZBA we would also be encouraging them to think carefully and work with the applicant about creative uses for the parking that would further mitigate the density of the parking problem. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated it would be good for the ZBA prior to a decision on the variances to know the amount of onsite parking with the new design options proposed this evening. Clifford Van Wagner made a motion for a Positive Advisory Opinion to the ZBA for the Moore Hall Project with regards to the relief requested from the minimum parking requirements in the UR-4 District with the caveats we have on record. 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; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 28, 2015 - Page 11 of 14 The Board recessed at 10:25 P.M. The Board reconvened at 10:30 P.M. 4. 15.044.1 TRIFECTA ADVISORY OPINION ZBA, ADAMS, ROAD AND LINCOLN AVENUE, Advisory Opinion to ZBA on a two lot residential subdivision in the Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District. DISCLOSURE: Dan Gaba stated for the record he was the listing agent for this property when purchased by Trifecta, LLC. I have no financial interest in this property and can render an impartial vote. There is no need for recusal, simply disclosure. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the ZBA has requested an Advisory Opinion on a two lot subdivision in the UR-2 District at the corner of Adams Road and Lincoln Avenue. Three variances are requested from the Zoning Board of Appeals. They are seeking relief from the minimum average lot width on both lots and minimum lot size and minimum total side yard setback requirements in UR-2. BACKGROUND: An area variance was requested from the Zoning Board of Appeals to provide for a two lot residential subdivision at the corner of Adams Road and Lincoln Avenue, seeking relief from the minimum average lot width for both lots and minimum lot size and minimum total side yard setback requirement in the UR-2 zone. Per 8.4.6 a Planning Board Advisory is required as well as a subdivision review. The proposed lot 2 would be Improved with a single family residence. Proposed house shown as facing Lincoln Avenue with access off of Adams Street. SEQRA: Action appears to be an Unlisted Action. Applicant has submitted a short EAF as required. Agent: Michael Toohey, Attorney Mr. Toohey has provided a tax map for this area. The applicants have purchased the corner property. They are proposing a two lot subdivision creating two lots facing Lincoln Avenue. The interior lot has a house on it. We are attempting to create property consistent with the other homes within that neighborhood. Tax maps provided show lot widths of properties in the neighborhood and analysis with review of properties along Jefferson/Clark Streets east to Nelson Avenue. Many of the lots in this neighborhood have less than the required frontage width and are less than the required square footage for a single family home. Proposed lot 2 would be improved with a new single family residence. A new curb cut off of Adams Street is proposed. With the driveway from the eastern most lot coming off of Adams Street, it will not introduce another curb cut onto Lincoln Avenue the more heavily trafficked street. Mr. Toohey provided some statistics to the Board regarding lot widths, lot frontages in this area. It is the character of the neighborhood. This is old Saratoga. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mark Torpey, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Melinda Frye, 130 Lincoln Avenue. 50ft wide lots are common in our neighborhood. Thoughtful consideration given to the opposite point of view. Our area has historic, old and new homes. This is a large lot, you have an opportunity to preserve open space close to the track and will provide some breathing space for the neighborhood. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 28, 2015 - Page 12 of 14 Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we look to the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan which guides our decisions. There is a strong push for continued infill development. There is an opportunity here to provide for some sidewalk connections and pedestrian benefits for movements in this area. In general these subdivision have been helpful. Discussion ensued regarding the size of the proposed lots. Dan Gaba stated he does have some history on the property. A portion of the rear of the property was sold to a neighbor so they could place an addition on their property. This lot at one point in time was larger. The Comp Plan does speak about infill and this is a great spot for it, adding sidewalks etc. There is a lot of pedestrian movement in this area. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the Board received correspondence from JP Spinelli concerning this project. Clifford Van Wagner made a motion for a positive Advisory Opinion to the Zoning Board for the proposed two lot subdivision, on the corner of Lincoln and Adam Street. Dan Gaba 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; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Clifford Van Wagner made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 9, 2015 Planning Board Meeting as submitted. Dan Gaba seconded the motion. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 Clifford Van Wagner made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 23, 2015 Planning Board Meeting as submitted. Dan Gaba seconded the motion. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, abstained; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0-1 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 28, 2015 - Page 13 of 14 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Mark Torpey, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 12/9/15 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 28, 2015 - Page 14 of 14