Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2016 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Mark Torpey, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Mark Torpey, Chairman; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman; Tom L. Lewis; Clifford Van Wagner; Jamin Totino, Janet Casey, Amy Durland, alternate ABSENT: Howard Pinsley STAFF: Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Justin Grassi, Attorney for the Land Use Boards arrived at 8:00 P.M. ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: 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: 1.15.049 LANDS OF STONE, 68 Weibel Avenue, sketch plan review of office, retail, and multi-family residential in the Transect-4 Urban Neighborhood (T-4) District. 2.16.025 MENDENHALL SUBDIVISION, 101 Old Schuylerville Road, 4-lot preliminary conservation subdivision within the Rural Residential (RR) District. 3.16.027 WEST AVENUE APARTMENTS, 246 West Avenue, Special Use Permit for construction of 16 multi-family residential units within the Transect-4 Urban Neighborhood (T-4) District. 4.16.027 WEST AVENUE APARTMENTS, 246 West Avenue, Special Use Permit for construction of 16 multi-family residential units within the Transect-4 Urban Neighborhood (T-4) District. 5. 16.038.1 PET LODGE, SEQRA COORDINATED REVIEW OF AN ANIMAL KENNEL USE, Route 9, SEQRA Coordinated Review in Tourist Business (TRB) and Rural Residential (RR) Districts. 6. 16.034 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, Request for Advisory Opinion from the City Council. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS/AGENDA WORKSHOPS: Planning Board Caravan, Monday, November 7, 2016 at 4:00 P.M. Planning Board Workshop, Monday, November 7, 2016 at 5:00 P.M. Planning Board Meeting, Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR: None heard. A. APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 04.029.1 ICE HOUSE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION, 70 and 72 Putnam Street, site plan modification review in a Transect-6 Urban Core (T-6) District. BACKGROUND: Tent is proposed as a permanent structure. This would allow for it to remain standing longer than temporary structure time requirements. ZBA has approved variances from required two story requirement and minimum frontage: build out 80% required 33.2% approved. DRC approved structure for historic review. A requirement the Planning Board placed on the applicant was the removal of the tent. It was a violation and remained up longer than a temporary structure. The tent has been removed. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, no further review is required. Applicant: Lynchy’s Tavern Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated as the chair noted this project has received a zoning variance for it to be located 5 feet away from the rear and side property line. In July of 2015 we did receive DRC approval. Ms. Yasenchak provided a quick history of the request and why this application is unique in that the tent was not attached to the building. As the site exists there is an 8 foot easement between the building and the lot line which we are taking away. That easement was granted in June of 2008 when the current owner purchased the property. This easement was in effect even longer, it is to allow Sperry’s for motorized vehicles and trucks to make deliveries to the rear of the property. That is the way the easement is now written. The applicant has spoken to the owner of Sperry’s to try to relocate the easement to no avail. This precludes the applicant from attaching the tent to the building. There are several tents in the areas are attached. This applicant would like to have that opportunity. We are severely limited by the easement. Part of the application is to merge these two lots into one and we feel that is making two very small lots into one. This however, does not do anything for the easement. We are here asking for a permanent tent. This is a segway from tent to something more permanent. This permanent tent will need a building permit and have to meet all the requirements from the Building Inspector as well as electrical being up to code. Janet Casey questioned the presumed lifetime of the tent. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the lifetime of the tent and the issuance of a permit and length of time of the permit to be issued. DISCLOSURE: Jamin Totino disclosed his wife’s family owns Sperry’s. He has no financial interest in this project, simply a disclosure. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on this application. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 27, 2016 - Page 2 of 7 Amy Durland questioned the applicant’s agent if the street trees in front of the property comply with the requirements of the ordinance? Ms. Yasenchek stated the applicant has been working off an approved site plan. The green space and landscaping and fencing have all been approved previously. I do not know about the trees. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated there is 70 feet of frontage and one existing tree. Transect spacing is every 40 ft. spacing. They are just shy of that. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated that is an area that the Urban Forest Master Plan has had conversations about greening it up. I think it would be great to remove the invasive tree at this location and plant two additional non invasive trees in that location. It is a site plan modification the Planning Boards responsibility is to request street trees, lights, sidewalks and curbing. I think we would like to look at that as well. Ms. Yasenchak stated we can check the tree spacing in that location and provide this information to the Board. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the motion would read two trees in front of the property and the removal of the Bradford Pear and replacing it with trees in conformance with the Urban Forest Master Plan. Ms. Yasenchak stated there is an exit from the library in this location, I would speak to the City Engineer and determine if this would impede their site distance. Mark Torpey, Chairman reviewed the potential conditions for the site plan modification – a potential 2 year “Permanent Allowance”. It would either expire or require the applicant to return before the Planning Board. All technical specs provided to the City Engineer regarding snow loading, wind loads, etc., electrical and fire safety inspections, 2 street trees to be planted on where the removal of the Bradford Pear and the location of the second tree to be determined by staff. Verbiage regarding the tent not being a permanent structure. Ms. Yasenchak requested the Board adjourn this application for two weeks so she can review the proposed terms and conditions with her client. Mark Torpey, Chairman adjourned the application for two weeks and the applicant will return with additional information to clarify this application. 2. 12.023.4 CONGRESS PLAZA EMBASSY SUITES, 46 Congress Street, proposed site plan modification to eliminate vehicular access from South Federal Street in a Transect-5 Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. BACKGROUND: Congress Plaza – existing site within the site, largely shaped by urban renewal back in the 1960’s which featured a more isolated location. With the Embassy Suites project review, the CME traffic report provided for the increase in traffic being Mitigated through the reintroduction of access points from South Federal and South Franklin Streets. Proposal is now to remove that access point. Applicant: DCG Development, Donald McElroy Agent: Mike Ingersoll, LA Group, Teressa Bakner, Whiteman, Osterman and Hannah Mr. Ingersoll provided an overview of the project for the Board as well as a site plan review. There is some additional landscaping which needs to be completed. There is a desire for an alternative to the current proposal. The applicant notes potential pedestrian safety issues with vehicular access. A well designed access point could serve to reinforce pedestrian right of way, slow down traffic and minimize conflict points among pedestrians, cars and cyclists. Mean to City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 27, 2016 - Page 3 of 7 keep connection but allow for traffic calming such as speed humps. The applicant notes public is utilizing the parking lot while not visiting stores within the site. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated she attempted to contact Commissioner Skip Scirocco on this and did not hear back with a set time to meet with him prior to the meeting. The City’s intent has been to increase street network or “grid” to allow multiple ways to reach destinations. This is reinforced through the City’s Transect zoning. Congress Plaza when created cut off access points that were formerly within the neighborhood. Project re-established South Franklin and South Federal Street connections. With an increase in traffic for hotel and refurbished plaza, these connections were sole mitigation provided. Discussion ensued concerning the lack of the right of way with the new configuration. Teresa Bakner, Attorney stated this site was formerly a grocery store plaza. It never had a connection at that location. She discussed connections and the lack of former approval for connectivity. We are coming to you with an alternative for this location. We have checked with the seniors and our tenants. They would all prefer to have a connection which is limited to pedestrians and bicycles. We still maintain a connection just not for cars. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated she did post the 2013 traffic analysis information and noted there was a decrease in the trips per the calculations which were made. It was the recommendation of Creighton Manning at that time and was a condition of the Planning Board at that time, to reintroduce two access points into the site- S Franklin Street, and S Federal Street. There were a few things the Board was interested in. One was increasing traffic in general to the site, to and from existing parts of the city as well as to the south and west seeing additional development taking place. So as is the pattern you are providing a different means to reach destinations via a grid, “spreading out” the traffic. Dead ends are also strongly discouraged throughout our zoning ordinance in terms of a situation like that. Looking at accessibility for vehicular traffic and visibility for the businesses along the rear of the plaza. Security has also been discussed and having a flow of movement through this point keeps eyes on what is happening there. Ms. Bakner stated we are before the Board this evening for you to consider our proposal. Mr. Ingersoll stated there is an access point open to SouthFranklin/ Ash Street and that will remain open. Clifford Van Wagner stated he is aware of the needs of the elderly. Safety is the main concern. The Commissioner of Public Safety is in charge of this and is the ultimate authority. Amy Durland, alternate stated no one is recommending that we ignore safety concerns or the concerns of the seniors. Creating points of access is one of the major emphasis of the transect zones and creating connections enhances City life. I am very reluctant dropping this requirement. The connectivity is an important goal of the city especially in this area because it is a big superblock. We do need to address safety issues and concerns of the seniors. Ms. Bakner stated the Board needs to look at the site and other alternatives. This does not preclude any future activities. Jamin Totino stated he would like to see other alternatives beside pedestrian and bike access. I would like to see Commissioner of Public Safety’s comments and information concerning his objections to this plan. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Lois Celeste, Executive Director of the Senior Center. We have 150-175 seniors a day that come in and out of the senior center. This number has increased substantially. We have discussed this with our Board and the seniors. Safety has to be looked at. Parking is allowed in this area. Concerns regarding having a thoroughfare. Senior Center will have a few spaces dedicated to Senior Center’s use with proposal. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 27, 2016 - Page 4 of 7 Dan Fourtier, Embassy Suites. Employees take their breaks facing Ash Street. Volume of traffic is heavy. The plaza at 3 PM the plaza is full. Encouraging more traffic into a busy parking lot, is begging a situation that we do not really want. The west side of the hotel should be duplicated on the east side of the plaza. Patrice Mastroianni, Serendipity Art Studio. I have asked the other tenants in my plaza and we all want the opening. A petition was circulated to the tenants and this was provided to the Board. We have two empty store fronts right now. We are struggling for recognition, no one can find us. Getting in and out of this entryway is difficult and dangerous. Many of the businesses really want another way to exist the plaza. They want an alternative. Also, no handicap access only on the end. Ashley Gardner, Ballston Spa. I can see people using this to avoid other streets. Impact on West Circular. More access would be great but it needs to be carefully looked at. Amy Durland read into the record that the petition submitted by Ms. Mastroianni consisted of 15 business owners who all indicated “We are in favor of the exit in the southeast corner of Congress Plaza to South Federal Street being constructed.” She read some of their additional comments on the petition which indicated strong support for the new access. Amy Durland, alternate stated parking and traffic situation needs to be looked at. It sounds as if the project could benefit from a complete analysis and how it circulates. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman stated he walks this area often and feels alternatives are worthy of studying. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated there will not be a vote this evening. We talked about a number of things. We need some information from DPW regarding their concerns. The Board would like to see alternatives and how they would be laid out especially some traffic calming. 175 seniors a day using the senior center and question if the parking in the area is sufficient. Long term engagements and interactions. Creighton Manning response in terms of the long term impacts. Mike Ingersoll stated the applicant will return back before the Board. We will check with the Commission of DPW. There is a possibility that this application be withdrawn. 8:40 P.M. The Board recessed. 8:50 P.M. The Board reconvened. 3. 16.014.1 21 PARK PLACE CONDOS (APP2), 21 Park Place, 2 lot residential subdivision within the UR-4 District. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated this application was submitted to the Board previously for an additional 4 units to be created on the site. The original application is still pending it has not been rescinded or tabled. This is a new application for a new project. This new project does not require any variances from the ZBA nor any review by the Design Review Commission. SEQRA: Requires SEQRA Type I (long form) action due to the proximity to the adjacent Historic District. Part I of the SEQRA form has been submitted. BACKGROUND: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 27, 2016 - Page 5 of 7 Site Plan application for 4 additional residential units remains active for site. After significant review before the Board, the Board felt there were unresolved issues related to the “visual density” of the proposed project, loss of the estate lot setting currently provided at the site, access and loss of public parking, and proposed or potential loss of a number of 150-200 year old mature oak trees on the site. Applicants: Linda Haner and Dave Guarino Agent: Tonya Yasenchek, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchek stated she is here representing the owners. A visual presentation was provided for the Board’s review. A site review of what currently exists was provided as well as a review of the old project. The applicant is currently requesting a 2 lot final residential subdivision which would meet the regulations. It is in the UR-4 zoning district which does allow for single and two family homes, accessory structures are allowed. This project requires no variances and is a much smaller less impactful project than what was previously submitted. The new lot will meet all area requirements. We have reduced a curbcut. There will be an easement which will allow for a shared driveway. We have also reviewed the trees. A letter from the arborist was included with this application. In this application 2 trees will be removed, 1 which is diseased and verified by the arborist. Discussion ensued regarding the possibility of not losing any trees on this lot. Ms. Yasenchek stated the applicant will also be making infrastructure improvements. The sidewalk and any area which needs to be repaired will be repaired and replaced in kind with a brick sidewalk. The curbing will be replaced as it needs to be as well as lighting and street trees to meet the city code. Ms. Yasenchak provided homes in the neighborhood and a view of what a potential home could look like. Ms. Yasenchek reviewed the listing of deed restrictions the applicant is proposing for the lot; there is currently no buyer at this time. Deed restrictions would include such items as height restriction, eaves and gables which would match the architecture of the area, certain square footage of porches on the structures which would engage people, gables facing each street, mechanicals shielded from view, roof pitches 5/12 minimum, which would help dictate the type of architecture used in this project. Also restrictions will be placed on the type of doors and windows style and materials, porches and balconies constructed of wood, no pressure treated wood on the structure. Jamin Totino stated he has some concerns regarding the easement versus shared driveway and the deed restrictions. Justin Grassi reviewed the purview of the Planning Board in subdivision approvals. These deed restrictions are being imposed by the applicant. Janet Casey stated she appreciates the owner putting restrictions on the property; however she is uncomfortable with the process and feels it could be problematic. It does not feel right. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak concerning this application. Dan Meaney, property owner on the north side. Spoke concerning homes in the area which were rehabbed back to livable homes. Feels if the property is subdivided the beauty of the existing structure will be blocked. Alice O’Brien, 23 Park Place. I believe the applicant is looking to circumvent the rules of the subdivision. I am very nervous and uncomfortable with what will be developed here. Park Place is a busy place, and dangerous. Side by side curb cuts are a concern. Jane White, 34 White Street. We have lived in the neighborhood since 1978. How would these deed restrictions be enforced. What assurance is there that these restrictions would be enforced. Justin Grassi reviewed how this could be enforced. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 27, 2016 - Page 6 of 7 Mr. Z, attorney for the applicant stated this would be noted on the deed and filed with the County Clerk’s office. Andrea Gardner, 105 Regent Street. Her concern is if the subdivision is approved and they do not build what happens. Also, is concerned regarding the mature trees. Amy Durland, alternate stated the subdivision exists and goes with the land. John Kaufman, 44 White Street. Spoke concerning the subdivision. Permitting a subdivision is a privilege and it isn’t a right. I envy the man that owns this land and this lot and it is a beautiful thing. The loss is significant, loss of the trees, and the lot. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked counsel to expound on the granting of a subdivision. Is it a right or a privilege? Justin Grassi, Attorney for the Land Use Boards, stated if the Board were to deny the subdivision they would need to have identifiable criteria to deny. Mr. Zee stated the lot does meet the minimum lot requirement and the Planning Board does not look at structures. The power of this Board comes from the SEQRA portion of the application and the environmental regulations. Justin Grassi, Attorney for the Land Use Boards, stated what Mr. Zee stated is correct. The underlying uses are permitted uses and do not require any further site plan or DRC review. Clifford Van Wagner stated the Planning Board can review subdivisions but do not have to approve, especially in reviewing the SEQRA environmental impacts. Discussion ensued regarding the SEQRA Environmental review and determination. Mr. Z spoke concerning saving the tree in question and reconfiguring the proposed structure and addressing the jog in the property to the concerns of the Board. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning all the issues which need to be addressed during the SEQRA review. Clifford Van Wagner requested the city arborist review the status of the trees and amount of disturbance the trees can tolerate. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we will not review SEQRA this evening. This will be reviewed at our next meeting. Perhaps this application can be reviewed to retain the aesthetics of the property and what flexibility we have to preserve the opening and the visual impact of this property. Janet Casey questioned how small the applicant is willing to go as far as size of the structure on this lot. Perhaps this could be something the applicant can return with. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the November 10, 2016 meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Mark Torpey, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 27, 2016 - Page 7 of 7  Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 11/22/16 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 27, 2016 - Page 8 of 7