Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES (FINAL) THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2016 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman; Janet Casey; Tom L. Lewis; Jamin Totino; Amy Durland, alternate; Ruth Horton, alternate LATE ARRIVAL: Clifford Van Wagner arrived at 7:47 P.M. ABSENT: Mark Torpey, Chairman STAFF: Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Justin Grassi, Attorney for the Land Use Boards-arrived at 7:50 P.M.; left at 8:30 P.M. Mark Schachner, Attorney for the Land Use Boards-arrived at 8:30 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. 6.040 WEST AVENUE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, 106-120 West Avenue, Special Use permit for mixed-use development within the T-5 Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman stated we have received Howard Pinsley resignation due to his illness. He is focusing his energy on his recovery. We would like to thank Tom L. Lewis for his service on this Board since this is his last meeting. UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS/AGENDA WORKSHOPS: Planning Board Caravan, Monday, January 9, 2016 at 4:00 P.M. Planning Board Workshop, Monday, January 9, 2016 at 5:00 P.M. Planning Board Meeting, Thursday, January 12, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. COMMENTS FROM STAFF: Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated we received notification today that the City has received funding from the DEC for our Downtown Greenbelt Trail Connection projects on Excelsior Avenue. This has been a partnership working with the property owners, and city departments all along this stretch, Lake Avenue, High Rock Avenue, all the way down to Excelsior Avenue where it abuts the Northway. We are very pleased to announce that the City received 1.134 Million Dollars in funding. This provides us the ability to make this a model corridor project working with all those partners. Exciting news for the City. Jamin Totino stated this is Tom L. Lewis’ last meeting. I would like to formally and publicly thank him for his service to the City of Saratoga Springs. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR: None heard. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman stated we have adjusted the agenda this evening due to our awaiting the arrival of Planning Board Counsel. The agenda will be heard out of order to accommodate. A. APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. 16.043 BEYER SUBDIVISION, 199 West Circular Street, 2 lot residential subdivision within the Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District. BACKGROUND: Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated the Planning Board had previously issued a favorable Advisory Opinion to the ZBA regarding creation of 2 lots at this location. Historically, not meeting the minimum lot size required a use variance. This requirement is no longer in place; ZBA approved necessary area variances on May 9, 2016, that allows a two lot subdivision to be considered. This has been noticed for a public hearing. Concerning SEQRA this appears to be an unlisted action and a short EAF form has been provided by the applicant. Board review of Part I and Part II of SEQRA is anticipated. SEQRA: Action appears to be unlisted. Applicant: Jeff Beyer Agent: Corinna Martino, Kristin Cattalier; Martino and Anthony Ms. Martino stated the Board has seen this project previously. It is on the corner of West Circular and Hyde Street. We are seeking a subdivision approval in the UR-2 District. ZBA has approved area variances. We have created a substandard lot where the existing home sits. Currently there is access off of Hyde Street and that will remain unchanged. The only improvement to be made is the relocation of a garage which is behind this home and moves it fully onto this lot. Proposed improvements – we are proposing a 3 bedroom single family home which will front on West Circular Street with a single car garage to the rear. Access off of Brighton Way. We are improving Brighton Way it will be paved, regraded and re-aligned slightly. Neighbors are in agreement with these improvements. Additional improvements to be made are stormwater mitigation. After conversation with Tim Wales, City Engineer we will be upgrading the storm water management to the 25 year storm which is larger than originally proposed. Utilities to be accessed from West Circular Street. We will be replacing the existing sidewalk along the entire frontage of West Circular Street, adding street trees, lighting and curbing. Improvements along Hyde Street, we are proposing a sidewalk. We have added a street light per the request of the city. We are requesting a waiver for curbing in this area. The home and the street are at the same elevation. Curbing will create issues with stormwater being driven back to the home. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – December 8, 2016 - Page 2 of 19 We are concerned this will trap stormwater and not allow it to drain properly. Concern was raised adding 2½ feet to the City’s right of way. This is already a substandard lot and conveying additional land would increase that. We have proposed an easement to the City for the 2 ½ feet. Visual presentation of the proposed residence was provided to the Board. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further questions or comments from the Board. Amy Durland questioned the 25 year drainage plan location versus the 100 year plan. Ms. Martino reviewed the stormwater management plan and what is being proposed with the addition of four dry wells. The applicant is not required to meet the 100 year plan. PUBLIC HEARING: Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:19 P.M. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. The Board reviewed Part I of the SEQRA short form provided by the applicant. No issues were noted. The Board reviewed Part II of the SEQRA short EAF form. No large or important areas of concern were noted. SEQR DECISION: Jamin Totino stated that based upon the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part II of the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, the project will not result in any large and important impacts and, therefore, is one that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based on this, I move to make a SEQR negative declaration for this action. Ruth Horton seconded the motion. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Amy Durland, Alternate, in favor; Ruth Horton, Alternate, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 PUBLIC HEARING: Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:27 P.M. Janet Casey made a motion to approve the 2 lot residential subdivision with the following conditions: City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – December 8, 2016 - Page 3 of 19 Easement provided to the City in lieu of 2½ ft conveyance to the City due to substandard ROW on Hyde Street, waiver of curbing on Hyde Street, Streetscape improvements per City’s standards, stormwater manager to the City Engineer’s satisfaction. Jamin Totino seconded the motion. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Amy Durland, Alternate, in favor; Ruth Horton, Alternate, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 2. 16.044 WATERVIEW SUBDIVISION, 655 Crescent Avenue, 4 lot final residential subdivision within the Interlaken PUD. BACKGROUND: Applicant proposes 4 additional lots to be subdivided within now Interlaken PUD. Planning Board previously issued a Favorable Advisory Opinion to the City Council regarding inclusion of property into the Interlaken PUD map and text amendment. Council approved amendments. Applicants are returning to the Planning Board for subdivision. SEQRA: Action appears to be an unlisted action. City Council issued a negative declaration for map and text amendments. Applicant: Bill Morris, Two Gilbert Road Corners, LLC Agent: Dave Carr, Doug Heller, Project Engineer; LA Group Mr. Carr stated the existing lot is 1.1 acres and was brought into this zone and approved last month by the City Council. The Board has reviewed this project as an Advisory Opinion and it remains exactly as was presented at that time. A visual presentation of the project was provided to the Board. We are proposing 4 lots which range from 10,400 square feet to 14,000 square feet which match the existing zoning and density on the property today. This is a simple 4 lot subdivision. Janet Casey questioned the screening on the property. Dave Carr explained the screening and sidewalks in the area. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning access to the property and traffic circulation. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – December 8, 2016 - Page 4 of 19 Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:46 P.M. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Peter Maioriello, 663 Crescent Avenue, homeowner lot north of the four properties. Spoke concerning the proposed 4 lot subdivision. In favor of this project. We request surveyor’s pins to be placed on the corners of the proposed lots. Happy to have new neighbors. NOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, Board Member arrived at 7:47 P.M. Justin Grassi, Attorney for the Land Use Board arrived at 7:50 P.M. Dave Carr spoke concerning Mr. Maioriello’s request concerning the surveyor’s pins and we have no issues with that. The cleanup of the lot is important we would offer that to be completed. Screening will be up to the individual homeowner’s preference. SEQRA: The Board reviewed Part I of the SEQRA short form provided by the applicant. No issues were noted. The Board reviewed Part II of the SEQRA short EAF form. No large or important areas of concern were noted. SEQR DECISION: Clifford Van Wagner stated that based upon the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part II of the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, the project will not result in any large and important impacts and, therefore, is one that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based on this, I move to make a SEQR negative declaration for this action. Jamin Totino seconded the motion. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Amy Durland, Alternate, in favor; Ruth Horton, Alternate, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 PUBLIC HEARING: Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:58 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – December 8, 2016 - Page 5 of 19 Tom L. Lewis made a motion in the matter of the Waterview Subdivision, 655 Crescent Avenue, 4 lot final residential subdivision within the Interlaken PUD be approved with the following conditions: Surveyors pins be installed at the corners of the proposed lots as well as the cleanup of the lot per the applicant’s agreement. Ruth Horton seconded the motion. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Amy Durland, Alternate, in favor; Ruth Horton, Alternate, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 3. #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. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type 2 action, no further action is required. BACKGROUND: Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated that the site plan approval for Congress Plaza, Embassy Suites had two proposed additional connections to the Plaza which were approved by the Board. One from South Federal and one from South Franklin Streets, basically reintroducing those connections. This has gone through departmental review. The Board approved that submission to institute those two connections. The applicant is now proposing to disconnect the access point from South Federal and Congress Plaza. Since last before this Board, it was requested we obtain additional information from DPW. Tim Wales, City Engineer relayed to the Board Commissioner Sirocco’s opinion that basically that he is not in favor of the modification or the continuing two way access point. The applicant has also provided an alternative plan which is a one way egress through this area, with some sidewalk improvements, striping and stop signs being provided in this area. They are proposing angled parking. Five spaces are to be set aside for the Senior Center. DISCLOSURE: Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman disclosed that he was the original designer for this project back in the early 1970’s. He has no financial interest in this project and there is no need for recusal, simply a disclosure. Applicant: DCG Development, Donald McElroy Agent: Teressa Bakner, Attorney, Whiteman, Osterman and Hannah; Mike Ingersoll, Dave Carr, LA Group Mr. Ingersoll provided a visual presentation of the site, noting the original plan and several interim iterations, and what is currently proposed. The project is the same as what was presented several weeks ago. After conversations with City Staff we developed this plan which is essentially a one way egress from the site, and some diagonal parking, essentially reducing the connection in half. Following the workshop on Monday and DPW’s comments we are not going to be obtaining a curb cut opening. We will increase the landscaping in the area and provide somewhat of a pocket park. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – December 8, 2016 - Page 6 of 19 Discussion ensued regarding the proposed Options provided to the Board by the applicant. Amy Durland, alternate asked the legal counsel to weigh in on this. Justin Grassi, Attorney to the Land Use Boards stated there is no obligation on the Planning Board to approve based on the applicant’s inability to meet the conditions. The conditions which were imposed on the original site plan were presumably imposed to mitigate some impact. If the Board were to determine now that those impacts concerning circulation can be mitigated in another way, or is no longer a concern, it is appropriate for the Board to approve if it meets the criteria. The fact that the applicant was unable to because of another city entity that does not obligate the Planning Board to revise a site plan if they don’t believe those impacts will still be mitigated. In fact it would be inappropriate to do so. I recommend that the Board treat the site plan amendment independently from the knowledge that the applicant is stuck and treat it as whether it is an attractive option of an amendment. PUBLIC HEARING: Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman asked if anyone from the public would like to speak on this application. None heard. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. Amy Durland, Alternate stated she does have some comments. Amy believes retaining the connector road on this application is important, and pretty fundamental to our role in furthering the City’s general plan, in this case the basic elements of the Transect Zones. Kate’s agenda notes and comments contain astute observations and are relevant to this site. In the 1960’s, urban renewal shaped this site and it became its own superblock and in important ways cut off from the surrounding area. It created and to an extent still creates an obstacle between the downtown and the west side, particularly the arts district. We’ve used other applications to address this in some positive ways in recent years, and I hope we continue this effort. So, the zoning ordinance describes Transect Zones standards and considerations: quoting from the ordinance now, -extend traditional circulation systems with interconnecting streets -“All streets should connect to other streets to form a circulation network. Cul-de-sacs should be allowed only when there is no acceptable alternative due to site conditions such as waterways, wetlands, or steep slopes.” -T-5, in particular; “intended to provide linkages to adjacent neighborhoods”. What about the senior center and the safety issues. It is of paramount importance. The Senior Center is a wonderful organization for adults age 50 and older, and its mission includes an emphasis on personal independence and healthy recreation. We want to support their safe pedestrian access to other areas within the site and the rest of the city. But this Board has addressed pedestrian safety in other applications, so we know we have options: in fact the one way proposal presented has various options which can be considered for a full access road consistent with the original application. Speed bumps or speed humps, lane design, street signage, maybe turn restrictions. Let’s also remember that the cut through was supported by the traffic safety engineers who initially consulted for the applicant. As it is I have safety concerns with the current proposal. Cars at the angled parking spaces back out into the crosswalk. With the access blocked, cars have to travel throughout the entire site to get to the South Federal Street area and the businesses located near there – fewer access points mean increased traffic within the site. There have been numerous comments that having the closed off space at that location has resulted in increased vagrancy. I am prepared to discuss the applicants need for more parking but that does not seem to be on the table. Finally, I certainly don’t want to create headaches for the applicant but given our counsels directive about what considerations we use to make our decision, I believe this access is fundamental to the directives of the zoning ordinance and the Planning Boards role and I support full access on the site. Discussion ensued concerning the ramifications of the site plan modification and the opinion of the Department of Public Works. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – December 8, 2016 - Page 7 of 19 Clifford Van Wagner made a motion in the matter of the Congress Plaza Embassy Suites, site plan modification, to reduce vehicular access to and from the Congress Plaza to South Federal Street, we approve based on the fact that Option #3 provides for more safety for the neighbors, by eliminating vehicular traffic as shown in Option #3. Janet Casey seconded the motion. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs asked for clarification concerning the bike path and potential connection and lighting. Mr. Ingersoll provided clarification on the above two items and noted details could be submitted on an updated sketch plan. Mr. McElroy provided some information concerning enhancing the proposed pedestrian area. Clifford Van Wagner amended the motion to include enhancement of the area concerning pedestrian access be more defined with the street using the stone as opposed to benches. Janet Casey seconded the amended motion. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Amy Durland, Alternate, opposed; Ruth Horton, Alternate, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-1 8:30 P.M. The Board recessed. 8:40 P.M. The Board reconvened. NOTE: Justin Grassi, attorney to the Land Use Boards exited the meeting at 8:30 P.M. Mark Schachner, attorney to the Land Use Boards arrived at 8:30 P.M. 4. #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. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman noted this application was before the Planning Board on September 22, 2016. Additional information was requested of the applicant, and was provided to the Board. SEQRA coordinated review is anticipated this evening. BACKGROUND: Additional materials provided include Avoidance Plan including provisions that include calling for a deed restriction to protect the existing foundation. SHPO correspondence received regarding their acceptance of the avoidance plan and proposed conditions. Communication from Alane Chinian, NYS Parks noting no issues or comments with proposed project. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – December 8, 2016 - Page 8 of 19 Pet Lodge of Saratoga is proposed on vacant lands on east side of Route 9/South Broadway (tax Parcel #191.8-1-1-6, coordination of SEQRA review and area variance to construct a pet boarding facility and associated site work in the Tourist Related Business and Rural Residential Districts (split zoning on parcel). Area variances – minimum side yard (North and South) and total side yard setback requirement in RR. SEQRA: -Action appears to be Unlisted – Part 1 of the short form submitted. -Required approvals from the ZBA, Planning Board and DRC. -Coordinated review initiated by ZBA and lead agency proactively deferred to the Planning Board on September 12, 2016. -DRC deferred Lead Agency Status deferred to the Planning Board on September 21, 2016. REQUIRED APPROVALS: -County Planning Board Referral required. -Planning Board specialuse and site plan review required. -DRC Architectural review is requried. Applicant: Pet Lodge, Matt Sames Agent: Mike Toohey; Attorney; Jamie Easton, MJ Engineering Mr. Toohey stated an area variance request has been made of the ZBA for this project. Coordinated review for this project was required and the Planning Board has been designated as Lead Agent for this review. If we are successful in our ZBA request, we will return before this Board for a Special Use Permit. Mr. Toohey provided a visual presentation of the site which is 1.6 acres and encompasses 6 tax parcels with 105 sq. ft. of frontage as well as two zoning districts. The site fronts on the TRB District and the back of the parcel is the RR-1 zone. There are wetland areas delineated in the front and rear of the combined property. Municipal water and on-site septic system is proposed. In the Tourist Related Business District we can have an animal clinic and in the RR-1 we can have an animal kennel. The applicant is proposing to construct a pet lodge for the boarding and grooming of pets as well as an animal day care center. It will be open 7 days a week. Mr. Toohey reviewed the allowable uses. The building will be located 285 ft from the roadway. No additional land was available for purchase. The building is sited on the property so it is zoning compliant and 30 ft from the nearest neighbor. Tonight we are requesting from the Board a SEQRA review. We have received correspondence sfrom SHPO stating that other than a small space which needs to be preserved and is not in the building window, there are no SHPO concerns. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner has also had conversations with the State concerning this project and there are no concerns noted here as well. We received correspondence late today voicing opposition to this project. A visual presentation of the proposed building was provided to the Board, along with the proposed fencing, noting the setback requirements being met. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. Jamin Totino spoke concerning the SHPO letter. Jamie Easton stated on the existing plan a 10 x 10 foundation wall is present on the property. SHPO stated that due to the age of the wall it can be filled in or black topped. That area needs to be deed restricted which will be followed through on the site plan approval. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the wetlands. Jamie Easton reviewed the wetland areas delineated on the property. A visual review of these areas was provided to the Board. Army Corp of Engineers has reviewed this area and a permit will be necessary. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – December 8, 2016 - Page 9 of 19 Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated it is not a requirement for the applicant to obtain this permit prior to the Board’s review. There is no requirement the applicant obtain any feedback from the Army Corp of Engineers either. The SEQRA review process by the Board is done on the information supplied by the applicant. If there is a specific technical or subissue that the Board felt they needed Army Corp feedback to evaluate the potential environmental impact, the Board could seek that but the applicant would be better served to have their own consultant provide that information. Amy Durland, Alternate questioned the new access on Route 9 and voiced concerns regarding safety issues. Historically it has been the subject of numerous discussion by various city entities and pedestrian safety. Mr. Toohey provided a viewshed of the two way traffic in and out on the driveway. This is a minimalistic use of the property. Amy Durland, Alternate questioned if staff had any observations or comments concerning the traffic situation. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated nothing directly. There is in the gateway provision generally you are looking at shared accommodations where possible. Minimize access points off of the route in this area. Early on staff suggested they look to Pratt Drive which is the paper street directly south of the site in question. This is in private ownership for possible shared access. Mr. Toohey provided a visual explanation of the various placements of the driveway noting the current placement is is the best and only option. Clifford Van Wagner noted the center turn lane availability in this area. Mr. Toohey noted the City recently approved the construction of a new hotel up the road from this proposed project, noting an access point to the same highway with the same speed limit. Discussion ensued concerning the placement of the parking on this site. Mr. Toohey explained the building would need to reverse itself. The amount of pervious surface would increase. The building will be screened due to the inability of the area to be touched. PUBLIC COMMENT: Bob Bristol asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Iris Lu, owner of Pratt Drive. Ms. Liu stated this road is a private road and is important to the 30+ acres in the back. Providing an easement is not feasible. There are future plans for this property. This is not a good project for this small lot. Ms. Lu provided some history of the property and traffic in this area as well as the variances requested. Ms. Lu is not in favor of this project due to the negative impact on her property. Tom L. Lewis questioned legal counsel that since the applicant is before this Board the zoning officer ruled that they do not need a use variance. Mark Schachner, Legal Counsel for the Land Use Boards stated in some fashion either the zoning officer or staff has processed this as allowed. Remember of course that this Board nor the other Board have the authority to state whether this is allowed or not allowed. Tom L. Lewis stated the DOT will allow access here. Mr. Lewis requested an aerial view of the proposed site and City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – December 8, 2016 - Page 10 of 19 the neighbor’s property. Also since the traffic control device is located just south of this proposed access the cars will not reach the maximum speed of 55 MPH. Mr. Lewis does not feel this is an issue. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Amy Durland, Alternate stated she is still troubled and questioned the narrowness and numerous access points along this gateway. Will traffic mitigation and concerns be addressed when the applicant returns before this Board. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated what you cannot lawfully do would be to contemplate denying the project based on horrible traffic impacts. Because by definition, this is if you issue a negative declaration, that means that you have determined among other things that the language states effect to existing transportation systems impact is either no impact or small impact. So then you cannot go down a road leading to a conclusion that that now there is a huge impact because that would be inconsistent with the negative declaration. You could, however, look at traffic impact less than an environmental impact statement regarding magnitude and in order to make your site plan and or special use permit conclusion seek some mitigation of that. Clifford Van Wagner spoke concerning the traffic issues in this area, noting the hotel down the road further and the traffic issues in this area. There is a middle turning lane in this area and the same speed limit. Traffic impact for this project is minimal. Amy Durland, Alternate stated the middle traffic turning lane is a good point. However, potentially there is a more cumulative effect with the increasing number of accesses, due to other new developments, on a 55 MPH road that has a history of numerous accidents. I would have preferred to see a traffic analysis regarding the narrowness of the access and the numerous access points on this 55 MPH road. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman asked if there were any further comments. Ms. Lu stated she does not feel the issue has been addressed concerning the use being allowed. Amy Durland, Alternate explained the issue with split zoning. Tom L. Lewis, stated the Board always takes the neighbors comments into consideration. However, this is not a heavily residential area. SEQRA DECISION: The Board reviewed the Part I Short EAF submitted by the applicant. No large or important areas of concern were noted. The Board reviewed the SEQRA Part II Full Environmental Assessment Form was reviewed by the Board. Amy Durland, Alternate stated she is concerned regarding traffic on the SEQRA Part II form. I am not joining with the consensus of the Board. Ruth Horton questioned regarding the wetlands and if there was a threshold where we might say it is more than a no to small impact. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the wetlands. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated the question is, is there a threshold afterwhich or upon which you would have to find a moderate to large impact, the answer is no. There is not a threshold. You have the right to City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – December 8, 2016 - Page 11 of 19 exercise your independent judgment about the potential impact of this case on the wetlands, although you would take into account the other permitting agencies and the likelihood of getting a permit. Clifford Van Wagner stated that based upon the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part II of the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, the project will not result in any large and important impacts and, therefore, is one that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based on this, I move to make a SEQR negative declaration for this action. Tom L. Lewis seconded the motion. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman asked if there is any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Amy Durland, Alternate, opposed; Ruth Horton, Alternate, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-1 5. 16.046 SAMES MIXED USE BUILDING, 20 Bowman Street, Special Use permit for mixed use within the Tourist Related Business (TRB) District. BACKGROUND: Project proposed includes eating and drinking establishment on the first floor, one residential unit on the second floor. Special use permit required for second story residential. Site plan review will be required for the eating and drinking establishment. SEQRA: Action appears to be an unlisted action. Applicant: Matt Sames Agent: Mike Toohey, Attorney; Jamie Easton, MJ Engineering Mr. Toohey stated the applicant is before the Board this evening for a special use permit for the second floor residential unit. Bowman Street parcel is 12,490 ft and is a pre-existing lot back to 1942. The neighborhood in which it is located houses the Horseshoe Inn to the south. South of that is a motel which is in the process of being restored. Barns for the harness track behind and directly behind us is an existing 4-8 unit structure. North of the property is a open field and is used for parking during the racing season. North of this are several multi use structures. Many of these properties the existing uses are not consistent with the zoning code as it exists today. Directly across the street is a stable and a 4-6 unit use, and a single family home and our property. We are in the Tourist Related Business Zone. Eating and drinking establishments are a permitted use in this area. We have received an area variance from the ZBA allowing us to maintain an eating and drinking establishment. That has already been granted. Residential uses above the first floor are permitted. Mr. Toohey explained the eating and drinking establishment will be a finer type restaurant providing fine wines and tapas. The access to the second story residential unit will be via a gated stairway. A visual view of the existing building was provided to the Board. Public water and sewer will be accessed. Mr. Toohey reviewed the criteria for special use permit. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – December 8, 2016 - Page 12 of 19 PUBLIC HEARING: Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman opened the public hearing at 10:02 P.M. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Ed Miller, Joan Antheresta, we live on Ludlow Street. We own the horse barn across the street from this project. Ms. Antheresta stated they are here this evening to oppose this project. They have concerns which are only horse related. Please take recommendations into considerations. We request music and outdoor dining be removed from the applicants plans. I recommend the hours of operation be curtailed and a sound barrier be imposed. Our barns is 9 yards away from our barn. Photographs were provided to the Board. Mr. Miller stated we have an active horse barn. I do have an expertise in horses. A bar 9 yards away from a barn is not acceptable. This is a place to drive to and drink. This area is a very tranquil area. My job is to protect the horses. Noise, drinking and smoking is our fear that it will be in front of the horse barn. Someone is going to get hurt. These horses are worth millions of dollars. Discussion ensued concerning the horse barn proximity to this property. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs informed the Board if SEQRA review is contemplated this evening, that review encompasses both the residential use and the restaurant/bar use, the whole sum of what is taking place on the entire site. Rosemary Gold, 57 Nelson Avenue. We are concerned about the setbacks going from 25 feet to 7ft. 8” on that property. We assume they will need all of that room for parking. Please take into consideration the apartment parking needs and handicapped parking as well as parking for the restaurant. The dumpsters will need to be at the back of the building, and we have a 3 unit building within 7 feet of the property line. The decks are there, sliding glass doors are there. It is where our tenants have some outside space. Our concern is if the variance goes to 7 feet, where does the snow go, how are the deliveries made. It is very close and we do have good tenants, long term tenants. Discussion ensued concerning the residents proximity to this project. Amy Durland, Alternate questioned the SEQRA process addressing both portions of the project. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated you do not want to get into a segmentation situation. To the credit of the applicant, the environmental assessment form description of the proposed action, says to convert an existing one story building to a two story building, with a drinking and eating establishment on the first floor and an apartment on the second floor. I commend the applicant for responsibly describing the entire proposed action. You do not want to be segmenting SEQRA review. Amy Durland, Alternate stated some of the concerns we’re hearing tonight from the neighbors may be legitimate, and relate to SEQRA. Tom L. Lewis stated we can talk about those issues prior to the issuance of a negative declaration. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated yes that is true, this is an extremely unusual situation. In that what the current application that you are reviewing is for solely a residential use on the second floor. If there were no additional proposed use on the first floor that was subject to your review, there would be no SEQRA review component to this. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the SEQRA review. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – December 8, 2016 - Page 13 of 19 Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated the purpose of the SEQRA review is to determine if a potentially significant adverse environmental impacts and therefore require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. You may reach the conclusion there are no potentially significant adverse environmental impacts which would require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. If when you get to site plan review for the proposed use of the first floor you may still talk about all types of mitigation measure in your site plan review considerations. PUBLIC HEARING: Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman questioned if anyone in the audience would like speak concerning this application. Tom L. Lewis questioned the applicant if they are proposing outdoor dining and music as part of this application. Mr. Toohey stated there is a porch and outdoor dining tables. There is no plan to have outside entertainment. There will be an indoor acoustic performance. Tom L. Lewis questioned the applicant if they would be acceptable to some limitations on hours of operation, given some of the comments of the neighbors. Mr. Toohey, attorney stated he does not feel hours of operation should not be any further restricted than any other business in this area. The barn which is in close proximity is not in the correct zone. We are in the correct zone. This is a permitted use in this area. There will be conversations during site plan review. Mr. Sames stated he would be flexible. This is a wine bistro and spirits. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning hours or operations and the use and the impact of the use on the neighbors. Mr. Toohey stated the applicant is agreeable to the hours of operation until 2:00 A.M, and is a different type of operation than the Horseshoe Inn. We are speaking about a single use on the second floor. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:25 P.M. Jamin Totino stated he would like to slow down this application. He does not feel he is in a position to make any agreements with the applicant. We have heard some legitimate concerns by the neighbors which makes me want to go back out to the site and walk around again before we get into SEQRA and before we discuss site plan issues. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs questioned the Board if there was any further questions or information requested of the applicant. It was the consensus of the Board to re-visit the site. No additional information was requested of the application. Amy Durland, Alternate stated she would be willing to perform a SEQRA review if our SEQRA determination does not foreclose our site plan deliberations or what we can require. If it would foreclose future deliberations, then I agree we should wait. If not I am okay with proceeding with SEQRA review this evening and the Special Use Permit for the residential. The issue that is the most impacts are potentially the site plan issues for the restaurant mostly. Ruth Horton concurred with Amy Durland. Amy Durland, Alternate stated she does not fully understand how SEQRA might limit what we can raise or require from the applicant during the site plan review. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated it is the same answer as the previous application. If City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – December 8, 2016 - Page 14 of 19 you conduct your SEQRA review this evening, and reach a Negative Declaration, that does not remove your ability to consider various details or site plan considerations at such time as a site plan application appears before you. You cannot lawfully deny site plan application due to some potential environmental issue. The applicant’s agent stated any issue having to do with mitigation of any concerns will be fine with us to have it discussed and have it become a part of the site plan process. 6. 10.032 CHLOE’S WAY SUBDIVISION, East Broadway, Subdivision modification for reconfiguration of no cut Buffer within the Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District. BACKGROUND: No cut buffer proposed by the applicant at the rear of all lots of subdivision. Violation occurred in which the no cut buffer was removed for a large extent of Phase 1, and portion of Phase 2 lots. Mr. Belmonte has purchased the Phase 1 lots and is looking to remedy violation with the proposed plan. SEQRA: Action appears to be Unlisted. Applicant: Peter Belmonte Agent: Nadine Shadlock, Counsel for McKenzie Estates Ms. Shadlock stated the applicant is before the Board this evening for the 10 lots in Phase I of this project. Steven Ethier is the owner of Phase II and Phase III. We appear before the Board this evening for a subdivision modification for reconfiguration of a no cut buffer within the UR-2 District. We would like to respond to several questions the Board had following the workshop on Monday evening. The first is the comparison of the no cut buffer proposed versus what currently exists. Original square foot buffer was 18,155 square feet and we are proposing an additional buffering of 318 square feet which totals 18,473 square feet of no cut buffer area. We do note the Phase III no cut buffer as well. We spoke concerning what will visually protect the homes in this area and the no cut buffer. I have visited the site and the boundary line, there is not much there. Photographs were provided to the Board and a visual presentation was provided to the Board. Mr. Belmonte provided a history of the development to the present. He spoke regarding the vegetation which exists, the clearing and the new proposal. Invasive species were eliminated. A new landscape plan is proposed. A visual presentation was provided. Mr. Belmonte did a census of the trees. In visiting the site today, I have noted piles of ash, cinder and dirt 6 to 8 feet tall. No one will tolerate that and that pile is coming down. Our proposal to the benefit of everyone, is to remove the scrub and place a landscaping plan which was provided to city staff. Also we are proposing a no cut buffer which has some value. Remove invasive species, leave the trees and remove dead vegetation and re-plant it with a nice groundscape approach. Taking this back to a disturbance of less than 5 acres. We will create a visual buffer between neighbors. Create something that has longevity. Mr. Belmonte stated he spoke to the excavator who informed him that the vegetation in this area was very sparse and scrub like to begin with. Clifford Van Wagner stated the City Engineer spoke and there is a proposal from Mr. Belmonte and Steve Ethier to remedy this. We are getting more buffering, selectively chosen and improved. Jamin Totino stated he visited the site again today; this plan makes a lot of sense and better than what was originally provided. I would like to hear from the public. Ms. Shadlock stated Steve Ethier does support the modified buffer and would like to ask the Board to approve City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – December 8, 2016 - Page 15 of 19 the buffering on Phase III of his development. PUBLIC HEARING: Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman opened the public hearing at 10:55 P.M. Mr. Paul Male representing Steve Ethier stated he is in agreement with everything Mr. Belmonte has proposed. He will satisfactorily rectify the violations of the no cut buffer. Mr. Belmonte addressed the city’s notification of the violation in the no cut buffer on September 23, 2016. He provided a visual rendering of the proposed area noting the remedies. Rectification of the violation which is existing on the no cut buffer. Secondly, we are proposing a mitigation plan which corrects the violation and also enhances the buffer. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated the first two lots in question, the ones that abut to existing homes, there was already a requirement to add additional landscaping. To clarify the deed restriction you are proposing for the lots where the violation exists, you are proposing the same thing along all lots in question. Ms. Shadlock stated to protect the integrity of the lot in question we do need to have the deed restrictions associated with them otherwise people through their discretion, can go in and change the buffer. The neighbors will love it. Amy Durland, Alternate stated this bother me a lot. I was on the Board when this appeared and I found my notes from 2010, and it was all about the integrity of the buffer. People spoke of some of the trees being removed. I questioned many times the issue on how to protect the buffer and to make sure it did not come down. I received a lot of assurances this would not happen and it completely evaporated. Ms. Shadlock stated she reviewed the minutes and took into consideration the neighbors and the homes involved and I think the visual buffering is a very important feature of this project. Amy Durland, Alternate stated it states in the application that you will incorporate your design on all ten lots including the lots that are still undisturbed, this does not mean clearing them but retaining the no cut buffer. Ms. Shadlock stated any nice tree or shrubbery will be incorporated into the design. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated to note and to be clear she recommends noting lot numbers be placed on all actions and be finalized in your action and on any Notice of Decisions. The wooded buffer along the state park will remain a wooded buffer for 25 ft. There has been a trend as discussed with the Board of trees required for protection becoming cut it down and ask for forgiveness later. The remainder of the lots should be staked out and flagged in terms of where the no cut buffer is located, before any future phase work begins, and communicated to anyone involved in the project. Discussion ensued among the Board on how to be assured this will happen. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated this is why the marking is so important. Builders are now purchasing lots from the original owners and things are being cleared. This is important to assure the integrity of the area. Amy Durland, Alternate stated this wasn’t just privacy and aesthetics it was also drainage and flooding control. That is significant. Now, it has been violated. Discussion ensued concerning the amount of disturbance and remaining under 5 acres of disturbance. Tim Wales, City Engineer. Mr. Wales stated the amount of disturbance is at 4.88 acres. You cannot segment parts of a City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – December 8, 2016 - Page 16 of 19 subdivision. You need to consider the subdivision as a whole. It is my opinion they are over 5 acres and a full SWPPP is required. If they can provide documentation that they can keep the entire subdivision under 5 acres then a full SWPPP would not be required. At this time after reviewing the information I have determined a full SWPPP is required. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Judy Nielsen, 7 Cleveland Avenue. I am behind 6-8 Chloe’s Way. I have been in my home since 2007. I cannot believe what Mr. Ethier says. These are not pretty trees. We would like some substance. We have no trees, We have spent, our choice between fencing arborvitaes, maple trees, cherry trees thousands and thousands of dollars on landscaping. This is my home. My heart sank when I saw all the trees cut down. We need trees and woods. We have had 40 homes built in this small consolidated neighborhood. Eugene Sevey, 17 Cleveland Avenue. I am requesting existing trees be evaluated and preserved. There are a few dead trees. We would be able to work with Mr. Belmonte to identify them. They should be evaluated professionally. Concerning buffers. I would like to suggest a type of monument or granite marker to make clear the buffer zone. Something substantial should be planted in this buffer area. It should be done right with larger size trees. Jane Sevey, 17 Cleveland Avenue. There are actually 3 trees we are concerned about behind lot 10. We are concerned all these trees will be removed and they are jeopardizing 2 homes. This is within the buffer zone. Information was provided to the Board. Robert Nielsen, 7 Cleveland Avenue. There was a forest when we moved in there. When this took place in 2010 they removed a lot of trees. I am in favor of redoing the landscaping back there. We want something larger than what is proposed back there. We do not want simply ground cover. There have been a lot of changes in that area Our fear is that what is going to happen is that the attention will be put to the interior and the people outside will not be forgotten. Tim Wales, City Engineer reiterated his comments from the workshop on Monday. I appreciate the attempts of the developer and Mr. Belmonte to cure this violation. Inspectors discovered this violation several months ago. Another example of cut first and ask forgiveness later. When this happens it takes considerable staff time and resources to try to work through this working with the applicants. We are looking to avoid this. We won’t accept a partial cure of the violation of the no cut buffer this will go into Phase III. The applicant is proposing a cure to Phase I and this violation will go into Phase III, and will be somehow tied to the approval. The owner of the property Mr. Ethier has to cure this entire violation with a restoration into Phase III as well. As mentioned earlier I believe a full SWPPP is required, but certainly I will be willing to accept justification that it is not and I have not seen that yet. Lastly, we will need an additional letter of credit for the plantings and things like that. There is approximately $70,000 left for the subdivision. Clifford Van Wagner suggested to Tim Wales, City Engineer that a time line for Mr. Ethier to complete and restore the buffer and cure the violations, as well as extending the Letter of Credit. For example September 1, 2017 deadline for the plantings. When would the updated letter of credit be requested. Mr. Wales stated an updated Letter of Credit is requested immediately following a decision. They will not be able to plant until the Spring. I would also suggest a caveat that this cure is approved, however, the entire Phase III cure will be required to come before the Board or implemented by April 1, 2017. A new Letter of Credit will be required before we allow any further building permits or CO’s. We would like the financial guarantee for this work. We would like the no cut buffer done sooner rather than later. Discussion ensued regarding the type of trees, and visual screening. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the applicant has been working with staff. However, more specificity is required. Jamin Totino suggested species should be identified and what size and the growth timeline is. This will help City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – December 8, 2016 - Page 17 of 19 with the concerns of the neighbors. Ms. Shadlock stated Kate Maynard made a suggestion noting a deed restriction be placed on the plans. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Debbie Markson, one of the first homes in the area. Many of the problems began when Mr. Ethier removed all the vegetation in back of my home. When he did this I began having water issues in my basement. No one did anything about it. I understand Mr. Belmonte owns the property now. I was never notified of any building or proposed plans for the property. I was told the sidewalks would not go across my yard. I have a large maple tree out front. I am concerned the tree will be removed. My main concern is the water. Vito Vellona, I concur with what everyone has said. People feel very strongly to make sure there are plenty of tall trees. PUBLIC HEARING: Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman closed the public hearing at 11:45 P.M. Jamin Totino stated he is not ready to vote tonight. The applicant has a list of additional items to be provided to the Board. These include lot numbers to be clearly marked, updated Letter of Credit, a timeline for planting, growth rate for the trees, the plan to include specific trees for each lot. Mr. Belmonte stated the above information excluding the growth rate for the trees, which we will provide and the Letter of Credit which we will work out with the City Engineer, has been provided. I am requesting a vote tonight. Amy Durland, alternate requested a graphic representation of the proposed buffer and landscaping plan be provided to the Board and the neighbors. Mr. Belmonte stated the information has been provided. Amy Durland, alternate requested a rendering. Ms. Shadlock stated it is in the best interest in the project and we respectfully request the Board’s attention this evening, even with conditions imposed. Clifford Van Wagner stated he does not have a problem voting this evening, reviewing the conditions previously noted. In the interest of moving this along, he suggested we vote this evening. Tom L. Lewis concurs with Cliff. I heard the City Engineer stated that he appreciates that Mr. Belmonte is willing to cure this. I would like to vote tonight with the stipulation as we have done numerous times, leave the discretion up to the City Engineer. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman stated there isn’t any question that Mr. Belmonte has put his word on the table that this is going to happen, and happen right. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs, questioned the time lime for the improvements to be completed for all the lots. Mr. Belmonte stated in the proposal this will be accomplished when the lots are developed. We will not touch anymore of the buffer area until we go to build that lot. The remainder of the lots in Phase I we would like to do them simultaneously to constructing the houses on the lots. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner suggested to the Board consider for the 3 Lots and Phase III lots, instituting a time limit City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – December 8, 2016 - Page 18 of 19 for that otherwise it is subject to when the phase is built. Tim Wales, City Engineer stated Mr. Ethier received a notice of violation on November 7, 2016 which gave him 30 days to rectify the situation or he will be summoned to court. The hope is that this will cure that. We are not looking for a partial cure. What we are looking for is some requirement that the Phase III violations are cured here as well. Jamin Totino questioned a reasonable time limit. Tim Wales, City Engineer stated a requirement that in 4-6 months this be rectified. We want the entire violation cured By June 30th. If that is not cured than nothing will be done out there until the entire violation is cured. Mr. Belmonte requested the date of September 1, 2017 for a little more breathing room. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated remember you cannot personalize the approval personally, to him or his word or good faith. Part of any approval motion should state a specific and express condition that a Letter of Credit be required. The same with time deadlines. It should be in the motion. A deed restriction requirement should be a part of a motion to approve. Clifford Van Wagner made a motion in the matter of Chloe’s Way Subdivision modification for reconfiguration of a not cut buffer with the following conditions: Letter of Credit with the amount to be determined by the City Engineer, 18,400 square foot buffer and a timeline established by staff and city engineer be adhered to for the total restoration of Phase III, that the buffering will be completed as the homes are constructed, property will have multiple granite markers in the backyard delineating a no cut buffer through the entire project. Diseased dead or damaged trees be removed, retain all mature trees that are not invasive. Native species should be used and large trees where possible. No building permits or CO’s will be issued until there is strict compliance with all conditions. Deed restrictions implemented as well as being noted on the plans, indicating the no cut buffer. Areas that remains in the future phases will be flagged and maintain the buffer area within that area. Stay under 5 acres of disturbance or the applicant will be required to perform a full SWPPP to be determined by the City Engineer. Tom L. Lewis seconded the motion. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Amy Durland, Alternate, in favor; Ruth Horton, Alternate, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Bob Bristol, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of Meeting Minutes was deferred to the January 12, 2017 meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 12:05 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 1/26/17 City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – December 8, 2016 - Page 19 of 19