Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES (FINAL) THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 2017 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Mark Torpey, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Mark Torpey, Chairman; Janet Casey; Clifford Van Wagner; Jamin Totino; Ruth Horton, Alternate; Amy Durland; Todd Fabozzi ABSENT: Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman STAFF: Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Justin Grassi, Counsel for the Land Use Boards arrived at 8:28 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. 16.040 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. 3. 16.025 MENDENHALL SUBDIVISION, 101 Old Schuylerville Road, 4-lot preliminary conservation subdivision within the Rural Residential (RR) District. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS/AGENDA WORKSHOPS: Planning Board Caravan, Monday, April 10, 2017 at 4:00 P.M. Planning Board Workshop, Monday, April 10, 2017 at 5:00 P.M. Planning Board Meeting, Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR: None heard. A. APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. 13.002.2 THE HAMLET, 52 Marion Avenue, Special Use Permit modification within the Transect-5 Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action with no further SEQRA environmental review required. BACKGROUND: Planning Board approved 54 multi-family units within Building 3 as part of the overall mixed use development at the site. During construction, the applicant constructed an additional unit without receiving approvals. The Building Department discovered the additional unit during inspections. The applicant is requesting approval for the additional unit to residential. This applicant was before this Board on January 26, 2017. Motion to approve, then motion to deny was made and both failed to pass. Applicant: Todd Curley, Developer/Owner Prime Beechwood Development Agent: Dave Carr, LA Group Mr. Carr started the applicant was before this Board six weeks ago. We are requesting to transfer about 1200 sq. ft. of commercial space into one additional residential unit. Mr. Carr reviewed what was discussed at the workshop on Monday. The project next door which is same ownership same developer. 101 units were approved and we are only constructing 90. The reasoning behind this is the architect when designing this project removed a floor from the front building. We have always spoken about these two units together and in doing so we are now actually down 10 units. Building 3 commercial space will be reduced from 14,267 to 12,500 square feet. This change also reduces the parking requirement down 3 spaces. There are no physical changes to the exterior of the building. Todd Curley, Prime Beechwood spoke concerning the other issues with this project. The Fresh Market HVAC equipment and roof penetrations were mitigated. Concerning Building #2 the 2nd floor of this building fronting on Marion Avenue was not built out as functional space as required per Transect zoning. We sought and received variances for this violation. Mr. Curley spoke regarding the usage and converting site office back to an apartment looking for a Special Use Permit modification. Todd Fabozzi questioned what the reasoning for the change was. Todd Curley, Prime Beechwood stated the building was built to accommodate a model and a leasing office primarily in the event we did not build out the next phase, which is 77 Excelsior which is under construction currently. We would like to move our leasing office and model over to the new building. The current office/model is now ready to be leased as a residential unit versus retrofitting it for commercial use. Amy Durland stated she has no objection to the change in use. The understanding is that the site has featured two other violations during its construction build out. We do realize that changes do occur during the building process. We do like to avoid these types of situations. Todd Curley, Prime Beechwood stated their CO stated 55 apartments. The final CO stated 54 apartments. That is when we questioned what we would need to do to convert the office/model to a residential unit. This then returned to Planning. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the building department gave a heads up in the construction process That there were 55 units constructed. The building department provided information concerning a potential issue/violation concerning what was approved by this Board, versus the building permit. This led the applicant to return before this Board for a Special Use Permit modification. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – March 23, 2017 - Page 2 of 15 Clifford Van Wagner stated he understands the frustration by the Board concerning this project and past violations during the construction build out. However, this request and the impact of this is nothing. Less of a parking requirement. In the grand scheme of things it makes little difference. Janet Casey spoke concerning this application. A mitigating factor is that this was a commercial space being used as a residential model. It does not make sense and is logical to change it to residential. Amy Durland stated she will support this motion but the fact is that this is the 3rd irregularity or violation or modification where I believe the City determined that this existed and was outside the application process. There is a process and if something else happens there is an expectation for the applicant to return before the Board for modification. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Clifford Van Wagner made a motion to approve The Hamlet 52 Marion Place, Special Use Permit modification with the addition of one residential unit for a total of 55 units thereby reducing the commercial space to 12,500 square feet. Ruth Horton seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, opposed; Ruth Horton, alternate, in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-1 2. 17.015 PITNEY COMMUNITY FARM, West Avenue, Proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD), Request for Advisory Opinion, and Initiation of Coordinated SEQRA Review from the City Council. BACKGROUND: Mark Torpey, Chairman stated this is a 166 acre Pitney Farm. An effort is being made to create a PUD and a long term community farm. A request was made from the City Council for an Advisory Opinion concerning the Planned Unit Development. At the last Planning Board Meeting on March 9, 2017, the Planning Board deferred SEQRA Lead Agency Status to the City Council. We also had the opportunity to review the conservation easement which was provided at the last meeting as well as the PUD language and had a chance to digest that. We did receive a thorough presentation at the last meeting. I propose this evening the Board review the PUD itself particularly the exhibits in the back which speaks to the uses of the different zones as well as a discussion/suggestion period for the Board. We will then begin the Planning Board evaluation and review the 11 questions which are part of our procedure, prior to issuing an Advisory Opinion to the City Council. DISCLOSURE: Mark Torpey, Chairman disclosed that he a Board Member of Sustainable Saratoga. I have had no contribution to any of the correspondence forwarded to the Board from this agency. I am seeing this information for the first time as the Chair of this Board. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – March 23, 2017 - Page 3 of 15 Amy Durland disclosed that she has donated to the Pitney Farm at a Founding member level. She does not hold any office on this Board. Applicant: The Pitney Community Farm Agent: Mike Ingersoll, LA Group, Owner-Principal; Andrew Moniker, LA Group; Jim Martin, Planner; The Arnold’s, Chairman of the Board for the Pitney Community Farm; Barbara Glazer, Advisory Committee Mr. Ingersoll stated he will provide an overview of the project as well as address some concerns voiced by Sustainable Saratoga whose correspondence was received today. There is a tremendous amount of enthusiasm in the community to get this project moving forward. We are hoping to actually get in the ground this spring. A visual presentation of the site was provided to the Board. The only portion of the 166 acres we are speaking of this evening is an 11 acre parcel which is the only parcel on the site zoned residential. We need to go through the zoning process to remedy that. We are very actively pursuing the first phase which is the children’s greenhouse and the community gardens this spring. Typically the farm complex community side is in the front. We hope to have the agro-business center and farm tourism area for training, activities and events. In the rear are the guest residential components. As discussed at the previous meeting we tried to establish the PUD language into three zones. Mr. Ingersoll reviewed the permitted uses in each zone noting the proposed revisions which were made. Copies of the revised PUD text were provided to the Board. The current revision does align better with the conservation easement language. The green space has been increased from 5% to 10%. Parking will be discussed at site plan. We do not plan to pave to accommodate for all parking. Since we are a non-profit we will ask for a waiver from some of the application fees. We also plan on having 9 events on the grounds. These were the bulk of the changes. We have supplied to the Board the issues the Council will review in the merits of the PUD. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Natalie Walsh. I will be helping with the community garden portion of the Pitney Farms. For the last five years I have developed several community gardens in the Saratoga area. I have also run a Children’s Garden in Moreau. The response to this has been enormous. We began the children’s gardening portion with 40 initially and it grew to over 100. This is very empowering and very successful. This community garden is available to all via walking, driving, biking, or bus. Lauren Newlander. City resident for over 12 years. I have young children and we love the Farmer’s Market. This is something within the City limits to help provide for a healthy lifestyle. This is a great project. Susan Balet Haight. The Pitney Meadow Community Farm is an important part of the community. Bringing people together. The forum was inspirational. The growing season has started and it’s time to move this forward. This would be great to see. Kimberly Feeney London. We border the Pitney Farms. We are very excited and accessible to the Pitney Farm. We have been farmers for over 10 years and hope this is as successful as possible. Please vote for the zoning change. Mark Torpey, Chairman reviewed the 3 Zones and the PUD language noting several suggestions for the applicant concerning definitions and bulk standards. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs questioned if dimensional designation for zones could be added to the PUD. Mark Torpey, Chairman reviewed the Planning Board Evaluation Criteria. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – March 23, 2017 - Page 4 of 15 1. Consistency with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. - Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we have a narrative which the applicant provided and we have gone through that. It articulates all the reasons why it is. I would point out that within our comprehensive plan, within the economic strength and stability section of the plan which is the first major chapter there is a section of it that deals strictly with agriculture. This information was also in the narrative provided by the applicant. From the standpoint of what you are doing here it is perfectly aligned. Foster connection between City residents and local regional farmers; investigate locations for current Saratoga Farmer’s Market to grow and expand, including additional parking. You have an opportunity to potentially use this site for expansion if it makes sense and it is appropriate. Develop a plan to continue to promote sustainable agriculture within the City. Consider allowing commercial agriculture uses within the City to further support agriculture as an economic driver in the City. Encourage active and passive agricultural activities and agri- tourism. We have a definition which I believe is acceptable to the Board. Encourage the establishment of community gardens throughout the City. Promote opportunities to expand community supported agriculture initiatives with local farmers. In the larger view I see this as perfectly consistent with the comp plan from that vantage point. We did get some feedback from Sustainable Saratoga regarding what they thought was a potential inconsistency with the RN-1 designation, which is what exists now in the Comp Plan. When I look through their latest correspondence, my interpretation is the comp plan designation and map designation is a fluid one, we have an adjacent area which is Community Mixed Use that is on the other side of the street. Even when you look at the map it actually touches physically into this parcel. I do think that CMU is probably the more appropriate definition but again the boundaries are fluid and in my opinion the uses that are here are certainly are well covered with our interpretation. The boundaries are fluid and it does apply to this area as well. Jamin Totino stated he is curious about the applicant’s opinion about Sustainable Saratoga’s recommendation ultimately that the City Council consider a map zoning change amendment. Mr. Ingersoll stated that was the first question we asked when we came before the City. The RN-1 allows you to apply for the process. The City purchased the conservation easement and envisioned this all the way through. Yes, the map is different, but the spirit of what the conservation easement is, and has somewhat already dictated is there. If the PUD is adopted as envisioned, the land is already restricted; there really is no other way to go. We are embedding that further by the PUD. We could not find anywhere a provision where it said that the map has to go with the zoning. We are crafting legislation that does not exist in the City. There are many places in the ordinance right now that the land use does not match the map. This is very unique. The citizens of the City have already indoctrinated this use. As a procedure they can do that but does not affect what we can do. Jamin Totino stated he does agree with this. This is a hugely exciting project for the City. As far as the map amendment goes I believe it is up to the City Council and not necessarily on our end. The PUD in this instance is a tool that is useful and this is a perfect application of it. This is a very exciting and beneficial project for the City and the neighborhood. I am in favor of it and feel it is completely consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as far as our analysis goes. Clifford Van Wagner stated he 100% agrees with Jamin. There are not a lot of PUD’s in the community, certainly less than 15. As Jamin stated this fits like a glove. I think this is well crafted. I commend the applicants for doing a good job. There is a lot of hard work and effort. This is exciting for the City and this Board. Jamin Totino stated that he does not understand Sustainable Saratoga’s position on the map. Those of us that know they have came out strong around the PUD issue in the Comprehensive Planning process. I understand their position and their opinion. I just do not think at this time it is our role necessarily to make this part of our motion. Amy Durland stated that although she is not speaking on the part of Sustainable Saratoga at all, they support this project. They are highly supportive of this project. Their concern was a technical one. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated one thing even if you look at the RN-1 Designation in the Comp Plan and the UR-2 the existing zoning category for the parcel and what it allows, and tries to reconcile that with what is stated with RN-1, there are inconsistencies there already. Let it be up to the Comp Plan or the City Council to remedy any sort of inconsistencies they think is appropriate. Ruth Horton, Alternate questioned if it is within the Boards purview in the Advisory Opinion to recommend that the inconsistencies be handled by the City Council. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated he does not see any inconsistencies. However, we could note that the next time the Comp Plan is being reviewed they could evaluate any inconsistencies throughout the city. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – March 23, 2017 - Page 5 of 15 Todd Fabozzi stated his view is with what has been stated before. I do not think this is an issue. This is very much in line with what the Plan is trying to accomplish. It is clear that this does not have to be a hard fast boundary. It is right on the edge. I think this is perfectly fine, it is a non-issue. I would not agree to recommend to the Council to change anything. We have to consider in fact the potential that in fact if that was to be the case that you would be setting a precedent that after the fact you could be changing the map to fit any kind of proposal that perhaps would be less appropriate than this. This is clearly appropriate from my point of view. Janet Casey stated she agrees with all of this. Everybody is in favor of the project. To do the map, I understand the argument of Sustainable Saratoga that seems to be engaging in a procedural formality that is not going to change anything and that I think is unnecessary. Jamin Totino stated he does not feel following the workshop on Monday that the Board needs to dissect each of the eleven criteria individually. Concerning Item 11-B where it stated the Planning Board may hold a public hearing at its discretion. I do not feel this is necessary from our point of view because the City Council requested Lead Agency Status so it is not our role to hold a public hearing. I am concerned regarding 11-C which states the City Council may at any time return the application to the Planning Board for additional review and recommendations. I am assuming that has to do with site plan. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated that would be within the PUD deliberations. This will return to the Board for further review for specific activities as identified within the PUD- site plan and special use permit. Clifford Van Wagner, stated he agrees it is not pertinent for the Planning Board to have a workshop. The City Council has Lead Agency Status. This will return before the Board for site plan. Todd Fabozzi stated he does have some questions concerning the parking area and what treatment is proposed as well as storm water management. This can be addressed when the applicant returns before the Board Mr. Ingersoll stated we have sandy soils and will handle the storm water on site. Our intention is not to over pave all the parking areas. We will discuss further and is currently under discussion with the team. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the Board will continue with the Planning Board Evaluation Criteria: 2. Consistency with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and the intent and objectives of a PUD. -Mark Torpey, Chairman stated what is noted in the narrative and I agree, in terms of the City Code Chapter 10, there is a section that deals with environmental parks, open space and I see this as fitting right exactly in line with that as well. In terms of the PUD objectives, that the City Council will be looking at in their analysis as I go through that there isn’t anything there that stands out. They overlap and it seems overly consistent. Mark Torpey, Chairman, asked if there was any additional input from the Board on #2. None heard. 3. Community need and adherence to sound planning and design principles in the proposed land use configuration, transportation system, open space and storm water management concept. -Mark Torpey, Chairman stated clearly a community need demonstrated in the Comp Plan as stated before. There is significant Permeable surface here, open space is the driving force. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further comments from the Board on #3. None heard. 4. Positive and negative impacts to population, schools, traffic, utilities, recreation, taxes, and aesthetics. -Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the aesthetic portion you are maintaining a view shed that is wonderful at that location. You are working with students and young children. There is an educational component to this. From the public access to the education components I think that it fits exactly what we are looking for in this category. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – March 23, 2017 - Page 6 of 15 5. Availability and adequacy of utilities including water and sewer service. -Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we did have Tim Wales, City Engineer provide some input on that. He felt that it was certainly within the design standards of the City, and certainly enough capability there to handle that. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further input from the Board on #5. None heard. 6. Availability and adequacy of transportation systems including accommodation for vehicular, pedestrian, bicyclist and transit needs. -Mark Torpey, Chairman stated you are at a portion of the City that has public transit there. We were talking about this location being a great spot with the school, the YMCA, the green belt access. So, really it is preserving the integrity of that connection. It fits perfectly well and satisfies the objectives for that category. Jamin Totino stated the one thing he would add in that category for future planning would be the timing of events. As you know when school lets out there, the traffic in this location is horrendous. When you do things during the day will be important to the next criteria in this evaluation, adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods. Clifford Van Wagner stated the good thing is we already know exactly what exists in this location and the peak times involved so the applicant can plan around this. 7. Potential for any adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, including the character of the neighborhood, and any proposed mitigation to minimize possible detrimental effects. -Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the applicant is trying to preserve what is there already and you have a cemetery on one side and train tracks on the other so; it is a different type of neighbors. Mark Torpey, Chairman questioned if the Board had any further comments on #7. None heard. 8. The height and bulk of buildings and their relations to other structures in the vicinity. -Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we did speak about that. The heights the applicant is asking for are really to preserve what is already there in terms of the single family homes, and living up to that height. The 45 ft being determined by the silo so this is actually a much lower footprint than what is allowed in the zone as is. Also the applicant has limited total square footage on the property based on the bulk standards and with Kate’s comments on defining what that Zone A line is it gives some sense to the Board on what that line is moving activities further away from the street that would be of the taller size. 9. Potential for adverse impacts on environmental resources including wetlands, surface water, floodplains, and plant and wildlife communities. -Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the applicant is doing the best to preserve open space here with the bigger project. 10. General ability of the land to support the development including such factors as slope, depth to bedrock, depth to water table and soil type. -Mark Torpey, Chairman stated from the layout you are working with, the terrain and maintaining significant permeable surface, maintain what is there. 11. Other factors as may be deemed appropriate by the City Council. B. The Planning Board may hold a public hearing at its discretion. C. The Council may at any time, return the application to the Planning board for additional review and recommendations. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we have already reviewed item #11. Are there any further thoughts or comments from the Board? City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – March 23, 2017 - Page 7 of 15 Amy Durland questioned is it acceptable in a motion on some items can we refer to the meeting minutes? Mark had a lot of good comments on each of the items we reviewed; we can add those but there are not included in My motion. Is it possible to simply reference the items were reviewed positively and that the meeting minutes reflect the Boards opinion and conclusion. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated it has been the Board’s policy to review the written correspondence, and you have put a lot of this on the record in terms of your thoughts leading up to that motion, so referencing that before it goes to the council that is also a consideration. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated one of the ways we have handled this in the past is if the Board agrees to a positive advisory opinion, and vote on that but reserve the right to review the actual text of the advisory opinion to assure that it reflects all of the thoughts that we have. Tony Izzo, Deputy City Attorney stated there have been ZBA decisions over the years where a particular page has been cited in a document or part of the Board’s decision. You should probably want to reserve that for the two or three points in the Advisory Opinion that you wish to emphasize citing the page or paragraph if you wish. It becomes cumbersome if you do it with every point you make. I have never seen a decision from a land use board specifically cite a document or a page for every finding. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner questioned citing the minutes in general. Tony Izzo, Deputy City Attorney stated yes that has been done. Discussion ensued concerning the phraseology. Amy Durland made a motion stating The Saratoga Springs Planning Board renders this advisory opinion to the City Council regarding the Pitney Community Farm application to create a Planned Unit Development proposed for an n 11.69 acre portion of the 166 total acre project. The Planning Board makes the following findings: The City’s Zoning Ordinance indicates that “[a]n amendment to this chapter, whether text or district boundary, is consistent and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan if it complies with the goals, objectives, policies, and strategies and any vision statement contained in the Comprehensive Plan.” Land use classifications are not parcel-specific in the Future Land Use Map but are meant to geographically convey the City’s vision and intent in terms of uses, general goals and reference to intensity. The Pitney Community Farm property and proposal is unique as a large city farm with significant view sheds along a major city road in the central area of the city, and therefore the 11.69 acre portion under review is appropriate to be considered as a PUD. The proposed PUD is within the UR-2 Zoning district, and is not a part of the Rural Residential District in which PUDs are prohibited under the Comprehensive Plan; therefore, no findings within this advisory opinion are to be construed as accruing or relevant to any other area of the city. In addition, the entire site has been identified in the City’s Open Space Plan as a priority area for conservation. The 11.69 acre parcel under review is part of single parcel located, on the Comprehensive Plan map, between a Residential Neighborhood-1 and the Conservation Development District. The proposed PUD parcel boundaries are not strictly confined to the Comprehensive Plan designation. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – March 23, 2017 - Page 8 of 15 The CDD and Residential Neighborhood-1 designations within the Comprehensive Plan generally reflect agricultural uses and complementary uses, including residential, to support the long-term viability of the community farm. The proposed PUD is very specific with restrictions and limits on uses. Agriculture and open space preservation are identified as the primary uses, with ancillary uses that relate to the long-term sustainability of the proposal. Uses relate significantly to agriculture, with orchards, open air markets, community gardens, a sugar shack, and an agricultural resource center. A proposed bistro/café is to be limited to 2000 square feet, and retail sales must relate to agriculture and agri-related products. Therefore, these findings support the Planning Board’s evaluation that the 11.69 acre PUD as proposed is generally Compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the city’s Zoning Ordinance. The Board has further considered the additional criteria listed in the “Planning Board Evaluation” 10.2.6.1.1 portion of the Zoning Ordinance and advises that the proposed PUD is consistent with these criteria, as reflected in the March 23, 2017 Planning Board Meeting minutes. Additional Planning Board review will occur as part of the general application process. Therefore, the Planning Board renders a favorable advisory opinion to the City Council. The Planning Board further recommends that, as the applicant is a not-for-profit, fees associated with the current and any future applications be waived. Jamin Totino seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Ruth Horton, in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 8:19 P.M. The Board recessed. 8:27 P.M. The Board reconvened. NOTE: Justin Grassi, Counsel to the Planning Board arrived at 8:28 P.M. 3. 17.012 PET LODGE, NYS Route 9/Broadway, Special Use Permit for a pet boarding facility within the Tourist Related Business (TRB) and Rural Residential (RR) Districts. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated a number of the Board members expressed a question since we have a pending Article 78 whether we are obligated to hear this. Justin Grassi, Land Use Board Attorney stated the litigation which has been commenced before the ZBA really isn’t the purview of the Planning Board. If the Planning Board were inclined to grant the approvals here it does not stop the challenger in the Article 78 from the ZBA putting forth an injunction preventing them construction. Onus is now on the applicant if he chooses to move forward. If the determination following the Article 78 is limited to the variances which were approved, if the litigation comes back and determines a use variance is required, then the approval by the Planning Board would be null unless until a use variance was granted by the ZBA. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – March 23, 2017 - Page 9 of 15 Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we have received this date correspondence from the Saratoga County Planning Board. BACKGROUND: Property has split zoning – Tourist Related Business on frontage, RR on the rear. Proposed use animal kennel permitted within the RR and not in the TRB. Site consists of a total of 6 contiguous lots totaling 1.59 acres split between TRB adjacent to RR in the rear. Adjacent property to the North is INST-PR, Saratoga Spa State Parkland. Planning Board issued a SEQRA negative declaration on December 8, 2016. ZBA granted required area variances minimum side yard (North and South) and total side yard setback requirement in RR. Article 78 has been filed by Iris Lu (March1), adjacent property owner in regards to the ZBA’s action. Legal Counsel has provided that special use permit can legally be considered by Planning Board with understanding that continuing forward is at the applicant’s own risk. Additional materials provided include an 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. Within SEQR review, conversation related to layout, location of building setback from Route 9, curb cut proposed and any ability to share with adjacent property/City paper street Pratt Street. Owner not currently interested in sharing access. Applicant: Pet Lodge, Matt Sames Agents: Mike Toohey, Attorney; Jamie Easton, MJ Engineering Mr. Toohey stated if we receive the Special Use Permit that is not the final approval before the Planning Board. We need to go through Site Plan Review and Approval. Mr. Toohey provided a visual presentation of the project for the review of the Board noting the split zoning. Amy Durland questioned the boundary area of the project which was brought up by a member of the public when this last appeared before the Board. I agree that it is not. You have some other sketches showing the boundary. Mr. Toohey provided a visual demonstrating the split zoning and what uses are allowed in these districts. Mr. Toohey explained how the sitting of the building was chosen and the facility placement as well as the receipt of area variances from the ZBA. Mr. Easton, MJ Engineering provided and reviewed all elevations for the Board. Todd Fabozzi questioned the visibility of the building from the road. Mr. Easton stated it will not be seen from the road. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated DRC Architectural Review is also required on this project. Mr. Toohey stated they have received a positive letter from New York State Park which is the property owner to the north and we have also received an Archeological sign off with regard to the project. These have been submitted to the City. Mr. Toohey reviewed the line of site for the project on the highway from both directions with a visual presentation. Mr. Easton provided NYS DOT design standards for the Board noting 75 feet between curb cuts. They do, however need to provide access to the site with 75 feet being a desired width. DOT design standards were reviewed. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – March 23, 2017 - Page 10 of 15 Amy Durland spoke concerning the location of the curb cut and where it is intended to be it was not marked. Upon site visit heading north the area is fairly straight but it is on a hill. There is a rise in the road. It does appear to be a bit of a blind area. It would be helpful to have the curb cut staked out. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the site line from both the north and south directions. Clifford Van Wagner stated if this does not get voted on tonight, can you place four stakes on this property. One on the north side of the property, one on the south side of the property. Additionally one on the north side of the driveway, one on the south side of the property. The applicant’s agent has agreed to stake out the property for a site visit from the Board. Mr. Toohey explained the sitting of the signage also denoting the location. Also Mr. Toohey explained the sanitary sewer uses for the employees only. Any other trash is bagged and taken to the dumpster. The sanitary sewer use on this site is very minimal. Mr. Easton reviewed the sanitary sewer demands noting the usage. Information was obtained from other Pet Lodge Sites. Mr. Easton noted there is sufficient space to install the septic system on this site. Amy Durland stated that the City Engineer had comments concerning the soils on the property. Mr. Easton stated in the final design of the process we will no doubt need to install a raised septic system. Todd Fabozzi questioned the typical animal count on a daily basis. Mr. Sames stated approximately 20. Todd Fabozzi questioned the effluent on the surface and when it rains it will wash down to the wetlands. Mr. Easton refuted the claims of the runoff. There will be a stormwater management system using a filter bed system. He is very confident that the runoff will be handled and treated properly prior to being discharged back into the soil. This will be installed to DEC standards. Mr. Easton also reviewed the tree line and the wetlands as well as the buffer provided. Mr. Toohey stated fencing will be installed along with shrubbery. If there is a request from the Planning Board during site plan review for additional buffering it will be handled to the Boards satisfaction. Amy Durland requested more information concerning the wetlands. Mr. Easton provided information and location of these wetlands and what they consist of. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the Board has requested to have the property staked out. This is a difficult parcel to work with. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated he believes the district and the parcel calls out for a shared driveway concept. Mr. Toohey stated we have approached the neighbor and the neighbor is not in favor of the shared driveway. The use we are proposing is a permitted use in the zoning code. Jamin Totino stated what he is hoping for since this is the fourth or fifth time this applicant is before this Board, some clear indication of what the Board is requesting and what way to proceed. We have a permitted use. DOT has to allow a curb cut. We are asking the applicant to stake out the curb cut. Is there anything else we will require from the applicant? City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – March 23, 2017 - Page 11 of 15 Ruth Horton stated one issue we have heard is the potential noise from this property. I am curious how close that is to where other developable lots are realizing there is nothing there now. Mr. Toohey reviewed the setbacks required in this zone. We have given the south boundary owner the distance which is required. On the south side a fence is proposed outside the kennel area. Amy Durland questioned the grooming aspect of this project. The trash associated with this was to be bagged and into the dumpster. I have a dog and our experience is they insist on washing the dog prior to grooming. They never dry cut a dog. I am under the impression that the soap water and fur from this cannot simply be swept away. Water usage for 80 gallons a day seems low. Perhaps this is a site plan issue. Also I am questioning the number of employees at the facility 2 seems pretty low. Mr. Easton stated he does have data to be provided to the Board noting the water usages. Mr. Sames stated the groomer does come in on off hours, mostly on the weekends. Grooming is only a small part of the facility’s use. Clifford Van Wagner stated he feels we cannot hold the applicant to the shared driveway. The neighbor next door is suing them and has also indicated they are not willing to provide shared access to this site. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the curb cut and the gateway district requirements. Amy Durland questioned any mitigation measures appropriate to the gateway area or wetlands. Mr. Toohey explained the area of the location of the wetlands and the area of site disturbance as well as buffering. Amy Durland also requested additional information concerning the services to be provided at this facility as well as the staffing proposed and the parking. If this is better left for site plan understandable however I would like a better understanding of the workings of this site. Justin Grassi, Attorney to the Land Use Boards suggested much of the Boards review is very appropriate. I will point out a few of the evaluation criteria for Special Use Permits. One of the criteria is safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular access, circulation and parking. That is certainly one of the items we have discussed this evening. Similarly we are looking at the environment and natural resources of the site and neighboring lands including potential erosion, flooding or excessive light, noise vibration and the like. While they are frequently items to be discussed in site plan it is very appropriate to discuss these now. While I am not saying necessarily that there are concerns regarding the site and if there are that they are property mitigated, but they are evaluation criteria at this time we should be checking. Jamin Totino stated to review what we are asking the applicant, markers for the mouth of the driveway, the property and the two front corners of the building. Amy Durland also requested the applicant stake out the wetlands. Mr. Easton stated he will be happy to stake out the wetlands. PUBLIC HEARING: Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – March 23, 2017 - Page 12 of 15 Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. The applicant will provide the staking of the property per the Boards request and they will return before the Board at the next Planning Board Meeting. 4. 17.016 BENTON TRUST SUBDIVISION, 58 Fifth Avenue, final 1-lot residential subdivision within the Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) District. BACKGROUND: The Planning Board previously provided two separate favorable advisory opinions to the ZBA most recently on January 26, 2017, related to the potential 2 lot subdivision and proposed variances. The ZBA has approved the area variances associated with the proposed two-lot subdivision. Subsequent to this action the ZBA heard the application for area variances associated with a proposed single-family residence and detached garage structure on the new lot. The application will remain pending until a decision by this Board that would create the new lot is made. SEQRA: Action appears to be an unlisted action. Short EAF has been provided to the Board. Applicant: Tom Roohan – 519 Broadway LLC Agents: Dave Carr, LA Group; Matt McPadden, Builder Mr. Carr stated the applicant was here on January 26, 2017 seeking an Advisory Opinion to the ZBA. We did receive a positive Advisory Opinion and the requested variances were granted on February 13, 2017. We are here this evening requesting a two lot subdivision. The second part of the application with the ZBA is for the proposed building which we will share with the Board this evening pending the subdivision approval. Mr. Carr provided a visual presentation of the site. The existing parcel is 16,650 square feet. We will be creating a 7500 square foot parcel with 75 feet of frontage. Balancing the variances between the two lots creating a lot around the existing structure and the lot size and width of Lot 2. In this zone the lots are required to have 100 feet of frontage and be 10,000 square feet. Almost every lot on this street is substandard in that 7500 – 8850 square foot range. Mr. Carr provided a visual presentation of what is proposed to be built on the second lot and is the second portion of our application with the ZBA. We have spoken with one prospective buyer and we have spoken with the ZBA. Their suggestion to us was to come before the Planning Board first for subdivision approval and then return with exactly what we are looking to build. The concern here is always with light wells and things like that. Matt is going through this process right now. We received a very strong feeling from the ZBA that this is the size building they would like to see. The variances we are proposing for this application would be: AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback: 30 ft. 21 ft. 9 ft. (30%) Minimum side yard: 12 ft. 8 ft. 4 ft. (33%) Minimum rear yard: 30 ft. 25 ft. 5 ft (17%) Maximum principal building coverage: 20% 27.28% 7.28% Mr. Carr stated this home is very consistent with what currently exists in the neighborhood. A visual rendering of the proposed home on the lot. Coverage’s are all very similar. A sketch of the proposed home was provided to the Board City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – March 23, 2017 - Page 13 of 15 very similar to the homes currently in the neighborhood. The sidewalk and curbing is in good condition. We will need to break it for the lateral connections and replace them. There was a question concerning the cedar row. We believe it cannot be saved. The neighbor to the east is a part of the trust that sold this property and is familiar with the proposal. Ruth Horton, Alternate stated upon visiting the site we are concerned regarding the trees. Mr. Carr stated the trees along the street 1 will be taken down for the driveway installation. All the remainder of the trees will stay. Trees on the property line will also remain. Discussion ensued concerning the fencing at the rear of the property and a large tree in the vicinity. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated sidewalks and street trees and a street light is part of the subdivision regulations. This is an established neighborhood and when we were on site we noted the cobra lights on the street and this could be a case for the Board to consider a waiver from the street light. Todd Fabozzi stated he is a big fan of front porches and questioned the possibility of the addition of a front porch. Mr. Carr stated we did hear this at the ZBA as well. PUBLIC HEARING: Mark Torpey, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:30 P.M. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Bonnie Sellers, 5th Avenue. Mrs. Sellers questioned the setbacks. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the applicant did provide this information however; the applicant needs to return before the ZBA for the approval of these requested variances based on the design of the building. Mr. Carr reviewed the variances which the applicant will be requesting from the ZBA. Mark Torpey, Chairman closed the public hearing at 9:35 P.M. SEQRA: Mark Torpey, Chairman and the Board reviewed Part I of the SEQRA Short EAF. No large or important areas of concern were noted. Mark Torpey, Chairman and the Board reviewed Part II of the SEQRA Short EAF. 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. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – March 23, 2017 - Page 14 of 15  Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Ruth Horton, in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 Janet Casey made a motion in the matter of the Benton Trust Subdivision, 58 Fifth Avenue, that the application be approved with the following conditions: - waiver for the street light based on the site visit. - planting of 1 street tree in front of the existing home consistent with the ordinance to mitigate the tree removed in the placement of the driveway Ruth Horton, alternate seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Ruth Horton, in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we had a Planning Board Summary which was circulated. Any comments or suggestions please forward those to the Chair, so this information can be distributed. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the DEC is now reviewing the SEQRA form and revising the SEQRA rules. Any suggestions you would like to make to DEC individually or collectively as a Board. In reviewing the changes the only two issues which relate to us here are - One change is any subdivision less than 4 lots would not require SEQRA review. There are making this a Type II action. This would involve 10 acres or less. The other is the reuse of a commercial or residential structure where the activity is consistent with the current zoning laws may not require SEQRA review. Reuse of an existing structure would be exempt from SEQRA review. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the April 13, 2017 meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Mark Torpey, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 7/13/17 City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – March 23, 2017 - Page 15 of 15