Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES (FINAL) THURSDAY, JULY 27, 2017 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 6:04 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman; Clifford Van Wagner; Amy Durland; Janet Casey; Bob Bristol; Todd Fabozzi; Ruth Horton, alternate; LATE ARRIVAL: Mark Torpey, Chairman arrived at 6:20 P.M. STAFF: Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Tim Wales, City Engineer Justin Grassi, Counsel for the Land Use Boards 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: 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. 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, August 7, 2017 at 4:00 P.M. Planning Board Workshop, Monday, August 7, 2017 at 5:00 P.M. Planning Board Meeting, Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 6:00 P.M. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR: None heard. A. APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: RECUSALS: Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman recused from the following application-active employee of Skidmore College Janet Casey, recused from the following application-active employee of Skidmore College Todd Fabozzi recused from the following application-active employee of Skidmore College. ATTENDANCE: Amy Durland, Acting Chair; Bob Bristol; Clifford Van Wagner; Ruth Horton, alternate 1. 17.043 SKIDMORE SCIENCE CENTER, 815 N Broadway, Site Plan review of 117,000 square foot building within the INST-EDU District. Amy Durland assumed the duties of the Chair. SEQRA: Unlisted Action; uncoordinated review – ZBA as other Involved Agency completing their determination separately. BACKGROUND: Area variance to exceed the maximum building height with placement of mechanical equipment, granted June 26, 2017. Agents: Don McPherson & Bob Kernan, LA Group; Paul Emory, Skidmore College; Dorn Payette, Payette Architects Mr. McPherson presented a brief overview of the project. The project has been before the ZBA for two variances. One for height and one for roof coverage on the mechanical penthouse. . The ZBA as other Involved Agency has conducted SEQRA review and issued a Negative Declaration. We are here for site plan review. An aerial view was provided to the Board noting the proposed location of the addition. This is within the core of the campus and very deep into the campus basically. There will be some improvements closer to Broadway. Skidmore’s goal is to integrate the sciences and bring them together in generally one location. We will be demolishing Harder Hall, and build a new structure which wraps around the east and north and connects in to the Old Dana. This chosen alternative allows the college to expand the facilities while having the least impact on the existing building, surrounding campus buildings and the existing site infrastructure. The addition will be 117,000 square feet in size. We have three floors of building and the fourth floor is the penthouse level which is 60 feet above grade and that is the maximum allowed. The penthouse is stepped back from the edge of the main building to reduce its visual impact. It is a science building and they do require a lot of mechanical needs. There is also a 160 sq. ft. occupied space on the penthouse level which is a research lab which is placed away from a trafficked corridor. The required height variance associated with the proposed building expansion is set within the college campus, well from any neighboring properties. With the project there is a net decrease of 28 parking spaces. Some of this loss of parking space will be gained in other areas of campus. With regard to stormwater management for the project there is a net gain of approximately ¼ of an acre of impervious area combined with parking and building as well as the tree buffer. Amy Durland, Acting Chair stated at the last meeting there were some issues relating to stormwater management. Tim Wales, City Engineer can you factor in on this. Tim Wales, City Engineer stated he did review with their engineer what is proposed for the stormwater management system for this project. We were worried about the stormwater which comes down North Broadway. The existing stormwater pond on the site had been overtopped and was already having issues. We had a large rain storm on on Monday night. The LA Group went and took pictures and measurements. They met with me and made some recommendations and showed what mitigation measures will be taken for this project which will also correct the existing issues on the site. Written correspondence was received from the LA Group documenting that. Tim Wales, City Engineer, stated he is satisfied with their storm water plan. Amy Durland, Acting Chair asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board. None heard. Amy Durland, Acting Chair asked if there were any questions or comments from the audience. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – July 27, 2017 - Page 2 of 13 None heard. Amy Durland, Acting Chair stated we still need to complete SEQRA. The ZBA as other Involved Agency has conducted SEQRA review and issued a Negative Declaration. The Planning Board reviewed Part I of the SEQRA EAF provided by the applicant and it is complete and accepted. Amy Durland, Acting Chair stated the Board will now review Part II of the SEQRA EAF. 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. Ruth Horton, Alternate seconded the motion. Amy Durland, Acting Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Ruth Horton, Alternate, in favor; Bob Bristol, in favor; Amy Durland, Acting Chair, in favor MOTION PASSES: 4-0 Bob Bristol made a motion in the matter of the Skidmore Science Center, 815 North Broadway, Site Plan Approval application be approved. Ruth Horton, Alternate, seconded the motion. NOTE: Mark Torpey, Chairman arrived at 6:20 P.M. Amy Durland, Acting Chair asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Ruth Horton, Alternate, in favor; Bob Bristol, in favor; Amy Durland, Acting Chair, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 Ruth Horton, alternate exited the meeting at 6:20 P.M. Jamin Totino resumed his position on the Board. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – July 27, 2017 - Page 3 of 13 Janet Casey resumed his position on the Board. Todd Fabozzi resumed his position on the Board. ATTENDANCE: Mark Torpey, Chairman, Janet Casey, Clifford Van Wagner, Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman, Bob Bristol, Amy Durland, Todd Fabozzi 2. 17.044 INTRADA SARATOGA SPRINGS, Washington Street, West Avenue, Station Lane, Special Use permit for construction of multi-family residences within the T-5 District. Applicant: Vecino Group, Rick Manzardo Agent: Mike Ingersoll, Matt Brobston, LA Group SEQRA: Action appears to be an Unlisted Action taken on own. DRC other involved agency. However, items of cumulative potential impact have been discussed including Traffic, Stormwater Management, Community Character, Water, and Sanitary infrastructure. Top Capital is serving as coordinator of cumulative assessment 3 active, 4th potential project in direct area. Will be providing traffic study, water and sanitary report. Also, 3 active projects moving forward with concept to create Public Park space on Vecino property, with potential recreation fees. BACKGROUND: Mark Torpey, Chairman stated at the workshop we discussed SEQRA and our review the salient items. Kate and I as well as Jed Hayden, DEC met to discuss some of the issues. The wetland issue has been of importance. Mr. Ingersoll provided an updated visual presentation. The City Council, because this is an affordable housing component, 158 units, the City did adopt the pilot program to help assist with the financing of the project. We have provided the traffic analysis, mainly a trip analysis to the Board as well as to Don Minnery, Saratoga Associates. We will have a draft of the traffic review within the next few days to provide as well. We did some further verification of the bald eagle, butterfly and bat habitat, which was provided to the Board as well. There are some trees on the site and we are offering the cottonwood trees will be cut during the non habitat season. We have also provided the wetland determinations and mapping. We met with staff and coordinated the traffic and utility analysis. Test borings will be completed by the next meeting. There is also some discussion concerning extra lands that could be donated for a park. We will be prepared to provide this for you as well. We are reviewing the site plan to attempt to create the grid on Washington and possibly create some parallel parking along the frontage as well as connectivity to the Green Belt Trail. We will provide a preliminary stormwater management plan showing the intent to meet the green infrastructure guidelines, the runoff quantifications and the numbers. We still have all the compliance issues with the DEC. We are providing an aerial of the west side runoff patterns. We are working with the idea of an outside consultant to review the the various SEQRA and engineering for the whole build out. Rich Manzardo, Vecino Group. The City Council has approved a 31 year pilot program on the project, which locked the property taxes in. Mr. Manzardo provided an example of how these taxes will increase over time. Mr. Ingersoll provided an aerial map of the site including some isolated wetlands. So therefore, in this area there is no impact or regulation. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated in our discussions with the DEC and Army Corps of Engineers concerning both the delineation and confirmation. In speaking with Christine DeLoria from the ACOE recently. A composite map was provided to her which we are utilizing among the three active projects which we have been discussing in terms of her feedback. She did make note that it is still best practice to show even if it is not jurisdictional but simply defining as a part of the basic context of that area, and also as part of your review. She did confirm that it City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – July 27, 2017 - Page 4 of 13 was isolated, and not in the ACOE jurisdiction. On the Top Capital side there were some changes that were recommended based on their site visit with the Top Capital group. Also in Mark and my meeting with DEC they did note that the fingers may be portions of the DEC wetland area, this of course was verbal. I have requested if there are any changes in this area the determination be sent in writing. Mark Torpey, Chairman questioned Kate Maynard, Principal Planner if there has been a precedent set when the ACOE wetlands is connected to the DEC wetlands have they considered and readjusted a wetland buffer accordingly. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated she wouldn’t speak to that. These two entities make a decision based on their own criteria and their assessment, and legal boundaries. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the wetlands, boundaries and buffering. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated this was a verbal communication from the DEC staff member. I feel as staff we needs to proceed with what has been issued in writing. Justin Grassi, Attorney for the Land Use Board stated Kate is absolutely correct; it is up to the Board to determine the credibility of the some of the experts, ACOE and the DEC. If we have written evidence that these are the boundaries versus verbal communication, it is something the Board can pursue and investigate. Mr. Ingersoll stated it is not uncommon for these two entities to not match. They have different criteria. We have standing jurisdictional determination from both these entities and this map we are providing is the current map. Mr. Ingersoll reviewed the project site for the Boards review concerning connectivity, traffic flow, drainage patterns, green space which is at 67%, and the discussion of proposed park. PUBLIC HEARING: Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Chris LaPan, 3 St. Charles Place. Thanked the applicant for providing the map of the wetlands and drainage. My concern is the 7 or 8 people on St. Charles Place concerning the drainage and water. The water will get under the road somehow. We are concerned regarding flooding water. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked for guidance and advice considering these four projects and what is being proposed, and how they fit together and interact. What is being proposed for this project, infiltration basin on the back end of the property and there are other types of measures to consider as well. There are also some concerns voiced by the neighbors and in general thoughts and guidance which could help make a better determination. Blue Neils, Saratoga County Stormwater Management Coordinator stated conceptually the applicant is going to have to do more site investigation. They haven’t done their soil borings; they don’t know the depth to ground water. The area to where they are building the leg that points to the south are the best soils on the site. These are Windsor soils. They are incredibly fast perking soils. These soils have a high silt content and when they are disturbed the silt tends to come out of the soil which is why you are seeking the perched water or the isolated wetland there. However when construction is over these soils go right back to behaving like an A soil. This is a good thing. The other soils on the site are B, C’s and D’s which is what you would see with a wetland. The applicant must determine where the ground water table is in this area. The long parking island in the middle of that is a great place for a bioretention swale, depending on the ground water table. Tree plantings will be used for runoff reduction volumes. Since these building have flat roofs, sisterning is a possibility designing the building to capture the stormwater internal to the building for irrigation on the site. Otherwise the owners will be paying for potable water. It seems illogical to treat stormwater as a waste product when it’s free. These are a possibility but the feasibility is another matter based on the economics of the project themselves. Overall, they have done exactly what you are supposed to do. Synergy with other projects is important. That is something which must be looked at. Stormwater wise this site is not a bad site by itself. The bigger impact will be cumulative. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – July 27, 2017 - Page 5 of 13 Amy Durland questioned what needs to be done to address Mr. LaPan’s concern. Mr. Neils stated test borings will do a lot to allay the concerns of Mr. LaPens groundwater and water table concerns. It is not uncommon to find areas of perched water in Saratoga County. The soils are not homogenous. We do have areas that are depressed which act like bowls or channels. Discussion ensued concerning the erosion on the site, sediment displacement, and stormwater management. Clifford Van Wagner stated his concern regarding the cumulative effect of these projects and the possible assessment of a fee to the other applicants to share in the cost. Tim Wales, City Engineer stated we have asked for an escrow deposit from the applicants to have a designated engineer handle additional reviews of full build out traffic, water, wastewater, stormwater and those types of things to be looked at in a holistic basis. We need to get a designated engineer on board. We need to assess if we need some mitigation very early on. Clifford Van Wagner stated we need to have assurances collectively that this can happen. Tim Wales, City Engineer stated there is a sanitary pump station out there and this might need to be upgraded now, so we only need to do it once versus again following the full build out of the site. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner questioned if there is anything you have seen like this or something you would urge us to look at cumulatively on the site. Mr. Neils, stated no, he does not have any examples and it would be very difficult to provide examples since we do have any information from the other projects. It makes it difficult and because of the zoning here you do not have an idea of what the maximum would be. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated looking at this collectively is important for the Board to consider. Is there a way we can put together with this projects a no regrets design that could stand on its own and when the other projects comes to us in their own time frame it is very easy then to just segway seamlessly to build into the right green practices in a cumulative sense for an optimum project. Is there something we can do now with this project to make sure it is adhering to some good principals and then establish an escrow fund for the other applicants to contribute to then be able to do that analysis when that project comes and does it work and segway and compliment what was just done. Mr. Neils stated that is a tough question since each project will want to handle their stormwater management issues on site and with their own teams. The potentiality of creating a regional treatment facility that will pick up stormwater from all of the projects and would be a shared expense, I think because of the temporal paces of the projects I don’t know how that would be possible without the city asserting some sort of authority. That is a possibility but that would be tricky since one of the projects would need to give up some of their lands to accomplish that. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the two suggestions which were offered by Blue Neils, Saratoga County Stormwater Management Coordinator were sisterning and the bioretention swale through the center of the property. Mr. Ingersoll stated we are not tying into the pump station in any way. We are planning to give some generic runoff calculations and the guts of what the SWPPP would be and also discuss the green practices we will undertake following the borings. There are some ways to get the actual elevations. Amy Durland stated she would like to get some confirmation of the elevations. We need to have some sense of how maintenance over time would be accomplished so we can include this in our plans. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – July 27, 2017 - Page 6 of 13 Doug Heller, LA Group stated one thing with the SWPPPs that has been required for the past 6 months is that annually we must go out and inspect it and file those reports to the City Engineer. This is your assurance that these will be maintained. City Engineer, Tim Wales stated we are requiring once a year inspections and we are placing that onus on the owner. Once construction is over and we release the as built drawings we have to release our financial guarantees. If there are issues regarding non compliance we rely on code enforcement. This is a fairly new requirement. Carrie Smith 3 St. Charles Place stated she appreciates that the Planning Board has taken their concerns seriously. Since this is just one project in a series of projects. Would a storm sewer benefit this area along with other storm water project? Blue Neils stated the storm sewer would have to be nearby to connect. These go away from West Avenue. It does not seem readily feasible at this time. Mark Torpey, Chairman some questions on the stormwater system. Concerns relative to the community character components. Consistency with community plans. Consistent with the T-5. DISCLOSURE: Bob Bristol disclosed that he sees past partners and employees in the audience. He does not see any conflict interest or issues. No current relationships. Todd Fabozzi stated this is more about quality and urban design. Glad to hear you will straighten out on West Avenue. Also, for your consideration if you look at the cross connection to the Top Capital site the village green area on the site I suggest you do something design wise to add some quality. Clifford Van Wagner made a motion that the Planning Board accept Lead Agency Status for the application of Intrada Springs Washington St., West Avenue, Station Lane. Jamin Totino seconded the motion. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman, in favor; Bob Bristol, in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 3. 17.033 HENRY STREET CONDOMINIUMS, 120 Henry Street, two lot final-commercial subdivision within The Transect-5 Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. 3. 17.032 HENRY STREET CONDOMINIUMS, 120 Henry Street, Special Use Permit for construction of a 30 unit Multi-family residential building within the Transect-5 Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. SEQRA: Unlisted Action. DRC is other involved agency; they pro-actively deferred SEQRA lead agency status on May 17, 2017. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – July 27, 2017 - Page 7 of 13 BACKGROUND: Transect 5 Neighborhood Centers are intended to accommodate a variety and mixture of residential and non-residential uses, building types and lot sizes. Neighborhood centers must incorporate residential use, create a public realm conducive to pedestrian activity and provide linkages to adjacent neighborhoods. Neighborhood center may vary, however, in the balance of neighborhood and regional scale non-residential uses based on their proximity to residential areas and major thoroughfares. Civic uses and spaces are also important elements of neighborhood centers. Block or interior may provide parking or civic and private open space. Neighorhood Centers (T-5) have a wide mix of uses, Building types and frontage types and corresponding reliance on a consistent streetscape and quality civic spaces to Enhance the pedestrian character of the center. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated this project is before the Board for a two lot subdivision as well as a Special Use Permit. This is for the construction of a 30 unit multi-family residential building in the T-5 District. Since the last meeting the Planning Board has received a Favorable Advisory Opinion from the DRC. They reviewed the project based upon the feedback we had given them. Concerning Mass and Scale, the reduction in the height of the building is heading in the correct direction. Proximity to the Historic District noting the topography transition; height reductions helps; context more in keeping with newer buildings in the area. Lighting concerns a photometric study is important. Light source visibility key. Civic Space/Streetscape – Logistics of gallery long term. Pedestrian access to gallery. The garage – De-emphasize garage; emphasize pedestrian entry. The Board also received an email from Mark Benaquista concerning the possibility of on street parking on Henry Street and widening the road. Anything in this area concerning the on street parking would exacerbate the current situation. Applicant: Bob Boucher, applicant/developer Agent: Mike Ingersoll, Matt Brobston, LA Group Mr. Ingersoll provided a visual presentation of the site and review of what information requested from the Board. was also provided. Mr. Ingersoll provided a review of some of the changes, incorporating some of the neighbors concerns. We have supplied the updated shadow study, an updated visual analysis, and updated site survey, and an updated SEQRA Long Form. A new front rendering was also provided. A review of all elevations was provided to the Board. Mr. Boucher provided some information on the project. The footprint of the building has been reduced and redesigned the building. We have brought it in 5 feet from the McTygue property on the left. This was brought in at its deepest point 5 feet from Bank Alley. There is an additional 7 feet in two directions which were cut out at the narrowest part of Bank Alley which also incorporated a reduction in the building. In addition the entire two thirds of the upper floor have been reduced. The green roof now has been relocated and reduced on the rear portion of the building. The back of the building has been reduced where we now have an entire green belt that will be visible from Bank Alley. It will only be 27 feet now at the high part of Bank Alley. In addition, at the corner of the building nearest Bank Alley, those units have been redesigned to eliminate some windows and further turn the fenestration inward. The corner units do have open balconies on three sides with that detail eliminated along Bank Alley. The streetscape of the gallery space was provided. We have now incorporated some sitting benches at the recommendation of the Planning Board. We now have a tree belt and some traditional lighting fixtures in the front. Our idea of having this very active pedestrian dynamic with the currated gallery is still a very nice feature for the streetscape. It completely masks the parking level which is behind it. The windows are 18 inches deep and acclimatized. They have a three dimensional quality and again will be professionally curated. We have an agreement with the Marketplace Galley to do so. Sketches show the side elevations and the rear elevation along Bank Alley how the penthouse elimination on the upper right units brings the roof parapet level with the green roof down almost 8 feet on that level. We have tried very hard to provide considerations for the people who live on Circular Street. There is also an updated Section through the site showing the elevation on Circular Street cascading down at a fixed point on Bank Alley. This section is cut at the lower down slope of that. Plantscaping is proposed along Bank Alley. We have reduced the overall footprint and the setbacks and the garage level and part of the second floor is embedded into Bank Alley as well. I will have a lighting consultant work with me. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – July 27, 2017 - Page 8 of 13 The plinth blocks some will alternate having side emitting very soft lighting. None will project forward and will exceed a dark sky compliance condition. The gallery will be lit with museum quality conditions which will be at the appropriate light level for streetscape. The covered loggias in the columns and the pilasters will have lighting recessed within them. None of the lighting will be on the ceiling level. Also we are providing in each unit not only for design uniformity automated window treatments which will automatically lower the shades at night, with an 80% opacity on Bank Alley. When those treatments lower they will gently filter the light. There will be a lesser opacity of 70% on the front giving a gentle glow on the streetscape. The green roof will have a total circulation system in it. Mechanicals are all inbound and will not be visible from Bank Alley. Deliveries have a separate entrance. Janet Casey stated she loved the building before but now she even more so taking into accounts the neighbors concerns. Janet Casey thanked Mr. Boucher for being a good neighbor. Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman stated he is always glad to see an applicant take into account the neighbors concerns. Very respectful of the neighbors. This project is moving forward and I like it a lot. PUBLIC HEARING: Barbara Peters, neighbor. The delivery trucks being routed to the side entrance is a nicer feature. I also hope the street does not get widened because we would lose our trees. Amy Durland questioned the relationship between the parking at the Health Food Store and at this site. Is there any chance this project will encroach into parking availability at that store? The parking there is sometimes very close to being full. Mr. Ingersoll stated they will provide a better answer when they return and possibly some shared parking. Amy Durland stated she has mixed feeling about the art gallery space being used as a civic space. The enhancement of the streetscape, and the accommodating the public with benches is a very important element to have to relate to the art work on display. That said, the zoning requirement of civic space in large transect projects was to have a location for People to congregate-such as a pocket park or courtyard – and that displaying public art in windows will become a precedent in how to fulfill this requirement. Another concern is the lighting on Bank Alley. Hopefully that the lighting even if muted, will not affect the nearby neighbors. Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman I share some of the same concerns that Amy does. More concerned about the longevity of the art. Janet Casey stated she hopes with the benches as proposed and the art gallery that this could be a different type of civic space where people gather. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the proposed civic space. 8:30 P.M. Board recessed. 8:40 P.M. Board reconvened. 4. 17.036.1 MANEY MULTI-FAMILY, 18 Cherry Street and 38 Marvin Alley, consideration of SEQRA lead agency Status and coordinated SEQRA Review for multi-family residences in the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. BACKGROUND: The ZBA is currently considering variance applications for the proposed construction of 14 multi-family residential units Within a 4 story building on Cherry Street and 5 story building on Marvin Alley. The ZBA is considering variances which were proposed for the project. The ZBA has pro-actively deferred Lead Agency Status to the Planning Board noting City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – July 27, 2017 - Page 9 of 13 initial concerns relating to the increase in density, mass and scale and height of the structures within the context of the neighborhood, and the fronting of the building on Marvin Alley. The ZBA also identified general site concerns of suitability of Marvin Alley as two way access. SEQRA: The ZBA has initiated coordinated review and pro-actively deferred SEQRA Lead Agency Status to the Planning Board should they accept it. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs. The ZBA has noted some concerns regarding density, mass and scale initial concerns relating to the increase in density, mass and scale and height of the structures within the context of the neighborhood, and the fronting of the building on Marvin Alley. The ZBA also identified general site concerns of suitability of Marvin Alley as two way access. We have received correspondence from the Saratoga Preservation Foundation on this application noting it is adjacent to the Historic District. Applicant: Anthony Maney Applicant: Jon Lapper, Attorney; Jeff Anthony and Kiersten Cavallier, Studio A architecture. We are here to present the project, take your comments and hopefully you will accept Lead Agency Status for SEQRA. Our intent is to clean this site up. Mr. Anthony provided a visual presentation of the project, noting the current condition of property reviewing all elevations. We have moved the building away from Marvin Alley. Entrance is off of Cherry Street. The driveway has been removed from Marvin Alley and there will be only 4 parking spaces. 22 parking spaces are proposed, 18 internal to the building on the first floor. 4 are surface parking. Green space will remain on the site with a gazebo. Floor plans of the site were provided to the Board. A rooftop terrace is also proposed. Each unit will be approximately about 2,000 square feet. Floor plans were reviewed for the Boards information. A rooftop terrace is proposed. We are looking for the Boards suggestions and comments. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board. Todd Fabozzi questioned why the higher density building was facing on the alley and not the other way around. You have 4 stories on a street which would accommodate more than an alley. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated why are looking to go as high as you are. Mr. Lapper stated we are listening to what you are saying and we will review it. Clifford Van Wagner stated he goes back to the letter from the Preservation Foundation which notes their concerns about the building heights and not in keeping with the height and design of the neighborhood. Since this is adjacent to the Franklin Street Historic District. In reviewing the first rendering, it doesn’t fit in that neighborhood. Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman stated he concurs the current design does not recognize the historical context of the neighborhood at all. I am most concerned about the building that fronts on Marvin Alley this has no street frontage and does not fit into the context of the neighborhood. This is a lot to ask for the space that you have. One alternative you should consider is townhouses. Mr. Lapper stated the parcel shape required us to build up. We will go back and look at this again. Clifford Van Wagner stated perhaps this site is too small. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – July 27, 2017 - Page 10 of 13 Amy Durland suggested the applicant contact the Saratoga Preservation Foundation. They might have some helpful suggestions. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated he feels he would like to wait until the applicant returns before this Board again before asking for an Advisory Opinion from the DRC. Also there is a concern for the sanitary sewer. Tim Wales, City Engineer stated there are issues with the sanitary sewer on Cherry Street. We would like to see more improvements on Marvin Alley which is hardly wide enough for a bike. Stormwater needs to be addressed qualitatively and quantitatively on the site. Green infrastructure and anything you can do to handle stormwater. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Bob Pringle, property owner on Marvin Alley. Marvin Alley is on the historic register. Perhaps it should be given some improvements. If a 5 story building is proposed a shadow study should be completed. Marvin Alley is a very narrow thoroughfare. It is two way. We need to control this perhaps make it one way. Safety concerns. Clifford Van Wagner stated due to the size of the buildings perhaps a balloon float study is in order. Float 8 balloon one on each corner so the Boards and the neighbors can look at it. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated this should be a coordinated SEQRA review. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated how this fits with the community character of the neighbor, porches on the first floor not parking in this area. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated with respect to the historical context and what is being proposed there parking on the first floor level is not appropriate in this district. Jon Lapper stated they will look at all the issues and concerns of the Board and we will return. Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman stated street frontage for this building is the larger issue. 3. 13.074.1 SARATOGA DENTISTRY BUILDING, 75 Weibel Avenue, modification of Special Use Permit in a Transect-4 Urban Neighborhood (T-4) District. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs, stated this is a modification of a Special Use Permit. The original Special Use Permit was issued on February 27, 2014. It is specifically worded with specific thresholds. 2,000 square feet of medical office/clinic, retail or general office space, and 2,000 square feet of retail or office space. There was a much consideration at the time for utilities. The City was strongly urging the applicant to tie into public utilities. Currently the site is on septic, and there was much discussion on capacity. Currently, they are looking to expand and have altered their original application. Originally they were only going to expand into the adjacent retail, office space which is outside the 2,000 square feet. You are not directly altering the Original Special Use Permit at this point but you still have the utility calculations. Consideration for this change is quite unique. Agent: Mike Toohey, Attorney Mr. Toohey stated in 2014 this Special Use Permit was issued with regard to the building and the use was defined. There is no alteration to the exterior of this building. There is no alteration to the parking field. In fact the parking field because of the now introduction of the Insurance Office has been reduced from its original calculation. There is more City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – July 27, 2017 - Page 11 of 13 than ample parking. We are trying to figure out how to achieve the goal of Tim Wales, the City Engineer while acknowledging that the utilization of the medical space in the building which 1,921 square feet thus less than the 2,000 square feet. The middle office is 810 square feet and the retail portion is 1,363. This is the exact configuration it was in when this Special Use Permit was issued. Two more chairs are being added to the dental office where there was previous an office training room. That space is not changed. The entire building will remain the same. The concern of the City Engineer was the addition of the two chairs would put a burden on the septic system which was approved for this particular site. We had an engineer do a new septic analysis with regard to this and a proposal to enhance the septic system on the site. This will take the capacity at 240 gallons and increase it to 480 gallons a day. More than double than what it was. We currently need 295 gallons a day leaving a 185 gallon excess capacity. We are hoping that you will accept the site plan as it was issued in 2014 with the modification of the septic system as proposed and accepted by Tim Wales, City Engineer has to be implemented with regard to this plan. We are willing to do what the City Engineer has required. Therefore, we are looking to modify the Special Use Permit so that it acknowledges that we will install the septic system as approved by Tim Wales, City Engineer and as noted by the submitted plan dated March 20, 2017. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we will also need to waive site plan. Clifford Van Wagner suggested that we note in the motion that we reaffirm the Special Use Permit dated February 27, 2014 is allowing 2,000 square feet of medical, 2,000 square feet of retail. Waiver of site plan. Applicant has agreed to the installation of the enhanced septic system approved by Tim Wales, City Engineer and as noted on the submitted plans dated March 20. 2017. Janet Casey seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman, in favor; Bob Bristol, in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 2. 17.048 SARATOGA HOSPITAL ONCOLOGY EXPANSION, 211 Church Street, Site Plan review for hospital expansion within the Saratoga Hospital PUD. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated this is within the existing PUD. The drawings which were submitted were somewhat confusing and therefore the Chair requested the applicant’s agent to provide an overview of the project. Applicant: Saratoga Hospital, Kevin Ronayne, Vice President of Facilities and Operations Agents: Matthew J. Jones, Attorney; Matt Brobston, LA Group Mr. Jones provided an over of what Saratoga Hospital is proposing. The project entails a 3,000 square foot addition to provide for the addition of a second linear accelerator, which is one of the key components of the radiotherapy chemotherapy department. This is vital function of the hospital. Its success has created an increase in volume, hence the need for a second linear accelerator. The proposed addition will accommodate the linear accelerator which will be in addition to the one the hospital currently has in operation for the last 12 years. The total cost of the project is in excess of $5 million dollars. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – July 27, 2017 - Page 12 of 13 Matt Brobston, LA Group provided a visual presentation of the proposed site and all elevations of the proposed expansion for the Boards review. This addition will encompass .9 acres. There will be minimal soil disturbance and minor stormwater modification. The addition materials will match that of the current hospital. No trees will be removed in this project. New curbing will be installed and a new egress will be installed in this area. Mr. Ronayne, Vice President of Facilities and Operations stated the current accelerator is about 12 years old. The typical life span of a machine like this is 12 to 15 years. The machine averages about 40 cases a day and in some cases 50 cases. This makes for a very long day. There will be a portion of that work load will be spread to the second machine. The second portion of this is the technology has changed dramatically in the last 12 years. There are new treatment modalities which are specific to certain types of cancer that we cannot do with our current machine. This new machine will provide certain other types of treatment which previously were sent out of town, which will be a benefit to the community. Parking currently has a 33 space surplus. Parking required will be 10 spaces. DISCLOSURE: Bob Bristol disclosed that he is a Board Member on many committees at St. Peters Health Partners. Clifford Van Wagner made a motion in the matter of the Saratoga Hospital Oncology Expansion, 211 Church Street that the application for site plan review and approval for the hospital expansion within the Saratoga Hospital PUD be approved. Janet Casey seconded the motion. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman, in favor; Bob Bristol, in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Mark Torpey, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 12/14/17 City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – July 27, 2017 - Page 13 of 13