Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES (FINAL) THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2017 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Mark Torpey, Chairman called the meeting to order at 6:03 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Mark Torpey, Chairman, Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman, Janet Casey, Clifford Van Wagner, Bob Bristol, Amy Durland, Todd Fabozzi; STAFF: Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs 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. UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS/AGENDA WORKSHOPS: Planning Board Caravan, Monday, October 23, 2017 at 4:00 P.M. Planning Board Workshop, Monday, October 23, 2017at 5:00 P.M. Planning Board Meeting, Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 6:00 P.M. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR: None heard. S A. APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. 17.061 STATION LANE APARTMENTS (ASKEW), Station Lane, Special Use Permit for 36 multi-family residential units within three proposed structures within the Transect-5 Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. SEQRA: Action appears to be Unlisted. With 3 or 4 applications before the Board within Station Lane/Washington/West, Board is ensuring stormwater, utilities, and traffic is considered comprehensively among 4 active projects in the area. DRC is the other involved agency. Coordinated SEQRA Review and Seeking Lead Agency Status determination is before the Board this evening. BACKGROUND: This project is on the northern side of Station Lane located between train station on the west and Faden proposed mixed use project to the east. The site features ACOE and DEC designated wetland areas. Proposed project has been discussed with DEC and staff. Original proposal featured further disturbance into the wetland and adjacent buffer area, current proposal is 3 structures along Station Lane frontage with 36 multi-family units. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated this is the first appearance for this project before the Board. The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit for 36 multi-family residential units within three proposed structures. The action for the Board tonight will be to seek SEQRA Lead Agency Status. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated she had a question with regard to SEQRA seeking coordinated review and SEQRA Lead Agency Status. We have received a DEC permit via the applicant for this project. As part of their review they issued a Negative Declaration. We will research this to determine if we still need to include them in our coordinated review and send them the Part I to them for consideration or comment in their deferring to us or is this separate considering they have forwarded their determination to us. Justin Grassi, Attorney for the Land Use Boards stated he was able to confirm that they have completed their uncoordinated review and have issued a negative determination, there is no longer a decision on the table and they are no longer an involved agency. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated knowing they have a decision from DEC we can still review SEQRA at the local level and make a determination as well. Justin Grassi, Attorney for the Land Use Boards stated that is correct, this Board can also move forward with an uncoordinated review. It is the policy of the City to go with a coordinated review with the different Boards and make sure that the analysis of the environmental analysis is done cohesively. For the purposes of the DEC their goal is for speed sake so they do not have to wait 30 days, so they do an uncoordinated review. They do this for most of their unlisted actions. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if we have an option to seek a coordinated review with our sister local agencies or is our only option uncoordinated review. Justin Grassi, Attorney for the Land Use Boards stated the Board can certainly do a coordinated review with other involved agencies. Amy Durland questioned who is responsible for SEQRA assuming we seek and receive SEQRA Lead Agency Status. Justin Grassi, Attorney for the Land Use Boards stated yes, the Planning Board is responsible. Amy Durland questioned the fact that the DEC has issued permits which require environmental review, do we review it in the context of our environmental review. Justin Grassi, Attorney for the Land Use Board stated we will have concurrent jurisdiction to review the action and make our determination. Mark Torpey, Chairman questioned if there were two different rulings does one trump the other. Justin Grassi, Attorney for the Land Use Boards stated at this point it is my understanding that the answer would be no, only because the DEC has already acted and reached a Negative Declaration by issuing their permit. If there was a step in between where if DEC were to reach a Negative Declaration and the Board then reached a positive declaration, then our positive declaration would then trump their negative declaration and coordinated review would be required City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board October 12, 2017 - Page 2 of 11 and they would have to halt until that is resolved. Applicant: Richard Askew Agent: Scott Lansing, Lansing Engineering; Theresa Bakner, Attorney, Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna Mr. Lansing stated this is the first appearance before the Board. We would like to present the project and answer any questions the Board may have. Mr. Lansing stated we met with the staff several months ago and presented the rough concept of the project. We obtained feedback and suggestions which were implemented and we proceeded with the plan. Mr. Lansing provided a visual presentation of the survey and the project noting the 8.42 acre site and its proximity to the other projects currently being developed on the site. This project will be developed on the southern portion of the site. There are DEC wetlands on the parcel and they were denoted for the Board as well as the 100 foot buffer. Mr. Lansing stated he has been working diligently with the DEC as evident by the permit which was issued and presented to the Board. This plan was submitted to the DEC and they requested we try to reduce the impacts as much as possible. We had .48 acres of adjacent area impacted. The impacts were reduced significantly. This visual presentation is the plan which was accepted. Mr. Lansing stated we are proposing 3 buildings, 3 stories in each apartment building, totaling 12,600 square feet for each entire building with a building footprint of 4,200 square feet. There will be 12 units per building, 4 units per floor, for a total of 36 units in total for the project. We are currently proposing 2 bedrooms, 2 bath units at approximately 825 square feet per unit. Entrance shown on both the front and rear of the buildings. We are currently working towards architectural drawings which are not yet completed and we will submit those as we move forward. Parking is positioned to the rear and the side of the buildings. We are also showing parallel parking along Station Lane. Two dumpsters are proposed for the site being located in the rear of the project site. Curb cut access will be along Station Lane. All access to the site will be from these curb cuts which meet fire code requirements for emergency services. Concerning the streetscape along Station Lane we are proposing sidewalks, street trees and street lights along the frontage of the site. Civic space is planned and currently being developed. We do have some excellent areas for this development on the site. We are currently showing benches along the roadway and we will continue to work with the Board moving forward. Mr. Lansing stated we are required to have 54 parking spaces and we currently have 59 parking spaces including the on street parking. 47 parking spaces are provided on the site. Recreational aspects of the project, the applicant is proposing to contribute to the fees for recreational amenities. There is a plan for a potential park in the vicinity. Public sewer and public water will be accessed for this project. Concerning stormwater management, We have conceptually some areas shown in the back reaches of the property and we are considering some under the parking lot as well as some green infrastructure practices we can apply around the parcel as well. The architecture is a work in progress. Hopefully at the next meeting before the Board we will provide some of the architectural elements associated for the project. Mark Torpey, Chairman questioned about the ACOE wetlands at the site. Ms. Backner stated they are co-terminus with the DEC wetlands. Although they are regulated by the DEC they are also regulated by the ACOE. Amy Durland stated she would like to see where they are and how this fits in with the projects. Also we agreed that any analysis performed would be of the entire area. Ms. Backner, Attorney for the applicant stated we understand that there are many cumulative things the Board is looking at in this area, sewer pump station improvements as well as the sewer force main improvements and we are happy to participate in the those studies as well as the traffic. One thing I would like to point out is DECs requirement, for stormwater these days really requires it to be onsite and deal with immediate stormwater impacts related to the project. Our design whatever we do will clearly take care of all the impacts immediately there. It is not an option not to do that anymore. They do not like to see combined stormwater improvements as opposed to having stormwater improvements on the site. The other issue, and we will provide that information to the Board, in terms of obtaining a City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board October 12, 2017 - Page 3 of 11 wetlands permit you have to show that you don’t have a practicable alternative. That is the standard that DEC applies, so we needed to establish that we met that standard prior to obtaining the DEC permits. The DEC requires the applicant to go through a very rigorous process to obtain a DEC permit. They take it very seriously and they are the ones that have jurisdiction over state wetlands. We felt it would be a waste of time to come before the Board if we didn’t go through the process with DEC. Amy Durland stated she understand the onsite resolution of stormwater issues. She thought DEC was condoning and encouraging us to have a comprehensive look at this entire area, and is not completely happy with the idea that permits have been granted in this area prior to a comprehensive look at the environmental consequences of the hydrology of the area. I would like to take a look at all the properties in this area. Perhaps Tim Wales and Blue Neils can assist in some of this. I believe this is where we left off. Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman stated when Intrada came before this Board they did look at the hydrology of the area, including all projects, even as far as St. Charles Place. Several homeowners did appear before the Board citing their concerns regarding this and their homes and wet basements. Blue Neils came to a meeting and spoke about the whole area and was very articulate. It might be a matter of reviewing those materials and viewing the webcast of that meeting. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated one of the things Blue Neils did suggest was green infrastructure practices regarding stormwater on all four parcels. We did look at with Intrada rain gardens integrated with the parking and with Top Capital they had expressed sisterning as a way to try to minimize water usage for landscaping. There has been some movement by the other participants above and beyond the normal mitigation measures. Todd Fabozzi stated you provided to us an overview of box buildings. It would be important as we move forward to have detailed integration of these different sites. We have seen some conceptual plans from other applicants that have shown their different site plans together in one plan so we can look at things like where your ingress and egress match up or not with the other projects, where we can achieve different types of streetscape objectives for this area. Maybe with this particular layout it does work out in the sense that you are at least fronting your buildings on the street but we can’t tell in this sense because we are looking at one project isolation. Working with the other applicants to come up with a master site plan which integrates all of them. Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman stated he seconds that. What is important for him is what the whole scope of Station Lane will be. Particularly if you have parallel parking in this area and the other project does not. Where do the sidewalks start and end. Also the T-5 Neighborhood Center District is creating a neighborhood. Concern was voiced concerning the parking in the rear. When you put parking in the rear you lose a major objective of creating street life. They only way to counter that is when you get to the phase of building that you have significant usage on the front of the building via porches or whatever. It draws a reason for people to be on the street. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated if the applicant were to look at a single common entrance versus three it might bring a little more activity or interest in this area. Clifford Van Wagner stated the curb cut close to the intersection is disconcerting. I don’t know why you would need that. If you did a little maneuvering the curb cut could be eliminated. You are into the buffer and we usually don’t do that. It’s too much on the acreage the way it is laid out. Ms. Backner stated we will provide more information on that. The DEC has jurisdiction over the wetlands. Again, we would not have gotten a permit from the DEC if we did not have a practical alternative. We will provide you with the information which was provided to the DEC. We can review the plans concerning the entrance and if it has to do with fire code and regulations. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the Planning Board has decided to move forward with coordinated review at the local level we need to work through the SEQRA process and form our own determination on SEQRA Negative Declaration or not regardless of what DEC has done. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board October 12, 2017 - Page 4 of 11 Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman stated, because we are Lead Agency we can be more stringent than DEC and they would follow suit. Ms. Backner stated that is not accurate. SEQRA doesn’t change jurisdiction by and between agencies that is one of the principals of SEQRA. DEC as the agency that is responsible for the state wetlands has already looked at this from a SEQRA standpoint, specifically at the wetlands and the adjacent area. So that is certainly relevant to the issue whether this project received a negative declaration from DEC. You have you own process and look at your own SEQRA requirements and your own standards but you don’t implement the standards related to the state wetlands, DEC does. Justin Grassi, Attorney to the Land Use Boards stated what Attorney Backner stated is accurate. The primary entity an applicant needs a permit from for wetlands is the DEC. That means you need a permit to build within the 100 foot buffer which has been enacted by legislature to give a buffer zone for DEC purposes there is a lesser impact to those wetlands. While yes the DEC is required to go to for the permit and they do look specifically at the wetlands this Board acting as Lead Agent still has concurrent jurisdiction to look at those wetlands. Our decision doesn’t necessarily impact the DECs decision. The DEC has already made their decision and issued their permit have blessed so to speak the proposal right now. That does not mean that this Board cannot potentially find, based on our local experiences the DEC looks at these wetlands more globally and encourages these local municipality to look at it locally to see what type of impacts based on the uses and our knowledge of the wetland and if the uses are appropriate. We also have concurrent jurisdiction. We can evaluate it ourselves and come to the same determination as the DEC or a conflicting determination. If we were to find a moderate to large impact because of the impact on the wetlands during our SEQRA review, we will want to need to clearly articulate the reasons why, especially since the DEC has evaluated it and determined that within that 100 foot buffer the use is appropriate. Those are some of the things we will have to consider. Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman stated at this time we are saying to the applicant that there is a potential site modification that could pull you out of that buffer altogether. Janet Casey stated especially in light of what was said to another applicant. As part of these 4 projects together, we would look for some consistency across these projects in terms of what we are saying concerning the wetlands. That would be a primary thing for me. If you do look at an alternative design that allows you to move the left building further towards the corner even more. I would also like to see the relationship between these curb cuts and the ones on the other side of Station Lane. Any change you make would have to be in concert with what I on the other sites. So we can see that relationship. Clifford Van Wagner stated in the past we asked for the applicants to provide an overlay which can now be done on the computer. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, stated Vecino Group is beginning to put these project composites together. There are some things which would be worthwhile to discuss among all 4 applicants. There are different items such as the street topology. If the applicant is looking at the layout and what it consists of, and if you are looking for alternatives there are a few you can consider such as the building themselves, in terms of their shape and size and layout. Access points are another. On street parking counts as part of the parking requirement for the site. Todd Fabozzi stated shape can be expanded to not only height but shape of the buildings and number. The buildings do not always have to be rectangles. Clifford Van Wagner stated the applicant has asked the Board to consider 36 units. We know there is a financial aspect to this. Perhaps 36 units are too many. If you start altering the number of units, the buildings may be smaller and you may be able to go up in height of the buildings, parking is lessened and perhaps no encroachment into the wetland buffer and eliminate the third curb cut to the west. Maybe you end up with two buildings. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board October 12, 2017 - Page 5 of 11 Amy Durland questioned Cliff’s idea of possibly going up a 4th floor and reduce the spread of the buildings. There are some things we would like to see, a designation of the Army Corps wetlands. Alternative layout including parking and curb cuts. A map of the entire area including the other projects. I would be interested in the hydrology of the area. I would be interested in knowing what the variances consist of. Civic space and that is not included in the plans at this time. Mr. Lansing explained the Right of Way is quite wide in this area and would make a great area for civic space. We will discuss that further at a later date. The buildings are right on the property line. Clifford Van Wagner stated the apartments on West and Grand Avenue those buildings front on West and are on the lot line. They look like they are right on the road. These buildings will be cavernous. Discussion ensued concerning placement of these buildings on the property line and the location of the civic space. Ms. Backner questioned the setbacks being 0-12 feet from the property line. In the past when we have been before the Board the request for the setbacks was at 0. This something new. A visual representation would be helpful. Jamin Totino stated what Cliff is stating goes back to what I stated earlier about this becoming a neighborhood. The building we are speaking about has never had anyone out sitting on the porches. I wonder if you might consider townhouses as an option which would create more of a street life in this area. The setback in my opinion will determine what the front of the building looks like. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated as a reminder there can be variety on the site as well. A variety of structures and buildings heights. A visual aid to show the Board would be helpful. Mark Torpey, Chairman spoke about the parking and a 10% reduction is proposed. Reduction to just the required amount would be great. In the narrative it speaks about a 0.3 acre wetland disturbance within the 100 foot buffer. Access from 9N that wetland designation extends to the end of the parcel and question what the applicant will do about that. Mr. Lansing stated nothing is planned from 9N and no impact on the wetlands. No access. Mark Torpey, Chairman requested a copy of the written narrative from the DEC to see how they reached their determination. Ms. Backner stated we will forward the narrative from the DEC. Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman made a motion in the matter of the Station Lane Apartments (Askew), Station Lane that the Planning Board request Coordinated Review with the ZBA and DRC and seek Lead Agency Status for SEQRA analysis. Janet Casey seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. VOTE: Janet Casey, in favor; 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 MOTION PASSES: 7-0 City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board October 12, 2017 - Page 6 of 11 Bob Bristol stated it would be helpful to have an electronic overlay provided for the Board for all four of these projects. 2. 17.064 PLUM & CRIMSON INTERIOR DESIGN OFFICE, 48 Beekman/51 Ash Street, Special Use Permit modification permit additional use of office within the Neighborhood Complementary Use-1 (NCU-1) District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action with no further environmental review required. BACKGROUND: Modified Special Use Permit approval last issued for 51 Ash Street site overall in October 2016 adding a daycare center As a use to one of 2 structures on the parcel. Special Use Permit pertaining to subject structure was issued on September 10, 2002. Both were combined into one to ensure all uses on the site were present on a single permit. Applicant: Erica Gallagher Ms. Gallagher stated we are seeking a Special Use Permit to have our office located on the Ash Street property. There is currently a day care center on the Beekman Street property. We are in the process of purchasing both buildings as one purchase. We would like to keep the daycare center; they have a lease in place. When their lease is up if they decide to move out we would like to expand the use and have office use available for renters. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the issue before the Board is to consider office designation for both buildings in the on the parcel. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated, to clarify you are requesting to add this to the existing uses. You are seeking to retain all of the uses as well as the conditions with the addition of office are available for either structure. Ms. Gallagher stated exactly. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated there is a parking waiver separately for each address, 48 Beekman Street has a waiver of two spaces and 51 Ash Street has a waiver of four spaces. In this new modification would we need to reiterate the waiver of six spaces. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated a modification to a Special Use Permit technically opens it up. Currently there is a waiver of parking for either structure for the uses as laid out. The use shifting to office is basically a wash. So the parking is equivalent. There is really not a net change. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated this would be third use, daycare, boutique and you are adding office to both. Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman questioned how the office would function concerning the traffic and people flowing in and out. Ms. Gallagher stated we do have clients who come to meet at the office about once or twice a week for about an hour Most of our work is done on site or in the office. Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman stated in full disclosure he lives on Beekman Street. He is concerned regarding the traffic since there are street fairs in this area which limit access to some of the businesses. Ms. Gallagher stated typically they are not in the office on the weekends. They are excited to have the availability to access the art studios for their clients. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board October 12, 2017 - Page 7 of 11 Mark Torpey, Chairman stated right now the daycare has a specific number of students and workers which is 12 students and 2 teachers. The boutique doesn’t speak about that. Office space is there a number of employees you are looking to attract for the office space area. Discussion ensued concerning the square footage in these areas and the limitation on space. PUBLIC HEARING: Mark Torpey, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:08 P.M. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Mark Torpey, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:09 P.M. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we are speaking about office use for both buildings. A continuation of the parking waivers previously granted for a total of 6 parking spaces for the Special Use Permit Modification. Clifford Van Wagner made a motion in the matter of the Plum & Crimson Interior Design Office, 48 Beekman and 51 Ash Street for a Special Use Permit Modification is approved with the conditions as noted by the chair. Janet Casey seconded the motion. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner questioned the issue of the overhands in the city right of way. Ms. Gallagher stated their attorney is researching this while doing the title search. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated the Planning Board may wish to include this in their motion. Justin Grassi, Attorney for the Land Use Board stated the existing building overhangs into the City property by about 3 feet. The Board can encourage the applicant to resolve this issue with the City and this does not necessarily need to be included in the action. Clifford Van Wagner amended his motion to add that the Board recommends the application obtain an easement for the 3 foot overhang into the city right of way. Janet Casey seconded the amended motion. VOTE: Janet Casey, in favor; 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 MOTION PASSES: 7-0 3. 17.051 DEVALL SKETCH SUBDIVISION, 59 Franklin Street, 2-lot subdivision sketch plan review in the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board October 12, 2017 - Page 8 of 11 BACKGROUND: Area variance application submitted for a carriage house with apartment in 2005. It was determined that a use Variance was also required. Application was not supplemented. -DRC Historic Review approval December 7, 1995. -Site plan review approval October 15, 1986. -Use and area variances for two apartments and a professional office approved December 11, 1985. Variances extensions 1994, 1995 and 1996. The Planning Board heard a request for advisory opinion on January 12, 2017 regarding the siting and orientation of a 3 car garage and second story residential unit. Current sketch application is for an alternate plan of creating a 2-lot subdivision of subject parcel. Variances related to minimum average lot width are still required for this application; an advisory opinion is also still required of the Planning Board. SEQRA: Action would be a Type I action to due location within the Historic District with involved agencies of ZBA, Planning Board and the DRC. If the Planning Board serves as Lead Agent this will require return to the Planning board for SEQRA review, then the ZBA for variances, Planning Board for subdivision review and DRC for Historic Review. RECUSAL: Bob Bristol recused himself from this application due to having a financial interest in the project. Mark Torpey, Chairman questioned the ability to do a pro-active Advisory Opinion to the ZBA. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated the Board can provide pro-actively an advisory opinion to the ZBA for this alternate approach. A short EAF form has been submitted, however this project due to its location within the Historic District will require coordinated review with the ZBA and DRC is a Type I action. If the variances are received, the applicant would return to the Planning Board for formal subdivision review. Area variances from the minimum parking and setback to parking on the front lot and for setbacks and principal building coverage for the proposed residence on the rear lot required. Historic Review with the DRC is also required. Justin Grassi, Land Use Board Attorney stated a full environmental assessment form will be required since this is a Type I action, so the applicant will need to submit that. Generally when we request Lead Agency Status we require a complete application so they can make an informed decision. A Board can pro-actively defer Lead Agency Status if they are comfortable doing so without the complete information having the applicant provide the information to the Board. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated since this is sketch plan, the applicant can provide the Board information on the project and then proceed through the normal application and SEQRA process. Applicant: David DeVall & Richard DeVall Mr. DeVall stated a number of variances are being sought for the project. Mr. DeVall stated they appeared before the Board almost a year ago proposing a 12,000 square foot carriage house, a 3 bay garage stall. A visual image of the proposed site was provided. The applicant stated the prior carriage house was situated just as the single family home is portrayed in the slide at the extreme corner of the lot. The application has changed from the original one proposed. The alley has been widened. We are not developers. Our project has changed. We are pedestrian friendly, we have provided sidewalks and curbing and the green median and historic lighting. Due to the dramatic changes which occurred behind us I felt it would look better, to have a single family home. Several renditions were provided. Discussion ensued concerning the placement of the garages in the Ellsworth project fronting on the alley. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board October 12, 2017 - Page 9 of 11 Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman stated there is a lot going on in this neighborhood. There are three or four projects currently being built in this area. Although smaller than the Station Lane Project we might want to step back and take a look at this entire area and what is being built in the small block area. Looking at this comprehensively and the activity on Marvin Alley this could be a challenge for us. We have received input from the Saratoga Preservation Foundation concerning Marvin Alley and the fact that buildings should not front on Marvin Alley. Janet Casey stated that portion of Cherry Street is very mixed. There are established homes, a carriage house and right next to that are homes with porches. My question is what is fronting Cherry Street. The way this is oriented the façade of your building matches the façade of the larger building on your lot. My question is concerning its appropriateness for that portion of Cherry Street. What is opposite of this is quite different from this façade that you are showing. This creates an odd juxtaposition there. Mr. DeVall provided some visual images of the area. Mark Torpey, Chairman questioned the addition of porches to wrap around both Marvin Alley and Cherry Street. Mr. DeVall stated he feels it’s important to retain the 21 foot green space area. Clifford Van Wagner stated you have columns on your façade which match Franklin Street. I doesn’t fit. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated again this is conceptual. Prior to your appearance before the ZBA and the variances you will be requesting the applicant may wish to look at the proximity. The structure is pretty close to the sidewalk on both sides. Even widened Marvin Alley is still fairly narrow as well as the tightness of Cherry Street. The sidewalk is in the ROW on the Marvin Alley side and is partially on private property on Cherry Street. Just the spacial siting will determine the variances requested. Mr. DeVall stated the congestion on Cherry Street has been long standing. Amy Durland stated the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation has factored in on a project nearby. Do we anticipate that they would have comments on this project as well. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated she has spoken to Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation concerning another project in this area as well as this project. So I would expect there is interest generally in providing comments as well. Amy Durland stated regarding Jamin’s comments about looking at this area holistically and other projects in this area I cannot argue with that. I am looking for guidance from the DRC and the Preservation Foundation due to the historic nature of the area; this might be helpful in getting this moved along without waiting for the conclusion of the other projects. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated that is a good idea. Clifford Van Wagner stated he doesn’t believe the garage fits with the design of the house. Janet Casey stated the applicant is trying to be historically accurate with those columns on the front of the structure to match your façade on Franklin Street. It’s not historically accurate to have an attached garage. The combination looks odd. Amy Durland stated that is why she made the suggestion to reach out to either DRC or the Saratoga Preservation Foundation. Mr. DeVall spoke with Susan Barden today and she suggested the applicant file an amended application to the ZBA and perhaps do a coordinated review. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board October 12, 2017 - Page 10 of 11 Mark Torpey, Chairman stated that is the way to proceed, first submit to the ZBA for the variances required. They will ask for an Advisory Opinion which is required. SEQRA Lead Agent to be determined. Justin Grassi, Land Use Board Attorney state what we will be looking at is the entire action. Exactly what variances will be considered and sought we will wait until that is completed to perform our review. Clifford Van Wagner stated it almost seems the applicant should appear before the DRC first. Once you obtain your variances then visit the DRC it may impact the variances. They will provide input concerning the design. A sketch plan review would be helpful. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated in speaking with Susan Barden the ZBA will separate this project out into two packets one for the lot and one for structure on the lot. DRCs input first would be helpful. COMMENTS FROM STAFF: Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated at the Ethics Meeting there was a question of a working group to discuss some of the issues brought forth by the ZBA and the DRC as well as the Planning Board. The Mayor’s Office is convening a working group and they are looking for a representative from each Board for a meeting sometime next week. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning availability. Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman stated he will represent the Planning Board. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the October 26, 2017. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Mark Torpey, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 7:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 12/14/17 City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board October 12, 2017 - Page 11 of 11