Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 2012 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:02 P. M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Gary Hasbrouck; George “Skip” Carlson STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Joe Scala, City Attorney, City of Saratoga Springs ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: The proceedings of this meeting are being taped 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. APPLICATIONS ADJOURNED 4. #2616.1 SIRO'S RESTAURANT, 168, Lincoln Avenue, modification to a previously approved area variance for construction of a 14.5 foot high acoustical fence in an Institutional-Horse Track Related District. 5. #2628 5 EAST BROADWAY SUBDIVISION, 5 East Broadway, area variance for a proposed three-lot subdivision; seeking relief from the minimum mean lot width requirement for each of the three lots in the Urban Residential-2 District. 6. #2526 SUNOCO SIGN, 154 South Broadway, use variance to re-brand existing gas station signs and canopies in a Transect-5 Neighborhood Center District; seeking relief from the maximum number of signs per parcel. 7. #2507 SIRO'S RESTAURANT, 168 Lincoln Avenue, interpretation and use variance to operate a restaurant year- round in an Institutional-Horse Track Related District; seeking relief to exceed the 90 day restriction on the operation of the eating and drinking establishment. 8. #2355 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP AND VERIZON WIRELESS, 252 Washington Street, use variance for the construction of a telecommunication facility in a Transect-5 District. NEW BUSINESS 1. #2642 MARKET CENTER/PRICE CHOPPER, 19 Railroad Place, area variance for a wall sign; seeking relief to exceed the maximum height for a logo requirement in the Transect-6 District. Bill Moore, Chairman provided some background information on this project. The DRC Architectural Review approval for new mixed use building in April 7, 2010. Planning Board Site Plan Review extension of approval for new mixed-use building October 17, 2010. DRC Architectural Review for two wall signs approved October 20, 2005. ZBA Area Variance for a 36" high logo, wall sign 50 sq ft., approved November 28, 2005. SEQRA Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum height of logo 18 inches 25.9 inches 7.9 inches (44%) Applicant: Golub Corporation Agent: Fred Early, Signworks; Trieste Savona, Golub Corporation Mr. Early, stated Price Chopper is seeking an area variance for a wall sign at the Price Chopper located in Market Center at 19 Railroad Place. Price Chopper is leasing a large portion of the basement level of Market Center. The new store is not a full size store. There is a very small area for signage, and a very narrow streetscape. This sign will be the only signage for this store. Bringing this sign into conformance will make it a ridiculously small sign. People looking for the store will have difficulty with the size of the signage allowed. There will be no off premise signage. This is a registered logo which Price Chopper is using. Allowing the larger logo lets Price Chopper maximize their sign in the very limited vertical space, five feet on the front façade. The applicant is requesting the logo which is a registered logo remain proportional to the copy. By allowing the larger than 18" logo the Price Chopper letters can be maximized at just below 18". The proposed sign logo and letters are backlit, a halo effect type lighting. There will be minimal lighting impact. This is an entirely new environment for Price Chopper. Skip Carlson asked if the Price Chopper had considered any other type of signage such as an awning, canopy, etc., Mr. Early of Signworks stated they have met with Mr. Bonacio and Mr. Olsen and no formal signage for the building had been discussed. However, there is a very small area for signage below the upper porches/decking. Bill Moore, Chairman stated Saratoga County Planning Board referral is required as well as DRC Architectural Review. Discussion ensued regarding size of signage, and placement. Adam McNeill stated a 4 ½ foot sign in downtown Saratoga with 18" lettering is not in his opinion in character with the neighborhood. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there is a sign package. Mr. Savona, Golub Corporation stated there are sign packages. This store does not have a sign package. We do not have the space. They are working with George Olsen and Sonny Bonacio for some type of traditional type plaques that say produce and custom meats, sort of a Victorian type sign if you will just to add a little more flair to the façade. Something that is aesthetically pleasing. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated that wall signs are not permitted above the first floor level. In further review of the plans submitted it appears that the proposed signage is above the first floor level. Discussion ensued regarding placement of signage and the fact that the signage quite possibly is above the first floor level. Susan Barden, Senior Planner stated perhaps the applicant will need to re-evaluate placement of their signage and if another area of relief is needed they will need to amend their application citing another area of relief requested. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, January 23, 2012 - Page 2 of 7 PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:50 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on the application of Market Center/ Price Chopper, located at 19 Railroad Place. Owner of 53 Church Street, just wanted to confirm that the sign will be facing Broadway. Bill Moore, Chairman stated yes it would be. Owner of 53 Church Street, stated they have no objections. Jim Higgins, lives at the condos at the corner of Division and Railroad Place. He is also the Condo Owners Association President. His concern is regarding neon signage, and what type of signage will be at the other end of the store. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the signs will be backlight not neon. Neon signage is not permitted in this area. The applicant at the other end of the store will need to appear before the DRC for approval of signage. Liz Bishop, also lives at the condos at the Corner of Division and Railroad Place. Her concern was how many signs the building will have when it is completed. This is a residential area, people have invested in this area believing it was a residential area and there is some concern to have it continue to look that way. Bill Moore, Chairman stated Golub Corporation is present only for the size of the logo. If they did not have the logo issue they would not even need to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals. All signage is reviewed before the Design Review Commission prior to installation. Mr. Early of Signworks stated the Golub Corporation will have only one sign. A sketch of the proposed signage was made available for both Jim Higgins and Liz Bishop's review. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he believes the application needs more noticing of the neighborhood. This application will be noticed again enlarging the area of notification and will return before the Board on February 13, 2011. 2. #2644 SPENCE GARAGE, 89 NELSON AVENUE, 89 Nelson Avenue, area variance to finish and condition the second floor of an existing detached garage, area variance to exceed the defined use of a garage in the Urban Residential-2 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Applicant: Cindy Spence Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated the applicant is before the Board requesting an area variance to finish the second floor of an existing detached garage for a personal art studio. Ms. Spence is semi-retired and this area will be used for her private tinkering. Ms. Yasenchak reviewed the five areas of consideration for an area variance with the Board. There will be no bathing facilities, kitchen facilities and no overnight stays within the accessory structures. The area will be heated. There will be no change in the character of the neighborhood. The applicant has provided a floor plan to the Board. This area will also be used as additional storage space. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, January 23, 2012 - Page 3 of 7 PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:10 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on the Spence Garage, 89 Nelson Avenue application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:11 P.M. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Cindy Spence 89 Nelson Avenue Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 From the Building Inspector’s determination for the premises at 89 Nelson Avenue, identified as Tax Parcel Section 179.21, Block 2, Lot 17, Inside District of the City of Saratoga Springs, New York. WHEREAS, the appellant has applied for an AREA VARIANCE for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance for exceeding the permitted activity or use of an accessory structure (a private garage) in an Urban Residential -2 zoning district; and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on January 23, 2012. WHEREAS, in consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the Board makes the following resolution and finding of fact that the requested AREA VARIANCE for the following relief or lesser dimensions, as described in the submitted application, be APPROVED: Required Proposed Relief Requested Permitted use of accessory Uninhabitable space Habitable space Limited use of habitable structure – private garage space in a private garage 1) The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant noted her desire to create a habitable area in the attic of a detached garage in order to create paintings, make jewelry and perform pottery work as a personal hobby. The City Zoning Ordinance does not allow any type of finishing work which would create a habitable area in the attic of a detached garage in a UR-2 district. Finish work, to be performed, includes the installation of a ½ bath, insulation, and a heating system. The applicant explored the possibility of converting the basement and other areas of the house for these purposes. Those areas were found not to be feasible to the applicant because of “low headroom” and lack of a large enough work space. The applicant also considered attaching the garage to the house. Per the applicant, “with the long, narrow lot, the attached garage minimized access to the yard from the house”. 2) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The detached garage meets the dimensional requirements of the district. According to the application, “the garage is for personal use. Visually the City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, January 23, 2012 - Page 4 of 7  neighborhood will not be altered in character as no exterior change will be visible.” The board’s concern is that the use of the attic of the garage does not expand to include an accessory apartment or be improved to include overnight accommodations. 3) The relief requested is substantial. Since the ordinance does not allow finished space in an accessory structure, allowing even limited finished space is considered substantial. 4) The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The application states there will be, “no additional traffic or density of use will occur due to this request.” 5) The difficulty may be considered self created. This, however, is not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: This variance is conditioned upon the improvements not creating an overnight living area or accessory apartment. Specifically, no kitchen or bathing facilities will be allowed. The plumbing shall be limited to the half bath. Seconded by Adam McNeill. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; George "Skip" Carlson, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 3. #2643 DICKSON ADDITION, 25 FRANKLIN STREET, 25 Franklin Street, area variance for an addition to an existing residence, seeking relief from the minimum side yard and minimum total side yard setbacks in the Urban Residential-4 District. SEQRA: This appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. DISCLOSURE: Adam McNeill, Secretary stated that he is a Financial Advisor to the applicants. He will recuse from this application. Applicant: Matthew and Susan Dickson Mr. Dickson started they are looking for an area variance for an addition to their existing residence. They will be doing these renovations to accommodate their growing family and are seeking relief from the minimum side yard and minimum total side yard setbacks. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback 20 FEET 15 FEET 5 FEET (25%) Minimum total side yard setback 45 FEET 36 FEET 9 FEET (20%) Susan Barden, Senior Planner explained to the Board the total yard setback and how the relief requested was determined. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, January 23, 2012 - Page 5 of 7 PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman, opened the public hearing at 8:30 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:31 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Matthew and Suzanne Dickson 25 Franklin St. Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 25 Franklin Street, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.66-2-17 in the Inside District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City, as amended to permit the construction of an addition to an existing residence in a UR-4 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 23rd day of January 2012. In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following area variances for the following amounts of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT SIDE YARD SETBACK 20’ 15’ 5’, OR 25% TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK 45’ 36’ 9’, OR 20% As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The existing portion of the house has a preexisting non-conformity with district requirements; this project, which extends the current exterior walls, triggers the need for a variance. The applicant noted that adding on to another portion of the house would not be feasible since it would require extensive re-plumbing work to gain functionality needed for a kitchen upgrade, in a different part of the house. Additionally, the applicant indicated that there was no way to purchase property from next door as that site includes an active business. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. This proposal continues the existing degree of encroachment over the setback requirement. The applicant notes that the project will result in an aesthetic improvement. Positioned as it is towards the rear of the house, it does not appear that this project will adversely affect the neighboring properties. 3. The side setback variance is substantial; however the proposal continues an existing degree of encroachment that appears to be unavoidable given the positioning of the house on the property. 4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood or district. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, January 23, 2012 - Page 6 of 7  As noted above, this proposal has the same degree of encroachment over the setback line as currently exist. Neither permeability nor building coverage appears to be an issue in this case. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created as the applicant wishes to build this addition. However, this is not fatal to the application. Noted: DRC Historic review and approval required. Seconded by Gary Hasbrouck. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; George "Skip" Carlson, in favor Adam McNeill, Secretary - recused MOTION PASSES: 4-0-1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Bill Moore made a motion to accept the December 5, 2011 as submitted. Seconded by Skip Carlson. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 4-0. Discussion ensued regarding reading communication received by the ZBA into the record in their entirety. Suggestions were offered by Board Members as to how to proceed. Foil requests were discussed as well as the timeliness of requests being granted. Joe Scala, City Attorney stated he would have a discussion with the Board regarding correspondence received by the Board concerning applications before the Board and the reading of such correspondence into the record. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Gary Hasbrouck made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman. Meeting was adjourned at 8:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 2/13/12 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, January 23, 2012 - Page 7 of 7