Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, MARCH 24, 2014 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:11 P. M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Gary Hasbrouck; Skip Carlson; Oksana Ludd; James Helicke STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney 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 APPLICATIONS: #2708 CELLCO/VERIZON WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY, 2202 Route 50 South, use and area variance for a new telecommunications facility including a 110' high stealth tower; seeking relief for the use and from minimum setback to the tower in a Highway General Business District. Adjourned to April 21, 2014. #2747 CONGREGATION & YESHIVA PARDES DORMITORY, 1 Veterans Way, area variance for expansion of the existing school including construction of an approximate 10,000 square foot residential building; seeking relief from the maximum principal building coverage in the UR-1 district. Adjourned to April 21, 2014. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion to accept the March 10, 2014 minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with minor corrections as submitted. Oksana Ludd seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, abstained; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 OLD BUSINESS: 1. #2754 THE FRESH MARKET SIGNS, 52 Marion Avenue, area variance for proposed five wall signs; seeking relief to permit four wall signs on facades without street frontage and to exceed maximum lettering and logo height for three wall signs in the Transect-5 District. This application was previously heard at the March 10, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. An Advisory Opinion from the Design Review Commission was requested and the application was adjourned to March 24, 2014. The public hearing was opened and remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Architectural Review by the DRC (partial approval- mass and scale only-applicant to return for review of all exterior details and final design) granted June 19, 2013. - Excelsior Avenue mixed use development – Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review approved March 27, 2013. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVAL/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Saratoga County Planning Board referral stated no significant countywide or intercommunity impact. DRC Architectural Review is required. Agent: Russ Hazen, Ray Sign Company Mr. Hazen provided samples of signage on elevations on three sides of the building, with different size lettering. Mr. Hazen stated he modified the plans per the Design Review Commission's recommendation. Signage was eliminated on the south side of the building. Also two out of the three signs on the front of the building were eliminated. A wall sign was added to the west elevation. Individual channel lit halo lighting at 18" in height is proposed. Discussion ensued regarding the size of the lettering proposed. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: 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 7:29 P.M. Skip Carlson presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF The Fresh Market 52 Marion Avenue Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 #2754 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 24, 2014 - Page 2 of 13 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 52 Marion Ave., in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.30-2-1 in the Inside District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance for three proposed wall signs; seeking relief to permit two wall signs on facades without street frontage and placement of wall signs perceived to extend above the first floor level of a building in the Transect – 5 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on March 10 and March 24, 2014. 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 variance for the following amount of relief: REQUIRED: PROPOSED: RELIEF REQUESTED: Wall signs located on an elevation with no street 0 2 2 (200%) frontage: east (1) and north (1) elevations And, relief for placement of wall signs perceived to extend above the first floor level of the building 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. After working with the DRC, the sign package was revised from four signs to two signs needing relief and the size of the lettering significantly reduced. 2. The substantiality of the request may be perceived as an undesirable change in the district especially cumulative impacts on the neighborhood from possible similar signage of future buildings on the site. 3. The relief may be considered substantial at 200% 4. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this application will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The application states “the halo lighting for most of the signs is an extremely soft look at night”. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions of approval: Saratoga County Planning Board issued No County Impact DRC Architectural Review required Adam McNeill, Secretary seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary; in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 24, 2014 - Page 3 of 13 2. #2752 SARATOGA PELICAN ASSOCIATES LOBBY, 232 Broadway, area variance for expansion of lobby area to an existing hotel; seeking relief from the build-to, build-out and two-story requirements of the Transect-6 District. This application was heard at the March 10, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The public hearing was opened at that time and remains open. The application was adjourned to March 24, 2014. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Area variance for a 2,100 square foot one-story addition to an existing hotel, relief from the minimum two-story requirement approved on November 21, 2011. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: - Saratoga County Planning Board responded with no county wide or intercommunity impact. - City Planning Board site plan review required. - DRC architectural review required. Applicant: Cindy Hollowood, Holiday Inn Bill Moore, Chairman asked the Board if there were any further questions or comments. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: 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 7:39 P.M. James Helicke presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Saratoga Pelican Associates, LLC Holiday Inn 232 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 232 Broadway in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel number 165.75-2-5 in the Inside Tax District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance to construct a single-story addition to an existing hotel lobby and a new porte cochere in the front of the existing building, which is used as a hotel, and seeking relief from the building-to line, minimum build-out, and minimum two-story requirements of the Transect-6 zoning district; public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on March 10 and March 24, 2014, City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 24, 2014 - Page 4 of 13  In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following variance for the following amount of relief: Required Existing Proposed Relief Requested Minimum Build-to 0-12 feet 62.9 feet 40.5 feet 28.65 feet line Minimum two- Two-story One-story One-story No two-story story Minimum build-out 70% 0% 0% 70% As per submitted plans be approved for the following reasons: 1) The applicant has demonstrated that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant has indicated that the proposed configuration is the only feasible location and variances are needed for architectural continuation of the existing single-story lobby. Moreover, the application notes that the proposed variances result from zoning criteria approved subsequent to the construction of the existing structure and alternative designs would also require a variance. 2) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The hotel has been part of the neighborhood character of South Broadway for decades. The proposed modifications will be located in a similar location to the existing covered walk and porte cochere. 3) The relief requested is substantial. However, the existing structure predates the Transect-6 zoning requirements and the proposed modifications will provide greater compliance with the build-to requirement. 4) The Applicant has demonstrated that the variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The applicant has noted that the proposed modification will take place in areas of existing disturbance and the scale of the project is compatible with existing structures. 5) The application argues that the hardship is not self-created, since “this facility was approved, built, and was in compliance with previous zoning criteria.” Approvals and Conditions: Saratoga County Planning Board issued a decision of “No Significant Countywide or Inter-community Impact” on March 20, 2014. City Planning Board site plan review required. Design Review Commission architectural review required. Keith Kaplan seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary; in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 24, 2014 - Page 5 of 13 3. #2756 NEILLEY RESIDENCE, 210 Nelson Avenue, area variance for a second-story addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential -3 District. This application was heard at the March 10, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The public hearing was opened at that time and remains open. The application was adjourned to the March 24, 2014 meeting. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DRC Historic Review required. Applicant: Henry and Donna Neilley Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: 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 7:45 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Donna and Henry Neilly 6 Bridle Path Clifton Park NY 12065 #2756 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 210 Nelson Ave., in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.61-2-46 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 to permit the construction of an addition to an existing single-family residence in a UR-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 10th and 24th days of March 2014. 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 variance for the following amount of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK 4’ .5’ 3.5’ OR 87.5% City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 24, 2014 - Page 6 of 13 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 encroachment already exists and this proposed addition is to stay within the existing footprint. The need for relief was triggered by the proposal for a second-story addition to the portion of the residence encroaching over the setback line. The applicant notes that plans were evaluated to “step” the addition in from the side yard setback, however that was found to be not feasible aesthetically and architecturally, and the side yard encroachment would exist in any case. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. As noted above, the setback encroachment is not proposed to be increased. The applicant also points out that the layout as proposed with the gable turned perpendicular to the current roof line will result in less snow and ice falling from the newly raised roof level onto 212 Nelson Ave’s driveway. The Board concludes that the continuation of the existing setback encroachment in this case is not adversely impactful on neighborhood properties. 3. The side yard setback variance is substantial; however, as noted above it is a continuation of an existing pre- existing nonconformity and under this proposal the footprint of the house would not change. 4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The proposed amount of permeable surface will not change as this is an addition to the second floor. As noted above, the gabling is designed to mitigate snow and ice impact. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed addition, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions and notes: If gable on proposed addition is changed to be the same direction as existing roof line, then applicant must take measures to mitigate impact of snow and ice on north side of residence (the side with required dimensional relief). DRC Historic Review required. Oksana Ludd seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary; in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 4. #2757 PICKETT RESIDENCE, 589 North Broadway, area variance for proposed additions (new mudroom/entry and expanded dining room) to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the maximum principal building coverage in the Urban Residential-1 District. DISCLOSURE: Gary Hasbrouck disclosed that he does have property within the 250 foot radius of this application. He has no financial interest in this application and there is no need for recusal, simply disclosure. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 24, 2014 - Page 7 of 13 SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: - Historic Review required. Applicant: Dan Pickett PUBLIC HEARING: 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 7:50 P.M. Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Dan Pickett 589 North Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 #2757 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 589 North Broadway, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.44-4-74 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 to permit an addition to an existing single-family residence in a UR-1 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on March 10th and 24th, 2014. 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 variance for the following amount of relief: REQUIRED: PROPOSED: TOTAL REQUESTED: MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL BUILDING COVERAGE: 20% 22% 2% (10%) 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. The application states, “The alternative designs explored do not provide the new owner with the additional bedroom and bath spaces that are necessary”. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties in that the addition “is not highly visible to the neighborhood or out of character for the house”. 3. The relief requested is not substantial as it represents an additional 274 square feet of lot coverage. This relief is further mitigated by the fact that few, if any, of the neighboring properties can see the proposed addition. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 24, 2014 - Page 8 of 13  4. The construction will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The applicant identifies 54% of the lot will remain permeable, which exceeds the minimum 30% for this district. 5. The applicant’s desire to seek a variance from the maximum principal building coverage is self-created, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman spoke regarding the amount of relief requested. He would like to place a restriction on the resolution stating no accessory structures on the property. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding placing restrictions on the resolution. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary; in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 5. #2753 SAKOS/DBA MR. ED'S ICE CREAM STATION, 588 Lake Avenue, area variance to maintain site and building improvements for an existing "lunch room" as constructed in the Rural Residential District. This application was heard at the March 10, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals. The public hearing was opened at that time and remains open. The application was adjourned to March 24, 2014. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: - Planning Board Site Plan Review of an ice cream stand in a Rural Residential district approved July 30, 2008. - Area variance approval October 22, 2007 for maintenance of an existing freestanding sign; dimensional relief for existing principal and accessory structures, minimum setback to parking and maximum size of sign in a RR-1 district. - Use variance approval September 17, 2007 and modified October 15, 2007 for maintenance of a lunch room, originally approved in 1954. Applicant: Mr. Edward Sakos, Owner PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing is open. 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 8:03 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 24, 2014 - Page 9 of 13 Saratoga County Planning Board referral indicated there is no countywide or intercommunity impact. Oksana Ludd presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Eugene Sakos, Jr. d/b/a Mr. Ed’s Ice Cream Station 588 Lake Avenue, Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 Appeal #2753 from the Building Inspector’s determination for the premises at 588 Lake Avenue, Saratoga Springs, New York, identified as Tax Parcel No.: 167.-2-58 in the outside district of the City. The Applicant has applied for an area variance for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance regarding the (i) minimum front yard setback: principal building, (ii) minimum side yard setback: principal building, (iii) minimum front yard setback: accessory building (1st shed), (iv) minimum setback to principal building: accessory building (1st shed), (v) minimum side yard setback: accessory building (2nd shed); (vi) minimum rear yard setback to parking; (vii) minimum front yard setback to parking; (viii) maximum area freestanding sign in Rural Residential-1 zoning district, and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on March 10, 2014 and March 24, 2014 The Board notes that this application was previously submitted and approved as follows: - Planning Board Site Plan Review of an ice cream stand in a Rural Residential district approved July 30, 2008; - Area variance approval by the Board on Oct. 22, 2007 for maintenance of an existing freestanding sign; dimensional relief for existing principal and accessory structures, minimum setback to parking and maximum size of sign in a RR-1 district (“2007 ZBA Approval - Area”); - Use variance approval Sept. 17, 2007 and modified Oct. 15, 2007 for maintenance of a lunch room, originally approved in 1954 (“2007 ZBA Approval – Use”). Applicant has represented that there have been no material changes at the Property since the 2007 ZBA Approval and that each of the representations made by the Applicant with respect to the 2007 ZBA Approval application process remain true and accurate as of the date hereof. In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the Applicant with the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the Board makes the following resolution that the requested area variances for the following relief or such lesser amount, as described in the submitted application, BE APPROVED Area variance Considerations: Required: Proposed: Total relief requested: Minimum front yard setback: principal 60’ 12’ 48’ (80%) building Minimum side yard setback: principal 30’ 9.4’ 20.6’ (69%) building Minimum front yard setback: accessory 30’ 3’ 27’ (90%) building (1st shed) Minimum setback to principal building: 5’ 3’ 2’ (40%) accessory building (1st shed) Minimum side yard setback, accessory 30’ 16’ 14’ (47%) building (2nd shed) Minimum rear yard setback to parking 100’ 67’ 33’ (33%) Minimum front yard setback to parking 60’ 48’ 12’ (50%) Maximum area freestanding sign 4 sq. ft. 30 sq. ft. 26 sq. ft. (87%) City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 24, 2014 - Page 10 of 13 1. As provided in the 2007 ZBA Approval and having determined that no material conditions at the property have changed since such approval, the Applicant has demonstrated that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. Regarding dimensional relief, there is no adjacent property to obtain. The structures on the property are already existing and their relocation is not practical. With regard to the one free standing sign, the size of the sign is necessary as vehicles travel past this property at 55 miles per hour and a variance for the size of the sign is needed. The sign is already in existence and it is placed in a legal location. 2. As provided in the 2007 ZBA Approval and having determined that no material conditions at the property have changed since such approval, the Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or a detriment to nearby properties. Structure have been existing on this property for a number of years without an identifiable detriment to nearby properties. The main building has been on the property since before 1961. The first shed has been at its location for more than 30 years, the second shed has been at its location for more than 13 years. The buildings and parking lot are clustered close to the road at the north east quadrant of the property. 3. As provided in the 2007 ZBA Approval and having determined that no material conditions at the property have changed since such approval, the applicant has demonstrated that these variances are not substantial. There will be no changes to the property. The variances are to allow for existing buildings to remain in their current locations. The existing free-standing sign dimension are substantial, but necessary. 4. As provided in the 2007 ZBA Approval and having determined that no material conditions at the property have changed since such approval, the Applicant has demonstrated that the variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. There are no new changes proposed to the property and these variances will bring the existing buildings into compliance with the zoning code. To date, there has been no adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood with the structures as they have been located for many years. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created, however this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Notifications/Approvals/Conditions of Approval: One free-standing sign allowed to remain at this location. All other signs, such as ice cream cones and flags, posted on buildings, lampposts or on poles in the ground must be removed and will not be permitted to be located at the property. James Helicke seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary; in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 Bill Moore, Chairman recused himself from this application and exited the meeting. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman assumed the duties of the chair. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 24, 2014 - Page 11 of 13 6. #2749 569 NORTH BROADWAY, LLC EXPANSION, 569 North Broadway, use and area variance for expansion of an existing medical office use; seeking relief to convert a portion of the second floor space from residential to medical office and from the minimum parking requirement in the Urban Residential-4 District. This application appeared before the Board at the February 24, 2014 meeting. The public hearing was opened at that time and remains open. The application was adjourned to March 10, 2014. The application was then adjourned to March 24, 2014, at the request of the applicant. Additional information requested from the applicant was supplied to the Board on March 18, 2014. DISCLOSURE: Board Member Gary Hasbrouck disclosed that he was noticed on this application since he does own property in this area. He has no financial interest in this application and there is no need for recusal simply disclosure. Applicant: Dr. Osinski Agent: Todd Drake PARCEL HISTORY: Established nonconforming medical office use. Area variance for porch addition approved January 22, 1007. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATION: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum off-street parking spaces: 16 10 10 6 spaces (37.5%) 13 required for the medical office use and 3 for the two residential units The existing first floor medical office use totals 1728 square feet. The portion of the existing second floor that is proposed to be converted from residence to medical office is 862 sq. ft. Totaling 2590 sq. ft. requiring 13 parking spaces. Two residential units would remain (one on the second floor and one in the carriage house requiring 3 parking spaces (1.5 per unit in UR-4 ) Existing parking requirement is 13 spaces and proposed is 16. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - Saratoga County Planning Board referral required. - City Planning Board site plan review is required. SEQRA: This action appears to be a Type I action. A Long Form was submitted to the Board on March 19, 2014 as required. Coordinated review is required with the Planning Board. Planning Board site plan review is required. The ZBA initiated Coordinated Review and sought Lead Agency status on February 24, 2014. The Planning Board deferred Lead Agency status to the Zoning Board of Appeals on March 19, 2014. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman reviewed the revisions which were made to the SEQRA Part I EAF. Part II of the SEQRA EAF form was reviewed by the Board. It was determined there was no large or important areas of concern noted. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 24, 2014 - Page 12 of 13 Gary Hasbrouck made a motion for a SEQRA Negative Declaration for this project. Skip Carlson seconded the motion. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary; in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 Skip Carlson exited the meeting at 9:25 P.M. Discussion ensued regarding the considerations for a use variance. - A non-conforming use shall not be extended or physically expanded. The applicant would need to address in writing the costs of changing the business to other types of permitted uses. Extension or expansion of a non-conforming use shall include expansion of the area of volume occupied by a non-conforming use including expansion into a previously underutilized, vacant or newly constructed space. - A letter requesting the Building Inspector determination indicates presence of a dentist's office on the first floor of the building. - One of the two residential units on the second floor (625 sq. ft.) would be converted to medical office use. - Anticipation of more doctors or staff required to provide proposed additional services. - No interior or exterior changes are proposed. - Any impacts to the character of the neighborhood. The Board requested information such as costs for materials, evolution in the dental business. Issues with regard to referring patients out to other practitioners for services which cannot be provided by this dentist at this time. No additional parking would be generated as patient base already exists. The existing medical office requires 9 parking space. The three residential units total 4.5 parking spaces therefore the existing parking requirement is 13 total spaces. The existing parking requirement is 13 spaces and the proposed is 15. The applicant provide a supplemental narrative, comparables and income generated for this property. Dr. Osinski reviewed the need for the conversion regarding new procedures which are being proposed and need to be done in a dental operatory. There is no room for three dimensional equipment and assistants. This will accommodate additional procedures which the doctor is trained for. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the Board will meet again on April 21, 2014. A resolution will be prepared and presented at this time. The public hearing will remain open. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 4/21/14 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, March 24, 2014 - Page 13 of 13