Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2015 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:01 P. M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Gary Hasbrouck; Skip Carlson; James Helicke; Susan Steer STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Tony Izzo, Deputy 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: #2833 KIRBY BURNT HILLS REALTY, LLC NEW MULTI-FAMILIES, 6-14 Kirby Road, area variance to demolish five existing four-unit residences, and construct two (2) twenty-seven (27) unit buildings; seeking relief from the minimum lot size per dwelling unit, maximum principal building coverage and minimum parking requirements in the Urban Residential-2 District. #2774 COMPLEXIONS SIGN, 268 Broadway, area variance to install wall signs/banners; seeking relief from the maximum number of wall signs, maximum extension from the building and to permit banner signs in the Transect-6 District. #2817.1 ADELPHI HOTEL EXPANSION, 19-23 Washington Street, area variance to construct a banquet facility, additional hotel rooms and renovate the existing stone mansion; seeking relief from the minimum frontage build out Requirement in the Transect-6 District. #2792 STONE BUILDINGS, 68 Weibel Avenue, area variance to maintain existing buildings; seeking relief from the build-to, minimum frontage build-out and minimum two-story requirement in the Transect-4 District. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2752.1 SARATOGA PELICAN ASSOCIATES LOBBY, 232 Broadway, area variance extension of previous approval for expansion of lobby area to an existing hotel; relief from the build-to, build-out, and two-story requirements of the Transect-6 District. Agent: Matthew Brobston, LA Group SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY:  Area variance to construct a single-story addition to an existing hotel lobby and a new porte cochere in the front of the existing hotel building, granted March 24, 2014. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Build-to-line: 0-12 feet 62.9’ 40.5’ 28.65’ Minimum build-out: 70% 0% 0% 70% Minimum two-story Two-story One-story One-story No two-story Mr. Brobston stated the applicant is requesting a simple extension. The original timeframe was not sufficient because the final planning and design process for the building has taken longer to complete than anticipated. The circumstances upon which the original variance was granted have not changed. There have been no changes to the original variance application or to the site, neighborhood or circumstances upon which the original variances were granted. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:04 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be presented at the end of the meeting. 2. #2848 SULLIVAN RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, 95 Vista Drive, area variance to construct an addition to an Existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum rear yard setback requirement in the Water’s Edge PUD. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum rear yard setback 25 feet 22 feet 3 feet (12%) Agent: Tony Bonacio, Bonacio Construction; Dave Trojanski, Trojanski Builders Mr. Bonacio stated the homeowners are out of town. Mr. Bonacio and Mr. Trojanski are here to represent. This is a rather small project. There is currently a deck where this new addition to this home will be. That deck to the stairs is 18 feet, and the new structure will be 18 feet 6 in. The neighbors have been contacted and there is no opposition to this project. Plans have been submitted to the building department. HOA Architectural Control Committee has provided an approval for this project. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned if alternative designs were considered. Mr. Bonacio and Mr. Trojanski stated that the addition will take the place of an existing deck and therefore not affect the City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 14, 2015 - Page 2 of 14 neighboring townhomes. The patio relocated off the back of the sunroom instead of off to the side could encroach into the setback if it was uncovered. The design has not be altered since the addition will shrink too much for comfortable using space. The addition will be located at the rear of the home not visible from the street and there are no houses to the rear of the home. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:10 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on September 28, 2014. NOTIFICATIONS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL HOA approval dated May 14, 2015. 3. #2849 LICHTENBERGER SINGLE-FAMILY, 24 Diamond Street, area variance for demolition of an existing single family residence and construction of a new single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback, minimum side yard setback, minimum total side yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum principal building coverage: 30% 32% 42% 12% (40%) Minimum front yard setback: 10 ft. 3.9 ft. 3.9 ft. 6.1ft. (61%) Minimum side yard setback: 4 ft. 1.1 ft. 2 ft. 2 ft. (50%) Minimum total side yard setback: 12 ft. 12.1 ft. 7 ft. 5 ft. (42%) Agent: Susan Davis, SD Atelier Applicant: Jeremy and Brianne Lichtenberger Ms. Davis provided an overview of the project for the Board. A model of the home was also provided for the Boards review. The lot is preexisting nonconforming with regard to the minimum lot requirements. The variance appears substantial because the existing house is already noncompliant on a substandard non-complying lot. The proposed house will not be significantly different in size and configuration. Ms. Davis stated that design options were explored such as a patio instead of a deck and the consideration of no accessory structures. The proposed house exceeds the City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 14, 2015 - Page 3 of 14 maximum (combined principal and accessory) building coverage of 40% in the district. The new house is 949 sq. ft. including overhangs. A visual presentation of the site was also provided for the Boards review. Ms. Davis reviewed the current condition/status of the home highlighting structural issues. The house is a farmhouse style not trying to be out of style with those of the neighborhood. A shed is proposed also but smaller than allowed as an accessory structure. An additional 115 square feet of house and 219 square feet of deck and stairs provide for the increase of 10% in principal building coverage. The exterior is designed to be architecturally compatible with the neighborhood. We do meet permeability and rear setbacks. James Helicke questioned if the applicants have pursued additional property to purchase. Mr. Lichtenberger stated he has not. Skip Carlson advised the applicants to question the owner of the lot next door to see if purchasing it would be an option. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:47 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated that the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on September 28, 2015. The Board has requested an updated calculation on the permeability. 4. #2850 STOUT DETACHED GARAGE, 126 Lincoln Avenue, area variance to construct a detached garage; Seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential-3 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback: 5 feet 3 feet 2 feet (40%) Applicant: Elise Stout Agent: Tony Latrulio Mr. Latrulio stated Ms. Stout purchased the home six months ago. Michael Perri, the architect is out of town. What we are proposing is a 2 foot relief on the side setback. At the rear of the property there was an existing garage along the side property line and the rear property line. Since it was in disrepair the Stout’s applied for a permit and the garage was demolished. The home is approximately 100 years old. Because of the location of the home and driveway on the lot and the desire to locate the garage closer to the house (20’); as well as the desire to save a 50’ tall mature pine tree this is the location that makes most sense. Other options were entertained, however entering and exiting the garage was challenging for the applicant. The application indicates that the garage placement was to accommodate an existing mature pine tree. Mr. Latrulio provided sketch drawings for the Boards review. Detached residential accessory structures are characteristic of the neighborhood. There are garages on neighboring properties that are less than 5’ setback. The new structure will have gutters to direct water away from the neighbor’s property. Architecturally City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 14, 2015 - Page 4 of 14 the proposed garage will complement the house. It matches the house in design. Mr. Stout did reach out to the neighbors. Mr. Civale, owner of 124 Lincoln Avenue, an elderly neighbor did provide a letter stating he is agreeable to the project, and has no issues with it moving forward. Mr. Latrulio provided a copy for the Boards review. It is a one car small garage 16 x 20 foot building. The façade will be stucco mirroring the house. This home reminds him of his grandmother’s home and he is hoping to retain the look with the garage complementing the house. Susan Steer questioned if the turning radius was the only reason the garage was placed where it is. Mr. Latrulio stated yes it is difficult for Mr. Stout to execute the maneuver. The turning radius was staked. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL None CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE ZBA: Adam McNeill, Secretary stated a letter was received by the Board from William Civale, 124 Lincoln Avenue, dated August 28, 2015. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:56 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for September 28, 2015. 5. #2853 BARBANEL AND NIEFIELD RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, 171 Elm Street, area variance to demolish and rebuild the rear portion of an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback and maximum principal building requirements in the Urban Residential-2 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback: 8 feet 4 feet 4 ft. 2 ins. 3 ft. 10 ins. (48%) Maximum principal building coverage: 30% 38% 35% 5% (17%) Applicant: Julius Barbanel and Nancy Niefield Agent: Andrew Neville, designer Mr. Barbanel stated he and his wife purchased this home 13 years ago. The intention was to rent it out until we were ready to retire. We are excited about moving to Saratoga. The home was built in stages and we knew that the rear City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 14, 2015 - Page 5 of 14 section of the home had some real problems. It was not constructed well, there were foundation problems. There is no basement. We would like to demolish the rear portion of the home and rebuild. The present footprint is 38%. We will reduce that to 35%. We are making this better in every way. The interior layout did not fit our needs, and we would like a full basement. The plan follows the existing wall, making sense to continue the architectural and functional design. The rear portion of the home to be removed is not original to the home. The front of the home will not be changed, all construction is at the rear of the home and there is no visual change from the street. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:02 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 8:03 P.M. Adam McNeill presented the following resolution. #2853 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Julius Barbanel & Nancy Niefield 171 Elm Street Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 171 Elm Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.75-1-12 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 construction to a single-family residence in a UR-2 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 14th of September, 2015. 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 amount of relief: Required: Existing: Proposed: Total relief requested: Minimum side yard setback: north 8’ 4’ 4’ 2” 3’10” (48%) Required: Existing: Proposed: Total relief requested: Maximum principal building coverage: 30% 38% 35% 5% (17%) 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 applicant notes that “a smaller design was considered, however it did not allow for adequate space for a bedroom.” Also, the proposed construction follows an existing wall on the current structure and it makes sense to the construction to follow this architectural and functional design. 2. The board notes that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The proposed construction is replacing an existing structure located in the rear of the structure. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 14, 2015 - Page 6 of 14  3. The Board notes this variance could be considered substantial; however, it is continuation of an existing nonconformity. The proposed construction will increase the side yard setback by 2” and the principal building coverage will be reduced by 3%. 4. The board concludes this variance will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. As noted above, the proposed construction is smaller than the portion to be removed. 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. Susan Steer 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; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 6. #2851 HONDA SIGNAGE, 3402 Route 9 (South Broadway), area variance to construct wall signs; seeking relief from the maximum number of wall signs on an elevation, placement of signs above the first floor level and maximum height of lettering/logo requirements in the Office Medical Business – 1 & 2 Districts. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Use variance to permit the expansion of an existing auto sales business, approved April 8, 2013. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum number of wall signs per elevation with street frontage: Route 9 1 3 2 (200%) Maximum number wall signs per elevation with street frontage: Crescent Avenue 1 2 1 (100%) Wall sign placement above first floor level: First floor Above 1st floor level for 100% for each of 3 West elevation – 3 signs level each of 3 signs signs Wall sign placement above first floor level: First floor North elevation – 2 signs Level Above first floor level 100% for both signs Maximum square foot wall signs: West elevation 181.75 sq. ft. 81.75 sq. ft. (area of 3 signs combined) 100 sq. ft. (81.75%) Maximum square foot wall signs: North 100 sq. ft. 116.25 sq. ft. 16.25 sq. ft. elevation (area of 2 signs combined) (16.25%) Applicant: Tim Higgins, owner City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 14, 2015 - Page 7 of 14 Agent: Sean Corp, Brendan Drake, balzer + tuck architects Mr. Corp provided some background on the application. Signage location and sizing is based on American Honda Corporation Inc., dealership requirements. Along Route 9 they are proposing 3 wall mounted signs. The standard Honda logo on the corner which is 30 inches in height, the dealers name, which is tucked behind the motor canopy, and at the far south end is the dealership name. Also proposed is signage for the Service center. This signage has a 36” letter S and C and the remainder of the signage drops to 21” in height. On Crescent Avenue 2 wall mounted signs are proposed. The Honda logo and the dealers name. The dealers name signage has a 36” letter “S” and the remainder of the lettering drops to 24” in height. We will be seeking a variance for signage above the 18” which is allowed. The placement of the signs is another issue. The building technically has a second story but it does not register on the façade. There are no windows to the second story. It is mostly used for parts storage. You cannot tell the signage is above the first level. In the atrium space there is a second story which looks down on the showroom but on the façade it has no windows and does not articulate as a second story. Although we are requesting relief for signage above the first floor level, again you cannot tell that from the façade. We are allowed one sign per façade. This is a 43,000 square foot building. While the relief requested may be considered substantial the building is 245 feet in length along Route 9 and 209 feet in length along Crescent Avenue. The signage we feel is within proportion to the building. Part of the Honda signage package proposed is related to its distance from the building to the roadway. The dealership name is 175 feet away from the center line of Route 9. The Honda Logo signage is 215 feet back. The cars are traveling at 55 MPH. At those speeds and that distance we feel this is appropriate. Along Crescent Avenue we are 340 feet back. The speed limit there is 35 MPH. The proposed signage facing Route 9 and Crescent Avenue has no neighboring building nearby to have a direct view of the proposed signage. The southern Route 9 corridor is largely commercial in use, with this buildings signage keeping in context with this corridor. Signage will be channel lit lettering with previously approved parking lighting being the predominant feature. Gary Hasbrouck requested industry standards regarding site distance for signage at a particular speed and specific size of signage. Bill Moore, Chairman suggested requesting an Advisory Opinion from the Design Review Commission. Discussion ensued among the Board Members. It was the consensus of the ZBA that an Advisory Opinion from the DRC is not necessary. Discussion ensued regarding the number of signs and size requested, especially the size of the Service Center signage. James Helicke stated he is concerned regarding the number of signs proposed, especially the service center signage. He suggested reducing the size of this signage. Perhaps directional signage placed on site to direct customers to the service center. Mr. Higgins, owner stated perhaps there can be some alternative for signage size for the service center signage. Mr. Drake stated there are some concerns regarding the circulation upon entering the site for customers. It can be confusing but perhaps there is some opportunity for site signage. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman suggested computer images of signage at different size lettering. Also a rendering of what signage would look like if it was conforming signage. Susan Steer stated in driving by the dealership there is no question this is a car dealership. It is huge. Who is driving the signage package? She does not feel comfortable voting for anything less than what is allowed. It is located in a very pretty place. I would only approve one sign and for what is allowed. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 14, 2015 - Page 8 of 14 Mr. Corp stated it is the Honda Corporations proposed signage package we are proposing. Adam McNeill stated he agreed with what Keith said. Regarding the Service Center signage perhaps it could be smaller. Mr. Higgins stated he would be happy to reduce the service center signage as well as the two oval signs over the doors which say delivery entrance. I am willing to work with the Board. It was the Board’s recommendation that the applicants return with several alternatives for the service center signage and requested information. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:05 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. . None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. We have requested some information from the applicant. We will prepare and present a resolution at the next ZBA meeting scheduled for September 28, 2015. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: DRC Architectural Review required for sign package. Saratoga County referral required. NYS Parks referral required. 7. #2852 STARLING RESIDENTIAL EXPANSION, 134 Crescent Street, area variance to construct a second story expansions to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback requirement In the Urban Residential-2 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback: Ward 10 feet 0 feet 10 feet (100%) DISCLOSURE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated when I visited the site Mr. Starling did point out the area in question. We did not discuss the merits of this application. No need for recusal, simply disclosure. Applicant: William Starling, owner Mr. Starling stated a site survey was completed and provided to the Board. I am proposing a full second story above the identified 1 story in the rear and a new roof over the existing 1 story entrance. I am looking to increase and improve the usage with two bedrooms, as well as a master bedroom and bath. The applicant states an alternate approach could be an addition added to the side of the structure, however, this would not address the life safety concerns and the resulting structure would exceed 30% of the lot’s square footage. The current neighborhood is comprised of a variety of single and City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 14, 2015 - Page 9 of 14 dual story homes of similar size. The expansion of this house is consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood and will not be a detriment to neighboring properties. No additional stormwater runoff will be generated. All roof runoff and water and snow will be managed on the property. 25% of the site will remain permeable. We will be adding new windows in the home. Skip Carlson questioned if the Board could grant relief over the property line. Susan Barden, Senior Planner stated this Board can only grant relief to the property line. The applicant will need to petition the City Council and this goes to the Real Estate Committee for an advisory opinion to the City Council whether the applicant is able to construct in the City Right of Way. The applicant stated he will attempt to stay within the property line avoiding any encroachment in the City’s Right of Way. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman requested the amount of permeability with the garage and overhangs included. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:20 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. All violations on the property must be resolved prior to the granting of any variances. 8. #2855 BAKER RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, 43 Granite Street, area variance to construct an addition to an Existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum (each) side yard setback and minimum total side yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-1 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback 12 feet 9 ft. 7 in. 2 ft. 5 in. (20%) Agent: Matthew Hurff, Frost Hurff Architecture Mr. Hurff stated the applicant is proposing an addition to an existing single family residence. The lot is pre-existing nonconforming with the minimum average lot width requirement – lot is 50’ wide, required is 100’. The required minimum side yard setbacks correspond to a much larger lot. The existing house is pre-existing non-conforming with regard to the side yard setback. Other alternatives were explored. The possibility of an internal stair to the basement was explored but is not feasible given the small size of the floor plan. The proposed addition is small 77 square feet and is located in the rear of the building. The proposed action will be of minimal visibility and will keep the house within the typical mass, scale and density of the neighborhood. The site plan identified 55.8% of the site to remain permeable which exceeds the 30% minimum requirement. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 14, 2015 - Page 10 of 14  PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:24 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 9:25 P.M. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL #2855 Ed and Edna Baker 43 Granite Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 43 Granite Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being Tax Parcel Section 165.43-1-24, Inside District of the City of Saratoga Springs, New York. Whereas, the appellant having applied for an area variances for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance for minimum side yard setback in a UR-1 zoning district in order to construct a covered stairway; and public notice has been duly given of a hearing on said application held on September 14, 2015. 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 that the requested area variance for the following relief or lesser dimensions, be approved: Required: Proposed: Total relief requested: Minimum side yard setback: 12 feet 9 feet 7 inches 2’ 5” or 20% 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The application states, “The possibility of an internal stair to the basement was explored but is not feasible given the small size of the floor plan (there is no place to put it without negatively impacting the available living space). Locating the exterior stair within the setback would require cutting a new opening into the basement and would block the existing kitchen window”. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The application states, “The proposed addition is small…of which less than 7 sq’ is within the side setback. Thus, the proposed addition will be of minimal visibility and will keep the house within the typical mass, scale, and density of the neighborhood”. The Board notes there is already a covered stairway to the basement accessible from the outside of the house. The applicant’s intent is to simply enlarge this stairway to give access from the 1st floor living space. 3. The request for relief is not substantial. The application states, “…the addition has a larger setback than the current existing building”. The Board notes this is a substandard size lot for a UR-1 zone with a UR-3 zone directly across the street. The application states, “If the lot was zoned UR-3, no variance would be required at all”. 4. The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. Minimum percent to remain permeable requirements are met. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 14, 2015 - Page 11 of 14 5. The difficulty may be considered self-created. This, however, is not necessarily fatal to the application. Skip Carlson 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; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 9. #2854 WITT CONSTRUCTION SINGLE-FAMILY, Cherry Hill Lane lot #4, area variance for construction of a new single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback requirement in the Rural Residential District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback: 60 feet 38 feet 22 feet (37%) Applicant: John Witt, owner Mr. Witt stated we have developed this project almost 20 years ago. This is the last lot left. It is a challenging, unique lot due to the topography, shape of the lot and odd setbacks. The proposed house is 44’ from the front property line because of a front porch which adds 6 feet in depth. There is a severe slope of the property at the front of the property. The house to the left of the subject property is setback approximately 100’ from the front property line. Due to the site constraints the house is better suited to be placed closer to the front of the lot. Mr. Witt presented the Board with some favorable correspondence from the neighbors. All homes were designed and are different. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman requested a topographical map of the site would be helpful. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:40 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. Bill Moore, Chairman stated a resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA meeting scheduled for September 28, 2015. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 14, 2015 - Page 12 of 14 APPLICATION HEARD EARLIER THIS EVENING: #2752.1 SARATOGA PELICAN ASSOCIATES LOBBY, 232 Broadway, area variance extension of previous approval for expansion of lobby area to an existing hotel; relief from the build-to, build-out, and two-story requirements of the Transect-6 District PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 9:40 P.M. James Helicke presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF Saratoga Pelican Associates, LLC Holiday Inn 232 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Based upon submitted evidence that the application for an extension of a granted Area Variance does not significantly differ from the original application and approval, and that there have been no significant changes in the condition of the neighborhood warranting otherwise, the board moves that the application of Saratoga Pelican Associates, LLC dba Holiday Inn at 232 Broadway in the City of Saratoga Springs, and identified by tax parcel no. 165.75-2-5 originally granted on March 24, 2014 for construction of a single-story addition to an existing hotel lobby and a new porte cochere in the front of the existing building in the Transect-6 district be APPROVED, and that the variance approval be extended for 18 months from the date that such resolution would have expired if not extended, September 24, 2015, with the new expiration date to be March 24, 2017. The variance shall expire on March 24, 2017 unless the necessary building permit has been issued and actual construction begun as per Article 240-8.5.2 or otherwise further extended. Adam McNeill, Secretary seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Bill Moore, Chairman made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 13, 2015 meeting as submitted. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, abstained; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, abstained Susan Steer, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0-2 Bill Moore, Chairman made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 27, 2015 as submitted. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 14, 2015 - Page 13 of 14 Adam McNeill, Secretary seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0-2 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:44 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 10/26/15 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 14, 2015 - Page 14 of 14