Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTE MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Gary Hasbrouck; James Helicke; Susan Steer ABSENT: Skip Carlson 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: #2852 STARLING RESIDENTIAL EXPANSION, 134 Crescent Street, area variance to construct second-story Expansions to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential-2 District. #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: RECUSED Board member Susan Steer recused from this application. 1. #2554.1 KOVACHICK RESIDENCE, 184 Phila Street, area variance to construct a three-car garage with apartment above; seeking relief from the maximum number of principal structures on any one lot requirement in the Urban Residential-3 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Area variance to build a second principal residential building on one lot granted September 11, 2008. Area variance extension to build a second principal residential building on one lot granted March 8, 2010. Area variance was not further extended and expired on September 25, 2011. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum number of principal buildings on any one lot 1 2 1 (100%) Applicant: Jill Kovachick Agent: David Leman We are here again before the Board with the exact same submission we presented to the Board and received approval on September 11, 2008. We were granted an extension on March 8, 2010. We did not extend the application further and it expired on September 25, 2011. The area variance would be the only required variance for this project. No dimensional relief would be required. The possibility of connecting the new structure to the existing structure was explored, however the proposed location of the new structure is too far from the existing structure, and would not be either practical or affordable. Subdivision of the property was considered, however creation of 2 lots would diminish the value of the main house. The new structure will be designed to be architecturally compatible with the existing single family home and the neighborhood. 25% minimum permeable surface requirement will be exceeded. The garage with the apartment would be accessed using the existing driveway off of Nelson Avenue. New water and sewer connections are required. Discussion ensued regarding other options available to the applicant. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALOS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: DRC Historic Review is required. 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. We have not asked for any additional information. We will prepare and present a resolution at the next ZBA Meeting scheduled for October 19, 2015. Board member Susan Steer resumed her position on the Board. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 28, 2015 - Page 2 of 18 2. #2856 MOORE HALL, 28 Union Avenue/35 White Street, area variance to convert the existing building to a 53 unit Apartment building; seeking relief from the minimum lot size and minimum parking requirement in the Urban Residential-4 District. This project is the adaptive reuse of a dormitory building, which is considered preexisting nonconforming in the district. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Area variance to construct connected multi-family buildings and connect single-family buildings, for a total of 14 residential units granted October, 2006. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: 3,000/du 159,000 sq. ft. 56,192.4 sq. ft. 102,807.6 sq ft. (65%) Minimum parking spaces: 1.5/du 79 54 25 (32%) Applicant: Sonny Bonacio Agent: Michael Toohey, Attorney; Brett Balzer, balzer + tuck architecture; Mike Ingersoll, LA Group Mr. Toohey stated it has come to his attention that the Board and the public are concerned regarding parking. We have hired a traffic engineer to supply us with specific information and that information will be available for the ZBA before the October 19, 2015 meeting. Mr. Toohey provided a visual presentation of the proposed project as well as the history of Moore Hall. It is five stories in height and has a larger first floor. It was used by Skidmore College after its move to North Broadway. It was designed for 165 students. The cafeteria had the ability to service 400 students, with approximately a dozen staff persons. There was a dense utilization of this property at that time. The property backs up to North Lane and is the exact same configuration as it was in 1957. One of the things which is important is the building, the parking, the parking surface, the lighting plans, the number of parking spaces, all of those things are pre-existing nonconforming uses. They were there prior to the Zoning Code. Mr. Toohey explained this project is consistent with the Zoning Code and in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Every request for a variance merely confirms what has existed on the parcels for more than 57 years, other than the density variance which is driven by the pre-existing structure. The existing building and parking lot is not being expanded so the configuration of the site is as it has been since 1957 prior to the date of the Zoning Code. 13 units are proposed on the first floor. 4 – 2 bedroom apartments. All the remaining units will be single bedroom units. All units are 12 feet wide. What we have is a unique building in a unique location. Bill Moore, Chairman questioned the Board concerning requesting an Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board. Mr. Toohey stated he does not believe this project needs to appear before the Planning Board for site plan review. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning requesting and an Advisory Opinion and Site Plan Review from the Planning Board. Susan Barden, Senior Planner stated the use, multi-family residences requires Site Plan Approval. Mr. Toohey stated it is a site plan approval if that is required which will be based on a survey. There is nothing that is being altered, changed or modified with regard to this particular site. It is exactly what it is right now. There is a concern with traffic but I do not believe we need to go for site plan review. Site Plan review is required when something is City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 28, 2015 - Page 3 of 18 changed. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney read from the Zoning Ordinance with relation to Site Plan Review, 7.2, construct, modify, demolish any structure; implement a use variance, and requires site plan approval. There are exemptions, no increase in the number of parking spaces, etc., no alteration of anything, that alteration does not seem to require site plan approval per his interpretation. Discussion ensued regarding what constitutes Site Plan Approval. Susan Barden, Senior Planner stated the Zoning and Building Inspector stated we are looking at this as a change of use, from dormitory to multi-family use. That use requires Zoning Board of Appeals granting of variances followed by DRC Historic Review and site plan approval by the Planning Board. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:43 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Beverly Mastroianni, 125 Regent Street. North Lane runs directly into my house. The neighbors and I are concerned regarding parking spaces. With the schools and traffic in this area is a big concern. It is a detriment to the community. Lots of issues. Old infrastructure. These are all my concerns and that of my neighbors. Chris Ragoon, 117 Regent Street. There has been an increase in traffic over the last 15 years. Large growth within the area. Too many cars. A large growth of condominiums also in this area. Mickey Mahoney, 55 White Street. Several schools in the area. Parking is challenging. The recreation center has generated traffic. We purchased our home in the 90’s. Tom Fox, 55 and 72 Union Avenue. Lived here for 16 years. $1100 - $1400 price range for apartments. Kids were noisy when they lived in Moore Hall. We have to live here. Tractor trailers come through, no street lights. I care about my neighborhood - it is a historic district. Naomi Allen, 48 Union Avenue. Traffic issues in our area. In 6 weeks no parking available at all. Charlie Israel, Franklin Square. 50+ cars is a detriment. Brian Rodems, Questioned a use variance and area variance he is against the project. Steve MacIntyre, Regent Street. Traffic issues are present here. Alternate side parking. Not room for 2 cars. Photographs were provided to the Board. Bob Wright, 37 Clark Street. Against the project. Too much density. Sue Rose, too many units, not enough parking. Melanie Herder, against the project. Too much noise, too much traffic. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. The applicant will return on October 19, 2015 with proposed floor plans and the traffic study. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 28, 2015 - Page 4 of 18 3. #2858 SARATOGA ABUNDANT LIFE CHURCH SIGN, 2325 Route 50, area variance to construct a freestanding Sign; seeking relief from the maximum size of sign requirement in the Office Medical Business-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 Maximum size freestanding sign: 45 mph or greater 40 sq. ft. 45.2 sq. ft. 5.2 sq. ft. (13%) Applicant: Saratoga Abundant Life Church, Pastor Jim Galarneau Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated the applicants are proposing to construct a new sign along Hutchins Road. It is nonconforming at this time since it is a message board sign. Most recently the church has met with the DRC regarding LED signage, however, that application was denied. The Church is now before the Zoning Board for a larger size sign to provide for a message board to advertise community and church events. A smaller header size to allow the sign to be within the 40 square foot reduces the letter size to an impractical size for reading at the local 55 mph speed limit on NYS Route 50. The message portion of the sign covers 29 square feet. The church name portion of the sign is 16.2 which is not substantial. The proposed sign is similar in size to the existing sign to be replaced. The new sign is not internally lit, therefore, actually reduces the existing impact on the neighborhood. The removal of the existing internally lit sign will actually reduce the light impact of the site signage. The new signage will have back lit lettering at 6” in height. Adam McNeill, Secretary questioned where the sign would be located. Also he requested a copy of the signage which was denied by the DRC for LED signage. Ms. Yasenchak stated the new signage would be located approximately 39 feet away from Route 50. A copy of the denied signage will be submitted to the Board. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the church is in the City’s right of way with the retaining wall. There is a violation shown here. We cannot approve a variance with a violation existing on the property. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we need a statement from the City or the State regarding the Right of Way prior to any action taken on this application. We have required other applicants who encroached on the City Right of Way move them or take them down. Discussion ensued regarding the retaining wall. Ms. Yasenchak stated we have built this new building a 500 seat auditorium with approval from the Planning Board with this retaining wall in place. This wall was also here when the Church was before this Board when they applied for a use variance when they purchased this property and moved in as a Church. This was never cited. This retaining wall was built in the 1800’s. Why hasn’t it been cited prior? Tony Izzo, Deputy City Attorney explained what the Right of Way means. In this situation it behooves both the applicant and the Board to obtain documentation addressing this issue and why the proposed construction doesn’t interfere with any public rights. It was the consensus of the Board to note on the resolution an encroachment in the public right of way. PUBLIC HEARING: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 28, 2015 - Page 5 of 18 Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:31 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak regarding this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated a resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting scheduled for October 19, 2015. NOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman exited the meeting at 8:32 P.M. 4. #2857 TROUTMAN AND DAGNESE ADDITION, 29 Beekman Street, area variance for a two story addition to the Rear of an existing two-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback requirement in the Neighborhood Complementary Use -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 4 feet 2.9 feet 1.1 feet (27.5%) Applicant: Amanda and Mike, owners Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated 29 Beekman Street is a pre-existing non-conforming two family home. The owners are proposing a two story addition to their home, a 20 x 20 addition. The floor plan is still being worked on. We are here to request a variance for minimum side yard setback. Placing the addition to the South of the existing structure minimizes natural light into the apartments, requires removal of an existing large tree. The addition style and architecture will be consistent with the existing 1880 built structure as well as with the neighborhood. The addition is proposed to be located at the northwest side of the existing home; furthest from the neighbor to the south with minimal view of the addition from Beekman. The proposed house, with the addition, remains under the 30% maximum coverage and site exceeds 25% minimum permeability. Off street parking is available. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:46 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak regarding this application. Jamin Totino, 23 Beekman Street. I also own property at 25 Beekman Street. I am a neighbor in support of this application. It makes sense going back toward the alley. Mike Phinney, President of the Beekman Street Association. In support of this application. Great that you are coming into the neighborhood and improving the property. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 28, 2015 - Page 6 of 18 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for October 19, 2015. 5. #2859 PICKETT CARRIAGE HOUSE, 589 North Broadway, area variance to finish the interior of an existing carriage house – seeking relief to permit finished/habitable space in an accessory structure in the Urban Residential-1 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Area variance to permit an addition to an existing single-family residence; relief from the maximum principal building coverage requirement in the UR-1 district granted March 24, 2014. Area variance for installation of an in-ground pool; relief from the maximum accessory building coverage requirement in the UR-1 district granted November 24, 2014. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Relief to create finished and habitable space in an accessory structure. Agent: Mike Phinney, Principal, Phinney Design Group; Jace Brown, Project Architect/Designer Applicant: Glen Carpenter, owner’s representative. Mr. Phinney provided an overview of the property. This home has undergone many changes since the Pickett’s purchased the home and have received several variances as well, including a variance for a pool. Currently they are requesting an area variance to finish the interior of an existing carriage house to permit lounge area in this accessory structure. They have 5 children and do use every square inch of this home. We have been before the DRC several times. Mr. Brown provided a visual presentation of the proposed project to the Board. He reviewed the location of the carriage house as well as neighboring residences showing neighborhood context. Additional landscaping on the property has occurred since the last appearance before the Board. Mr. Brown provided the previously approved plan for the carriage house. It is a 3 bay garage with a powder room only accessible from the property. The proposal for this floor remains the same. The second floor previously included two spaces mostly storage areas and a staircase. A future roughed in bath area. What we are asking for at this time is to finish this space as well as the bath. This is being changed from storage to a lounge area and bath. No kitchen is proposed at this time. This area is primarily for guests to use since there isn’t any space in the home to use. Current view of the interior space was also provided. No changes in the exterior of the building only the area on the second floor. Mr. Phinney stated the Pickett family has invested to improve the property. There are no kitchen facilities requested and It is not to be used as guest accommodations or a dwelling unit. Discussion ensued regarding the amount of variances on this property this is the third variance requested, it is a substantial amount of relief requested. Concern was voiced regarding the potential for overnight stays, and the installation of a full bathroom. Mr. Phinney stated although the site is tight 48.8% of the site will remain permeable, exceeding the minimum of 30% in the district. PUBLIC HEARING: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 28, 2015 - Page 7 of 18 Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:21 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Alan Turkheimer, 158 Woodlawn Avenue. I am a neighbor; my carriage house faces this property. He questioned the right of way, on Wistwall Lane. No structure should impede the use of the alley. 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 October 19, 2015. OLD BUSINESS: NOTE: Board member James Helicke stated he did review the webcast of the past meetings and feels comfortable voting on this application. 6. #2843 MCCLELLAN REO, LLC, 70 Lake Avenue, use variance modification from previously granted real estate office to office and medical office in the Urban Residential-3 District. This application was heard at the July 27, 2015 meeting and adjourned for additional information. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Additional information was provided at the September 14, 2015. The request for medical office in addition to office was eliminated. The existing use real estate office has the same parking requirement as the proposed office use 1 per 300 square feet of floor area. The use variance for real estate office included a waiver of parking to provide for two spaces. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Use variance for real estate office granted April 27, 2006 with conditions including a waiver of parking to result in two spaces, including one handicapped-accessible space. Applicant: Bruce McClellan, owner. Agent: John Carusone, Attorney Mr. Carusone stated Brian Venn and his wife are interested in a contract with Mr. McClellan, which is contingent upon the approval of a use variance. We have reviewed this application and made some changes where the Board indicated. This property has not been used as a single family home for over 50 years. Mr. Carusone stated the neighborhood is a mix of uses both residential and commercial and is on a very busy street. This property has been marketed for some time. Currently he is entertaining an offer pending the Board’s granting a use variance modification. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated he believes this is a Use Variance Modification and this property is unique. James Helicke stated he has a problem regarding providing a use variance. He questioned why this property cannot be converted into a single family home. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 28, 2015 - Page 8 of 18 Discussion ensued regarding the granting of the modification of the use variance. Bill Moore, Chairman stated this portion of Lake Avenue is in transition. The Chairman cited all the commercial uses on this roadway. This area is more commercial than residential at this time. We are considering this application as a modification of use variance. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:44 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Tom Roohan, Realtor stated he tried to sell the property. My family owns a home at 81 Lake Avenue. He is in support of leasing the property to this engineering firm. It is a unique building and a great use. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for October 19, 2015. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Saratoga County Planning Board decision of July 16, 2015 stating “No significant County wide or Inter Community Impact”. 7. #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. This action was heard at the September 14, 2015 meeting and adjourned. The public hearing was opened and remains open. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing remains 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 9:46 P.M. James Helicke presented the following resolution. #2848 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Jim and Connie Sullivan 95 Vista Drive Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 95 Vista Drive in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 192.36-2-5 in the Outside District, on the Assessment Map of said City. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 28, 2015 - Page 9 of 18 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 the Water’s Edge PUD and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 14th and 28th days 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 variance for the following amount of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK 25’ 22’ 3’ OR 12% As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The applicants have demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicants. The benefit sought by the applicant is to add a sunroom to the back of the residence. The applicant evaluated the idea of a smaller addition, which would not provide comfortable living space. The applicant also was asked about the feasibility of a configuration that did not extend as much to the rear, but with the same amount of square footage. This was not possible due to the positioning of a window as well as landscaping to the right of the addition. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicants note that the addition would replace an existing deck, and there is no incremental effect on the neighboring residences from this project. The board further notes this is at the rear of the home and not visible to the neighborhood. Finally, the Homeowner’s Association has provided its approval to this project. 3. The Board notes this requested setback variance, at 12%, is not substantial. 4. This variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The Board notes that this PUD does not have permeability requirements; this property is noted as having 44% permeability. As noted above, this proposal is neither substantial nor visible from the street. 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. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 8. #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. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 28, 2015 - Page 10 of 18 This application was heard at the September 14, 2015 meeting and adjourned. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Additional information was requested and provided by the applicant’s agent via email on September 24, 2015. Agent: Susan Davis, S & D Atelier Architecture. Ms. Davis stated information requested was provided via an email to staff. A permeability calculation was provided as well noting the applicant is well above the districts requirements. The applicant has reached out to the adjacent land owner and is having difficulty locating the property owner. They have a limited budget and the cost is unknown for this plot of land if in fact it is even for sale. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing remains 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 9:58 P.M. James Helicke presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF BRIANNE and JEREMY LICHTENBERGER 24 DIAMOND PLACE SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 24 Diamond Place in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel number 166.53-1-35 in the Inside Tax District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an 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. and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on September 14 and September 28, 2015. 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: Total relief requested: Maximum principal building coverage: 30% 32% 42% 12% (40%) Minimum front yard setback: 10 ft. 3.9 ft. 3.9 ft. 6.1 ft. (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%) 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 has provided evidence that the existing house on the lot has serious structural problems that cannot be City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 28, 2015 - Page 11 of 18 remedied through reasonable means. According to documentation submitted by the applicant: “it is cost prohibitive to retain the current structure and foundation system (lacking footing) and try to restore the structure and provide footings where they do not exist.” 2.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character, or detriment to nearby properties. The proposed house will be located in the same location on the lot as the existing structure. The exterior will be updated and improved. The application for this variance states the exterior of the new home “is designed to be architecturally compatible with the neighborhood.” 3.) All areas of relief requested may be considered substantial; however, the existing house on the lot is already preexisting, non-conforming on a substandard city lot. The proposed new construction will largely assume the building footprint of the existing home. A slightly expanded footprint of the building (115 square foot) is due to the construction a new deck, which the application indicates “will be hardly visible” and will allow the applicants to benefit better from outdoor space. 4.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The applicant has estimated that 42% of the site would remain permeable, adhering to the district’s 25 % permeability requirement. 5.) The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions: Accessory structures on site limited to 100 sq. ft. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 9. #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. This application was heard at the September 14, 2015 meeting and adjourned. The public hearing was opened and remains open. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 28, 2015 - Page 12 of 18 Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:05 P.M. Susan Steer presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF LEE STOUT 126 LINCOLN AVENUE SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 126 Lincoln Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 166.77-2-2 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance to construct a new detached garage, seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback in the Urban Residential-2 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on September 14 and 28, 2015. 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: Type of Requirement District Dimensional Proposed Relief Requested Requirement Minimum Side Yard 5 feet 3 feet 2 feet (40%) Setback 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 feasible means. The Applicant proposes to construct the garage on the existing driveway and near the residence. This location will ensure that a driver may safely maneuver a car into and out of the garage and will also preserve a 50 foot mature pine tree. 2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to the nearby properties. The Applicant demolished a detached garage that was already on the property due to its deteriorating condition. He seeks to replace it with a smaller garage that is closer to his residence and is architecturally similar to the residence. Many of the other homes in the neighborhood have detached garages. 3. The request for relief may be substantial at 40%, but the garage is smaller than the one that was previously demolished. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The proposed garage is smaller than the one that was previously demolished and gutters will be attached to ensure that water is drained away from the neighboring property. A mature pine tree will remain standing. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 28, 2015 - Page 13 of 18  5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 10. #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. Applicant: Tim Higgins, owner Agent: Brett Balzer, Brendan Drake, balzer + tuck architecture This application was heard at the September 14, 2015 meeting and adjourned. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Additional information requested and mailed on September 22, 2015. Mr. Balzer stated the applicant was before the Board two weeks ago. Further definition of some issues was provided to the Board last Monday. Mr. Balzer reviewed the areas which were further defined. We will split the signage Saratoga and Honda as per the requirements of the Honda Corporation. We revised the square foot calculations of the signage. We have decreased the number of wall signs. We are still over the signage requirements. We did research DOT regulations regarding signage requirements for distance and speed limits. They focus on site distance not speed. We then referred to the United States Sign Council and 36” signage, based on distance and speed are acceptable per their calculations. Discussion ensued regarding the amount of signage requested, and what was revised/omitted. Bill Moore, Chairman stated a resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting scheduled for October 19, 2015. Mr. Balzer questioned if a resolution could be presented this evening for a proposed opening in November. Discussion ensued regarding proposed resolution. It was the consensus of the Board to draft a resolution for presentation at the end of the meeting. 11. #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. This is a previously opened application. The public hearing remains open. The Board did request several additional items which Mr. Witt provided. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 28, 2015 - Page 14 of 18 Applicant: John Witt, owner PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing remains 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 10:35 P.M. Adam McNeill presented the following resolution. #2854 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Witt Construction Inc. 563 North Broadway Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 4 Cherry Tree Lane in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 167.0-1-60 in the Outside 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 a single-family residence in a Rural Residential District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 14th and 28th days 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 variance for the following amount of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REQUIREMENT MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK 60’ 38’ 22’ OR 36.7% 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 property includes serious grade changes throughout the areas bordering Cherry Tree Lane, thereby greatly limiting the choice of locations for the front of the proposed residence. The Board notes receipt of a topographical map from the applicant showing the dramatic change in grade on the property. The applicant points out that if the house was sited further back from the roadway, extensive filling would be required, resulting in the home being built in non-virgin ground. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicants note that the majority of the structure will be behind the setback line. The board notes that the neighboring houses are sited at a sufficient distance to minimize the impact of this variance on the surrounding area. 3. The Board notes this requested setback variance, at 36.7%, is substantial, however the impact of the substantiality is mitigated by the combination of vegetation and grade changes on the property, which City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 28, 2015 - Page 15 of 18  reduces the ability to view the property from most of Cherry Tree Lane, as well as the positioning of the two neighboring houses noted above. 4. This variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The Board notes that by granting this relief, less environmental disturbance will take place than if the house had to be sited further back, since less earth will be required to be moved and built up. This proposal does not call for reducing the 2 acre lot size requirement, which provides sufficient buffering and open space to achieve district objectives. Furthermore, this dimensional relief is not a function of the size of the structure relative to the property, but a function of the placement of that structure on the property due to the topography. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed residence, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. James Helicke seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 The Board recessed at 10:35 P.M. The Board reconvened at 10:55 P.M. NOTE: The following agenda item was heard earlier this evening a resolution was prepared. 10. #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. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing remains 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 10:55 P.M. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 28, 2015 - Page 16 of 18  IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Timothy Higgins d/b/a Honda 3402 Route 9 Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 3402 South Broadway in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel 178.-2-11.21, 14.1 and 20 in the outside tax district, on the assessment map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance for construction of wall signs, seeking relief from the maximum number of wall signs on an elevation, placement above the first floor level and maximum square footage of signs in the OMB – 1 and 2 Districts. Public notice has been duly given of a hearing on said application on Sept. 14 and 28, 2015. 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 variance for the following amounts of relief: Required: Proposed: Total relief requested: Max. no. wall signs per elevation with street 1 3 2 (200%) frontage: Route 9 Max. no. wall signs per elevation with street 1 2 1 (100%) frontage: Crescent Ave. Wall sign placement above first floor level: First floor level Above first floor 100% for each of 3 signs West elevation – 3 signs level for each of 3 signs Wall sign placement above first floor level: First floor level Above first floor 100% for both signs North elevation – 2 signs level Max. sq. ft. wall signs: West elevation (area of 3 100 sq. ft. 148.65 sq. ft. 48.65 q. ft. (48.65%) signs combined) As per submitted plans of lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED for the following reasons: 1.) The request for relief is considered substantial, but the board finds that the size of the proposed signs is appropriate and proper given the distance of the building (where the signs are placed) from vehicular traffic. The number of signs is also considered substantial; however, as the application states, “The building is 245 feet in length along Route 9 and 209 feet in length along Crescent and signage feels within proportion to the building”. Additionally, the placement of signs above the first floor level is considered substantial, however only a portion of each of the signs is above the first floor level of the building. 2.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The application states, “Signage location and sizing based on American Honda Motor Co., Inc. dealership requirements… Honda corp. requires corporate name separate from local ownership and therefore one sign is not feasible”. The applicant did remove two small oval signs indicating delivery areas to minimize the variance requested. 3.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance would not impact the essential character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The application states, “The proposed signage faces Route 9 and City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 28, 2015 - Page 17 of 18 Crescent Avenue, with no neighboring building nearby to have a direct view of proposed signage”. Additionally, the application states, “The southern Route 9 corridor is largely commercial in use, with this buildings signage keeping in context with this corridor”. The main signage is 140’ to the curb, which reduces any adverse visual impact to the rural/commercial character of the neighborhood. DRC architectural review is required. 4.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood or district. The application states, “Signage will be backlight lettering with previously approved parking lighting being the more predominant feature”. County Planning Board issued a No-County Impact on the project. 5.) The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions/Notes: County referral “No County Impact” DRC architectural review required Susan Steer seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; James Helicke, opposed MOTION PASSES: 4-1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of Meeting Minutes was deferred to the October 19, 2015 meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 10/26/15 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 28, 2015 - Page 18 of 18