Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 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; 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: #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. #2741.1 WOODLAWN DEVELOPMENT, LLC APPROVAL EXTENSION, 100-108 Woodlawn Avenue, extension of an Area variance granted March 10, 2014 to permit the construction of a single-family carriage house and parking structure and creation of a parking area associated with the reconstruction of a multi-family residential structure. #2860 80 W. CIRCULAR, LLC SERVICE USE, 80 West Circular Street, use variance for a service establishment in the north end of the building; seeking relief from the permitted uses within the Warehouse District. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2862 TRIFECTA DEVELOPMENT, LLC SUBDIVISION, 136 Lincoln Avenue, area variance to provide for a two-lot residential subdivision; seeking relief from the minimum average lot width (both lots), minimum lot size and minimum total side yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-2 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be unlisted. Applicant has submitted a short EAF. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum average lot width: Lot 1 60 ft. 52 ft. 8 feet (13%) Minimum total side yard setback: Lot 1 20 ft. 18.8 ft. 1.2 ft. (6%) Minimum average lot width: Lot 2 60 ft. 48 ft. 12 ft. (20%) Minimum lot size: Lot 2 6600 sq. ft. 6100 sq. ft. 500 sq. ft. (7.5) NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Per 8.4.6 City Planning Board advisory opinion is required. Planning Board subdivision approval required. Applicant: Mike Lewis, member of Trifecta Development, LLC Agent: Michael Toohey, Attorney Mr. Toohey stated the property is located at the southwest corner of Adams and Lincoln Street. It presently houses a single family home located primarily on the western side of the property, which pre-exists zoning. The proposal is to sub-divide that lot, to allow the construction of a single family home on what will be Lot #2. What the applicants are proposing is to show the Board a lot of this size is in perfect character with the lots in this neighborhood, consistent with other homes in this UR-2 zone. Mr. Toohey stated by comparison to the size of the lots in this neighborhood, the requested variances are not substantial. No land can be acquired on the two street fronts. There is no land for sale on the west or south side. Tax maps of the area were provided to the Board showing lot widths of properties in the neighborhood and analysis with review of properties along Jefferson/Clark Streets east to Nelson Avenue. Many of the lots in this neighborhood have less than the required frontage width and are less than the required square footage for a single family home. Proposed lot 2 would be improved with a new single family residence. A new curb cut off of Adams Street is proposed. With the driveway from the eastern most lot coming off of Adams Street, it will not introduce another curb cut onto Lincoln Avenue the more heavily trafficked street. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding area variances requested. Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board is required. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:35 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Darren Grassi, 137 Lincoln Avenue, across the street from this property. I am concerned regarding parking. This was rented out during track season to people who had an affiliation with the track. Multiple cars parked over the lawn and driveway. I am concerned that this property will also become a rental property to maximize rental. The upkeep of the property has been awful. It is not used as a primary residence, used for income property. Garbage and trash on the lawn for weeks. These are my concerns. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –October 19, 2015 - Page 2 of 19 Mr. Toohey stated this property was purchased from an estate. The applicants are looking to receive a subdivision for the purpose of constructing two single family homes. They will not be rental properties they will be sold as single family homes. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remains open. An Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board is required. Once obtained the applicant will return before this Board tentatively for the first meeting in November. Gary Hasbrouck made a motion for an Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board in the Trifecta Development, LLC Subdivision. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman 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; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 2. #2495.1 TUCK RESIDENCE, 19 Schuyler Drive, area variance to construct a front porch addition 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. PARCEL HISTORY: Area variance for a proposed front porch and entry foyer addition; relief from the minimum front yard setback Requirement, approved November 14, 2008. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback: 30 feet 14.75 feet 15.25 feet (50.8%) Applicant: Michael Tuck, homeowner, architect. Mr. Tuck stated he is requesting a front porch addition to their home. We had received approval for a variance request to construct a similar porch as a part of a larger renovation project in 2008. As a result of phasing that project over multiple years, the previous variance approval has expired prior to the start of construction. Included in the application are photographs of front porches in the neighborhood within front yard setbacks characteristic of the neighborhood. The existing home is preexisting nonconforming at 24 feet with regard to the front yard setback. The area variance could be considered substantial at 50%. Considering the existing nonconformity of the residence, a front porch addition would not be possible without receiving an area variance for the front yard setback dimension. The relief is limited to construction of a front porch that is similar in scale to other porches found along the street. This variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood because it is for the construction of a front porch similar in scale to similar porches along the street. This project is smaller in terms of square footage than the previous City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –October 19, 2015 - Page 3 of 19 request. The amount of land to remain permeable is 66% in a district where 30% is required. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:44 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 7:45 P.M. Susan Steer presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF MICHAEL AND AMY TUCK 19 SCHUYLER DRIVE SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 19 Schuyler Drive in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 166.14-2-50 and 56 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance to construct a new front porch, seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential – 1 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on October 19, 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 Front Yard Setback 30 feet 14.75 feet 15.25 feet (50.8%) 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 desires to construct a small porch at the front of the home. The residence is currently in preexisting nonconformance with the zoning district’s front year setback requirements. This Board approved a variance to construct a similar porch as part of a larger construction project in 2008; however that variance expired before construction could be completed. This proposed porch is similar in design and scale to the one that was previously approved. 2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to the nearby properties. Many of the residences in the neighborhood have front porches and this project would be similar in scale and location to those of neighboring homes. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –October 19, 2015 - Page 4 of 19  3. The request for relief may be substantial at 50.8% but this is due to the fact that the residence is currently in nonconformance with the zoning district’s existing front yard setback requirements. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The lot permeability exceeds the zoning district’s requirement of 30%. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman 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; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 5. #2861 COONS RESIDENCE, 77 Madison Street, area variance to demolish and rebuild a single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard and minimum total side yard setback 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 PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback-south 8 ft. 4 ft. 4 ft. (50%) Total side yard 20 ft. 6 ft. 6ft. (30%) Applicant: John Coons, owner Agent: Lou Galarneau, Galarneau Builders Mr. Galarneau stated the applicants are proposing to demolish and rebuild a single family residence. The proposed side yard setback is the same as exists and is considered preexisting nonconforming. The existing foundation will be used. Granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change because this house is still a single-family home of medium size that fits in the neighborhood. Madison Street is characterized by a mix of single family homes and two story family residences. The principal building coverage is calculated at 26.5% with attached garage under the maximum 30% in the district. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman requested the amount of land to remain permeable. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:58 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –October 19, 2015 - Page 5 of 19 Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated a resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on October 26, 2015. 6. #2863 RAILROAD PLACE PARTNERS WALL SIGNS, 60 Railroad Place, area variance to construct wall signs on the north and south facades of the building; seeking relief from the maximum number of wall signs on one façade and to erect signs on a façade without street frontage in the Transect-6 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 number of wall signs per street frontage: North 1 2 1 (100%) Maximum number of wall signs per street Frontage: South 0 2 2 (200%) NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DRC Architectural Review required. Saratoga County referral required. Applicant: Gerard Wise, Railroad Place Partners Agent: Judy Frolish, Saratoga Sign Pros Ms. Frolish stated 60 Railroad Place is at the corner of Railroad Place and Division Street. There has been historically a quite a bit of confusion over the location when people are searching for the building. Since the street address would assume to be Division Street when in fact it is Railroad Place. The applicant is looking to identify the building more completely. We are looking to portray something attractive while giving the public some way finding signage. What we are attempting to do is use cast aluminum letters, 10” in height, similar to other buildings in this block. One of the challenges is the two main entrances are north and south, and the west facing entrance we will identify with a number on the glass because there is no wall space to put it. A building identification sign will identify this as the Wise Building. The north face had an awning now it has the proposed directory sign as well as the individual letters which constitutes two signs under the zoning ordinance. The building is on the corner and is allowed two signs. We would like to match the signage on the north end with the same signage on the south end. This is what requires a variance. The building is 20 years old and the signage faced the parking lot. A multi-level building exists there currently. Now the free standing sign is not visible. Alternative designs incorporating the address into a single sign were not as effective as submitted in identifying the address in a tasteful and architecturally compatible manner. The existing freestanding sign is to be removed and replaced with wall signs. Wall directory signs may be more compatible with the T-6 build-to requirement of locating buildings close to the street. The neighborhood is a fully developed T-6 Urban Core with commercial buildings on all sides. These businesses all have signs, both wall and freestanding. This is the smallest wall sign in the area. The signage proposed is 50% of the size permitted. The signs are not internally lit. The signage will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood as it does not change the look of this commercial area. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –October 19, 2015 - Page 6 of 19 Skip Carlson asked for a quick overview of who used this building. Mr. Wise stated it is 100% professional office building. The building does have clients coming and going throughout the day. Discussion ensued the proposed signage requested. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:18 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Dr. Verma, 70 Railroad Place. Dr. Verma stated that he and other residents of the apartment building looks out onto 60 Railroad Place. How high will the signage be? Ms. Frolish stated not higher than 10 feet. 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 October 26, 2015. 7. #2764 THE CHILDREN’S MUSEUM ADDITION, 69 Caroline Street, area variance to construct a second-story rear addition to the existing building; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential-4 District. DISCLOSURE: Adam McNeill stated at one point in time he was the President of the Board of Directors of the Children’s Museum. I am no longer on the Board. This is simply a disclosure. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Use Variance to permit the conversion of the property to a museum specifically dedicated to children granted on January 26, 2000. Area variance to convert and expand this existing building to be used as a museum granted January 26, 2000. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback 20 ft. 11 ft. 9 ft. (45%) NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL” Saratoga County Planning Board referral required. Planning Board site plan review is required. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –October 19, 2015 - Page 7 of 19 DRC Historic review is required. Applicant: Michelle Smith, Executive Director Agent: Vic Cinquino, Architect Mr. Cinquino stated the applicant is requesting a side yard variance for an addition to the museum. The new construction which will be placed on top of an existing 1st floor at the rear of the building. The original building was granted relief for all of its uses and setbacks on January 26, 2000. What we are requesting this evening is relief for the ability to build on top of the current building which was granted relief. Due to the new construction we are required to ask for relief to build inside the setback zone. We are asked for 11 feet of relief. It is a brick structure. We explored expanding within the setbacks, but this would reduce the available parking and/or reduce green space. Adding new construction over the existing 1st floor is the most reasonable and practical means to provide more activity space for the museum. The addition would not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. It is at the rear of the existing building and is not very visible. The site to remain permeable would 34.1% exceeding the 15% in the district. We have 25 parking spaces. Discussion ensued regarding the number of parking spaces provided versus the number required. Staff will research and provide the Board with updated calculations if necessary. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:28 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 October 26, 2015. OLD BUSINESS: 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 and September 28, 2015 meetings. The public hearing was opened on July 27, 2015 and remains open. Additional information was provided to the Board at the September 14, 2015 meeting. 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 sq. ft. of floor area. The use variance for real estate office included a waiver of parking to provide for two spaces. 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 8:30 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –October 19, 2015 - Page 8 of 19 Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. #2843 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Pinnacle Realty 70 Lake Avenue Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 70 Lake Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.60 Block 2, Lots 10.2 & 11 in the Inside District, on the Assessment Map of said City. WHEREAS, on April 27th, 2006 the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a Use Variance with conditions to Real Estate Office use in an Urban Residential -3 District. WHERAS, the applicant has now requested a modification to one of the conditions of that approval, specifically, “Real Estate Office” to “Office Use,” and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on July 27th, September 28th and October 19th , 2015. WHERAS the applicant has demonstrated this property cannot yield a reasonable financial return as demonstrated by competent financial evidence, if used for any permissible use. There have been six showings over a six year period and the applicant has received only one offer for the currently proposed “office use”, during that time. The applicant solicited proposals to return this structure to a residential configuration, and received responses that indicated it would cost approximately $46,750. The cost, added to the purchase price and value of already completed improvements, would exceed $555,000, much higher than the contract the applicant has received for “office use” in the amount of $420,000. WHEREAS the applicant has demonstrated that the alleged financial hardship is unique and does not apply to substantial portions of the neighborhood or district. This building has been used as an office since 1964. The zoning classification of this property has changed so that its commercial use became a non-conforming use. Furthermore, the requested Use Variance Modification would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood given that it has been used as a commercial property since 1964 and has not proved deleterious to the neighborhood during that time. The Board therefore grants the applicant’s request to modify the condition of approval and to hereby amend accordingly the April 27th, 2006 decision. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman 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; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 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. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –October 19, 2015 - Page 9 of 19 RECUSAL: Board member Susan Steer recused from this application. This application was heard at the September 28, 2015 meeting and adjourned to October 19, 2015. 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 8:36 P.M. James Helicke presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF JILL KOVACHICK 184 PHILA STREET SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 184 Phila Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel number 166.61-3-9 in the Inside Tax District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an 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 and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on September 28 and October 19, 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: Proposed: Total relief requested: Maximum number of principal buildings on any 1 2 1 (100%) one lot: As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED for the following reasons: 1.) The applicant has indicated that alternative means to achieve this benefit were explored, including connecting the new structure to the existing one, but the proposed location would be too far from the existing structure and it would not be practical to connect them. Although this Area Variance benefit could be achieved with a subdivision into two separate UR-3 lots, the outcome of that might be two, two-family residences, tripling current density, a scenario permitted due to the existing lot size. By granting this variance, the board limits the density to only two, single-family primary residences. 2.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this Area Variance will not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. Many of the neighbors also have historical coach houses. The applicant has stated: “The New structure will be designed to be architecturally compatible with the existing single family home and the neighborhood.” The project requires Design Review Commission approval. Granting this variance and limiting the density of construction also limits future change to the neighborhood. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –October 19, 2015 - Page 10 of 19 3.) The variance may be considered substantial; however, a two-family structure is permitted in this district. The project is similar in size to other accessory uses (e.g., a three car garage) that otherwise are allowed on the property. No dimensional relief is sought by the applicant. Granting this variance also reduces the amount of potential future construction through any possible future subdivision of this lot. 4.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The applicant has stated that the proposed construction will exceed permeability requirements for the district. 5.) The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Notifications/Approvals/Conditions of Approval DRC Historic Review required. Adam McNeill 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; Susan Steer, recusal; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 Board member Susan Steer resumed her position on the Board. 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 application was heard at the September 28, 2015 meeting and adjourned to October 19, 2015. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The applicant indicated that they would be providing a traffic study/parking analysis. This was submitted to staff on October 14, 2015 and distributed the Board. This project is the adaptive reuse of a dormitory building, which is considered pre-existing non-conforming in the district. The variances requested for the building are not required. 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 23, 2006. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –October 19, 2015 - Page 11 of 19  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%) NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DRC Architectural Review is required. City Planning Board site plan review is required. Saratoga County Planning Board referral is required. Applicant: Sonny Bonacio, Bonacio Construction Company Agent: Michael Toohey, Attorney; Brett Balzer, balzer + tuck architecture; Mike Ingersoll, LA Group; Peter Faith, traffic engineer, Greenman Peterson, Inc. Mr. Toohey stated the City in the newly created Comprehensive Plan encourages the adaptive reuse of vacant buildings and infill. Secondly, they encourage an increase in housing diversity and affordability as well as neighborhood vitality. Moore Hall is largest vacant building in the City of Saratoga Springs and has been for a number of years. The likelihood of that building coming down is not something that is viable with regard to its future use. The utilization of this building which is in a UR-4 District. A multifamily zone is such that it falls into the category of two things. It is an adaptive reuse of a building which was constructed in the City between 1956 &1957. This will present a diverse population within our community with affordable housing with an easy reach of the downtown corridor. This will provide affordable housing for people who work downtown. This is not subsidized housing. We are taking a building and constructing smaller units, called micro-units that give a pleasant place for people to reside within walking distance of downtown. Secondly, this will eliminate the need for the use of automobiles. Moore Hall 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. All units are 12 feet wide. 53 units are proposed, 49 units would be one bedroom approximately 674 sq. ft. and would likely require only one parking space per unit. All the remaining units will be single bedroom units. We have 54 pre-existing parking spaces associated with this building, some of them are on North Lane. The location is surrounded by on street parking. What we have is a unique building in a unique location. Peter Faith, traffic engineer, Greenman Pederson, Inc. I have 37 years of experience in traffic engineering and consulting. I am a licensed professional engineer. I have performed a traffic generation and parking analysis. I referred to the Institute of Traffic Engineer, ITE publication called traffic generation for land uses. There is no breakdown for micro- apartments, therefore I used a midrise apartment calculation which is between 5 and 10 stories high for this calculation. This estimate includes the likelihood that up to 10% of the trips will arrive and depart via walking, biking or transit and this is consistent with the US Census data for Saratoga Springs. Based on this analysis, the project is expected to generate an additional 14AM peak hour trips, 19PM peak hour trips and 28 trips in the Saturday peak hour. Peak hours are typically 7:30AM-8:30AM, 4:30PM-5:30PM and Noon to 1:00PM on Saturdays. These additional trips are not expected to result in any significant traffic impacts. New York State Department of Transportation and the Institute of Traffic Engineers suggest that a threshold of 100 peak hour trips when a proposed development would warrant a detailed traffic impact analysis as projects that generate less than this amount of traffic are unlikely to have any significant impacts on the level of service. Moving on to Parking Demand. The Institute of Traffic Engineers has parking demand data we can use concerning various land uses as well as the current city zoning requirements form the basis of this requirement. The current zoning requires 1.5 spaces per unit, or a total of 80 spaces for the 53 proposed units. The Institute of Traffic City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –October 19, 2015 - Page 12 of 19 Engineers demands for a typical low/mid rise apartment complex is 1.23 spaces per unit or a total demand of 65 parking spaces for this project. With 53 parking spaces being provided as part of the project, the creates a deficit between 12 to 27 parked vehicles. Logic would dictate that the micro-apartments would have less of a parking demand. To assess if there is adequate parking supply to accommodate the additional 27 spaces need to meet the Design Parking Demand an appropriate area study needed to be determined. The National Parking Association published an article “How far do you need to walk” to find a parking space which defines a Level of Service approach to this question. Parking Level of Service Walking Distance A 400 ft. B 800 ft. C 1200 ft. D 1600 ft E More than 1600 ft. Regarding the potential impact to the neighborhood, the on street parking demand represents 11.2% of the minimum currently available parking spaces within 1600ft. of the project. With the project fully leased and the parking demand equaling the maximum required by zoning, there will still be a minimum of 214 on street parking spaces available within the study area. The redevelopment of Moore Hall to provide 53 apartments along with 53 dedicated off street parking spaces is expected to generate 14 new vehicular trips in a typical AM peak hour, 19 new vehicular trips in a typical weekday PM hour and 28 new vehicular trips in a typical Saturday peak hour. This level of trip generation is less than traffic planning guidelines consider significant as it is less than the 100 trip threshold that would require a detailed Traffic Impact Analysis. Based on current zoning that requires 1.5 spaces per apartment, 27 spaces will need to be accommodated within the nearby on street parking supply. Surveys of available on street spaces indicate that the 27 spaces can be easily accommodated within a reasonable walking distance without a signification reduction in the available parking supply for the adjoining neighborhood. Susan Steer questioned the track traffic, this was not factored in at all as well as snow in the winter. Ms. Steers questioned if the applicant reached out to the schools for additional parking especially in the summer. Mr. Faith stated we do not base our calculations on Travers Day or the track since that does not represent 46 weeks of the year. During the track season people may need to walk a little further than 400ft to find a parking space. Mr. Toohey stated no development in the City has ever been dependent on the track. An analysis was performed when those spaces are used. People who are occupying these homes will be away from these spaces due to being at work and they return when the track is over. Regarding the schools in the area, they have limitations on the parking. Living in the neighborhood people know when the schools start and end. Parking for the schools starts when people go to work and ends before the people come home. Sonny Bonacio stated most of our properties are urban and therefore we just remove the snow two or three times a year. James Helicke questioned visitor parking in this area and how will it be accommodated. Mr. Bonacio stated the renters are permitted with a parking tag. James Helicke stated visitor parking will spill out into the street, is that considered in the study. Mr. Faith stated yes that is considered within the zoning requirements and within the ITE parking generation. James Helicke questioned the number of parking spaces given. We are under the assumption that there are 54 parking spaces. We have just been told that the building inspector is going to require site plan review by the Planning Board and could the parking as configured could be changed? Could the number of spaces change? City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –October 19, 2015 - Page 13 of 19 Susan Barden, Senior Planner stated yes the parking configuration could change and absolutely the number of spaces could change. James Helicke stated so the number of parking spaces could be less than 54. Mr. Toohey stated we have a legal right as a pre-existing nonconforming utilization of the land to use those parking spaces in the configuration that they are in. That is the nature of non-conforming use. Tony Izzo, Deputy City Attorney stated if a certain number of parking spaces have been lawfully established at one point than right to continue using them survives any subsequent amendment to the zoning ordinance. The Planning Board can review a specific application regarding the health, safety and welfare considerations within the parameters of their site plan regulations and standards. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated this is a good argument for an Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board. James Helicke questioned the use of parking spaces available on the Empire State Parking Lot in the evening. Mr. Bonacio stated one of the first people they met with was the President of Empire State College who was excited about sharing the parking lots. We did not formalize anything at this time. Mr. Toohey stated there is no land available to be acquired with regard to this site. The building and its lots are not being expanded beyond that which existed in 1975. The building is not going away. It is in a multi-family zone and everyone who bought a home within this quadrant bought it with Moore Hall sitting there. It was blatantly apparent. They knew that the building had a use. The idea that this is being used for a more dense purpose is not consistent with the history of the building or the size and its configuration. The adaptive reuse of structures in the City of Saratoga Springs is noted and encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan. If not this use, what use do you propose? The intensity of the use is significantly less than the parcels historic use. Parking is available for this use. The request for relief for both areas may be considered substantial at 65% and 32% respectively. 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. Mr. Toohey explained the parking study performed by the applicant on Union Avenue, Circular Street, Regent Street, Court Street, Clark Street, North Lane, White Street for an entire week. A total of 89 total parking spaces were available. Adam McNeill, Secretary questioned the amount these apartments would be rented for? Mr. Bonacio stated $185 per square foot, they are smaller units, more compact and more efficient, approximately $1100. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman requested calculations from the applicant concerning if it would be unprofitable with lesser units. Too much density. Mr. Bonacio stated we looked at what was the most efficient way to provide another housing element to the city. We will provide documentation regarding the profitability of the project reducing units. Mr. Balzer stated to decrease the units on a floor from 4 to 3 it would create a 60ft. long, 12ft wide apartment. Discussion ensued regarding possibly reconfiguring the building, decreasing the number of units proposed, which in turn will reduce the parking need, the density and the change in the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Balzer provided a visual rendering of the project and what they proposing for the site. Discussion ensued regarding obtaining an Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –October 19, 2015 - Page 14 of 19 Keith Kaplan made a motion to obtain an Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board regarding the traffic and parking. Adam McNeill seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 10:39 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Russ Pittinger, 19 George Street. My concern is parking. I am happy for the re-use. The Board should consider demolition and a rebuild, perhaps a mixed use. Tom Richards, 73 Union Avenue. Resident of this neighborhood for 32 years. I have built homes, condos in this neighborhood. This is the gateway to Saratoga. This area is rejuvenated. There are more issues here. This is not a project to make a quick decision. This is a wonderful neighborhood. Too much density. Brian Rodems, 84 White Street. I have lived here for about 26 years now. I have submitted a letter previously. When the college was here many students did not have cars. They bused people. This is a change in use, a more densely proposed used than the college and the student were there only 9 months out of the year. Traffic was not an issue. Detrimental to our neighborhood and the value of our homes. Tear it down. Tom Fox, 72 Union Avenue. I have lived here for 17 years. It is not just the track. Union Avenue is the parking garage for the City. Guests that stay with us cannot find parking spaces. Tourist bring into this town. Taxes are paid by the homeowners. This is a plight on the City. Linda Whittle, I have lived on George Street for 30 years. Parking is an issue. When we bought our homes we hoped it Moore Hall would someday be gone. This really isn’t aesthetically pleasing or in line with the neighborhood. This does not fit with the neighborhood. Think long and hard about this. We are the parking lot for special events and I find the language affordable housing disingenuous. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. The applicant will return to the Zoning Board following an Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board. 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. This application was heard at the September 28, 2015 meeting and adjourned to October 19, 2015. The public hearing was opened and remains open. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing remains open. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –October 19, 2015 - Page 15 of 19 Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak regarding this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 11:00 P.M. Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. #2858 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Saratoga Abundant Life Church, 2325 Rte. 50 Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 2325 Rte. 50 in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 190.00-2-13 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 construction of a free standing sign in an OMHBD district and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 28th of September and 19th of October, 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: Proposed: Total relief requested: Max. size freestanding sign: 45 mph or greater 40 sq. ft. 45.2 sq. ft. 5.2 sq. ft. (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 applicant notes that they considered reducing the sign to 40 sf, however this would reduce the letter size to an impractical size for reading at the local 55 mph speed limit on NYS Rt. 50. 2. The board notes that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant indicates that the proposed sign is similar in size to the existing sign that is to be replaced. 3. The Board notes that this requested square footage variance, at 13%, is not substantial 4. The board concludes this variance will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district as the removal of the existing internally lit sign will actually reduce the light impact of the sight signage. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed sign, 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; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –October 19, 2015 - Page 16 of 19  Secretary, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 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. This application was heard at the September 28, 2015 meeting and adjourned to October 19, 2015. 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 would like to speak regarding this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 11:03 P.M. Skip Carlson stated he will prepare a resolution to be presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for October 26, 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. RECUSAL: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman recused from this application. This application was heard at the September 28, 2015 meeting and adjourned to October 19, 2015. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Agent: Michael Phinney, Principal Phinney Design 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 11:06 P.M. Susan Steer read the following resolution into the record. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF DANIEL T. PICKETT 589 NORTH BROADWAY SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –October 19, 2015 - Page 17 of 19  From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 589 North Broadway in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 165.44-1-74 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance to finish the second story of an accessory structure seeking relief from the definition of a residential accessory structure in the Urban Residential-1 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on September 28 and October 19, 2015. 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 moves that the following variance for the following amount of relief: to finish the second story of the residential accessory structure as per the submitted plans so that it may be used as garage and pool house. 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 finish the second story of the accessory structure including installing a full bathroom so that the structure may be utilized as a garage and pool house. Due to the Applicant’s desire for parking for three cars and for storage on the first story, the only place a full bathroom may be located is on the second story of the structure. 2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to the nearby properties. According to the Applicant, there will be no visible exterior changes to the property. 3. The request for relief is not substantial. A pool house is a permitted residential accessory structure. Allowing the Applicant to make these finishes on the second story will only serve to fulfill the accessory structure’s partial function as a pool house. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The Applicant will be installing a full bathroom on the second story of the existing structure. The site exceeds the minimum 30% permeability. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions: No kitchen facilities and no overnight stays. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there is any further discussion. James Helicke stated he is not in favor of this application. He does believe this does this does create a change in the neighborhood, now we are allowing spaces with heat and a bathroom. This is the 3rd round of variances requested. I question it being a habitable space. This is a problem. At the very least, for conditions we need to remove the full bath. If it’s a pool house, no swimming in the winter there should be no heat. Adam McNeill, Secretary, stated we are setting a precedent which I am not ready to set. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –October 19, 2015 - Page 18 of 19 Mr. Phinney stated this was presented as a finished space. The intent was always to heat it. The carriage house is not changed. I am not the original architect and requested a variance for turning the garage into two bedrooms. When I assumed the architectural duties I requested a variance for the pool and the carriage house. We were very careful in this design to remain under the requirements for an accessory structure. There are significant improvements to the property. Much of the property is pervious. When you add plumbing to a structure you need heat. They have five children and to keep this as a recreation room is not unreasonable. We are simply asking for a shower for the guests. James Helicke said we are allowing habitable living space. Bill Moore, Chairman stated this would be the first full bathroom in an accessory structure that we allowed. Discussion ensued regarding the request for the variance and the possible precedent setting issue. Bill Moore, Chairman stated every variance is individualized. Knowing what is up on North Broadway, I don’t think there will be an issue. Discussion ensued regarding the heating of the pool house. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, recused; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, opposed; Susan Steer, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, opposed MOTION PASSES: 4-2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of Meeting Minutes was deferred to the October 26, 2015 meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11:31 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 12/7/15 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals –October 19, 2015 - Page 19 of 19