Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2017 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Susan Steer; Adam McNeill, Secretary Brad Gallagher, alternate; Cheryl Grey; James Helicke ABSENT: Gary Hasbrouck STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney, City of Saratoga Springs 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: #3001 ZIMMERMAN SUBDIVISION, 139 Grand Avenue, area variance with a two-lot residential subdivision; seeking relief from the minimum average lot width and minimum lot size (lot 1) and minimum lot area (lot 2) and minimum side yard setback or existing residence on proposed lot1 in the Urban Residential-3 District. #2817.1 ADELPHI HOTEL EXPANSION, 19-23 Washington Street, deferral of Lead Agency status to the Planning Board associated with construction of a hotel and spa; seeking relief from the frontage build-to and build-out requirements in the Transect-6 District. #2991 CARUSO GARAGE, 565 Grand Avenue, area variance to maintain an existing residential garage; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback requirement in the Rural Residential District. #2969 PEEK CARRIAGE HOUSE, 34 York Avenue, area variance to demolish an existing barn/garage and rebuild a new garage with habitable space; seeking relief from the maximum accessory building coverage requirement and to permit habitable/finished space in an accessory structure (residential) in the Urban Residential-3 District. #2988 KOSIBA GARAGE APARTMENT, 5 Beekman Street, area variance to construct a detached garage with dwelling unit; seeking relief from the minimum lot size requirement for a second single-family residence, to permit more than one principal building on a lot and minimum rear yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. #2989 PEPPERS CORNER MARKET, 173 Lake Avenue, area variance to demolish the existing structure and construct a new 1,960 sq. ft. market for two retail tenants and two wall signs; seeking relief from the minimum parking requirement and to permit two wall signs in the Urban Residential-3 District. #2932 DEVALL CARRIAGE HOUSE, 59 Franklin Street, area variance for construction of a three-car carriage house with a second story dwelling unit; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback (Cherry St.) and minimum side yard setback.  #2957 MANEY MULTI-FAMILY, 18 Cherry Street and 38 Marvin Alley, discussion and consideration for Coordinated SEQRA Review for two residential condominium buildings and associated site work in the Urban Residential-4 District. #2931 LAKE LOCAL, 550 Union Avenue, consideration for Coordinated SEQRA Review for expansion and construction of eating and drinking establishment, marina and docks and tourist accommodations in the Water Related Business and Rural Residential Districts. #2992 NORTHBURG CAMPGROUND, 62 Muldowney Road, initiation of Coordinated SEQRA Review associated with a use variance for a campground; seeking relief from the permitted uses in a Rural Residential District. #2997 ED’S GARAGE, 578 Lake Avenue, appeal of the Zoning and Building Inspector’s determination that the existing automobile garage is not a lawful pre-existing non conforming use in the Rural Residential District. #2984 SONG & WANG SUBDIVISION, 21 Murphy Lane, area variance for a two-lot residential subdivision; seeking relief from the minimum average lot width for Lots 1 & 2 and minimum lot area, minimum side yard and minimum total side yard setback requirements for lot 2 in the Urban Residential-2 District. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2953 STATION PARK MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, Washington Street and Station Lane, area variance for a proposed multi-use development containing a 110 room hotel, 88 senior housing units, 41 assisted living units, 90 townhouses, and 28,060 square feet of retail; seeking relief from the frontage build-to and build-out, minimum two story and maximum building height requirements in the Transect-5 district. SEQRA: - Action appears to be a Type 1 – Part 1 of the long form submitted. - Required approvals from Planning Board include subdivision, special use permit and site plan review; and DRC Architectural review – both involved agencies. - ZBA initiated Coordinated Review and deferred Lead Agency to the Planning Board on March 27, 2017. - The Planning Board accepted Lead Agency status on April 27, 2017. - Planning Board issued a Negative SEQRA Declaration on November 9, 2017. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED LOT 2 Frontage build-out: Lot 2-Building A 70% 11.9% 58.1% (83%) LOT 3 Frontage build-out: Lot 3 Building B 70% 10.3% 59.7% (85%) LOT 4 Frontage build-out: Lot 4 Building C (Washington Street) 70% 44.4% 25.6% (37%) Maximum building height: Lot 4 Building C 50ft. 56 ft. 6 ft. (12%) LOT 5 Frontage build-to: Lot 5 Building D (Washington Street) 0-12 ft. 206 ft. 194 ft. (100%) Frontage build-out: Lot 5 Building D (Washington Street) 70% 0% 70% (100%) LOT 6 Minimum two-story: Lot 6 Building F Two-story One-story *One-story (100%) LOT 7 Frontage build-out: Lot 7 Building G (Station Ln) 70% 37.1% 32.9% Minimum two-story: Lot 7 Building G Two-story One-story *One story (100%) Frontage build-out: Lot 7 Building H 70% 19% 51% (73%) Minimum two-story: Lot 7 Building H Two story One story One story (100%) Frontage build-out: Lot 7 Building I 70% 19% 51% (73%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 11, 2017 - Page 2 of 8 Minimum two story: Lot 7 Building I Two story0% One story *one story (100%) Applicant: Lou Giardino, Top Capital Agent: Devin Dal Pos, broker on the project. Mr. Giardino stated last week he had a conversation with city staff concerning the original application. Following this conversation we made some modifications to that plan that would simplify and reduce the number of variances required for the project. I am going to review the area variances and hopefully present the modified application. The area variances we were originally seeking relief from was the maximum height on Lot #4, Building C the hotel. That particular variance is to take it from the maximum 50 feet in height to 56.1 feet in height. The second variance would be the build out requirement for Lot#2 Building A which is the independent living building. The variances from a coverage of 70% of the frontage to 11.9%. Directly across the street from this is Lot #3, Building B, which is an assisted living building. We are asking for relief from the 70% coverage reduced to 10.3%. The fourth variance for Lot#4 which is Building C the hotel. We are currently requesting 44.4% frontage build out with our proposal. The fifth area variance for build out for Lot #7, we have pulled that out of the relief. Originally on the plan it was a miscommunication that we were going with one story units. We have since modified our plan and we are going back to the same footprint but with two story units. Variances are not required for those. There is a building frontage build out requirement on Lot#7. Build out requirement for Lot#8 is no longer there, we have eliminated that building all together. There will be no Building J. Lot #6, Building F will also be a two story building. This does not change our parking requirements or anything else. We made that decision late last week. Saratoga Associates is working on revising the plans along with the architects and these revisions will be provided to you. In trying to move forward perhaps we can discuss the reasons for each variance and try to explain the rationale behind it. Mr. Giardino reviewed the site plans with the Board. The hotel building Lot#4, Building C and the siting of the building on the lot. Due to the topography of the site the building will be 12 feet below grade along Washington Street. We are looking for 6 feet of relief. Cheryl Grey questioned the amount of relief requested from 70% to 44.4%. Mr. Giardino stated the length of our property line along Washington Street doubles the length of that building. However, in that area the road is down where the railroad is, so it is unbuildable in term of use. We modified our plan and now this affords us underground parking for the hotel. The code requires as much of the road to be built on. In our case we have maintained that Washington Street is a main street, Station Boulevard is also a main street. It is the main street of our project. We have treated them both as main streets. Mr. Dal Pos stated regarding the code and the way it is written frontage is based on the road with the most traffic. not necessarily on the road which you front on or that you are focused on. Mr. Giardino provided a cross section of the proposed hotel. By placing the parking below the hotel we have decreased the amount of parking outside the site. Adam McNeill, Secretary requested an electronic copy of the presentation this evening. Mr. Giardino stated the plan which is before the Zoning Board is the plan reviewed by the Planning Board. The conversations we had last Thursday are under revision right now. At the request of the Planning Board, the area noting cottages on the plan were added. There were no buildings there. The Planning Board suggested that we add those buildings in order to help transition from the larger buildings to the surrounding areas. When we added those our designers put in a one story plan because we were catering to seniors and we thought they would be marketable to seniors. After reviewing it was required to have a variance for one story units. So, we added a second story to them on Thursday. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 11, 2017 - Page 3 of 8 Adam McNeill, Secretary requested copies of all the revisions, plans and the variances requested which were made to these plans prior to the next appearance before the Board. Mr. Giardino stated it is already in process. We are trying to reduce the number of variances we will be requiring. Originally the Planning Board requested Building J be built to have buildings on all four corners. Following a suggestion by the Planning Board for a type of recreational/park area we decided to take Building J out. If we were to move a building of the same size over to the corner next to Building D on the southeast corner of Station Park then it would eliminate the variance requirement for Building D and that is basically the change that we made. This will allow for a reasonable transition in height. Concerning the build out requirements for Building A – Independent Living, and Building B – Assisted Living. Both buildings are identical in design. They have four story towers on either side. In the center is a common area where there is a dining room and restaurant, a cocktail lounge and a main lobby. Basically it is the same design as a hotel. That entire front of the building will be retail as well as the operations of the independent living and assisted living. These lower levels in the front will be retail and the two towers as well. The reason we need a variance is due to the inset of the building. It is not lawn. We are using that area as public gathering areas. We create a type of civic area in those cases. These are areas where people will gather, eat outside and this is for the general public. These are not gated communities. The restaurants are open to the general public. In both buildings A & B they will be an entirely retail atmosphere that will continue all the way down Station Boulevard with the condo buildings which are all retail on the front of those as well. In most cases even the intersecting streets will be part of that walkable landscape. That is the relief we are requesting. Pushing the buildings all the way forward to the front takes away that gathering area that is useful in environments like this. People are looking for outdoor seating and gathering areas. Just above those area are outdoor decks which open through and people will be looking down over the civic space in the front and back. Cheryl Grey questioned the amount of relief requested the 70% requirement in the A and B Building you only have 10 and 11% and that is on Station Boulevard. This is just the two ends of the building. Mr. Giardino stated that is correct. The two ends of the building are all we get credit for the build to lines. That entire area is there as part of the streetscape. Mr. Dal Pos stated the overall development meets the intent of the Transect zone. The challenge on some of this is still rather new for the City, so sifting through build to and build out we are finding some of these things to be a bit of a challenge. It doesn’t give us enough flexibility. Mr. Giardino stated we also have to carefully weigh the impact that the Design Review Committee has on what we are building. They want interesting designs to be presented. We are trying to meet the intent. We fully meet the use. Essentially the actual intent of our streetscape also meets that. We feel we have presented enough flexibility and options here. Adam McNeill, Secretary questioned if the applicant considered a PUD for this project. Mr. Giardino stated we are being treated like a PUD but we are also taking the three other projects that are being built here and pulling them along with our project. There are three other large projects being proposed for this area that we are being tethered to for studies. We have provided traffic studies for all four projects. So, we have worked with the other developers for connectivity and all the rest of those things. We don’t really have a zoning problem we are giving you exactly what the Transect zone was intended to be. We went through SEQRA and now we are at the stage where we want to fit the arithmetic in to make it work. Parking is not an issue for us. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated there are no one story buildings proposed for this project. Originally these were one story and now we are adding the second story will there be elevators proposed. Mr. Giardino stated that is correct. No one story buildings. Concerning the elevators, there will be no elevators. There are 80 units of seniors in one building and 80 units of seniors in the second building. We will not start to build anything on that lot until we are assured that there is a market for this. We will build Building A first, the hotel will be the City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 11, 2017 - Page 4 of 8 second build. One of the condos will be the third one. Building B will be fourth one and the second condo building will be fifth, and town houses will be last. That will be our progression. Adam McNeill, Secretary informed the applicant that variances which are granted expired after 18 months without an extension request. James Helicke questioned on Lot #5 there is also a build to variance request. Mr. Giardino stated the build to variance requested is also because of the length of the lot line in Lot#5 goes from the intersection between Lot 3 and 5 all the way to Washington Street. On the current plan there is no building on that corner so that will change and it is not likely that we will have to request that build to variance requirement. Cheryl Grey stated currently Building D and J will not need a variance on the build out on Washington Street. Mr. Giardino stated that is current. On Building C we will need a variance. We will also need it on Lot #7. There are three buildings there, Building G, H and I. The length of that frontage is so long that we only cover 20% of that so we will be looking for a variance on that. The Planning Board suggested we place the building there in order to accommodate all the other requirements that they asked of us. There is a pocket park in there for civic space. Stormwater retention areas, there is a bike trail that goes through there. In order to accommodate all the requests of the Planning Board we can only put the buildings in so much of the area. Hence, the need for the variances. Cheryl Grey stated for our purposes we are looking at Buildings A, B, C. We are not projecting ahead to D, E, F, G, H, J right now. Mr. Giardino stated all the variances needed are being requested at this time. A revised plan will help to provide the Board with additional information needed to proceed with this application. Susan Steer questioned what type of retail is proposed for this area. Mr. Giardino stated low impact retail is proposed. It is not going to be the grocery store. You will most likely see a coffee shop, a nail salon, a hair salon or barber that type of business. In our project like this gift shops, personal care type retail. Things that do not require a lot of parking. Mr. Giardino stated buildings G, H and I we spoke about, the Board understands the buildings do not meet the full requirements due to the length of the lot line. By the time we met all the requirements and recommendations of the Planning Board there is no way we could have met those requirements. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned Buildings G, H and I and the percentages of the frontage requested there and the amount of relief requested is ambiguous. Mr. Giardino stated we will provide answers to the Board concerning these buildings. Discussion ensued concerning the newly proposed two story buildings and these specific elevations will be provided to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman, opened the public hearing at 8:00 P.M. 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 – December 11, 2017 - Page 5 of 8 Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the applicant will return before the Board on January 8th, 2018. All requested information will be provided to the Board prior to that meeting. OLD BUSINESS: RECUSAL: Bill Moore, Chairman recused from the following application. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman assumed the duties of the Chair. 1. #3005 CONNORS RESIDENCE, 87 Ludlow, area variance for renovation including increasing roof height to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential -3 District. This application was heard at the November 27, 2017 meeting and adjourned to December 11, 2017. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The public hearing was re-noticed for December 11, 2017 due to an error in the notice. No additional information was requested from the applicant. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:06 P.M. Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. #3005 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Connors Residence 87 Ludlow Street Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 87 Ludlow Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.53-2-52 in the Inside District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit a renovation to an existing building in an UR-3 district and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on November 27th and December 11, 2017. In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following area variances for the following amount of relief: REQUIRED EXISTING/PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 11, 2017 - Page 6 of 8 Min. front yard setback: 10 ft. 7.8 ft. 2.2 ft. (22%) 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. As the applicants’ goal is to replace the existing roof structure with a new, trussed roof, all walls must be brought to the same elevation. Therefore, the applicant submits there are no other means to accomplish this goal. 2. The board finds that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The variance is being requested in order to raise the existing front wall by 3 feet. The neighborhood is populated by mostly two-story structures of similar height to the height of the proposed project. 3. The board finds that the relief being requested is not substantial. 4. The board concludes this variance will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The proposed construction will not decrease the permeability of the site. 5. The alleged difficulty could be considered self-created, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: The structure will be converted from a two-family to a single-family residence. Cheryl Grey seconded the motion. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman reopened the public hearing at 8:07 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Michael LaFear, 87 Division Street. Questioned when the Shelters of Saratoga application will be heard. He is a neighbor and very concerned. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the application will be heard at the December 18, 2018 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:11 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Discussion ensued concerning the possibility of placing conditions on the resolution. It was determined that the resolution should stay as originally presented. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Brad Gallagher, alternate, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 Bill Moore, Chairman resumed the duties of the Chair. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman resumed the duties of the Vice Chair. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 11, 2017 - Page 7 of 8 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 30, 2017 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes as amended. Cheryl Grey 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; Brad Gallagher, abstained; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:12 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski APPROVED 1-8-18 Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 11, 2017 - Page 8 of 8