Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2018 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER MEETING ROOM 2B 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 Cheryl Grey; Rebecca Kern, Alternate; Oksana Ludd, Alternate; Brad Gallagher ABSENT: Susan Steer STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards Justin Grassi, Counsel to the Land Use Boards 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. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: Bill Moore, Chairman announced a new format in presenting applications as well as comments during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting. All presentations will be given 15 minutes to present. Any further information may be submitted in writing to the Board. All public hearing comments will be limited to 3 minutes. Any further comments may be submitted in writing to the Board. 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 #3059 ASKEW MULTI-FAMILY, Station Lane, area variance for proposed multi-family residences; seeking Relief from the minimum frontage build-out in the Transect-5 District. SEQRA Lead Agency determination. #3047 STONE MIXED-USE, 68 Weibel Avenue, initiation of Coordinated SEQRA Review associated with Maintenance of existing improvements and uses on a mixed use property in the Transect-4 District. #3040 BAIRD RESIDENCE, 79 Lake Avenue, area variance to construct an addition to an existing three-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard (each side), minimum total side yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements for the addition; and minimum side (each side), minimum total side yard and #3024 FAHY RESIDENCE, 166 Lincoln Avenue area variance to construct a new single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum average lot size width and 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-2 District. #3022 DEVALL SUBDIVISION, 59 Franklin Street, area variance associated with a two-lot subdivision; seeking relief from the minimum average lot width for the proposed lot and minimum side yard setback to parking in the Urban Residential-4 District. #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. OLD BUSINESS: 1. #3038 BONACIO CONDOMINIMUMS, 77 Van Dam, modification of previously approved use and area variances for an existing mixed use (office and residential) building to all residential (25 total units) in the Urban Residential-3 District. This application was heard at the June 11, 2018 meeting and adjourned to a future meeting awaiting SEQRA determination. The applicant has provided existing floor plans of the building, current rent roll and commercial rental history, parking usage counts and additional narrative. Most recently, the application was heard at the July 23, the ZBA requested that an updated survey be provided by the applicant. In addition, the applicant submitted additional narrative and a letter from the commercial realtor, Amy Sutton. The public hearing was closed on September 10. The applicant submitted a review of parking by GPI, letter from the property owner and additional narrative. The public hearing was re- noticed for this meeting. SEQRA: -Action appears to be Type I – the property is substantially contiguous to the West Side Historic District the property is a contributing property to that district. -The applicant submitted Part I of the Long Form EAF. -ZBA is the only involved agency, and completed Part II of the Long EAF and issued a Negative SEQRA Declaration on September 10, 2018. PARCEL HISTORY: -Former school district building. -Use Variance approved in 1976 for 6 apartments and 3 floors of office (12 offices). Relief granted from the parking requirement -29 spaces required for office and 12 parking spaces required for the residence totaling 41. -Use Variance approved 1981 -15 apartments and 2 floors of offices (8 offices). USE VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Applicant: Tom Roohan, 519 Broadway LLC, partner in this application Agent: Libby Coreno, Attorney; Kate Jarosh, Bonacio Construction Ms. Coreno provided an aerial view of the overall site and building. Ms. Coreno stated that this use is a higher conformance to the neighborhood uses in this UR-3 residential zone. They have reviewed the uniqueness of the building, and support for continuing parking. In 2018 – 50 parking spaces are required 31 onsite and 7 overflow street parking for a total of 38. Relief is requested for 12 spaces or 24% with 8 spaces for overflow mitigation proposed at 91 Van Dam. There is additional parking proposed via a cross access City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 15, 2018 - Page 2 of 14 easement for 8 additional spaces. They have also provided the GPI report from September 25, which indicates 25 condo or multifamily units, has an expected peak parking demand of an average of 35 or 38. Additional data provided notes 12 one bedroom units and 13 two bedroom units do not command two vehicles per unit average and the ITE data supports that. Comments from the Department of Public Safety regarding GPI report all parties agree that 7 spaces exist on Van Dam. No information from the City has been produced of intent to remove the spaces for parking. The spaces existed in 1976, 1981 and today. All uncontradicted parking data indicates that they will need between 35 and 38 spaces and we have provided private access to 39. 7 spaces on Van Dam are overflow. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further questions or comments from the Board. Oksana Ludd, Alternate stated she did review all the materials and viewed the webcast and is comfortable voting on this application this evening. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the application was re-noticed for this evening. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman, re-opened the public hearing at 7:11 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Kevin O’Brien, Lawrence Street resident. He spoke about the public safety at a prior meeting. He reviewed the GPI report and informed the Board he is a social planner. The effects of off street parking is a myth and not reliable. I think this should go back to the drawing board. Doug McGuire, Lawrence Street resident. He stated he does not believe this is a modification and he believes this is a full Use Variance. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:18 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we have two matters to discuss this evening – one is the modification of the Use Variance and we have the area variance for the parking. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #3038 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Bonacio Construction 18 Division Street, Suite 401 Saratoga Springs, NY From the determination of the Zoning and Building Inspector involving the premises at 77 Van Dam Street, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.51-1-21 on the assessment map of said City. The applicant having applied for a modification of a previously approved area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of the City for an existing mixed-use (office and residential) building to all residential (25 total units) and parking for 25 residential units in an Urban Residential – 3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on June 11, July 23, September 10 and October 15, 2018. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 15, 2018 - Page 3 of 14 In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the Board moves that the following variance for the following amount of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REQUIREMENT Minimum parking for 25 units: 50 parking spaces 31 parking spaces 19 spaces (38%) As per the submitted plans BE APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The Board notes an area variance was granted January 14, 1976 when 41 spaces were required and that variance was modified April 22, 1981 when 50 spaces were required. The property has maintained the 31 spaces for which these variances were granted since that time. The Board further notes the applicant has provided financial documentation that indicates that fewer residential units (resulting in fewer required parking spaces) would not be feasible due to the units having to be at a higher price point. In addition, the applicant has demonstrated there is no area on the site that could provide additional parking. As the applicant has stated, the ability to gain additional parking is restricted by the lack of available space for cars to back up and to provide proper drive lanes for cars and other vehicles such as for drop off or emergency access. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to the nearby properties. As the application indicates, there is on street parking along the frontage on Van Dam as well as along adjacent neighboring streets. In addition, the applicant has offered a condition of approval that 8 overflow parking spaces on the adjacent property 91 Van Dam will be available for parking for the subject property. The Board in prior zoning variances in calculating the variance needed included the 7 on-street parking spaces in as available parking spaces for this property. The Board notes a parking needs study performed for the applicant September 19, 2018 by Greenman- Pedersen Inc., showing actual parking demand to be approximately 35 to 38 spaces. This would result in an off-street, on-site deficit of 4 to 7 spaces. The Board notes that the on-street adjacent parking plus the nearby overflow spaces to be adequate to meet this anticipated parking deficit, thereby mitigating impact on neighborhood character. The Board also reviewed and considered the comments received from the Department of Public Safety in response to the GPI parking study. The Board further has noted in the separate use variance modification resolution that this project will bring the property into greater conformity with the Urban Residential-3 district objectives, since it will result in the property being all residential after conversion of the commercial units. The Urban Residential-3 district intent as per the City Zoning Ordinance is, “To conserve, maintain and encourage single family and two-family residential uses.” While this property is clearly neither single or two-family, the Board notes the residential conversion under which this request for relief is being made, is more consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood than the current mixed use. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 15, 2018 - Page 4 of 14  3. The request for relief from the minimum parking requirement is considered substantial at 19 spaces or (38% relief). As noted above, this is somewhat mitigated by the availability of on street parking in the neighborhood and the addition of overflow parking on the adjacent property at 91 Van Dam. 4. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The property has been in its current configuration since at least 1981 and no outward physical change to the site is proposed that would affect drainage or create other environmental effects 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship due to the applicant’s desire to modify the use of the property to all residential, resulting in a greater need for parking under the City Ordinance. The Board further notes that parking requirements have changed in the district, and that other similarly densely populated areas of the City are mapped in districts with lesser per-unit requirements which would result in less relief needed. In any case, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Condition: Subject to a parking easement on the neighboring parcel for 8 spots. Neighboring parcel is known as 91 Van Dam Street, (165.51-1-53). ZBA counsel to review and approve permanent and exclusive easement to be filed before issuance of any building permits. Cherie Grey seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Cherie Grey requested the letter from the Department of Public Works be included. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Cherie Grey, opposed; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Oksana Ludd, Alternate, in favor; Rebecca Kern, Alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-2 Bill Moore, Chairman stated we will now review the area variance for the parking. Bill Moore, Chairman presented the following: #3038 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Bonacio Construction 18 Division Street, Suite 401 Saratoga Springs, NY From the determination of the Zoning and Building Inspector involving the premises at 77 Van Dam Street, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.51-1-21 in the Inside District, on the assessment map of the City. The applicant having applied for use and area variances under the Zoning Ordinance of the City for modification of previously approved use and area variances for an existing mixed-use (office and residential) building to all residential (25 total units) in an Urban Residential – 3 District. As shown by the submitted application, supplemental documentation and verbal presentation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and public hearing having been held on June 11, July 23 and September 10, 2018 be approved because all four standards required to demonstrate unnecessary hardship have been met by the applicant. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 15, 2018 - Page 5 of 14 Background: The subject property hosts a former Saratoga Catholic Central High School building that was constructed in 1950 and is a contributing property in the West Side Historic District. The property was more recently used as a mixed commercial and residential building by way of a use variance granted January 14, 1976 for 6 apartments and 3 floors of offices and modified April 22, 1981 to 15 apartments and 2 floors of offices. The applicant now proposes to convert the remaining office spaces to residences resulting in a total of 25 residential units. The applicant seeks a modification of the relief previously granted. 1. The applicant has demonstrated that it cannot realize a reasonable return and that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence. The applicant provided financial documentation that the property failed to consistently attract commercial tenants and many of the units remained vacant for long periods of time. The evidence shows that it has been particularly difficult to secure long term tenants. As the application indicates, because of the limitations of the building – lack of accessibility and less competitive amenities – Commercial rents are too low to support the expensive carrying costs of the building (HVAC, utilities, taxes, insurance) which has, with the high turnover and long vacancies, results in a loss scenario. 2. The applicant has demonstrated the alleged hardship relating to this property is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood or district. The subject property is located in an Urban Residential – 3 district where the district intent is “To conserve, maintain and encourage single-family and two-family residential uses”. This property and building was constructed to provide for an institutional use that of a school. The existing building is historic, four-stories and approximately 10,000 sq. ft. and therefore unique in this neighborhood and district. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the requested use variance modification will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. This project includes preservation and reuse of the historic building to multi-family residential instead of the current mixed commercial and residential use. The Board notes that multi-family residential use is more in keeping with the intent of the UR-3 district and, as previously stated in the April 22, 1981 Resolution, the use is not detrimental to the neighborhood. 4. The applicant has shown that the alleged hardship is not self-created. The Resolution from January 14, 1976 states, “Hardship has been shown in that the building was constructed and has been maintained as a school building and is clearly not suitable for one or two family purposes” and, reiterated in the April 22, 1981 Resolution, “That a hardship has been shown”. The building is no more suitable for one or two family use today than it was then or since. Condition:  Prior use variances granted January 14, 1976 and April 22, 1981 expire upon the approval of this variance. Cherie Grey seconded the resolution. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards made a suggestion for editing of the resolution for clarity. Oksana Ludd, Alternate stated she wants to assure that the easement be a permanent exclusive easement and that it is reviewed by ZBA Counsel. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards exited the meeting at 7:35 P.M. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding the language in the resolution with regard to the on street parking. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 15, 2018 - Page 6 of 14 Justin Grassi, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated the variance is concerning the parking on site. Noting the on street parking in the variance language is not necessary since it has already been stated by a previous Board and is on the record. Discussion ensued regarding the language in the resolution with regard to the on street parking. Bill Moore, Chairman took a straw poll of the Board with regard to including on-street parking in the calculation for required parking in the resolution. It was a 4-3 vote against counting on-street parking on the basis that the requirement is for off-street parking. Cherie Grey stated she will be voting against the resolution for two reasons. One task the Board has is to promote public health and safety and general welfare. This is not a safe situation. The property will not be able to handle this much parking. Becky Kern, Alternate stated she will be voting against the resolution due to the number of units being proposed and the lack of parking and how that negatively impacts the neighborhood. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman is supportive of the 2 parking spaces per unit. It is a standard for this District. This is close to Broadway. He believes it is not going to be as impactful as the neighbors fear. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he is supportive of this resolution as well. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Cherie Grey, opposed; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Oksana Ludd, Alternate, in favor; Rebecca Kern, Alternate, opposed MOTION PASSES: 5-2 2. #3060 CLANCY RESIDENCE, 2 Concord Drive, area variance to construct an addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-1 District. This application was heard at the September 24, 2018 meeting and adjourned to October 15, 2018. The Board requested submission of principal building coverage’s in the neighborhood. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The applicant provided the requested information on October 10, 2018. The applicant has been asked to provide existing accessory building coverage for the lot and alternatives to the proposed size of the addition. SEQRA: -Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Applicant: Tom Clancy Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone on the Board wished to comment on this application. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Bill Moore, Chairman stated since the information was provided on Friday, October 10, 2018 we do not have a resolution ready to be presented. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 15, 2018 - Page 7 of 14 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated in our previous deliberations we requested information from the applicant on the surrounding homes which was provided. In reviewing the site and the neighborhood could the applicant articulate why this 24 foot addition is needed and perhaps a less wide addition would not work. Could it be made shorter for your use. Mr. Clancy stated the room that this addition would attach to is 22 feet wide in width. It is not what we wanted but we can do it. It can be changed. Bill Moore, Chairman thanked the application for the information submitted. However, the information submitted does not help you. You are at 20.6% building coverage now and you are proposing 25.5% building coverage. Everything you have provided in the area is 20% or less. Is there anything else in the neighborhood that would help support your case for going to the 25%. Perhaps you can review the area and provide to the Board some additional information supporting your application. Mr. Clancy stated he will provide additional information to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the applicant will provide additional information. 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 29, 2018. Bill Moore, Chairman, recused from the following application. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman assumed the duties of the Chair. 3. #3033 ADIRONDACK TRUST SIGNAGE, 315 Church Street, area variance for proposed signage; seeking relief from the maximum size for a freestanding sign, maximum number of wall signs, maximum height, size and logo placement on two directional signs, and to permit three logos on the kiosk in the Transect-5 District. This application was heard at the May 7 meeting and adjourned to a future meeting date. The Board passed a motion Requesting an Advisory Opinion form the DRC. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The DRC considered the request at their June 6 meeting. The applicant submitted revised materials on September 20, 2018. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the applicant has appeared before the DRC. They have made some modifications. Agent: Adam Wakulenko, Adirondack Sign Company Mr. Wakulenko stated at their last appearance before the Board it was requested to submit some additional perspectives of what is being proposed. We have submitted a monument sign of what is allowed at 12 square foot sign with several views, a 20 square foot sign with several views and what we would like at a minimum, and we have reduced the size from our original request, a 36 foot sign with several views. The 12 square foot sign will be difficult to read, it will be insignificant and lost in the corner. The 20 square foot is better but it will still be a visibility issue. The 36 square foot is borderline but that is what is being requested at a minimum. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman thanked the applicant for provided the additional perspectives. 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. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 15, 2018 - Page 8 of 14 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:08 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there were any further comments from the Board. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #3033 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Adirondack Trust 473 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 315 Church St, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel 165.10-2-6 on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City, to replace wall and freestanding signs, and directional signs and a logo for a bank branch location in a T-5 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on May 7, 2018 and held open through October 15, 2018. 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 requested area variance for the following relief: TYPE OF RELIEF REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Wall sign on side with no street frontage Permit a wall sign Not permitted 100% on parking lot side Maximum size, freestanding sign (s) 24 SF 36 SF 12 SF or 50% Maximum height, directional sign 1 4’ 5’ 1’ or 25% Maximum height, directional sign 2 4’ 5’ 1’ or 25% Placement of one logo; kiosk Not permitted Permitted 100% As per the submitted plans (as revised) or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. No other feasible means exist to achieve the desired benefit. The Board notes that the nature of this request is to replace the existing signage due to a logo change, and to add a freestanding sign to improve consumer navigation. The applicant notes that the signage size, and number of signs, are needed to notify travelers on Church St and West Ave as to the location of the bank from three different locations. The Board notes that the applicant has received and is conforming to an advisory opinion from the Design Review Commission which urged a smaller number of signs and less impactful signage. 2. This request will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties. No detriment to nearby properties has been demonstrated or evidenced to this Board of the presently existing signage, to which the proposed signage is comparable. The Board finds the revisions made to the proposal further minimizes impact on neighborhood character. 3. The variances are substantial relative to what is allowed. However, the Board notes the lack of impact on the neighborhood and district, and further notes the utility of signage for the consumers of the bank as City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 15, 2018 - Page 9 of 14  well as passers-by to help direct those consumers and reduce their confusion. These factors mitigate the substantiality of the variances. 4. The Board finds that the proposed signs to have a negligible physical and environmental impact. Neither height nor lighting appear to be obtrusive in this proposal. 5. The applicant’s desire for signage is self-created, however this alone is not necessarily fatal to the application. Notes:  County Planning Board decision, June 21, 2018, “No significant Countywide or Intercommunity impact.”  Design Review Commission Architectural Review required. Cherie Grey seconded the motion. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Cherie Grey stated she will be opposing due the number of proposed signs. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Cherie Grey, opposed; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Oksana Ludd, Alternate, in favor; Rebecca Kern, Alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-1 Bill Moore, Chairman resumed the duties of the Chair. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman resumed the duties of the Vice Chairman. 4. #3039 BLACKLER RESIDENCE, 62 Van Dam, area variance to construct an addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard (each side), minimum total side yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. This application was heard at the May 21, 2018 meeting and adjourned to a future meeting. The Board requested principal building coverage and permeable calculations. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The public hearing was re-noticed due to the time that has been passed since the item was before the Board. The applicant will need to verify setbacks to constructed and proposed additions on the east side (location of upper and lower deck and second-story stairs) in additional to principal building coverage. SEQRA: -Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Applicant: Steve Blackler Mr. Blackler provided information to the Board noting they have removed the deck at the back of the home and the staircase and the two doors at the rear of the home for egress. The roofline will be extended with the addition as well as guttering for better drainage. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated since this information was provided to the Board this evening the Board would like to have some time to review this information and would not be in a position to offer a resolution this evening. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 15, 2018 - Page 10 of 14 PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and will remain open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Irene Peronto, 64 Van Dam Street. Photographs were provided by this next door neighbor. A visual of Google maps from July 2014 was provided to the Board when the applicant purchased the home. Photographs of the site after the second floor was added as well as how the addition blocks sunlight into her home. Visual of the property line noting the drip line. The roof on the second floor is unfinished and once it is done the drip line will be on her property. This information was provided to the Board for the file. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the submitted information will be reviewed and the applicant will return in two weeks. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2938.1 FOX TWO-FAMILY, 217 Caroline Street, area variance for constructed changes to a previously approved Area variance for an addition to an existing multi-family residence; seeking additional relief from the minimum side yard setback to the addition and minimum side yard setback to accessory structure requirements in the Urban Residential -3 District. This original application and request for relief was approved on January 23, 2017 to permit an addition to a residence. Per narrative from Sue Davis, SD Atelier Architecture and this modification request additional relief is required. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback rear addition 4ft. 3 ft. 2 ft. Additional l ft. 2 ft. total (50%) Minimum side yard setback rebuilt side 4 ft. .5 ft. No change Maximum principal building coverage: 30% 50% No change Minimum front yard setback 10 ft. 5.5 ft. No change Minimum side yard setback: Accessory building 5 ft. 1 ft. 4 ft. (80%) Applicant: Kurt Fox Agent: Sue Davis SD Atelier Architecture; Mark Wilson, Contractor Ms. Davis stated we have appeared before this Board previously as mentioned. What we are here tonight has to do with one issue. The issue required an updated survey on the site following the construction completion. Instead of 3 feet to the overhangs it was 2 feet to the overhangs. A visual presentation of the site was provided to the Board. In the process of the construction two condensing units were added. The contractor was unaware of the requirements of the Zoning Board. It was an honest oversight. It is the least obtrusive portion of the entire lot. The neighbors are not upset with the location of these units and they are not bothersome. Kevin Wolpert owner of the next door property, he provided written correspondence in favor of the application with no issues. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 15, 2018 - Page 11 of 14 Adam McNeill, Secretary questioned if the next door home is a rental. Mr. Fox stated yes the home is a rental. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated since the condenser is one foot to the property line he would like to see some type of noise mitigation in this area. These side yard setbacks are there to protect the neighbor. Perhaps a fence for a portion of the area. Mark Wilson, Contractor stated we pushed the condensing units as close to our building as we could. They are really quiet. Perhaps the company has a decibel level for the units when they are operating but they are very quiet. We will check with the company regarding obtaining this information and this technical information will be submitted to staff. Brad Gallagher stated there is a fence in this location, perhaps the fencing can be extended to provide the noise mitigation. Discussion ensued regarding moving the condensers as well as a hedge versus a fence. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:51 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. Bill Moore, Chairman requested the additional information be submitted to the Board by Monday, October 22, 2018. 2. #3063 O’CONNOR/KILDUFF TWO FAMILY, 54 White Street, area variance to construct an addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum lot size and minimum average lot width requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum lot size: Two-family 8,000 sq. ft. 7,648 sq. ft. 352 sq ft. (4.4%) Minimum parking spaces: Two-family 4 2 2 (50%) Applicant: Kathleen O’Connor- Kilduff Agent: Sue Davis, SD Atelier Architecture Ms. Davis stated the applicant has a lovely home on a nice sized lot. The applicant is looking to have her mother come and live with her. A visual presentation of the existing site versus the proposed site was provided to the Board. At one time a large three story building existed on the corner of this site and is no longer there. Currently the area houses some lovely gardens and a gravel driveway. We are proposing changing this from a one family home to a two family home. Two family homes are permitted in this area. We are short of the requirement for the lot size for a two City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 15, 2018 - Page 12 of 14 family home by 352 square feet. Additionally the width is short, the requirement is 76.28 square feet and the requirement is 80 square feet. We are looking to create a space which has a link from the kitchen area of the existing house. The addition will allow for a small bedroom area a functional bathroom and a little area where there is a sink. A visual of the context of the neighborhood was provided to the Board noting the single and two family homes. The addition was designed to the back of the property so as not to disturb the landscaping and gardens. We are trying to make it as small and compact as possible with a connection to the main house. We are requesting relief to allow this addition to be added to convert the house back to a two family. Also, to ask for a waiver of the additional parking spaces. Ms. Kathleen O’Connor- Kilduff stated her mother is elderly and no longer drives. She is from Michigan and currently lives at the Grove until the construction is completed. Cherie Grey questioned the applicant if other possibilities were considered. Ms. Grey stated the applicant would not need any variances if the applicant considered adding a bedroom and a bath and wouldn’t require a two family. Ms. Davis explained all the options they reviewed. Adam McNeill, Secretary questioned why this is being considered a two family. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated due to the small kitchenette proposed. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated if you didn’t have a small kitchenette but kept everything else the same in the same footprint then it is still a one family home and you do not need the two extra parking spaces. Discussion ensued among the Board as to what determines a two family home. Ms. Davis questioned the difference between a kitchen and kitchenette. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated we look at placement of a stove as a complete kitchen facility. Ms. Kathleen O’Connor- Kilduff stated her mother does not cook. She heats. Discussion ensued concerning what constitutes a complete kitchen. Ms. Davis stated if the applicant returns with floor plans and shows no kitchen. Bill Moore, Chairman stated then, there is no reason for the applicant to return. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs requested a copy of revised floor plans for the file and to close out the application. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:10 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we will leave the public hearing opened. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 15, 2018 - Page 13 of 14 Cherie Grey made a motion to approve the September 10, 2018 ZBA Meeting Minutes as amended. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; Rebecca Kern, in favor; Brad Gallagher, abstained MOTION PASSES: 5-0-1 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 10-29-18 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 15, 2018 - Page 14 of 14