Planning Commission

City of Schenectady Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 28, 2017 I. CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Wallinger called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. II. ATTENDANCE PRESENT: Mary Moore Wallinger, Chair; Bradley Lewis, Vice Chair; Randall Beach; Sara Bonacquist; Mitchell Miller; Christopher Rush; Julia Stone; Marc Thompson; Jason Bogdanowicz-Wilson; Christine Primiano, Principal Planner; Rachel Ward, Deputy Corporation Counsel III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK Commissioner Wallinger and Commissioner Lewis stated that they would be recusing themselves from consideration of Item B, the Union College proposal. Commissioner Wallinger’s husband and Commissioner Lewis are employed by Union College. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Stone, seconded by Commissioner Miller, to accept the Minutes of the March 15, 2017 meeting as submitted. Motion carried, with Commissioner Wallinger abstaining. V. OLD BUSINESS A. HUDSON PARTNERS MAXON POINTE SCHENECTADY LLC requests site plan approval pursuant to Section 264-90 B and F of a proposal to construct four (4) two-story apartment buildings, each with 20 units and eight (8) single family homes at 2515 Van Vranken Avenue, tax parcel #’s 30.76-3-1 through 46, located in a “PRD” Planned Residential Development District. Andy Brick, attorney for the applicants, Tom Andress of ABD Engineers and Surveyors, and Chris Maddalone, developer, presented the proposal. Mr. Brick explained that at the last meeting the proposal for the project, now known as “The Reserve at Towpath Trail”, had initially been presented and the Commissioners present had expressed some concerns regarding two major issues: the landscaping plan and the aesthetics of the apartment buildings. Due to these concerns the application had been tabled. Mr. Brick stated that his clients were prepared to address those concerns at the meeting. Mr. Andress began his presentation with a brief review of the history of the property. He then presented the landscaping plan, explaining that they had designed a landscaping module which would consist of a planted bed with shrubs and smaller plants, as well as additional features such as a large stone or boulder. He stated that each apartment building would have three of these modules installed in the front of the buildings, as well as a variety of twenty additional shrubs planted around each building. Mr. Andress added that while there will not be a lot of space for landscaping in front of the single-family homes there might be room to plant a small ornamental tree or a large shrub in the front yards. City Planner Primiano asked Mr. Andress what the plans are for the existing stockade fence which surrounds the property and is in various stages of disrepair. Mr. Andress stated that the fence will be repaired or replaced as necessary. Mr. Andress next presented the revised elevation drawings for the apartment buildings; the drawings depicted the new varied siding designs and colors. He explained that the bodies of the apartment buildings would be darker than originally proposed, with a lighter siding for contrast used as an accent, and passed around samples of the vinyl siding colors being proposed. He also noted that stone has been added at the base of the buildings. Commissioner Bonacquist asked what the dimensions of the landscape modules will be. Mr. Andress responded that they will be at least seven to eight feet in length, but might vary slightly depending on the location. Commissioner Wallinger noted that there is a large amount of parking in front of the buildings, which will obscure much of the lower landscaping from view. She suggested that shade trees be planted in the grassy areas to provide some higher interest. She suggested three trees in front of each building. The Commissioners agreed that this would be a good idea. Commissioner Wallinger stated that she would also like to see additional trees on the entrance road coming off Van Vranken Avenue. She suggested a tree between each of the streetlights. Mr. Andress stated that there currently are trees in that location, but that if it is necessary they will be replaced. Commissioner Wallinger noted that there could also be trees added in the grassy area between the rear facades of buildings 2 and 3. The Commissioners and Mr. Andress agreed. Commissioner Wilson stated that he appreciated the changes made to the building finishes and colors, particularly on the fronts of the buildings, but added that he would like to see some additional revisions made to the rear facades, perhaps by adding a contrasting color of siding along the top portion of the buildings. He also noted that the two shades of siding proposed looked quite close in color, and suggested that the lighter color be even a shade lighter to provide adequate contrast. Mr. Maddalone stated that he would be amenable to this. Commissioner Stone asked if there will be a dumpster or where trash storage will be for each building. Mr. Andress responded that they have decided not 2 to use a dumpster due to potential issues with unauthorized use, but that there will be an enclosed storage area for trash cans at the end of each building. Commissioner Stone asked if there will be a rental office on the property or a full-time staff person on site, adding that she is concerned about the maintenance of a property this large. Mr. Maddalone responded that there will not be an office on-site, but that he has a large building maintenance staff and is confident that they can handle this development. PUBLIC COMMENTS A letter from Stacey Peterson, resident of Stevenson Street, was entered into the record. Ms. Peterson stated that at the prior meeting Mr. Andress had stated that there were three access points to the development, and she would like clarification on what those were. Mr. Andress clarified that he had been referring to the Anthony Street entrance, as well as access from Van Vranken Avenue and from Enterprise Drive via Van Vranken Avenue. A letter from Erica Means of 2505 Van Vranken Avenue was entered into the record. Ms. Means stated that she is opposed to the development due to the increase in traffic, noise, and air pollution that she feels it will bring to the area. Scott Cietek of Metroplex Development Authority spoke in favor of the proposal. Mr. Cietek stated that the project will be a great solution to an area that has been a problem for many years. He added that he believes that if this development does not move forward it may a long time before something else might happen on this site, if ever. SITE PLAN APPROVAL Motion by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by Commissioner Bonacquist, to accept the proposal with the following conditions: 1. The addresses will be prominently displayed on the buildings so that they are easily visible from the street. 2. Three shade trees will be planted in front of each building. 3. Four shade trees will be planted between the rear facades of buildings 2 and 3. 4. The trees on North End Drive at the entrance to the development will be in healthy and viable condition. If necessary the existing trees will be replaced. 5. The rear façade of the building will be trimmed with the contrasting siding color at the top. 6. The light shade of siding will be one shade lighter to provide more contrast with the darker shade. 7. A final revised landscaping plan and elevation drawings showing the proposed changes discussed at the meeting will be submitted to the City Planner for final review and approval. 3  8. Any signage must be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to the fabrication or installation of any signs. Motion carried unanimously. B. UNION COLLEGE requests site plan approval pursuant to Section 264- 90 I of a proposal to demolish portions of the Science and Engineering Building and construct two additions, increasing the building by 22,332 square feet at 807 Union Street, tax parcel # 39.66-1-1, located in an “I” Institutional District. Due to the recusal of Commissioners Wallinger and Lewis, Commissioner Wilson led this portion of the meeting. Loren Rucinski, Director of Facilities and Planning for Union College, Jim Connors of Chazen Engineering, and David Clemenzi of EYP Architecture presented the proposal. Mr. Connors began the presentation by reviewing the site plan and giving an overview of the project, which will include demolishing two of the existing sections of the science building, renovating the remaining three sections, and adding a small addition to incorporate the facades of the renovated sections. He stated that there will be no increase in staff or students as a result of the project, and that the new building will only be visible outside of campus if viewed from the vantage point of the football field area. Mr. Connors noted that while the current science and engineering building was built in the seventies it has reached the end of its life span, as what is needed to deliver a high-quality education experience in these fields has changed dramatically over the past few decades. He stated that they have received all necessary approvals for the project from the State Office of Historic Preservation. Mr. Connors explained that the demolition of two sections of the building will allow for a greater traffic flow in that area of the campus, as the current building creates a long wall that is difficult to circumnavigate. He added that because they will be disturbing over an acre of land they have submitted a full Storm Water Management Plan, which explains how they will be capturing and treating run-off. He noted that their plan goes beyond what is required, and that the total impervious surface will remain essentially the same. Mr. Connors stated that there will be significant landscaping added around the site, which will be consistent with the landscaping across the rest of the campus. He also commented that the project will have no effect on campus parking, of which he stated the college has an excess available, or on infrastructure, although he noted that the higher efficiency of the renovated building will most likely result in a positive impact on the use of resources and air quality. 4  Mr. Clemenzi next reviewed the exterior elevations of the building and the design aspects of it. He noted that the current building is very circuitous and difficult no navigate through on the inside, and that the new building footprint will eliminate this problem. He explained that the project will begin with the renovation of the first three sections of the building, and the construction of the addition, and then once the new spaces are ready the last two sections will be demolished. Mr. Clemenzi explained that the new façade on one side of the building will very directly reference the architectural style seen throughout campus, with simple stucco surfaces and arched details. He stated that the other side of the building will also reference that style, but will have a more contemporary aesthetic, with the use of lots of glass to let in natural light. He noted that the false top half-story will conceal the HVAC equipment that will be on the roof. Commissioner Bonacquist asked if the lighting fixtures and details will be the same as those used on the rest of campus. Mr. Rucinski stated that they will be. Commissioner Wilson noted that although Mr. Connors stated that there is an excess of parking on campus, in his opinion it is skewed towards one end of the campus and away from where people want to park for sporting events on campus. He suggested that perhaps when considering their master plan the College could take this into consideration. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. SEQR RESOLUTION Motion by Commissioner Bonacquist, seconded by Commissioner Rush, to accept the Negative Declaration. Motion carried, with Commissioners Wallinger and Lewis abstaining. SITE PLAN APPROVAL Motion by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Stone, to accept the proposal with the following condition: 1. If during construction it becomes evident that changes must be made to the plans approved by the Planning Commission the applicants will return to the City Planner, and the Planning Commission if deemed necessary, for further review and approval. Motion carried, with Commissioners Wallinger and Lewis abstaining. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. 5 VII. MISCELLANEOUS The Commissioners wished Commissioners Bonacquist and Miller well as this was their last meeting as members of the Commission. VIII. MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by Commissioner Beach, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m. 6