Planning Commission

City of Schenectady Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 20, 2017 I. CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Wallinger called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. II. ATTENDANCE PRESENT: Mary Moore Wallinger, Chair; Bradley Lewis, Vice Chair; Ryan P. Bailey; Randall Beach; Richard Ferro; Andrew Healey; Beau Melita; Jason Bogdanowicz-Wilson; Christine Primiano, Principal Planner; Rachael Ward, Deputy Corporation Counsel EXCUSED: Julia Stone III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK Commissioner Beach recused himself from Old Business Item A, the Highbridge Prime Associates LLC proposal. Commissioner Wallinger recused herself from voting on New Business Item A, The Community Builders, Inc. proposal. Commissioner Ferro recused himself from voting on New Business Item B, the Salvatore Rasizzi proposal. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Healey, seconded by Commissioner Melita, to accept the Minutes of the November 15, 2017 meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously, with Commissioner Beach absent from the vote. V. OLD BUSINESS A. HIGHBRIDGE PRIME ASSOCIATES, LLC requests final approval of the windows for the four-story retail, office, and apartment building at 238-252 State Street, tax parcel #’s 39.71-3-8.1 and 10, located in a “C-4” Downtown Commercial District. Michael Roman of C2 Architecture, John Roth of Highbridge Prime Associates, and Paul Aspland of Andersen Windows presented the proposal. Mr. Roth explained that the project was originally approved with Anderson 100 Series windows, which are constructed of wood, but that they are proposing to instead use Anderson Silverline Series windows, which are a painted vinyl product. He noted that both windows are the same color, the dark bronze that was originally approved. Commissioner Wallinger asked the applicants to give a brief review of the project, since many of the Commissioners were appointed since its original approval. After Mr. Roman completed his review, Mr. Aspland presented samples of both products and discussed their specifications. He stated that the windows carry the same ten-year warranty, but the 100 Series are painted wood while the Silverline windows are a fibrex vinyl product with a special polyurethane paint. Commissioner Wallinger asked Mr. Roth if the configuration of the windows will remain the same. Mr. Roth stated it will and that the only change they are seeking approval for is the specific window product. Commissioner Wallinger stated that vinyl windows are strongly discouraged in the downtown district, but that as technology evolves she is not opposed to investigating the viability of new products. She noted that these windows will only be used on the second-story and above. Commissioner Ferro asked why the applicants are seeking approval for the vinyl windows. Mr. Roth responded that the 100 Series window cannot be tilted in for cleaning, while the Silverline vinyl windows can be. Commissioner Ferro asked what the windows would look like if the vinyl did fade. Mr. Aspland stated that it would not be a dramatic difference and that unless they were compared to a new bronze window the difference would probably be undetectable. Mr. Roth commented that this project is a very large one and that they are investing more than $20 million, and thus would not consider using an inferior product. He stated that they had done a lot of research before choosing this product, which they feel is the best available for this application. Mr. Aspland pointed out that the Silverline window has a slightly more detailed exterior frame than the 100 Series. Mr. Roth stated that he feels that the frame detail better supports the overall design of the building. Commissioner Wilson stated that while he is hesitant to open the door to allowing vinyl products downtown, he believes that this is a comparable product and that the difference would be undetectable from the street level. Commissioner Wallinger asked what would happen if after the warranty expires the windows begin to fade. Mr. Roth stated that he does not believe that they would fade to a degree that it would be noticeable. Mr. Aspland noted that the fading would not be as dramatic as older white vinyl windows, which have faded to yellow in the past. He stated that while they have never seen any dramatic fading in a product like this one, the windows can be painted in place if necessary. Commissioner Wilson asked how long this product has been in use. Mr. Aspland responded that it has been available for approximately three years. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 2  WINDOW APPROVAL Motion by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by Commissioner Lewis, to approve the windows as submitted. Motion carried, with Commissioner Beach abstaining. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. THE COMMUNITY BUILDERS INC. request site plan approval pursuant to Section 264-90 B and F of a proposal to redevelop 40 residential properties and construct 94 new residential units located at 732, 736, 738, 744, 811, 820, 824, 827, 830, 831, 834 and 840 Albany Street, 302, 304, 306, 308 and 310 Craig Street, 299, 301, 305, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, and 313 Germania Avenue, 288, 300, and 307 Paige Street, 802 and 806 Sprague Street, 701, 704, 706, 710 and 712 Stanley Street, 909, 911 and 913 Delamont Avenue, and 910 State Street; tax parcel #'s 49.24-5-23.2, 49.24-5-24, 49.24-5-25, 49.24-5-62, 49.33-5-63.1, 49.33-2-31, 49.33-5-62.1, 49.33-2-33, 49.33-5-61, 49.33-4-10, 49.33-4-11, 49.33-2-34, 49.33-2-35, 49.33-2-36, 49.33-2-37, 49.33-2-38.1, 49.24-5-23.1, 49.24-5-22, 49.24-5-21, 49.24-5-20, 49.24-4-22, 49.24-5-19, 49.24-4-23, 49.24-5-18, 49.24-5-17, 49.24-5-26, 49.24-5-27, 49.24-5-61, 49.33-2-65, 49.33-2-68, 49.33-2-64, 49.33-3-3, 49.33-3-4, 49.33-3-6, 49.33-3-7, 49.33-3-28, 49.33-3- 27, 49.33-3-26 and 49.33-3-29 respectively, located in the "R-2" Two Family Residential District, "C-2" Mixed Use Commercial District, and "C-4" Downtown Commercial District. Jennica Huff of The Community Builders, Dave Sadowsky, architect for the project, and Kelsey Carr of the Chazen Companies, presented the proposal. Because Commissioner Wallinger is a consultant for the project, she recused herself from the consideration and Commissioner Lewis led the discussion. Commissioner Lewis noted that the City Council is acting as Lead Agency for SEQR for the project, and thus no action can be taken on site plan approval until the SEQR comment period has closed. He also noted that as a separate entity, and an interested party, the Planning Commission may submit comments on the project if they feel compelled to do so. Ms. Huff gave a brief overview of the project, explaining how Phase One has been progressing and the proposal for Phase Two. Mr. Sadowsky discussed the specific locations of the project, including the proposed multi-unit buildings which will be constructed where several buildings have been razed and lots consolidated. Ms. Carr reviewed the variances they will be seeking from the BZA, noting that they do not feel that any of the variances are substantial. PUBLIC COMMENTS 3  Raymond Murrell of 309 Paige Street commented that he owns the property next to one of the lots that has been sold to Community Builders to construct a multi-unit apartment building. He stated that since he purchased his home in 2009 he has been maintaining and parking on that lot, and is disappointed that he was not offered a chance to purchase it from the City, as if often the case with vacant city-owned lots. He explained that he had inquired about the lot in the past, but had not followed up. He added that in addition to losing parking for himself and his tenant, the new development will leave his property virtually inaccessible from that side, as there will only be a four-foot buffer. Counselor Ward stated that while it is usually the case that vacant lots are offered to the adjacent property owners, this lot has been city-owned since 2004, and most likely was offered to the property owners who pre-dated Mr. Murrell’s ownership. Ms. Huff stated that TCB works very hard to be a good neighbor and would be willing to work with Mr. Murrell to work out a mutually agreeable parking arrangement. City Planner Primiano noted that any buffering of a residential property must be agreed upon by both parties before site plan approval will be granted for the project. Marion Porterfield, City Council member and resident of 842 Strong Street, spoke in support of Mr. Murrell, stating that while she voted in support of the project she had not been aware of his situation, and hoped that every effort would be made to address his concerns. Scott Cietek of Metroplex Development Authority spoke in favor of the proposal, stating that The Community Builders has been doing tremendous work in the community and that Metroplex believes that this project will transform the neighborhood for the better. Following the closing of the public comment portion of the meeting, Commissioner Lewis gave the applicants the opportunity to address some of the questions noted by city staff. Mr. Sadowsky asked if the Commission might communicate their support for the project to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Primiano asked the Commissioners if they would like her to draft a letter stating that they believe that the project will be in compliance with site plan requirements and that they would support the granting of the variances regarding the parking and setbacks. The Commissioners indicated that they would be in support of sending such a letter. B. SALVATORE RASIZZI requests site plan approval pursuant to Section 264-90 F of a proposal to construct 6 residential units and retail space at 105 Clinton Street, tax parcel # 39.72-4-2, located in a "C-4" Downtown Commercial District. Salvatore Rasizzi presented the proposal. Mr. Rasizzi explained that he would like to convert the former office building to six residential units with first floor retail. Commissioner Wallinger asked if he plans to make any changes or improvements to the exterior. Mr. Rasizzi 4  stated that he plans to clean up the exterior of the building, and when he secures first floor tenants it may be necessary to do more extensive work, but that he would return to the Commission for further approvals at that time. He added that his primary concern was making sure that the building would receive the necessary approvals for his intended purpose. PUBLIC COMMENTS Scott Cietek of Metroplex Development Authority spoke in favor of the proposal, stating that the project would be a very good one for this area and that Mr. Rasizzi will be making a significant investment in the community by renovating this building, which has been largely unmaintained inside for many years. Commissioner Wallinger commented that she is also happy to see this building put to good use, adding that she believes that a residential use would be a good fit for the area. SITE PLAN APPROVAL Motion by Commissioner Beach, seconded by Commissioner Wilson, to accept the proposal with the following conditions: 1. The address will remain prominently displayed so that it is easily visible from Clinton Street. 2. Metal roll gates and iron bars cannot be placed on any doors or windows at any time in the future. 3. The future commercial tenant will appear before the Planning commission to discuss their proposal and present their sign for approval. 4. All exterior repairs, renovations, and changes must be approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of a building permit or making that change. If the change is significant, it may require review by the Planning Commission. Motion carried, with Commissioner Ferro abstaining. C. MICHAEL KRUGER requests site plan approval pursuant to Section 264-90 M of a proposal to operate an electronic cigarette store at 146 Jay Street, tax parcel # 39.72-2-29.1, located in a "C-4" Downtown Commercial District. Michael Kruger presented the proposal. Mr. Kruger explained that he has electronic cigarette businesses in Rotterdam, Schenectady, and Brunswick, and that this will be his fourth location. He stated that he does not plan any changes to the exterior of the building, and would like to put vinyl letters in the window for signage. Commissioner Wilson stated that the existing sign in the sign board should be removed, since 5  it is an abandoned sign, and that he would prefer that the two tenants now sharing the building have two smaller signs in the sign board. Mr. Kruger stated that he would have no objection to the sign in the sign board. City Planner Primiano stated that she was not aware that the business with the sign was no longer in operation, or she would have noted that the sign must be removed immediately. PUBLIC COMMENTS Scott Cietek of Metroplex Development stated that while Metroplex understands that this is an allowed use and has nothing against this specific business owner, they do not believe that this business is the best use of the storefront in this area, which has been struggling in recent years. Moving forward he urged the Commission and the City Council to consider revising the downtown zoning code, so that this would not be an allowed use. Mr. Kruger stated that he takes his business very seriously and is an active board member of the statewide business association. He explained that they work very hard to uphold the law, meet all state and local requirements, and run a reputable business. SITE PLAN APPROVAL Motion by Commissioner Beach, seconded by Commissioner Wilson, to accept the proposal with the following conditions: 1. The address will remain prominently displayed so that it is easily visible from Jay Street. 2. Metal roll gates and iron bars may not be placed on any doors or windows at any time. 3. All exterior repairs, renovations, and changes must be approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of a building permit or making that change. If the change is significant, it may require review by the Planning Commission. 4. The Ideal Office Center sign is an abandoned sign and must be removed prior to the opening of the business. Two signs, one for each tenant in the building, will be hung in the existing sign board area and must be submitted to the City Planner for approval prior to the installation of the signs. Motion carried unanimously. VII. MISCELLANEOUS None. VIII. MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Commissioner Beach, seconded by Commissioner Healey, to adjourn the meeting. 6 Motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 8:34 p.m. 7