Planning Commission

City of Schenectady Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 20, 2021 I. CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Wallinger called the meeting to order at 6:12 p.m. II. ATTENDANCE PRESENT: Mary Moore Wallinger, Chair; Bradley Lewis, Vice Chair; Randall Beach; Nick Petrillo; Jason Bogdanowicz-Wilson; Christine Primiano, Principal Planner EXCUSED: Richard Ferro; Andrew Koldin, Corporation Counsel III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK None. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Healey, seconded by Commissioner Wilson, to approve the Minutes of the September 22, 2021 meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously, with Commissioner Lewis absent from the vote. V. NEW BUSINESS A. DAV CONSTRUCTION CORP. requests subdivision approval pursuant to Chapter 230 of the City Code to subdivide the lot from one parcel to three parcels at 3323 McDonald Avenue, tax parcel # 60.78-1-3, located in an “R-1” Single Family Residential District. John Hitchcock from ABD Engineers presented the proposal on behalf of his client, DAV Construction Corp. Mr. Hitchcock described the parcel of land as a total of 0.3 acres and it is zoned Single Family Residential. The proposal is to subdivide the land into three (3) lots so that three (3) single family homes can be constructed and sold. The 3 homes will face Chadwick Road. The existing single family home will be demolished prior to the filing of the subdivision map with the County Clerk’s office. The applicant will file for all necessary permits prior to doing any work at the site. Commissioner Wallinger asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for the applicant’s representative. Commissioner Wilson asked what the size of each lot will be. Planning staff stated that 2 lots will be 5,600 SF and the third lot will be a little larger and noted that the minimum lot area in this zoning district is 5,000 SF. Commissioner Wallinger opened the public hearing. Resident Rosanna Willey and her husband from 3311 McDonald Avenue, stepped forward to address the Commission. Their concern is that 3 houses on the one lot will be too dense for the neighborhood. Parking is an existing problem, especially on Chadwick Road because it is narrow. Sometimes snowplows can’t get down the road with cars parked on the sides. There is a neighbor on McDonald Avenue that regularly has 10 cars full of visitors and they take up all the street parking near where the new houses are proposed. Mrs. Willey asked if it is going to be a problem that her existing fence is 10 inches into her property instead of on the property line. Commissioner Wallinger and planning staff stated it is not a problem to have the fence where it is, it just can’t go passed the property line. Commissioner Wallinger asked Mr. Hitchcock how many parking spaces are on each property and if there will be garages. Mr. Hitchock stated that each house will have a garage and a driveway long enough to fit 2 additional cars. Commissioner Wallinger explained to the members of the public that the subdivision review is very limited and that the scope is to review the size of the lots and their location and as long as they comply with the zoning regulations and no adverse impacts are identified, it is their responsibility to approve the subdivision. Mr. Willey stated that he didn’t think there would be a market for the houses because there are already several houses for sale in the neighborhood. Mr. Hitchcock stated that each home will be built as it is sold. They will not all be built at once and then sold. Commissioner Lewis joins the meeting. Ruth and John Reek from 3320 McDonald Avenue ask if the houses are going to be rental properties. Mr. Hitchcock states they will be sold to families, not rented out by the current owner and reiterates that the houses won’t be built until someone wants to buy the lot and build the house. Mrs. Reek state there is a parking problem on both streets. Commissioner Wallinger explains that the parking complies with the zoning regulations. Commissioner Petrillo states that he sees the benefit of having 3 new houses-built verses the existing blight that is currently there with the vacant house. Mr. and Mrs. Reek state they are also concerned about the issues with snow plowing and the double parking in the street. Planning staff recommends that they call the Traffic Division of the Police Department and report the parking issues. The resident of 3312 McDonald Avenue stepped forward and stated that he had a concern about storm drainage. He also stated that 3 driveways constructed so close to the corner is unsafe. Planning staff explained that the driveways would meet City requirements, a minimum of 20 feet from the corner. Mr. Hitchcock stated that they are currently shown on the site plan as 60 feet from the corner. Residents of 3320 McDonald Avenue said they are concerned about drainage and being so close to the Woodlawn Preserve. Commissioner Healey explained to the neighbors that the building permit application gets reviewed by the Building Inspector and City Engineer and that those concerns will be reviewed and addressed at the time of permit review. Commissioner Wallinger read into the record a letter from Katherine Heath of 513 Chadwick Road, which stated her concerns about having 3 houses built next to her property and that it will affect her peace and quiet in her yard. Commissioner Wallinger closed the public hearing. Commissioner Wallinger reminds the members of the public that the proposal meets the standards of the zoning regulations and their concerns regarding drainage will be addressed during permit review. Commissioner Wallinger asks if there are any further questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were none. Motion by Commissioner Healey, seconded by Commissioner Wilson, to adopt a Negative Declaration, as no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposal. Motion carried unanimously. Subdivision approval: Motion by Commissioner Beach, seconded by Commissioner Petrillo, to approve the proposal to subdivide the lot at 3323 McDonald Avenue from one lot to three lots with the following conditions: 1. City Code Enforcement and Engineering staff will closely review the proposal for compliance with adequate parking and proper storm water drainage in place. 2. The subdivision will be filed with County Clerk’s office prior to the issuance of building permits. The motion carried unanimously. B. CKR STATE, LLC requests site plan approval and a Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 264-90 H and Schedule B of a proposal to construct a 16,190 SF building for use as a self- service storage warehouse at 1868 State Street, tax parcel # 60.47-1-9, located in a “C-5” Business District. John Hitchcock from ABD Engineers represented the applicant and described the proposal. The storage facility was issued site plan approval and a Special Use Permit approximately one year ago and the applicant is back to construct an additional 16,000 SF building. Due to the loss of greenspace on site from eliminating the parking islands, additional greenspace was added to the western side of the site adjacent to the proposed parking area. Also, the striping that was proposal at the entrance to the site will be replaced with greenspace. Commissioner Wallinger asked if there were any questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Wilson asked if there were any elevations of the building. Mr. Hitchcock displayed the elevation renderings. The side for the new building will match the cream color of the existing building and there will be foundation plantings along the front of the building. Commissioner Wallinger reminded Mr. Hitchcock that landscaping details are required in the application submission. Also, a minimum of four feet should be provided for all landscaping. Commissioner Wallinger asked if windows or taller shrubs could be planted on the western side of the building because that wall is blank. Mr. Hitchcock indicated that windows could be added. Commissioner Wallinger noted the small flowering tree on the eastern side of the building. More trees need to be added in the western planting area; 2 small flowering trees can be added near the entrance where greenspace is being added. Also, a planting bed will be added on the western side of the building where the sidewalk ends; windows will be added on the other side of the exit door. Commissioner Wallinger opened the public hearing. There were no public comments, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Wallinger asked if there were comments or questions from the Commissioners. There were none. Motion by Commissioner Healey, seconded by Commissioner Beach, to adopt a Negative Declaration, as no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposal. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Petrillo, seconded by Commissioner Wilson, to approve the site plan with the following conditions: A revised site plan will be submitted to Planning staff for final approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The site plan will show the additional landscaping discussed: a. A landscaping bed will be added to the side of the building. b. The landscaping bed in front of the building will be a minimum of four feet wide. c. Two additional flowering trees will be added at the entrance to the site. Motion by Commissioner Healey, seconded by Commissioner Beach, to approve the Special Use Permit based on the following findings of fact:  There will be no negative impact on neighboring properties because it is a commercial corridor.  The proposed density is not greater than the surrounding properties.   The site and use is adequately served by onsite parking.  There will not be a significant increase in traffic to the site or on State Street, as it is already a busy corridor.  Storage will be within the new addition and not in public view.  There will be no loss of significant features or historic characteristics.  The proposal complies with all zoning regulations in Chapter 264. The motion carried unanimously C. STEWART’S SHOPS CORP. requests site plan approval and a Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 264-90 G, J, and Schedule B of a proposal to construct a 3,975 SF convenience store with self-service gas facilities at 1020 McClellan Street 1501 Union Street, and 1503 Union Street, tax parcel # 50.21-2-74.1,75, and 74.2, located in a “C-2” Mixed Use Commercial District. Marcus Andrews appeared before the Commission to represent Stewart’s. Mr. Andrews described the proposal to construct a new 3,925 SF store with a fueling canopy containing 6 fueling stations. The building will face McClellan Street and have an entrance on McClellan Street for compliance with the City’s zoning regulations. All new sidewalks will be provided around the perimeter of the site. There will be a 30-foot setback from the rear of the building to the property line adjacent to the residential neighbors to provide and adequate buffer. The buffer will consist of landscaping and fencing. The proposed gas canopy will have a pitched roof and stone column bases. Next, Mr. Andrews briefed the Commission on the neighborhood meeting held with the neighbors. Stewarts conducted a light study of the parking lot lighting and canopy lighting to show where that all light will be maintained on the property. Commissioner Beach stated that he could imagine kids hanging out and hiding behind the building because it is out of view. Commissioner Wilson noted that the building has a better connection to McClellan Street than it currently does. Commissioner Wallinger stated that she wanted to be clear that she is very supportive of Stewart’s shops overall but that she is struggling with whether a Stewart’s with a gas canopy, and the canopy out front, is appropriate for the neighborhood and street. Commissioner Wallinger then described how the Comprehensive Plan explains the importance of the rhythm of the buildings, the pedestrian environment, and architectural character on Union Street, then asked if the Planning Commission would approve any other gas station if the Sunoco Station wasn’t already there? This site should not be compared to the gas station on the next block of McClellan Street because that site is surrounded by other significant commercial sites. Commissioner Wallinger stated that there is a definite pedestrian safety conflict with the amount of traffic entering and exiting the site. Further, based on the design standards in the zoning code, the Planning Commission has historically not approved parking lots on corners. The proposed scenario B is not a building on the corner. Maybe it would be a good idea to go through the Special Use Permit criteria. Commissioner Petrillo stated that if the proposal was to tear down the funeral home only to construct a Stewarts, he would not be in favor of the proposal, but this application is for also tearing down the Sunoco, which would be an improvement at the intersection. He would also be more in favor of this proposal with the building located at the front of the site, close to Union Street. Mr. Andrews countered that a building on Union Street puts the canopy and the noise and lights adjacent to the residential properties and further pointed out that the Stewart’s proposal is improving the impervious surface from 86% to 57%. Commissioner Beach asked Mr. Andrews if he is away of any necessary environmental cleanup. Commissioner Healey added that any redevelopment of this site would probably include another gas station simply because of the existence of the current gas station. Commissioner Wallinger then asked, “So do we approve this proposal because it’s the lesser of two evils, or do we only approve a proposal that is appropriate for the character of the neighborhood?” Commission Wilson stated that he really dislikes this site as a site for a gas station, especially because this proposal discontinues the street wall even more than currently exists. Commissioner Lewis stated that the current situation is unsafe for pedestrians and a sea of asphalt. Stewart’s option B could be very nice if there is an outdoor seating area at the corner. Commissioner Wallinger asked why option B could not be turned to be placed at the corner. Commissioner Wilson suggested because they need to have a “back of the house” and Mr. Andrews agreed that they need locations for coolers, condensers, other mechanicals. Mr. Andrews further stated that workers need to be able to see the gas pumps and monitor all entrances. Stewart’s has found that having one short side of the building and one long side with entrances works best for their security operations. A corner entrance closest to the pumps also works. Commissioner Wallinger opened the public hearing. Richard Unger, from 216 ½ Union Street, stated that he travels on Union Street daily and that it would be a tremendous loss to the streetscape if the building wasn’t located at the front of the site, with the canopies behind the building. There are many options to protect the neighbors from light and sound. The priorities should be: 1. Maintain the street wall, 2. Maintain the character of the neighborhood, 3. Protect adjacent neighbors from any perceived negative impacts. The goal of True Urbanism is to protect the good that you already have, which would be maintaining the rhythm of the street wall by having the building located on Union Street. Commissioner Wallinger then read the letter submitted by Tom Carey, who was representing the Upper Union Street Neighborhood Association. Commissioner Wallinger closed the public hearing. Commissioner Wallinger asked for comments from the Commissioners. Commissioner Petrillo stated, when considered impacts, one of the proposed uses does impact the neighborhood and the other doesn’t, which is why he is torn. Commissioner Wallinger stated that the purpose for the Special Use Permit is required for the use that would, or could, impact the neighborhood. Mr. Andrews stated that Stewarts would be able to put a variety of different fencing in combination with landscaping to maintain the feel of the street wall. Commissioner Wallinger questioned whether that would be an adequate way to maintain a street wall. She further stated that she would like to see Stewarts show the Commission different layouts for the building, with different entrances, and explain how they work or don’t work, but a priority needs to be to provide an entrance on Union Street. It’s possible to put the canopy behind the building, but far enough away from the neighbors that a significant buffer with large evergreen trees, solid fencing, and beaming to mitigate the possible impacts. Commission Wilson said that he thinks there should be a way to put the building at the corner along Union Street, with seating in front of the building. Mr. Andrews stated that Stewarts can’t make the layout of the inside work if there are three entrances to the store, along with windows on three sides. Commissioners Beach and Petrillo agree that they would like to see different options for the layout, with the components of the building to see if a redesign different from the normal Stewarts layout is possible. Commissioner Healey agreed he would also like to see this information. Commissioner Wallinger took a poll to see who would like to table the proposal and who would be ready for a decision. The consensus was to table the proposal so the applicant could provide new information to discuss. Motion by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by Commissioner Beach, to table the proposal. As discussed at the meeting, the Planning Commission has requested that Stewart’s explore a variety of different interior layouts of the store to accommodate entrances on Union Street and on the back of the building facing the parking lot, to allow the building to be placed at the front of the site along Union Street. Please provide any updates you have to your proposal by the monthly filing deadline on November 24th, for the December 15, 2021 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. D. SCHENECTADY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM requests site plan approval pursuant to Section 264-90 G of a proposal to construct a 8,030 SF addition to the existing structure at 100 Bigelow Avenue, tax parcel # 49.67-3-5.2, located in a “C-5” Business District. Michael Schafer, Schafer Engineering, presented the proposal on behalf of the Schenectady Community Action Program. Mr. Schafer described that the site is currently a daycare center operated by SCAP. The proposal is to construct an 8,030 SF addition and there will be an infill building between the existing facility and the new addition that will act as the main point of entry for the facility. In an effort to accentuate this portion of the building, they are proposed to use a stacked-stone façade treatment. Mr. Schafer than noted the changes to the parking lot, the additional spaces being added to the existing parking lot, and the elimination of the horseshoe driveway in front of the building. Commissioner Wallinger asked if a ‘hammerhead’ could be added to the far end of the parking lot to allow cars in those spaces to back out. Mr. Schafer indicated that would not be a problem. Mr. Schafer noted that the amount of impervious surface is being decreases because of the removal of the horseshow driveway. Commissioner Wallinger asked if three large street trees could be added to the grass area in front of the building. Mr. Schafer indicated that they will be added to the plan. Commissioner Wilson asked if there is a sign at the entrance to the building. Mr. Schafer said that there was no plan for a sign at the entrance but asked if one could be submitted later. Commissioner Wallinger said it could be submitted to the City Planner for final approval. Planning staff asked Mr. Schafer if there was any change in onsite lighting. Mr. Schafer said all existing light is sufficient and will not need to change. Commissioner Wallinger asked if landscaping will be added near the addition. Mr. Schafer said that foundation plantings, similar to what exists along the building, will also be planted along the foundation of the addition. Commissioner Wallinger opened the public hearing. There were no public comments, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Wallinger asked if there were any comments from the Commissioners. There were no further comments. Motion by Commissioner Beach, seconded by Commissioner Healey, to adopt a Negative Declaration, as no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposal. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Beach, seconded by Commissioner Healey, to issue conditional site plan approval with the following revisions to be made to the site plan and submitted for to Planning staff for final approval prior to the issuance of building permits: 1. There will be three large shade trees planted in the front yard where the driveway is being removed. The trees can be Red Maple, Honey Locust, or disease resistant Elms. 2. Additional pavement will be added to the rear parking spaces at the end of the parking lot to allow for adequate backing out of those spaces. The motion carried unanimously. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. SEAT CENTER requests a revised site plan approval pursuant to Section 264-90 M of a proposal to operate an adult education facility at 110 South Church Street, tax parcel # 39.71-1-44, located in a “C-4” Downtown Commercial District. Commissioner Beach recused himself from the review of the proposal. Commissioner Wallinger went on the record to explain her existing relationship with the SEAT center, which is not a conflict of interest. Jake Williams, from BBL Construction Services, appeared before the Commission to describe the proposed changes to the site plan. Mr. Williams explained that the changes were due to lack of funding to complete all of the landscaping and awnings. The City Planner explained that it is a zoning code requirement to have the landscaping that buffers the parking from the sidewalk and that the proposed plantings in front of the building could be in smaller planter pots. The Commission and Mr. Williams agreed that a total of six large pots, three pots on either side of the main entrance, would be acceptable. Commissioner Wallinger opened the public hearing. There were no public comments, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Wallinger asked if there were any comments from the Commissioners. There were none. Motion by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by Commissioner Healey, to issue site plan approval of the revised site plan, which include the following changes: 1. There will be 6 large planter pots placed adjacent to the front of the building to replace the large planter beds originally planned. 2. The awnings will be removed from the windows. 3. Landscaping will not be installed along the side of the building, but will be installed in the four foot buffer between the sidewalk and the parking lot. A flowering tree will be planted on either side of the driveway. Motion carried unanimously. B. LUQMAN HUSSEIN requests site plan approval pursuant to Section 264-90 M of a proposal to operate a smoke shop at 21 State Street, tax parcel # 39.63-3-31, located in a “C-4” Downtown Commercial District. Nabeel Shohatee appeared before the Commission to present the proposal for the applicant, who is out of town. Mr. Shohatee explained that the applicant has a verbal agreement with the neighbor to share garbage storage facilities. City Planning staff informed Mr. Shohatee that it is a City requirement that everyone has garbage storage and removal service in place and that at no time can the applicant remove his own garbage. Mr. Shohatee agreed that would not be a problem. Commissioner Wallinger asked if the building will be repainted white. Mr. Shohatee stated they are open to suggestions by the Commission. The Commission suggested a tan/ limestone color that is similar to a color on portions of the neighboring building, because white tends to get dirty very easily in high traffic areas. The window trim, cornice, door, and all other trim may remain white. Commissioner Petrillo asked if there is enough space for cars to turn around in the back or if cars will have to back all the way down the driveway and on to State Street. Mr. Shohatee said there is plenty of space for cars to turn around and that they will not have to back down the driveway and into the street. Commissioner Wallinger opened the public hearing. There were no public comments, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Wallinger asked if there were any comments from the Commissioners. There were none. Motion by Commissioner Lewis, seconded by Commissioner Petrillo, to issue approval of the proposal with the revision that the building will be painted a tan or limestone color and that the color will be submitted to the City Planner for final approval prior to painting the building. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Wallinger asked if there was any other business to discuss. Planning Staff gave an update on the 90 Elmer Avenue Senior Housing proposal submitted by Home Leasing. The applicant has requested a one-year extension of their site plan approval due to their pending application for funding through the New York State Division of Homes and Community Renewal. There was no objection to this request and no discussion by the Commission. Motion by Commissioner Lewis, seconded by Commissioner Petrillo, to issue site plan approval of the proposal with the following amendment: The building will be painted a tan or limestone paint color. The color will be submitted to the City Planner for final approval prior to painting the building. All window and door trim, entry doors and the cornice will be painted white. The motion carried unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Beach, seconded by Commissioner Healey, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:28 p.m.