Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20180029 2776.2 Subdiv. info.CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS PLANNING BOARD LI City Hall - 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 Tel: 518-587-3550 fax: 518-580-9480 www.saratoga-springs.org MARK TORPEY, Chair ROBERT F. BRISTOL, Vice Chair TOM L. LEWIS CLIFFORD VAN WAGNER HOWARD PINSLEY JANET CASEY JAMIN TOTINO AMY DURLAND, Alternate RUTH HORTON, Alternate Planning Board Meeting — October 27, 2016 RECORD OF DECISION Members Present: Torpey, Bristol, Van Wagner, Lewis, Casey, Totino, Durland Member Absent: Pinsley A. Applications under Consideration: Opinion from the City Council. ACTION: Continued until November 10, 2016. 2. 04.029.1 Ice House Site Plan Modification, 70 and 72 Putnam Street, site plan modification review in a Transect -6 Urban Core (T-6) District. ACTION: No action. Continued until November 10, 2016. 3. 12.023.4 Congress Plaza Embassy Suites, 46 Congress Street, proposed site plan modification to eliminate vehicular access from South Federal Street in a Transect -5 Neighborhood Center (T- 5) District. ACTION: No action. Continued until November 10, 2016. 4. 16.014.1 21 Park PI Condos (app 2), 21 Park P1, 2 lot final residential subdivision within the Urban Residential -4 (UR -4) District. ACTION: No action. Continued until November 10, 2016. Signature: Planning Board Chair/7 Date: October 28, 2016 Dan Fourtier, Embassy Suites. Employees take their breaks facing Ash Street. Volume of traffic is heavy. The plaza at 3 PM the plaza is full. Encouraging more traffic into a busy parking lot, is begging a situation that we do not really want. The west side of the hotel should be duplicated on the east side of the plaza. Patrice Mastroianni, Serendipity Art Studio. I have asked the other tenants in my plaza and we all want the opening. A petition was circulated to the tenants and this was provided to the Board. We have two empty store fronts right now. We are struggling for recognition, no one can find us. Getting in and out of this entryway is difficult and dangerous. Many of the businesses really want another way to exist the plaza. They want an alternative. Also, no handicap access only on the end. Ashley Gardner, Ballston Spa. I can see people using this to avoid other streets. Impact on West Circular. More access would be great but it needs to be carefully looked at. Amy Durland read into the record that the petition submitted by Ms. Mastroianni consisted of 15 business owners who all indicated "We are in favor of the exit in the southeast comer of Congress Plaza to South Federal Street being constructed." She read some of their additional comments on the petition which indicated strong support for the new access. Amy Durland, alternate stated parking and traffic situation needs to be looked at. It sounds as if the project could benefit from a complete analysis and how it circulates. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman stated he walks this area often and feels altematives are worthy of studying. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated there will not be a vote this evening. We talked about a number of things. We need some information from DPW regarding their concerns. The Board would like to see alternatives and how they would be laid out especially some traffic calming. 175 seniors a day using the senior center and question if the parking in the area is sufficient. Long term engagements and interactions. Creighton Manning response in terms of the long term impacts. Mike Ingersoll stated the applicant will return back before the Board. We will check with the Commission of DPW. There is a possibility that this application be withdrawn. 8:40 P.M. The Board recessed. 8:50 P.M. The Board reconvened. 3. 16.014.1 21 PARK PLACE CONDOS (APP2), 21 Park Place, 2 lot residential subdivision within the UR -4 District. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated this application was submitted to the Board previously for an additional 4 units to be created on the site. The original application is still pending it has not been rescinded or tabled. This is a new application for a new project. This new project does not require any variances from the ZBA nor any review by the Design Review Commission. SEQRA: Requires SEQRA Type I (long form) action due to the proximity to the adjacent Historic District. Part I of the SEQRA form has been submitted. BACKGROUND: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals — October 27, 2016 - Page 5 of 7 Site Plan application for 4 additional residential units remains active for site. After significant review before the Board, the Board felt there were unresolved issues related to the "visual density" of the proposed project, loss of the estate lot setting currently provided at the site, access and loss of public parking, and proposed or potential loss of a number of 150-200 year old mature oak trees on the site. Applicants: Linda Haner and Dave Guarino Agent: Tonya Yasenchek, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchek stated she is here representing the owners. A visual presentation was provided for the Board's review. A site review of what currently exists was provided as well as a review of the old project. The applicant is currently requesting a 2 lot final residential subdivision which would meet the regulations. It is in the UR -4 zoning district which does allow for single and two family homes, accessory structures are allowed. This project requires no variances and is a much smaller less impactful project than what was previously submitted. The new lot will meet all area requirements. We have reduced a curbcut. There will be an easement which will allow for a shared driveway. We have also reviewed the trees. A letter from the arborist was included with this application. In this application 2 trees will be removed, 1 which is diseased and verified by the arborist. Discussion ensued regarding the possibility of not losing any trees on this lot. Ms. Yasenchek stated the applicant will also be making infrastructure improvements. The sidewalk and any area which needs to be repaired will be repaired and replaced in kind with a brick sidewalk. The curbing will be replaced as it needs to be as well as lighting and street trees to meet the city code. Ms. Yasenchak provided homes in the neighborhood and a view of what a potential home could look like. Ms. Yasenchek reviewed the listing of deed restrictions the applicant is proposing for the lot; there is currently no buyer at this time. Deed restrictions would include such items as height restriction, eaves and gables which would match the architecture of the area, certain square footage of porches on the structures which would engage people, gables facing each street, mechanicals shielded from view, roof pitches 5/12 minimum, which would help dictate the type of architecture used in this project. Also restrictions will be placed on the type of doors and windows style and materials, porches and balconies constructed of wood, no pressure treated wood on the structure. Jamin Totino stated he has some concerns regarding the easement versus shared driveway and the deed restrictions. Justin Grassi reviewed the purview of the Planning Board in subdivision approvals. These deed restrictions are being imposed by the applicant. Janet Casey stated she appreciates the owner putting restrictions on the property; however she is uncomfortable with the process and feels it could be problematic. It does not feel right. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak concerning this application. Dan Meaney, property owner on the north side. Spoke concerning homes in the area which were rehabbed back to livable homes. Feels if the property is subdivided the beauty of the existing structure will be blocked. Alice O'Brien, 23 Park Place. I believe the applicant is looking to circumvent the rules of the subdivision. I am very nervous and uncomfortable with what will be developed here. Park Place is a busy place, and dangerous. Side by side curb cuts are a concern. Jane White, 34 White Street. We have lived in the neighborhood since 1978. How would these deed restrictions be enforced. What assurance is there that these restrictions would be enforced. Justin Grassi reviewed how this could be enforced. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals — October 27, 2016 - Page 6 of 7 Mr. Z, attomey for the applicant stated this would be noted on the deed and filed with the County Clerk's office. Andrea Gardner, 105 Regent Street. Her concern is if the subdivision is approved and they do not build what happens. Also, is concerned regarding the mature trees. Amy Durland, alternate stated the subdivision exists and goes with the land. John Kaufman, 44 White Street. Spoke concerning the subdivision. Permitting a subdivision is a privilege and it isn't a right. I envy the man that owns this land and this lot and it is a beautiful thing. The loss is significant, loss of the trees, and the lot, Mark Torpey, Chairman asked counsel to expound on the granting of a subdivision. Is it a right or a privilege? Justin Grassi, Attorney for the Land Use Boards, stated if the Board were to deny the subdivision they would need to have identifiable criteria to deny. Mr. Zee stated the lot does meet the minimum lot requirement and the Planning Board does not look at structures. The power of this Board comes from the SEQRA portion of the application and the environmental regulations. Justin Grassi, Attorney for the Land Use Boards, stated what Mr. Zee stated is correct. The underlying uses are permitted uses and do not require any further site plan or DRC review. Clifford Van Wagner stated the Planning Board can review subdivisions but do not have to approve, especially in reviewing the SEQRA environmental impacts. Discussion ensued regarding the SEQRA Environmental review and determination. Mr. Z spoke concerning saving the tree in question and reconfiguring the proposed structure and addressing the jog in the property to the concerns of the Board. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning all the issues which need to be addressed during the SEQRA review. Clifford Van Wagner requested the city arborist review the status of the trees and amount of disturbance the trees can tolerate. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we will not review SEQRA this evening. This will be reviewed at our next meeting. Perhaps this application can be reviewed to retain the aesthetics of the property and what flexibility we have to preserve the opening and the visual impact of this property. Janet Casey questioned how small the applicant is willing to go as far as size of the structure on this lot. Perhaps this could be something the applicant can return with. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the November 10, 2016 meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Mark Torpey, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals — October 27, 2016 - Page 7 of 7