The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20210062 Stewarts Marion Avenue- Maple Dell PUD Correspondance �t�e�.,a.n�� April 13, 2021 Mr. Mark Torpey, Chairman City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs,New York 12866 Chairman Torpey and Members of Saratoga Springs Planning Board, At our last appearance, Stewart's was tasked with reevaluating our proposal in consideration of the existing zoning, 2015 Comprehensive Plan,the Uniform Development Ordinance and the Marion Avenue Gateway Overlay. In consideration of that directive, we offer the following comments and alterations to the plan. Bufferin� 11 Marion Ave (SBL: 153.17-2-5): We envision that component of the public benefit will include a deeded buffer preventing development for portion of 11 Marion Ave. UR-2 Parcel (SBL: 153.-2-3.1): There was much discussion about the current zoning (UR-2) shading in the Comprehensive Plan which called for it to be Conservation Development District (CDD). Stewart's has since removed this parcel from the application and parcels involved are now only those identified in map below. � �� ' �� ;^�� la' `T. ` � STEWARTS �: a�- � . 2S ACRES R� � " � � �F. . .�` �.. _ I ^� � 'a'�,. � �.� � ' s; , +. � '� 9 � , � l- 54 MARION�LLC • - � � �h 0.4 ACRES � ♦ �� _� �, � ' STEWARTS �� r,' � 1.7 ACRES �� A . - � Parcels Involved in Marion Ave—Maple Dell PUD 34 Marion Ave (SBL:166.5-3-25): In the original submission, 34 Marion Ave was proposed to be included in the CI zone. Stewart's is now modifying that request for inclusion of that parcel in the P/M/I zone so that it will match the south side of Maple Dell, this change is reflected in the map below. 1 � �%� ;'�� - � �" �'�. ,� :.�! . .�. .. �;� ; . `� ,,. 1 �# �� ry �� - f G �.. :�. � � ' -, �`, s r� - -�-e � . � � �d. � . , � . ,, ,`�,,�;� 4 � �� . • � 1� Q 1 , --,� �4 '� . � ,� P11YU1 , _ � � : r , • 4 �i �.r i �� , ` -. »� � •M w J f .� i"{_. . _ �-�'�� _ �Ms ' � �r� " M►"_ " Revised Intended Zoning for PUD Parcels Comparison with the Comprehensive Plan and Proposed UDO: The parcels involved in the PUD are (currently) either zoned TRB or UR-2 both of which allow inclusion in PUDs. None of the parcels are seeking an increase in density requiring 10.2.4 consideration and nothing in Section 10 prevents conversion of a residential piece to commercial, or vice versa. The Comprehensive Plan does show the southern portion of Maple Dell included in the Complementary Core (CC) and the eastern side of Marion Ave converted from TRB to UR-2. Analysis of current zoning, Comprehensive Plan and UDO offered in Table 1 below. Table 1: PUD Parcels and Conformance to Base Zonin Address SBL Cont'ormi❑g Status Current Comp Plan UDO to Enacted Zoning Zonin Recommendation Recommendation 166.5-3- Vacant/iJse 34 Marion Ave 25 Variance UR-2 UR-2 UR-2 Liti ation 3 Maple Dell 16��5-2 Use Variance TRB CC CGU 11 Maple Dell 16�.�-2 Conforming TRB CC GCU 33 Marion Ave 166:�-4- Confonning TRB UR-2 GCU 31 Marion Ave 166.3 4- Conforming TRB UR-2 GCU Marion Ave 166.5-4- Vacant UR-2 UR-2 UR-2 (No Address) 1.1 15 Marion Ave 152_6� Vacant UR-2 UR-2 UR-2 �� 2 Comparison with Gatewav Desi�n District-2: Marion Ave: Section 10 does not speak to overlay districts nor does this overlay speak specifically to PUDs. Therefore, the proposed Maple Dell—Marion Ave PUD and comparison of the current language to the site plan as currently proposed below. There are no intended Site Plan modifications to the Maple Dell side of the proj ect except sidewalk installation. A. PARKING AND ACCESS 1. No more than 20% of the parking in a commercial district shall be located as convenience parking in front of the front line of the building. This standard may not be waived. The balance of the parking shall be located to the side or rear of the building. The area between the street and the parking at the side and front of a commercial building should be landscaped to buffer the visual impacts. Ste�vart's Response: redesigned Site Plan has��emoved the pa��king fi•oin the fr•ont ya�d 2. One bicycle parking or storage space should be provided for every 15 off-street vehicular parking spaces. Ste�vart's Response: this��ill be included u�on Site Plan subn�ission to the Planning Boa��d 3. Vehicle access to parking and services areas should be from a secondary street or alley whenever feasible. Shared driveways and parking are encouraged. Steu�art's Response: the number of drivel��ays has been decf�eased to hvo full access driveways on the f�oYthe��n crnd sozrthern ends of the property and all pai�king placed on side and�^ear yards B. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 1. Minimum frontage build-out should be 50°/o of the front lot line. Ste��art's Response: a componerrt of the Site Plan submission but for cu��i°ent comparison Ste��art's owns 73�feet o f frontage on Marzon Ave and shows 190 feet of built out frrontage. 2. Roof forms may include symmetrically pitched roofs or flat roofs with cornice. Slopes of pitched roofs should be not less than 5:12, except that porch roofs may be sheds with pitches not less than 3:12. All gables should be parallel or perpendicular to the street. Steti��a��t's Response: ��oofline ��ill confo��m to standai�d 3. Mechanical systems proposed for rooftops may exceed the maximum height requirements provided they are adequately screened and set back from the building facade. Stela�ai�t's Response: Stewar°t's believes g�°ound mounted equip»zent least i�npactfi�l on surrounding property owners 4. Recommended roof materials include black or single tone asphalt shingles, standing seam roof with small seam with an approved color or natural slate. Imitation slate and wood shingles should be avoided. Parapet caps may be stone, concrete, or limestone. Ste��a�°t's Response: black czsphalt shingles a��e to be used 5. All architectural openings, including windows, doorways, arches and porch framing, should be constructed with their height equal to or greater than their width and framed by appropriately scaled lintel or arch at the top and sill at the bottom. Stewart's Response: all openings except the proposed ca�-wash doors comply 6. The rhythm and proportions of architectural openings should complement that of adjacent buildings. The amount of windows and openings should be greatest at the street level. Facade design should incorporate a primary material and an easily recognizable pattern (with sub- patterns or subtle variations for larger scale buildings). Breaks or fluctuations in pattern or materials may be used to draw attention to entrances or special fa�ade elements. Stewa��t's Response: CuNrent plan� is conceptual but intended to comply c��xUO�ri,t� �� 3 7. Recommended window materials include anodized aluminum or vinyl-clad frame (black, brown or approved color) or painted or stained wood. Recommended lintel and sill materials include brick, stone, wood or colored concrete. Bare aluminum frames should be avoided. Clear, frosted or stained glass is recommended; tinted or mirrored glass should be avoided. Stetivart's Response: Cur-T•ent plan is conceptual but intendec�to comply 8. Shutters, if used, should be used throughout the fa�ade and shall be proportioned to cover the window opening when closed. Stewart's Response: shutte��s a��e not pr-oposed to be used 9. Recommended fa�ade materials include common red brick(bare or painted), special masonry units (textured, colored, or painted), natural stone, or wood clapboard. Beige, multi-tone, or imitation brick siding; bare masonry units; metal, asphalt or vinyl siding; and imitation stone or exterior insulation finish systems (EIFS) should be avoided. Stewai°t's Response: wood clapboard is pr�oposed foY all bz�ildings. Tlze proposed stone is stone veneer and upon discussion with design Review Commission, brick can be incorpoi�ated. 10. Recommended trim materials include finish grade, painted, or stained wood. Bare lumber grade wood or plywood should be avoided. Stel��art's Response: Curi�°ent�lun is con�eptual but intended to conzply 11. Canvas awnings incorporating a maximum of three approved colors may be used. Plastic awnings should be avoided. Ste1��irt's Response: Czrr�°ent plan is �onceptual birt no a��nin�Qs a��e intenc�ed 12. Recommended hard surface materials include asphalt, brick,paving stone, and patterned concrete. Asphalt use should be limited to parking and loading areas. Ste��art's Response: Cc�rrent plan is conce�tz.�al but intencled to corr�ply 13. Building signage should be simple and integrated into the design of the building. See Chapter 6.1 "Signage" for sign regulations. 3.3.6 TRAFFIC CALMING For properties within the Gateway Design District-2, special considerations should be given to design measures that reduce travel speeds on Marion Avenue. Traffic calming measures include reducing the width of road shoulders and installing curbs, adding street trees, sidewalks and street lighting; and installing bump outs or pedestrian refuge areas at pedestrian crossing points. Stel��art's Response: Side��alks a�°e p��oposed as a component of the Public Benefit thr•oughout the project cor�•idor. Sidewalk installation will be com�leted with curbing and sty-eet trees. The addition of lighting alorrg the st��eet can� be discussed as an element of site�lcrn ��evie��. Attachments include a Trip Generation Analysis, Stewart's Site Plan and Elevations and a colored Site Plan for revised visualization. If you have any questions or need additional information, please reach me at(518) 581-1201 ext 443 5. Regards, ,-� ��1 V C 1% Charles "Chuck" Marshall Stewart's Shops Corp. �� 4