HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210416 Just Cats New Commerical Building Zoning Letter City of Saratoga Springs
A •G4 S
c•P 44' BUILDING DEPARTMENT PATRICK COGAN
k 4,11iZoninBuilding p& Inspector
o °, CITY HALL Extension 2,191
474
' ? Broadway DUANE MILLER
4��,`�s,T .Y
Ro x � Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Assistant Building Inspector
IcoRPOR4TEo`O Extension 2512
Telephone 518)587-3550 Ext. 2511 JOHN BARNEY
• BUILDING & Assistant Buildin &
www.saratoga-springs.org g
PLUMBING Construction Inspector
• CODES Extension 2521
RICHARD TIERSCH
Assistant Building&
Construction Inspector
Extension 2563
May 27, 2021
Planning Board Application# 20210391
Driscoll Road and South Broadway/Just Cats
Parcel # 191.-1-25
Members of the Planning Board,
It has come to my attention that there is a question regarding the zoning compliance of the preliminary site
layout presented as part of the Special Use Permit application for the parcel located on the northwest corner
of the intersection of Driscoll Road and Route 9/South Broadway(Parcel#191.-1-25). The application
involves a proposed mixed-use building on a property which spans the Tourist Related Business (TRB)
zoning district and the Rural Residential (RR) zoning district. The property is also located within the
Gateway Design District 1A, Corridor Lodging District, and Architectural Review District overlays.
As a point of reference,my comments are based on a preliminary site layout drawing prepared by ABD
Engineers, LLP dated 8/27/20,with latest revision dated 4/9/21.
The site layout correctly identifies the location of the dividing line between the TRB and RR zoning districts
as they relate to this property. The TRB district requirements are construed to extend 100 feet to the West,
as permitted by the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 1.7(D). The proposed principal building and
associated principal uses are located entirely within the TRB district. The applicant is currently seeking the
appropriate required approvals for the known proposed uses.
As part of this project proposal, I have reviewed the zoning compliance of the site layout and proposed uses
at multiple points in consultation with Planning Department staff. As part of my review, I have evaluated
the location of the parking spaces, storm water management area, and driveway access associated with the
principal uses and examined the question of whether these ancillary uses may be situated in the RR district
portion of the lot. In doing so, I consulted the language of the Zoning Ordinance,the Comprehensive plan,
past precedent of similar projects, and relevant NYS case law.
It was my determination that the parking configuration as shown required area variances from the Zoning
Board of Appeals, seeking relief from the front setback requirements on the Driscoll Road side of the
property. No relief was required for the storm water management area or driveway access. No use
variances were required for these ancillary uses in the RR district. This is reflected in the updated zoning
denial I issued dated 4/14/21.
Page 1
The ZBA granted the requested area variances on 4/19/21. One of the key considerations of the Board was
that alternate locations for parking would require disturbance of wetlands, and the applicants had modified
the proposal to avoid any such disturbance.
Based on guidance provided by past precedent and relevant case law,the following points were considered
when determining that the parking located in the RR district did not require a use variance on this property:
• The principal uses of"Animal Clinic"and "Multi-Family Residence"or"Residential Uses on 2nd
story and above"are proposed within the principal structure located entirely in the TRB district,
along with any associated accessory structures.
• The required parking has been located in the TRB portion of the lot to the maximum extent
feasible based site constraints and design criteria.
• Parking, storm water management, and driveway access are not prohibited in the RR district,and
are in fact required for most allowed uses in the RR district.
• Other uses allowed in the RR district by Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval have required
parking at the same or greater intensity as the proposed project. It is logical and reasonable to
conclude that parking and storm water management as ancillary functions are not a major factor in
the decision to prohibit animal clinics and multi-family dwellings from the RR district.
• One of the methods used in the Zoning Ordinance to limit the impact of parking on a property and
within a district is requiring a minimum percentage of the lot to remain permeable. The overall
green space and permeability of the property(82.4%)would be compliant even if the entire
property was located in the RR district.
To my knowledge,the proposed project and application for Special Use Permit are compliant with the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and variances granted, and may therefore be considered by the
Planning Board for approval, denial, or recommended modification.
Please let me know if further clarification is requested on this or any other issue.
Respectfully,
Patrick Cogan
Zoning and Building Inspector
Page2