Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20170676 DeVall Subdivision PB Advisory Opinion ws:TOG4 , MARK TORPEY,Chair City of Saratoga Springs JAMIN TOTING,Vice Chair SARA BOIVIN " r-4 PLANNING BOARD ROBERT F.BRISTOL jAr" RUTH HORTON •` ` City Hall -474 Broadway • JANET CASEY Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 -'DORATE.0 c Tel: 518-587-3550 fax: 518-580-9480 TODD FABOZZI www.saratoga-springs.org SHAWNA JENKS,ALTERNATE AMY RYAN,ALTERNATE May 1 5, 2019 Tamie Ehinger, Chair Design Review Commission City of Saratoga Springs, NY Subject: Coordinated SEQRA Review Devall Two-Lot Subdivision (Application # 17.051 .1 ) The Planning Board issued an unfavorable advisory opinion to the ZBA on October 18th, 2018 regarding the DeVall two-lot subdivision located at 59 Franklin Street. The Planning Board identified three items in its opinion noting that this parcel is located within the city's Franklin Square Historic District and is listed as a "contributing structure" on the New York State and National registers of historic places. The Planning Board noted the following: 1 ) The proposed subdivision would create two substandard lots. While the Planning Board is supportive of appropriate urban in-fill, the Board is not supportive of subdivisions that would result in the creation of substandard parcels requiring variances, particularly in the City's historic districts. 2) The Board encourages the applicant to pursue alternatives that would not result in the creation of substandard parcels. The Board notes that within this zoning district (UR- 4), two principal structures would be permitted without the need for subdivision. 3) The Board notes the historic urban form of a dominant primary structure with a secondary accessory structure within much of the City's historic urban residential areas (e.g. primary residence with accessory carriage house use). The Board suggests the applicant explore the use of this form at this location with a structure that is more historically and architecturally appropriate for this location. The Applicant has not modified the design of the project in response to the Planning Board's recommendations in the advisory opinion. The two-lot subdivision is classified as Type 1 under SEQRA. The Planning Board serves as Lead Agent and is seeking additional input from DRC to assist with its coordinated review of the SEQRA application. The Planning Board respectfully requests guidance from DRC regarding two sections on Part 2 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF). • Section 10: Impact on Historic and Architectural Resources Is review of sub-section e warranted, and if so, does "the proposed action result in the alteration of the property's setting or integrity'; or "result in the introduction of visual elements which are out of character with the site or property, or may alter its settin4'? • Section 18: Consistency with Community Character Consideration of sub-section e whether the "proposed action is inconsistent with the predominate architectural scale and character'? The Planning Board recognizes that the DRC has provided input regarding a previous design iteration on this parcel, however, the current proposed layout is now different. The Planning Board wants to ensure that the SEQRA review takes full account of DRC's recommendations on the latest proposed design and layout. The Planning Board is interested in feedback on whether the proposed new residential home properly respects the integrity of the existing "contributing structure", both in terms of mass/scale and historic context/setting. Additionally, the Planning Board has reviewed other applications within the past few years seeking to subdivide parcels into substandard lots within the City's historic districts and concluded that this would alter historic character, and over time, obscure the traditional settlement pattern in key locations. The Planning Board is further interested in DRC's view whether subdividing certain parcels into substandard lots within the City's historic districts may have a long-term negative impact on the historic character of these neighborhoods. It is further noted that the City's subdivision regulation (City Code 241 -2 A (13)) states the following: "This Chapter is adopted for the following purposes....to ensure that land is subdivided only when subdivision is necessary to provide for uses of land for which market demand exists and which are in the public interest." The Planning Board is unclear as to how the DeVall two-lot subdivision application, as currently proposed, supports long-term public interest and would appreciate any/all supplemental guidance that DRC can provide. Respectfully submitted, Mark R. Torpey, Chair