Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB mins. 12-8-22 UDO amendments proposed by DRB PLANNING BOARD MINUTES (FINAL) THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2022 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER : Mark Torpey, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT : Mark Torpey, Chair; Mark Pingel; Vice Chair; Kerry Mayo; Chuck Marshall; Todd Fabozzi; Patricia Morrison; Bill McTygue STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Leah Everhart, Counsel to the Land Use Boards ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: The proceedings of this meeting are being recorded for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: Mark Torpey, Chair, thanked Diane Buzanowski, Land Use Board secretary for all her years of service to the city and wished her well in her retirement. A.APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the end of the meeting. B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: NOTE: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any application that appear to be “approvable” without need for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wished to further discuss any proposed consent agenda item, then that item would be pulled from the “consent agenda” and dealt with individually. 1.#20220889 52 KIRBY SUBDIVISION, 52 Kirby Road, Final Plat Review of a two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) District. Mark Torpey, Chair stated the application has appeared before the Board previously. The Planning Board coordinated SEQRA review with the ZBA. A SEQRA Negative Declaration was issued on May 5, 2022. On May 26, 2022, a Favorable Advisory Opinion was issued to the ZBA. On June 27, 2022, an area variance was granted from minimum lot size requirement for both lots. Mark Torpey, Chair stated there were several key conditions placed on the draft decision. -Any tree removal in the placement of the driveway or utilities shall be approved by DPW. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – December 8, 2022 - Page 2 of 15 -The Planning Board shall receive a payment in lieu of for installation of a sidewalk along Glenwood Road frontage 202 linear feet, cost to be determined by DPW. The payment shall be used to install a 5 ft. wide concrete sidewalk in the City Right of Way along the frontage of 54 Kirby making a connection along Kirby to Washington. -Any new house on Lot#2 would have a minimum setback of 18 ft. from the property line. Mark Torpey, Chair, asked if there were any questions, comments or concerns from the Board. None heard. Chuck Marshall made a motion in the matter of 52 Kirby Road Subdivision application the Planning Board approves final two lot subdivision with the conditions as noted by the Chair. Todd Fabozzi seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Mark Torpey, Chair, in favor; Mark Pingel, Vice Chair, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Kerry Mayo, in favor; Chuck Marshall, in favor; Bill McTygue, in favor; Patricia Morrison, in favor MOTION PASSES : 7-0 C.APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 2.#20221039 EXCELSIOR AVENUE, SUP EXTENSION, Excelsior Avenue, extension of a previously approved Special Use Permit for a mixed-use development in the Transect- 5(T-5) District. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated this application has appeared before this Board previously and was granted a Special Use permit approved on 05/13/2021. This approval will expire on 11/13/2022 if not extended. The Chair requested Ms. Coreno provide the Board with a review of the application. Applicant: Excelsior Park, LLC Agent: Libby Coreno, Attorney; Dave Carr, LA Group Ms. Coreno stated the Special Use Permit and the updated SEQRA Review was approved back in 2021. The Review for the project goes back further, was lengthy and a power point presentation is part of the records from February of 2021. This power point presentation lays out a very extensive history beginning in November of 2017 with the original Special Use Permit application/modification. The Planning Board had been looking at this site for over two decades and required an Environmental Impact Statement for that corridor. We reviewed what had occurred with this site over the 20 years, what had been built out, and what had not been built out the affordable housing component. The applicant and the city engaged in separate traffic engineers, which lasted over two years. In February of 2021, the Planning Board evaluated all changed conditions that occurred over the last 20 years and then looked at the overall impact of what the applicants were proposing. While there was no significant change, but there was a reduction in overall disturbance area the mix of uses had changed. In April of 2021, the Amended Findings Statement was issued. In May of 2021, the Special Use Permit was issued. One of the uses on site was intended to be used as we now know is Beacon property. It was intended to be subdivided off City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – December 8, 2022 - Page 3 of 15 to satisfy the affordable housing component which had always been inside the review for this area of the city, and in this Special Use Permit. That was delayed because the SEQRA must come before any new land use approvals can be granted. The Subdivision Approval was given in June of 2022 and in October of 2022, the Site Plan was approved by this Board. Because the Subdivision and Site Plan were most recently approved, the Special Use Permit needs to be extended. The Planning Board can grant two 18-month extensions provided that the application was submitted prior to the expiration date of the Original Special Use Permit or the first extension. It is the applicant’s responsibility to prove that there have been no significant changes to the site or neighborhood since the original Special Use Permit was issued, nothing has changed with the project. The second is that the circumstances and findings of fact by which the original approval was granted have not significantly changed. Nothing has changed with the project since that time. Patricia Morrison questioned if the Site Plan Review include the layout townhouses. Mr. Carr stated the townhouses were in the original submittal but were removed to add buffering to the neighbors to the south. Two concerns noted by the neighbors, one was a day care center which was not compatible with the neighborhood and would add significant traffic. There were ten 3- bedroom townhouses which were also removed, and buffering was added. The unit count came down, the bedroom count came down and the daycare center was removed. Bill McTygue questioned if Ms. Coreno could explain the Special Use Permit which was approved in 2021 and the townhomes which were described in that layout. Ms. Coreno stated the Special Use Permit was the maximum amount of uses in combination for the site. An applicant and the Board are charged with examining all the impacts in combination of uses that are allowed under the Special Use Permit. All of them at their max are not allowed but a certain combination underneath the environmental threshold is. The Special Use Permit at that time the residential uses by unit type were not specified. Bill McTygue stated he believes there is confusion regarding the original number of 200 units and how we got to the current number which is 339. How did the new numbers equated to the SEQRA Analysis and how that was resolved and reconciled with the new vision with the original SEQRA determination. Ms. Coreno stated in November of 2017 the applicant submitted a Threshold in Use Table. It was an 8-page document that outlined every single threshold upon which the SEQRA was built originally in 2002. It was then compared to what was being proposed in the new application so the Board could see the changed condition under the SEQRA regulations. What was the impact in moving from the original to the new while taking into consideration background growth that had occurred in the city in the ensuing years. This brings forward the significance of the Spring Run Trail which allows people to get from Exit 15 to the city. What was examined was the overall thresholds, these were identified and highlighted for the Board regarding what was changing under the new application and the reasons why. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated the table Ms. Coreno spoke about is included in the Amended Findings Statement as well as in the Notice of Decision on the Special Use Permit as well. We were required to perform a full-fledged SEQRA Review that reviewed issues such as geological and topographical resources, surface water, ground water, traffic, community services, zoning, and community character. We compared what was proposed in 2017 and what was proposed in 2021, that we did not render a decision on for 3½ years. We were required to review all that data and if additional mitigation needed to be done. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – December 8, 2022 - Page 4 of 15 Bill McTygue stated he has made comments to the public and members of the Planning Board on his feelings regarding this project. We are all aware litigation has been filed on certain points which have been raised by the neighbors. He respects that process. He is satisfied at this time to proceed with an extension of the Special Use Permit. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated at the workshop there was a gentleman and he noted that the neighbors were conducting their own traffic study. The Chair acknowledged that it is within their rights to do so. If their traffic study provides different information than what the Board was presented. The neighbors have every right to bring this to DPW and DPS. Additional data is always welcomed and helpful to the Board. Mark Torpey, Chair, asked if there were any further comments from the Board. None heard. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated he will not be accepting any public comments tonight. There is no further data or zoning that has changed for the Board to consider at this point. Chuck Marshall made a motion in the matter of the application for the Excelsior Avenue Special Use Permit Extension, Excelsior Avenue be approved. Kerry Mayo seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Mark Torpey, Chair, in favor; Mark Pingel, Vice Chair, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Kerry Mayo, in favor; Chuck Marshall, in favor; Bill McTygue, in favor; Patricia Morrison, in favor MOTION PASSES : 7-0 3.#20220985 90 & 94 CATHERINE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, 90 Catherine Street, Lot Line Adjustment two lots in the Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated there is no plan for the property which is being expanded here to be subdivided. Applicant: Denise Donlon Agent: John Carusone Mr. Carusone stated when the applicant purchased 96 Catherine Street, she wanted to add more land. When the property became available, she purchased it. Chuck Marshall stated the only technical piece that needs to be discussed is that this is an Unlisted Action. So, because there is no lot line adjustment in SEQRA but the minimal nature and because there are no new lots being created he makes a motion for SEQRA Negative Declaration. Mark Torpey, Chair, questioned Leah Everhart, counsel to the Land Use Boards if SEQRA review is necessary for this project. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – December 8, 2022 - Page 5 of 15 Leah Everhart, Counsel to the Land Use Boards suggested they review the SEQRA Short Environmental Assessment Form. SEQRA REVIEW: Mark Torpey, Chair reviewed Part II of the SEQRA Short EAF. No large or important areas of concern were noted. SEQRA DECISION: Chuck Marshall stated based upon the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEQR Short Environmental Assessment Form, and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part II of the SEQR Short Environmental Assessment Form, I make a motion for a SEQR negative declaration since the project will not result in any large and important impacts and, therefore, is one that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Kerry Mayo seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Mark Torpey, Chair, in favor; Mark Pingel, Vice Chair, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Kerry Mayo, in favor; Chuck Marshall, in favor; Bill McTygue, in favor; Patricia Morrison, in favor MOTION PASSES : 7-0 Todd Fabozzi made a motion in the matter of the application of 90 & 96 Catherine Street, Lot Line Adjustment, 90-96 Catherine Street, that the application be approved as requested and submitted. Chuck Marshall seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chair asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Mark Torpey, Chair, in favor; Mark Pingel, Vice Chair, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Kerry Mayo, in favor; Chuck Marshall, in favor; Bill McTygue, in favor; Patricia Morrison, in favor MOTION PASSES : 7-0 4.#20221061 WEST AVENUE & STATION LANE SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, West Avenue & Station Lane, Second Sketch Plan Review of a proposed mixed-use project in the Transect-5 (T-5) District. Mark Torpey, Chair, requested the applicant take time to orient the Board on this project. The applicant is before the Board this evening for second sketch plan review. The Board will provide the applicant with guidance on the revised sketch plan. Applicant: Russell Faden, West Station, LLC; City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – December 8, 2022 - Page 6 of 15 Agent: Scott Lansing, Lansing Engineering Mr. Lansing stated we are before the Board for our second Sketch Plan Review. We are looking for feedback from the Board on this concept. The first Sketch Plan Review on the previous plan was submitted back in 2017. We had several renditions of the concept plan and were advanced to preliminary final approval in June of 2020. The project was tabled by the applicant at that time. We have done reconfiguration of the plan and feel it is an improved plan over the previous application. A visual of the proposed 1.99-acre parcel was provided which is currently vacant and located at the corner of Station Lane and West Avenue. Mr. Lansing provided a review of the surrounding properties and uses. We are proposing one four story building with mixed use development with both retail, which will include eating and drinking establishments as well as commercial. We are anticipating office uses on the first floor as well. The upper floors are proposed as residential uses. There has been an adjustment to the plans which were submitted in July. The portion of the building which fronts on West Avenue is proposed as retail/commercial on the first floor. The remainder of the building on the first floor are proposed as apartments as are the remaining 2nd, 3rd, and 4th floors. Also, as part of the application we are proposing parking underneath the structure. Chuck Marshall stated that the site plan submitted earlier does not match the rendering are you proposing an easement or cross connection with 19 West Avenue. Mr. Lansing stated he will provide information on that as the presentation moves forward. Todd Fabozzi questioned if the first floor of the building side on Station Lane is all residential. Mr. Lansing stated that is correct. Patricia Morrison questioned if access to parking will be off Station Lane. Mr. Lansing stated all access will be off Station Lane with on street parallel parking available as well. Mark Torpey, Chair, questioned if the neighbor to the north was amenable to opening a cross easement access or is that not part of the project. Mr. Lansing stated they originally had a shared access going on the adjoining property line going between 17 West and 19 West. We were collaborating with the owner of 19 West, but he is no longer interested in having the shared access. There may be an opportunity for that in the future but not at this time. Six on street parking spaces will be provided on Station Lane and all the parking is proposed in the back of the structure. The dumpsters will also be in the rear as shown on the site plan. Streetlights and street trees will be in accordance with city standards. Pedestrian connectivity – as part of the Askew project which is to the west there was a requirement to extend the sidewalk up to their property line. This project does include the extension of the sidewalk up and around to connect to the sidewalk system on Station Lane and West Avenue to the train station. As far as recreational contributions and civic space the applicant is proposing payment in lieu of the parkland on the parcel. There are plans for park improvement south of Station Lane. This project will be served by public water and public sewer. Storm water is to be managed on site mitigated with an underground chamber treatment system beneath the parking lot areas. Mr. Lansing stated at the workshop agenda meeting last week we received good comments and he proceeded to address those. First was regarding the 100 ft. buffer. We are preserving that, there are no impacts proposed to the DEC 100 ft. buffer on the western end of the project. There is a DEC wetland on the edge of the property. The 100 ft. buffer extends into the project. There will be City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – December 8, 2022 - Page 7 of 15 no impacts to that other than a small area where the sidewalk is located, and the city is ok with that. There will be a conservation easement on the 100 ft. buffer as part of the storm water management and the green infrastructure requirements. There was a question to the underground parking and the impacts to ground water and bedrock. Mr. Lansing explained the topography of the site and how it will work to allow the access to the underground parking level. Chuck Marshall questioned the one access to the parking and the possibility of stacking for exiting vehicles. Putting the entrance to the underground parking on the north side might be a safer location. Mark Pingel, Vice Chair, questioned if the applicant plans to excavate under the northern portion of the building. He voiced concern regarding the water table and ground water to bedrock. Mr. Lansing stated yes because this grade matches across to get under. Mr. Lansing stated they have completed test pits throughout the site for both groundwater and bedrock. We feel comfortable that the excavation will not be into the groundwater or the bedrock. Mr. Lansing clarified how the underground parking was configured. There was a question on the shared access and the 10% green space on the parking area. The current estimate is 14% so we feel we meet the requirement. Mark Torpey, Chair, questioned how that was calculated. Mr. Lansing stated they took the internal islands and the grass on the edges and corner but not outside the parking areas. We will check the code to assure we meet the requirements. The civic space and the right of way and the interaction with the restaurant, it is anticipated that we will have about a 500 sq. ft., restaurant. The civic space is proposed on the corner, and it is readily accessible to pedestrians in this location. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding the civic space, location, and accessibility. Todd Fabozzi questioned the parking area and if people utilizing the medical facilities will be accessing and using the parking areas. Perhaps curbing and buffering be installed to keep the area designated for resident/patron parking. Mr. Lansing stated there currently is no access to the other site. Perhaps buffering in that area to denote lack of an access. Patricia Morrison questioned the applicant’s explanation of civic space which is noted to be about 900 sq. ft., when the provision of civic space based on 5% lot area should be 4,356 sq. ft. Susan Barden, Principal Planner, stated when the applicant submits a formal Site Plan application it will be under the new UDO requirement percentage. There will be changes relative to that. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding the civic space and examples were offered to the applicant. Bill McTygue questioned what the plan was in accessing public utilities specifically water and sewer. Mr. Lansing stated Station Lane does have a sanitary sewer line on the roadway and that is where we will connect the sanitary sewer line. There was an upgrade to the pump station as part of another project on Station Lane. The applicant is aware they are required to contribute to those upgrades. There was a question regarding the potential for parallel parking on West Avenue. This City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – December 8, 2022 - Page 8 of 15 was met with resistance from DPW, but we would be happy to pursue this if this were something the Board would support. On the environmental assessment form there was a question regarding the 17% soils being poorly drained on the western edge of the parcel, there are DEC wetlands. Typically, with those areas there are poorly drained soils around them, and we are addressing that with the 100 ft. buffer. There was a question regarding affordable housing, which is not being considered for this project they will be market rate. On the Complete Streets Checklist there was a question regarding connectivity, and we discussed that with addressing the location of the sidewalks proposed. There was a question regarding the traffic impact study. The previous application did perform a traffic study which did not indicate any improvements which needed to be made to Station Lane, West Avenue, or the surrounding intersections. We will have our traffic engineer update that study for the Board. Todd Fabozzi questioned the concerns by Complete Streets. Are you proposing bike racks, you should if you are not and where they are contemplated to be located. Also, where the nearest transit stop is located as well. There will be people living here, a mid-block crossing to allow pedestrians to get to the bus stop on the corner of Washington and West Avenue would be helpful. Mr. Lansing stated they do not have the bike racks placed on the site plan at this time. They are required and will be added prior to the formal application. Also, he is unaware of the transit stop location currently. Chuck Marshall stated if you move the driveway entrance as he recommended, you can put bikes underground since you are required to have them on the western side of the underground parking. There is a bus stop at the train station. Perhaps removing the on-street parking on Station Lane and add a transit bus stop in that area. Mr. Lansing stated the last item the Board questioned was the parking requirements and the waiver for shared parking. We calculated the number of spaces required which is 154. We reviewed the criteria in the UDO for the uses and percentages of parking during specific times of the day for the various uses. There are 7 spaces which could be used for shared parking on the site from 154-147. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding parking and parallel parking on Station Lane and traffic in this general area with stacking occurring. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated an updated traffic study would be helpful to the Board. Mark Pingel, Vice Chair, stated he believes the Board needs to pursue with the city a way to track and manage funds so that we can equitably distribute them for these types of projects. Chuck Marshall spoke about how other municipalities deal with these types of situations and what would be required to do so. Leah Everhart, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated we do not have a mechanism currently to require applicants to come together to pay for any studies or to mitigate any impacts that are cumulative when you look at each one of them. They come before us as stand-alone projects. We look at site specific impacts and try to address those through SEQRA. It is appropriate but if you want to capture a greater scope of development the most appropriate way is for the City Council to be involved in requiring whatever studies and analyses are necessary and go the Generic Environmental Impact route. Chuck was speaking about the Town of Malta who has a Generic Environmental Impact Statement that has been adopted. They have supplemented it over time. It evaluates the development over the next ten years and breaks it down into the types of development between commercial and residential and calculates that out in the findings statement City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – December 8, 2022 - Page 9 of 15 what a project personal share would be. That is something that would be paid at outset when a building permit is sought. It is based on studies done to analyze the entire area rather than site specific. Mark Pingel, Vice Chair, stated we just had another project which site their share. Where does the money go. How are we going to track it so that when the next project comes up, we have ways to know whether it is equitable, and that the city is keeping that money and it is used for the purposes it was intended. Currently we have no mechanism to do so, that we can get the traffic signal at the corner of Marion and Excelsior. This question is being asked not only as a Board member but also as a citizen. Where does the money go. Leah Everhart, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated SEQRA provides the structure for this. It will determine where the money goes, how the money is paid in, when it gets paid in and how it is calculated. Susan Barden, Principal Planner stated we do not know yet. It is not a requirement that the applicant provide that. This appeared before the Board for SEQRA review. A Negative Declaration was issues. It will return before the Board for Site Plan Review and Special Use Permit and at that time we can speak about those details. They have currently provided the formula. They did a traffic study with a trip generation which is the start of the rationale. We have not gotten further than the acceptance of the math that they provided. There is another project at the same stage in its application process so there is an opportunity to look at both projects together from a SEQRA perspective. That was done previously for the other projects in that general area. There is an opportunity for these two projects to work together. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated Chuck was suggesting something different. If there is a place in the city where there is an issue, that would be the responsibility of the city to recognize that to go through and create a General Environmental Impact Statement that looks through the issues to develop a specific mitigation strategy over time, the cost and where the funds would be held. That would be done separate from the individual project analysis or trying to get projects to work together that happen to be concurrently developed. Susan Barden, Principal Planner, stated as an alternative you have two project that are about the same stage in that same area. You could look at those two together. It is a smaller scale looking at two projects that will be impacting the same intersections and looking at those together. Todd Fabozzi stated we have an opportunity to do something. We did review this initially with the Entrada Project and the original Station Lane and two others. We can review this with two projects. The Generic Environmental Impact process is sometimes used to solve traffic problems, but it is often used in anticipation of growth. It precedes problems like funding infrastructure problems. There are counties which have been doing this for years. Mark Pingel, Vice Chair, stated this is not the proper forum to solve this problem now. There is a process issue here for the Planning Board and we have a gap. We need to have this traffic study which takes a broader look at the traffic. Chuck Marshall stated by having more people involved, you are spreading the cost versus the single applicant bearing the entire cost of an improvement. The two applicants would have to voluntarily work together on this improvement. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – December 8, 2022 - Page 10 of 15 Mark Torpey, Chair, spoke about the Brewery project recently before the Board that voluntarily proactively produced what they felt was their fair share based on previous work that was done. The method they used was vastly different than all the projects in Excelsior Park in how they determined the cost. We want to be fair, there must be a way to look at the same methodology, so everyone feels they have paid their fair share. Mark Pingel, Vice Chair, stated we still need to determine who collects the money, and how to manage it. The Vice Chair volunteered to work with Susan and the Finance Department and talk about this Todd Fabozzi stated there is a fee in lieu of for sidewalks that is similar, and we do not know if that is managed in the same way. Chuck Marshall stated the fact that we ask applicants for payment in lieu of for sidewalks and do they not go to the missing link program which is a grant funded program. Mark Torpey, Chair, questioned the Missing Link Program and the Boards expectation that those funds are added to the program. Susan Barden, Principal Planner, stated we can modify the plan so that the Missing Sidewalk Links Program is also a plan that identifies all missing links in the city. When an applicant appears before the Board, and they complete a section to then add additional monies and change the map. We could do that. We also could add funds to the Complete Streets that is used as well. We do have other places that we can allocate funds to specific Planning Board requests. Ideally, we would rather have them installed. Patricia Morrison questioned if there is a formula currently for applicants to determine the amount set aside for these improvements or is there a formula. Mr. Lansing stated there was also a request for the applicant to provide building elevations. We have also provided a visual of the materials which will be used for the project along with a conceptual views and elevations. Mark Torpey, Chair, thanked the applicant for providing a review of the project. Hopefully, the applicant has received feedback and we will see the applicant when they return before the Board formally. 7:37 P.M. The Board recessed. 7:45 P.M. The Board reconvened. 5.#20220862 190-194 GRAND AREA VARIANCE, 190-194 Grand Avenue, Coordinated SEQRA and Advisory Opinion to the ZBA for area variances to permit the subdivision of an existing lot to create Three lots in the Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated this application was discussed at the workshop whereby the applicant is proposing a set of town homes to be subdivided down the middle of each unit. Applicant: Mary Aloy & Gary Quirion Agent: Matthew Jones, Attorney; Dave Carr, LA Group City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – December 8, 2022 - Page 11 of 15 Mr. Jones stated this application was before the ZBA for approximately 16 area variances in association with conversion of an apartment building housing 5 units. The applicants are converting this to three units in anticipation of the subdivision application which will be made to the Planning Board following the approval of the requested area variances. A visual of the site was provided noting the applicants request to divide this apartment building into three separate tax parcels. Kerry Mayo questioned if the basement would be divided with walls as well. Mr. Carr state the walls do currently exist. Mr. Jones continued with views of all elevations. In the rear of the building the parking spaces were noted as well as the proposed property lines. Cross lot easements will be provided for ingress and egress. Mr. Carr stated per the code there are two spaces provided for each single family attached home. These are considered single family attached homes per Patrick Cogan, Building Inspector. The existing parking lots lays out two spaces for each owner with cross lot easements. Mr. Jones noted the proximity to the property line and the neighbor’s home. There is no ability to move closer or purchase any additional property. A visual of the shed was provided. By moving the shed it decreases the number of variances requested. This property received an area variance in 1994 issued 3 area variances for front and side yard setbacks. Todd Fabozzi stated the building is not being changed at all. Mr. Jones stated no change at all. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated when you established these new lines and you have the walls between the apartments, in an older house you have plumbing and electric that could be shared between these walls. Is there a type of easement which will allow a tenant on either side to update and modify. Mr. Jones stated when the applicant comes before the Board for subdivision, at that time they will provide that type of information along with the proposed easements that make this possible. Mr. Carr stated provided a visual of the total building, providing information on the two new lines. The variances being requested are setback variances because the lots do not meet 6600 sq. ft. We have a few coverage variances. It seems like a lot, but it is because it is a connected building. This is taking apartments and turning them into owner occupied units. There were neighbors who expressed comments at the ZBA in favor of the project because they will now be owners not renters. If we are successful at the ZBA then we will make a full subdivision application with the Planning Board. SEQRA: -This is an Unlisted action. -Coordinated SEQRA Review not required but initiated by the ZBA. -ZBA and Planning Board only involved agencies. -Planning Board should accept Lead Agency Status -Review Part I of the Short EAF. SEQRA REVIEW: -Planning Board to review Part II of the Short EAF. -No large or important areas of concern were noted. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – December 8, 2022 - Page 12 of 15 SEQRA DECISION: Todd Fabozzi stated based upon the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEQR Short Environmental Assessment Form, and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part II of the SEQR Short Environmental Assessment Form, I make a motion for a SEQR negative declaration since the project will not result in any large and important impacts and, therefore, is one that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Mark Pingel, Vice Chair seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Mark Torpey, Chair, in favor; Mark Pingel, Vice Chair, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Kerry Mayo, in favor; Chuck Marshall, in favor; Bill McTygue, in favor; Patricia Morrison, in favor MOTION PASSES : 7-0 Mark Torpey, Chair, stated as counsel to the applicant stated this will return before the Planning Board for Subdivision Approval. For the Advisory Opinion to the ZBA the Planning Board offers no additional guidance, it is a simple demarcation of the building for ownership purposes. Bill McTygue made a motion in the matter of the application 190-194 Grand Avenue, Advisory Opinion to the ZBA The Planning Board offers a Favorable Advisory Opinion noting no additional guidance. The application is a simple demarcation of the building for ownership purposes. Patrician Morrison seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chair asked I there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Mark Torpey, Chair, in favor; Mark Pingel, Vice Chair, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Kerry Mayo, in favor; Chuck Marshall, in favor; Bill McTygue, in favor; Patty Morrison, in favor MOTION PASSES : 7-0 6.#20220934 CARDONA ’S SITE PLAN REVIEW, 222 Washington Street, Site Plan Review of a proposed +/- 2,000 sq. ft. addition to the existing specialty food market in the Urban Neighborhood (T-4) District. Applicant: August Cardona, Owner Agent: Kara Tedford, Dave Carr, LA Group Ms. Tedford provided a visual overview of the Site Plan for the proposed addition to Cardona’s Market formerly known as Roma’s. A visual of the existing conditions on the site were provided, as well as a visual of the surrounding neighborhood. This site was formerly Roma’s and photographs of the surrounding site were also provided. The site is .58 acres in size in the T-4 Urban Neighborhood Zone. The 1700 sq. ft. addition being proposed is adding a kitchen, provide more City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – December 8, 2022 - Page 13 of 15 storage space, add a walk-in cooler and a break room for their employees. The applicant is proposing site improvements as well the building expansion which will help with the efficiency of the store’s operation. The applicant is proposing a designated delivery area, additional pavement improvements, site landscaping, site lighting and a city easement of the frontage. Ms. Tedford stated the applicant was before the ZBA on November 28, 2022 and received area variances approvals related to current site conditions. The applicants were before the DRB on December 7, 2022 and received approval for the architecture. The City Engineers office provided comments. We are collaborating with them to obtain the required easements. The DRB recommended we coordinate we the City Arborist regarding selection of tree species. Ms. Tedford stated we did received comments at the workshop. -The need to show the delivery truck maneuver for the designated truck delivery area. - The request for additional vegetative improvements at the corner. - Discussion regarding screening on the south side of the parking lot. - Discuss existing cobra lighting on Birch Street. Ms. Tedford provided a delivery truck maneuver visual, noting the deliveries will be made in the early morning hours. Vegetation and improvements will be made to the corner. A 6’ stockade fence will be provided to help with additional screening to the neighbors. Discussion ensued among the Board with the applicant’s agent regarding landscaping, fencing and additional buffering. Ms. Tedford stated they investigated the cobra lighting on Birch Street, which is within 20 ft. of an existing Victorian Light in the right of way. Bill McTygue stated that is a National Grid cobra light maintained on that pole. He does not see any need to request that light be removed. No additional lighting is needed. Kerry Mayo questioned the parking and if any additional parking is being provided. Ms. Tedford stated they did evaluate the parking. With the new addition nine spaces are required. Mr. Robert Cardona Jr. started this is formerly the site of Roma’s. He provided a history of their family business, and a large part of this business is building a strong catering business. At this site we have no basement or storage in the building. There is no employee break room or office. We are also adding a small kitchen which will provide more space for the store. We are proposing a simple addition out the back. A review of all elevations was provided to the Board. They require deliveries to be made between 6-8 A.M., with small box trucks. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated this is a Type II SEQRA action. No further SEQRA Review is necessary. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated he will identify the conditions for Site Plan Approval: -Designated loading area with proper signage -Designated employee parking area with proper signage. -Access easement for parking in the City ROW – contingent upon the satisfaction and approval City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – December 8, 2022 - Page 14 of 15 by the City Attorney. -Buffering on the corner as laid out. -Stockade fencing to the south to provide privacy for the neighbor, maintaining the vegetation. Patricia Morrison made a motion in the matter of the application of Cardona’s Site Plan Review, 222 Washington Street, be approved with the conditions as noted by the Chair. Kerry Mayo seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Mark Torpey, Chair, in favor; Mark Pingel, Vice Chair, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Kerry Mayo, in favor; Chuck Marshall, in favor; Bill McTygue, in favor; Patricia Morrison, in favor MOTION PASSES : 7-0 7.#20220502 A DVISORY OPINON TO THE CITY COUNCIL – UDO AMENDMENTS, Consideration of Advisory Opinion to the City Council for proposed amendments to the Unified Ordinance UDO. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated these are the UDO amendments proposed by DRC for the City Council to consider. There are five of them in total. Two of them deal with signage and posting, two deal with the inner district of the city and one dealt with a mandate for an Advisory Opinion from the necessary land use boards for all city projects. 1). Required Notice: The DRB recommends that on-site property noticing for all approvals by the Design Review Board be required, in both the Historic and Architectural Review Districts. This helps make people aware of the process and indicate that approvals have been given. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated this is a required notice and signage in those area that fall under DRB jurisdiction either Historic or Architectural and is issued post approval. Susan Barden, Principal Planner, stated these are post approval. Along with your building permit you will have another document/sign on the property noting this project has been through DRB Review and Approval. 2). Required Notice: The DRB recommends that on-site property noticing should be initiated when a Design Review Board application is going through design review. We feel that this is an educational opportunity to inform the community of proposed projects. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated this is pre-approval noticing. There should be an indication on the requirement of how long the noticing should remain. There is really nothing for us to add to these, they are benign. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – December 8, 2022 - Page 15 of 15 3). Architectural Review Applicability – Any proposed structure for a vacant lot within the inner district will be subject to a one-time review by the Design Review Board for architectural compatibility. Any future alterations to the structures will not be subject to Design Review Board review. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated he can only think of one project which may have precipitated this is one State Street. The only thing that seems odd is it is what someone’s interpretation of what architectural compatibility is. There is something to be said living in an area where you have all these beautiful Victorian homes and having something a little different here and there. Mark Pingel, Vice Chair, stated there is a technical issue here. The inner district is not identified in the UDO. It is in the zoning ordinance. If you look at what they are proposing to review it is the entire city except for the green space. Todd Fabozzi stated he was requested by the DRB to put a map together showing the comparisons of the historic district and the inner district. It is significant. Mark Pingel, Vice Chair, stated number one the UDO must be changed to define the inner district. Otherwise, recommendation #3 does not make sense. There is an inconsistency. In #2 - how long will it now take for any building to be reviewed by the DRB. They are wanting to review every building in the city. Kerry Mayo stated there are enough rules in the UDO. We do not need another layer of total subjective review. If you own a property, you should be able to do what you want to do if it falls with the robust layers of rules we currently have. Todd Fabozzi stated there is a variability since it is such a big area. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated the only thing about this one is it only relates to vacant lots. 4). Demolition - The DRB notes that there are historic properties and structures that should be protected that are Outside of the Historic and Architectural Review Districts. To help protect these important pieces of Saratoga Springs history, the DRB suggests modifying this section to read as follows “the removal of 25% or More of an existing principal or accessory structure either listed or eligible to be listed on the National Register Located within the inner district of the City of Saratoga Springs will be subject to DRB review.” Mark Torpey, Chair, stated what prompted this was when the Riggi’s knocked down the entire brick structure of that parcel behind them and that was considered to be a contributing eligible Historic Structure to North Broadway. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding how eligibility for Historic is determined. What does potentially eligible really mean. Mark Torpey, Chair, questioned how often the Architectural and Historical Review Districts are modified or updated. If there is a concern that there are important structures falling outside of those districts why not expand those districts to incorporate those things that need to be protected. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – December 8, 2022 - Page 16 of 15 Patricia Morrison stated that is a big process. Things are happening faster than the process would take. The DRB is trying to do something which is good for the city. Discussion ensued regarding updating and modifying the Architectural and Historic Districts. Todd Fabozzi questioned the time frame allotted to provide input on these UDO Amendments. Susan Barden, Principal Planner, stated 60 days to provide a response but a request, but it can be made to extend it. Todd Fabozzi questioned if the Board could have someone appear before the Board and answer questions. Given our trepidation. The other option would be for us to remain silent on this. Susan Barden, Principal Planner, stated the Planning Board would have to provide an Advisory Opinion to the City Council regarding these proposed amendments. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated so the Board is requesting a member of the DRB appear before this Board to answer our questions and provide information on their rationale for these UDO Amendments. Susan Barden, Principal Planner, stated Amanda Tucker is our staff representative to the DRB. Tamie Ehinger, Chair and Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair have presented to City Council, and they would be happy to explain those amendments to you. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated the Planning Board did provide amendments to the UDO. Have those been approved or adopted or is this part of the entire package. Susan Barden, Principal Planner stated it is part of the entire package and the Boards amendments have not yet been reviewed, adopted, or approved at this time. The Board can ask for additional time in providing this Advisory Opinion from the City Council. 5). Review of City Projects: The Design Review Board appreciates that the current City Council has been doing an excellent job in the stewardship of the City’s Historic Buildings. In the event that this is not always the situation, the DRB proposes to mandate an Advisory Opinion from the necessary Land Use Boards for all City projects, not just City Landmarks. This offers protection for our new and Historic buildings, in the event of uncertainty with future City Councils. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated we have time to discuss this further. We will request an extension to allow for additional information and clarification from the DRB. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Mark Torpey, Chair, made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 17, 2022, Planning Board. Kerry Mayo seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – December 8, 2022 - Page 17 of 15 VOTE: Mark Torpey, Chair, in favor; Mark Pingel, Vice Chair, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Kerry Mayo, in favor; Chuck Marshall, in favor; Bill McTygue, in favor; Patricia Morrison, in favor MOTION PASSES : 7-0 UPCOMING MEETINGS: Planning Board Workshop, Thursday, January 5, 2023. Planning Board Meeting, Thursday, January 12, 2023. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Meeting Minutes approved January 26, 2023