Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES WEDNESDAY , JANUARY 22, 2009 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Clifford Van Wagner, Chair; Amy Durland, Michael Perkins, Laura Rappaport (arrived at 7:15 P.M.), Philip Klein, Dan Gaba ABSENT: Jamin Totino STAFF: Jaclyn Hakes, Principal Planner ALSO PRESENT: Mark Schachner, Counsel; Stu Messinger, Consulting Engineer CALL TO ORDER Clifford Van Wagner called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG REPORT ON ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS BY THE CHAIR There were no administrative actions reported. ANNOUNCEMENT OF POSTPONED/CANELLED ITEMS There are no postponed or cancelled items. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR Clifford Van Wagner indicated there is a training opportunity for Planning Board members, which is the annual event on January 28 at the City Center. He reminded the Planning Board members that they have a disclosure statement to be filled out at the beginning of each year. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Clifford Van Wagner gave this opportunity to allow citizens to address planning issues not on the scheduled agenda. No one spoke. APPLICATIONS ◊ 05.057 Beaver Pond Village, 98 Geyser Road This is a public hearing for an 85-lot subdivision in an Urban Residential-1 District and a Rural Residential-1 District. Clifford Van Wagner said that last week the applicant presented a slide show of the RR-1 zone, the Board did some analysis of individual lots and the Board asked the applicant to give a similar type presentation for the UR-1 parcel, which is Parcel 2, this evening. DISCLOSURE: Clifford Van Wagner stated that Dan Gaba owns a rental property at 74 Quevic Drive. BACKGROUND: Jaclyn Hakes recapped what was discussed and some of the consensus that was reached last week. She said the RR-1 zoned parcel was the focus of the discussion, there was discussion about how the conservation analysis took place and the requirements of the conservation subdivision and how those are being proposed by the applicant. The Board has asked the applicant to modify the layout of 4 lots, one being lot 74, the other 3 lots were near “the pinch”, or the connection between the UR-1 and the RR-1 to provide an additional buffer to the existing residential neighborhoods. The Board had asked to see a building envelope regarding the RR-1 parcel, which is something the Board can request and require as part of the conservation subdivision regulations. She said there was also a discussion about a reduced pavement width for the streets in that portion. Jaclyn Hakes said that since the last meeting, she has gotten questions about some of the earlier versions of the layout of Parcel 2, which are available for review in her office; however, what is being proposed now is what the Board has been discussing. Appearing before the Board was Daniel Ruzow, counsel for the applicant, Dean Long from the LA Group and Chad Cooke from Boswell Engineering. Dan Ruzow said they would like to continue the discussion of Parcel 2, showing smaller blown-up portions of the development on Parcel 2, as well as the revised approach to the lots that were discussed, with building footprints and some additional information related to grading on the development. He said they also have Parcel 1 in a similar fashion. Chad Cooke presented the new slides with revisions, showing the shifting of lot 74 in line with the others. He said the result was that he stole 3 feet from each lot in order to make a lot of similar size, so there is no detectable lot width change. He has increased the buffer to Casino Drive properties to 100 feet to the property line, with an additional 15 feet to the rear yard setbacks, for a total of 115 feet before you could build a structure on that property. (Laura Rappaport arrived at 7:15 P.M.) Chad Cooke said in this presentation, he has placed the houses in a way to fit them into a rural feel, in terms of Article 4 guidelines. He said as drawn on this plan, there is 30 feet from the right-of-way line to the front of the house, so you could stack 2 cars in there, and then there is City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 22, 2009 - Page 2 of 11 parking in the garage as well. He said in many cases, the setback lines and buildable lines are the same, more so on Parcel 1, because the land is flat enough to be buildable. He said in some cases, they will use fill in the backyard to create a backyard area that is suitable for a livable backyard usable area, trying to force it to the back of the lot as much as possible. He said in almost all cases, the rear yards are filled and then drop off to meet existing grades. He said there is an undulating gently rolling grade to the backyards in Parcel 2, and he still needs to maintain a ½% grade on the roadways to get back to the sewers. Amy Durland asked if it is fair to say that all of the lots in this parcel have 2 to 6 feet of fill, Chad said that is a good average. Clifford Van Wagner pointed out that 2 lots have no fill, Chad said they are essentially at grade. Philip Klein asked if the center area is heavily wooded, Chad said this is at grade and will be left as it exists, the roadways are a couple of feet higher, and the entire project is permeable sandy soil. Dean Long said a lot of the houses are sitting on less disturbed soils, Chad added that some lots will be cut, not filled. Laura Rappaport asked what drove the layout, whether any thought was given to less cut and fill. Chad Cooke said the driving force was for drainage by gravity for sanitary sewers, they must maintain ½% grade of the pipe back up to the top of the hill on Parcel 1, but some lots will have grinder pumps. He said the lot arrangements were to determine the site constraints, provide the buffers and then infill that area with lots in creative way in order to maintain the island focal point. Dan Ruzow added that they tried to minimize the overall disturbance. Chad Cooke said the center area acts as a pseudo-rain garden, it will be somewhat lower than the roadways. Deal Long said this area is mostly white pine and some oak. Chad Cooke said there are no plans to add anything to this area, however, they can. He said some of the lots will be infilled in addition to the street trees. Clifford Van Wagner asked if the Board has permission to walk the site again. Dan Ruzow said yes. Amy Durland suggested that the houses be placed contingent upon the features of the lot, including individual trees that may want to be preserved. She said while she recognizes that there is some advantage to the builder in clear-cutting the lot, the regulations encourage them not to do that and to see if there are some trees that can be preserved on each lot, which would be one of the determinates of the placement of the houses. She also suggested that further discussion of this issue wait until the next meeting, when Jamin Totino is present, since he had a concern in this regard. Clifford Van Wagner said he agrees, since Jamin led the effort to do the same on Grand Avenue Extension, and it was very successful; therefore, this will be left until the next meeting. Chad Cooke and Dean Long discussed Parcel 2. Dean said one lot was deleted to eliminate headlights shining onto it, they have improved the buffer along Geyser Road, they took out another lot on a corner, and they trimmed up another lot to eliminate a small wetland fill. He said these things were done to improve the character of the lots and improve the character of the space on Geyser Road. Jaclyn Hakes said she believes there was one more near the archeological area perhaps eliminated to provide an additional buffer to the archeologically sensitive area. She said the lot modifications were staff recommendations based on planning. Chad Cooke said Parcel 1 is more rolling than Parcel 2. He said the butterfly area fence is 4 feet high, and there is an additional buffer area between it and the proposed homes, and it will be signed. Dean Long said the Department of Environmental Conservation wants to participate City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 22, 2009 - Page 3 of 11 in the maintenance of the operation of the area, and they want to direct the specific measures that are going to be completed there, but it will be funded by the Homeowners’ Association. He said the fence is meant to be an obvious, discrete barrier that doesn’t intrude, it will be a standard chain link fence. He said the DEC does not want people in the butterfly area. He said the developer will cut down some trees to improve the butterfly habitat, under the direction of DEC, which would allow the lupine areas to connect. He said in the Pine Bush and airport areas, enclosures have worked very well at fostering stable populations. He said it is the DEC’s desire to maintain the area forever, which is a component of the open space management plan. Dean Long said his discussions with Kathleen O’Brien over the last 3 years is that she wants to manage this area, and it is not unusual for the Endangered Species Unit to get that level of involvement, as long as the funds are there. Stu Messinger added that by manage, this means to mark what trees to cut, but it is the HOA’s funding that is used to cut the trees. Mark Schachner said the DEC will supervise the management, but not expend state funds to do the work. Dean Long said the DEC will supervise the results, and if they determine that it is working, they will direct more trees to be taken down to keep pushing it out. He said this is a tiny colony, but even tiny colonies have a value. Chad Cooke said the access road to the pond will be gated with 4-foot fencing around the pond, the road will be gravel and only used by maintenance crews. He said the pond is outside the wetland, so that the wetland is not disturbed with the pond grading. He said included in the SWPPP is how often maintenance will take place. He said the HOA will pay for maintenance; however, if the City needs to come in, they will back-charge the HOA. Jaclyn Hakes said the Board can consider a drainage district for the entire development, so the City would hold funds to apply on an as needed basis. Chad Cooke said Parcel 2 is relatively flat, they will maintain existing grades as much as possible, but will need some fill and some cutting. He said swales will catch runoff, sending water into the pond, no storm water from this parcel will drain into other areas, there is a culvert that will dump water into catch basins along Pamela Lane, draining into a pipe to the pond. He said as you get closer to the wetland area, there is some fill between the edge of the road until it can tie back down to existing grades. There is a natural low point, which will be filled, the driveways and lots themselves are set at a finish floor hard in the road, so the impervious areas will drain back into the road, and the rear yard areas is where they deviate from the SWPPP guidelines in terms of not being able to capture everything on the property. He said it is not uncommon to have a deviation from SWPPP guidelines. He said for areas like this where there is an existing low point, short of filling on existing properties, it is impossible to alleviate that area. He said in doing so, there will be lawn care maintenance issues which will be planted with more topsoil and rapidly growing seed during construction in order to stabilize the areas and reduce the amount of runoff. Some of the rear yard areas may be suitable for some small rain gardens. Clifford Van Wagner asked who will maintain them. Chad said if they are on private property, it would be the homeowner’s responsibility to maintain them. He said there is not a lot to maintaining them, they are a depression with plantings. Chad said they could be placed in the buffer area and become part of HOA maintenance. Philip Klein said he would rather see them in the buffer area, where somebody would have the responsibility to maintain them. Chad said by doing that, there is the potential to remove some existing forested area in order to plant a rain garden in that buffer. He said some of the storm water draining to the low point on a Quevic Drive resident’s back yard is being collected and sent to a pond, so the volume of storm water reaching a certain point will be reduced as a result of this project. Stu Messinger asked if the rain gardens would have any more water reduction abilities than the natural forest cover. Philip Klein said they could make the rain garden deeper, so that it has the ability to collect more water. Dan Ruzow said in a wet forested area the existing trees may take up more water. Stu City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 22, 2009 - Page 4 of 11 Messinger said shallow rooted species like pine take up a lot of water, especially in these kinds of soils. He said in Moreau, the experience has been that sometimes when the pines get cut down, people begin to have trouble with water, because the evapotranspiration is lost. Chad Cooke said he will do research on this. Philip Klein asked how the HOA would access the rain gardens. Dean Long said for rain garden maintenance, they are set up to be maintained by a wheelbarrow, a landscape contractor with a Gator can take in and replace materials. He said what makes rain gardens work most effectively is to shape them and fit them to minimize any tree loss. He agrees that keeping it on the HOA property there is a mechanism to change them out every 3 years, which is what is needed because the plant density gets too high. Philip Klein said it is the Board’s intention to eliminate as much runoff onto an adjoining property as absolutely possible. Amy Durland said the optimal configuration would be to maintain the forest and put the rain gardens in the back properties of the individual houses and develop a mechanism where the HOA maintains them anyway, even though they are on private property, or reduce the size of the lot. Dean Long said the rain garden shapes can be organic to fit in between the trees and perform the function that is necessary. Philip Klein said if the rain gardens are on individual lots, then that person either has to maintain them or allow the HOA to. Amy asked if there could be easements for the purposes of maintaining them, because she agrees the individual homeowner’s should not be relied on to do that, and this should be an easy thing to figure out, which would be the optimal protection while retaining the forested area. Clifford Van Wagner said if trees are taken down to make rain gardens, some of the buffer will be lost. Philip Klein said there are only specific areas where a rain garden will work, so a lot of trees will not be cut down. Dean Long said when they visit the property, they will find the low spots, because that is where they have to go. He said a single-family house rain garden would be about the size of the conference room table. Laura Rappaport stated that in the presentation by Blue Niels, in some communities the rain gardens are an asset and are a lot-seller. Phil Klein said you can’t dictate to a homeowner that they have to maintain it, which is why the HOA has to do it. Michael Perkins said Blue Niels has information regarding individually owned rain gardens and how they should be maintained. Chad Cooke said there may be some opportunity for some of the rain gardens to be in the buffer area, in an area that is not currently treed, but it is a low area where you would want a rain garden, and there may be more areas like that around the periphery that he can look at. Clifford Van Wagner asked if lot 34 could be eliminated and spread the other lots out, to get away from the impact on the corner wetland area. Philip Klein asked if they could take 34 and put it on the end of 29, for less of an impact on the wetland. Chad Cooke said he will look at this possibility, in this case it would have a larger side yard as opposed to a rear yard. Clifford Van Wagner said he had anticipated, if a full board was present tonight, that Parcel 1 could be talked about and then Parcel 2, and that at the next meeting any changes or suggestions could be incorporated into the preliminary drawings, which would show all the changes that have transpired, including when staff initially met with the applicant and the project was changed from 91 to 85 lots. He said he thought at that time they would have the preliminary plan, but now one more meeting is needed to look at the changes that were discussed regarding rain gardens and the reconfiguration of 2 lots. Amy Durland asked when the draft of the conservation easement and management plan may be ready. Dan Ruzow said they haven’t located the conservation easement for Excelsior Park yet. He said by the beginning of next week they should have the next iteration of the conservation plan for all the parcels. He showed the Board an attachment to the draft of the open space management plan, showing what area is protected and for what purpose. Amy said the management plan flows from the conservation easement itself, so the easement language City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 22, 2009 - Page 5 of 11 needs to be finalized before the plan can be finalized. Dan Ruzow said he would like to start with the Excelsior Park easement, since the Board felt comfortable with that. He said they can get packages of revised drawings to the Board in advance of the meeting on the 11th. Clifford Van Wagner said the Board needs the conservation easement, the open space plan to follow that, then the findings statement needs to be done. He asked the applicant not to have a meeting just to have a meeting, because it is not efficient for anybody. Jaclyn Hakes asked the Board how much advance time it needs to review new material, it is typically one week in advance of the meeting. The Board agreed to one week minimum. PUBLIC HEARING: Clifford Van Wagner opened the public hearing, repeating what he said last week, that comments have to be structured around the subdivision process. He said last week there were repeat comments of SEQR findings, so discussion should please be about subdivision tonight, in order to keep the project on a strict timeline. Tara Sullivan, 24 Casino Drive, commented that there hasn’t been discussion about the area between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, which is a pine marsh that is ecologically intact, and once you get past the invasive species it is a beautiful pristine forest the way nature meant it to be. She said as much as she likes to hear about ways to mitigate the storm water runoff, this forest works. She said she visited the site with the Board when it was raining and it was not marshy or swampy. She said the part that crosses in between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 is the most beautiful part of that forest. She said a large pine will have to come down to make way for the road. She said one house on Casino Drive will have a sidewalk in back of their house and a road in front, which used to be the most beautiful part of the forest. Robert Reed, 7 Casino Drive, asked the Board to look at the elevation drop behind his house on Casino Drive on their visit to the site. Mr. Reed asked for an explanation of what a swale is. Chad Cooke explained that it is a gradual depression which runs water into the pond. Mr. Reed asked if this area will be cleared out, Chad said yes. Mr. Reed said this will be a dramatic change for him, and he asked the Board to consider this, because it is his investment and it is important to him. Philip Klein asked if the swale could be reduced to 25 feet wide, leaving 10 feet of treeline. Chad said this is a possibility. Clifford Van Wagner suggested an alternative could be to recreate a buffer of plantings at the top elevation of the berm. The Board and applicant will pay some attention to this area on their tour. Dick Kozlowski, 5 Casino Drive, said he concurs with what Bob said, plus, houses have been moved to increase the buffers. He asked if this could be done on this particular part. He suggested the Board also visit in a couple of months to see the water problems that everyone is talking about. Don Peters, 1 Casino Drive, said he shares the concerns of his neighbors at #5 and #7. He said there is at least a 4-foot drop on his property, which accumulates water toward the house. He said if trees are removed, he would expect there would be more water. He said it would also be sinful to remove the mature trees in light of the report recently sent home by Geyser Road School regarding the air quality at the school being one of the lowest in the nation. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 22, 2009 - Page 6 of 11 Maggie Burby, 29 Casino Drive, asked if in Parcel 1 an explanation could be given where there would be total clearing and what existing trees they are hoping to be able to keep. Chad Cooke showed this area on the presented map. Ms. Burby asked if plantings will be replaced throughout the houses. Chad said there will be street trees, but unless the Board dictated that, it would be up to the builder to provide a landscaping plan. Philip Klein said he would like the tree line maintained behind Casino Drive at 10-12 feet with the swale at the back of the lot line. Ms. Burby said on Parcel 2, the wetlands have a 100-foot buffer as a no-build zone around them. She asked the Board if the no-build zones around the wetlands in Parcel 2 are considered in figuring out the density. Stu Messinger said the ordinance says you have to take out the wetlands, not the wetland buffers. Jaclyn Hakes said the applicant has taken out the wetlands and the water courses. Dean Long said you can get permits to do actions in buffers. Ms. Burby stated that the applicant is looking for one of those to get the road out to Quevic, Dean agreed. Clifford Van Wagner said that calculations on the conservation subdivision summary table is the wetland area including the water courses is 56.75, which is exclusive of the buffer. He said the parcel is 106.8, total unconstrained area is 49.07 and they are required to preserve 50% of the unconstrained. Ms. Burby stated that if they tried to do this as a traditional lot it wouldn’t work, but it can work as a conservancy subdivision by using the math to get around the weaving of the wetlands in and out through the property. Jaclyn Hakes said it wouldn’t be allowed under the current zoning to do a conventional subdivision there, the conservation subdivision is a requirement in this Rural Residential zone. She said any applicant has to demonstrate why they can’t do a conservation subdivision. Ms. Burby said if they wanted to put a 2-acre lot on there, they couldn’t. Jackie said not according to the conservation subdivision regulations. Ms. Burby asked if they weren’t doing the conservation subdivision, if they could do all 2-acre lots. Jackie said they could do whatever size lots they wanted to after they determined the base density, because the flexibility within a conservation subdivision is to have flexibility in lot sizes. Stu Messinger said the 2 acres is used to establish density, not to limit lot size. Jackie said the distinction between the UR-1 cluster approach and the RR-1 conservation subdivision, in terms of determining the density, is very different. She said the determination of density in the RR-1 is based on a formula, the UR-1 is based on first having to show what a conventional subdivision would look like and the Planning Board determines the density from that, saying you can have X number of lots as a conventional, and if you do clustering you can have the same number of lots for the density, but you can modify and be flexible with the lots. Ms. Burby asked if 22 homes without the conservation subdivision would not work. Michael Perkins said the law says you have to base the calculations a certain way, which was done. Ms. Burby said she is curious, because those are different types of wetlands, if the buffer needed to be considered, and the answer was no, and there is no building within 100 feet within any of that. Chad said there are no physical structures allowed, but a pond can be within the 100-foot buffer, which is included with the permit to the DEC for those impacts within the 100-foot buffer. Laura Rappaport asked if there will be clearing within the 100-foot buffers, Chad said just for the road crossings and the pond. Amy Durland asked if the attachment to be included with the conservation management plan can show the treatment of the 100-foot buffer area. Dean Long said that will be part of the management of the upland areas, which will be managed to preserve and maintain and improve habitat for the Northern Harrier. Dan Ruzow said the plan will include them, whether they are in the adjacent area and are regulated or not, the plan is attempting to treat all of the uplands as a protected area, but from a management point of view is focusing on the Northern Harrier as a management strategy for those areas. Dean Long said a lot of these areas are open shrubby areas, and will be maintained that way. He said all the uplands and wetlands will be managed for a single ecological objective, to preserve and enhance the Northern Harrier habitat. Dan Ruzow said the design of the management of the open space is giving priority to protecting City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 22, 2009 - Page 7 of 11 habitat for the Karner Blue butterfly and the Northern Harrier. He said one could take the position that the upland areas could be converted into playing fields, but the applicant is limiting where you can go in the area because the natural environment that they want to protect is more important, which has been the premise of the EIS. He said the management plan will be very clear and consistent with those goals and how they will get there. Mary Beth Delarm, 96 Quevic Drive, asked what buffered areas the public will have free access to. Dean Long said buffers are not supposed to be an active area or a recreational area or a garbage dump, the purpose is just space to create separation. He explained where the open space areas are that are available to the public. Ms. Delarm asked if the public can use the buffers to walk in. Dean Long and the Board explained that a buffer is private property. Ms. Delarm said it will not be owned by an individual homeowner, so will it exist as a visual shed between the homes, or will people be allowed to walk. Mark Schachner said these lands will be privately held property by a private entity, which would be the Homeowners’ Association. He said he doesn’t believe that part of the applicant’s proposal is to open up the buffer areas that are owned by the HOA for public access, and he doesn’t believe the Board has indicated any expectation of that or preference for that. He said in contrast, the applicant is proposing a passive recreational trail that would be open for public access. Mary Beth Delarm asked if this would be up to the HOA. Clifford Van Wagner said people will not be allowed to trespass. Mark Schachner said sometimes people trespass and sometimes people allow it, sometimes they don’t allow it, sometimes people know about it and sometimes people don’t know about it, but his understanding is that this would be HOA privately owned property with no formal allowance of public access. Dan Ruzow said with respect to Parcel 1, things are similar but different, there are residential buffer areas, there is a large wetland area with trails which is intended to be open to the public, and then the butterfly area is off limits to folks, and there is an archeological area which is another buffer area, but has other reasons why it is being precluded from people wandering around there. Mary Beth Delarm asked if the center area would be precluded from public access. Dan Ruzow said this is not intended to be a buffer, it is open space, people can walk there. Mary Beth Delarm said the map shows that the topography will change, indicated by the green to the blue lines, and throughout the applicant’s documents the state they will not change the topography of the site. She said she wants to know what the intention of the right- of-way onto the Whitney property is for. She said she wants to know how many homes will have forced grinder pumps. She asked what will stop the center area on Parcel 1 from becoming a pond or a wetland, since it was indicated that storm water will drain into it. She asked if the applicant included swimming pools and sheds into the impervious surfaces, which will generate more storm water runoff and a great amount of sheet flow. She said she would like to know the purpose of the extra large lot bordering and almost encroaching on the butterfly preserve area, and why can’t it be reduced in size. She said she believes she read that fencing along the butterfly preserve facing Geyser Road was supposed to be 6 feet high, she said they stated that the area around it was going to be lower, but the part along Geyser Road was going to be higher. She said she feels that it should be high all the way around to discourage dumping. She encouraged a pleasant looking fence rather than chain link, something where people can’t climb over, with pointed tops so that the kids can’t climb. She said she would like to know why the corridors for the butterfly preserve were not expanded, as DEC suggested, to encourage lupine growth. She asked how the applicant will validate the existence of an efficient butterfly population, since they couldn’t secure a butterfly preserve lease on the portion of 2 Hathorn from the Markowskis. She asked if there will there be a fence along the Markowski and the butterfly preserve, since he has some butterfly population on his property. She said DEC highly discouraged that preserve and the whole site if they couldn’t secure the lease. She said she would like to know if the cutting of the trees on the butterfly site will reduce the amount of watershed in that area. She said storm water drainage district will be a further strain on the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 22, 2009 - Page 8 of 11 Public Works services, which should be included in the review, she said she doesn’t think Public Works has much more work force for anything, let alone another 85 homes. She said she would like to next time hopefully see a point of discharge diagram as an overlay. She asked how will Casino have less storm water runoff if the surfaces are higher on Pamela. She said the deviation map shows the majority of site up to Annie Drive to the back of Parcel 2 as areas that do not meet the storm water maintenance practices, so everybody is worried that the water will go into back yards and basements. She said she would like to see the sizes of the rain gardens and how they will be more efficient than the natural existing vegetation as far as the watershed goes, she said rain gardens don’t treat the water, they just collect it and hopefully absorb it. She said she doesn’t know if rain gardens will be substantial enough for the amount of excessive runoff that has been indicated is going to be generated from this subdivision. She said she would like to know how much storm water one tree will absorb, since they are willing to give up one tree to make a rain garden. She said some neighbors asked if Beaver Pond residents’ taxes will be less due to the Homeowners’ Association contributions and fees for site maintenance. The Board stated this was not stated. She said she would like to know if they are considering that. Laura Rappaport pointed out to Ms. Delarm that someone had stated that they will be paying a fee to the Homeowners’ Association, just like they would be paying taxes, in addition to taxes, there will be no reduction in taxes. Mary Beth Delarm said she would still like to see some type of money bond to protect everyone in the future and existing bordering homeowners from any flooding damage. She said she would like to know if they propose detached garages, if they have planned for the extra runoff that those will be taking up into existing homes, because there will probably be an additional driveway to the detached garages. She said she would like to know the grade difference between lots 29 through 34, to see how much water will run off onto Casino. She said it looks like Lot 29 is within the buffer zone of the archeological hot spot. She said she thought Historic Parks and Recreation asked for that to be a substantial or a specific distance so that the construction didn’t interfere with the artifacts, and the same with the other protected site on the corner of Jane and Pamela Lane. She asked where Lot 85 is on the layout. Jaclyn Hakes said an E-Mail was received today from Mr. and Mrs. Riley, 5 Timber Lane, and a letter was received on January 16, 2009, from Philip Perazio at SHPO to Joanne Flurri, staff was copied. Mary Beth Delarm asked if the wetland mitigation is at the intersection of 2 stream banks. She said she is wondering where the access road is going to come across to maintain that area and where the HOA is planning on accessing that area for maintenance. She said she would like a map of the test pit 5 is and if there are any others that indicated water and if so, at what depths. She said in regard to the layout, they were proposing storm water runoff into proposed culverts C1, 2 and 3, where the runoff would be on that, where are the culverts and how much runoff, and what properties border the culverts. She asked now that the project is reduced from 4 ponds to 2 ponds, where will the excess water and runoff go. She asked why are some of the drainage points of discharge eliminated on the post-development map. She asked why is the pre-development rate different from the 1-year and 100-year storm water. She said if it is pre- development, it would be the same, it is not going to be developed now and it is not going to be developed 100 years from now, so it would be different. Stu Messinger said he doesn’t think she understands the nature of the analysis. He said a 1-year storm is the amount of rainfall that falls in a storm that occurs on average once a year, the big storm for that year. He said a 100- year storm, is the amount of rainfall that would occur in a storm that occurs on average once in 100 years, so when you do storm water design, you design for different year storms, the City has rules about the design standard of facilities that are constructed to that standard. Mary Beth Delarm said she would like to know what amounts of impervious surfaces there are. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 22, 2009 - Page 9 of 11 Clifford Van Wagner asked Ms. Delarm what she is going to do with that information. Mary Beth Delarm said she has specific purposes. Clifford Van Wagner said he wants to make sure she is asking questions that have a means to an end. Ms. Delarm said the more impervious surfaces, the more substantial runoff there will be on surrounding neighbors’ properties, and she has numbers of people who have been asking her to find out how much acreage it is going to be, and she has asked for it in documents and hasn’t gotten any response. Stu Messinger and Jaclyn Hakes said the data is in the storm water management plan. Mary Beth Delarm said she thought the applicant could show a map showing the acreage of the impervious surfaces. Clifford Van Wagner told Ms. Delarm that she continues to insist on all this data, when that number is in the storm water management plan, and she has asked that the documents be on the web, and staff has done an inordinate job to bring this information to the public, it is in there and to continue to ask for these numbers and demand all these things when the documents are there, that she has asked to be made public, it is there, and if it is not in acreage, it is a simple calculation. Mary Beth Delarm said there is no map in that document that shows the number of impervious surfaces. Philip Klein asked to what end the map would help, because the numbers are already there. Ms. Delarm said the people want to see how close the impervious surfaces are, and if there is going to be increased flooding on the roads and in the back yards. Philip Klein said the project is designed and engineered to contain all the water and runoff on the site. Mary Beth Delarm said to make it easier to understand, the part where the swales will go are in some of these people’s back yards, and if there is a swale there will be an impervious surface. Stu Messinger said a swale is not impervious. He said the impervious areas can be specifically characterized as the roads and houses, and there is an assumption for the amount of impervious area associated with the house, that is believed to be a reasonable assumption. Mary Beth Delarm said there are also sidewalks, Stu said that is correct. Mary Beth said there are sheds and swimming pools. Stu said those would be, in a project of this size, diminumous. He said his engineering advice to the Board is that if everybody puts up a typical shed, the amount of additional impervious area would be diminumous, it will not have an effect that you would notice. Clifford Van Wagner said that people who live in Geyser Crest have sheds, and those could be contributing to the issues that are there. He said the applicant is obligated to build this so that there is no impact on the existing neighborhoods and, in all likelihood, will improve it to a certain extent. Mary Beth Delarm said that is opinionated. Clifford Van Wagner said a lot of her points have errors in them. Mary Beth Delarm said if the applicant could do that that would be great, if not, maybe they will hire their own engineer. She said she would also like to know why hasn’t the applicant mitigated the volumes expected from the sump pumps, which they said many of the homes will need. Maggie Burby, 29 Casino Drive, asked if the sidewalks will be on both sides of the street or one side in Parcel 1. Clifford Van Wagner said that wasn’t discussed in Parcel 1. Ms. Burby asked if there will be a document stating what the HOA will be responsible for. Clifford Van Wagner said the document will address that. Ms. Burby asked if the trails will be maintained in the winter, or just covered with snow. Clifford Van Wagner stated that the applicant knows what is on his shopping list, which is the conservation easement, the management plan, and at some point in time the Findings Statement. He said in addition, they will get any drafts of the conservation easement or the management plan to Jackie to distribute to the Board. The applicant will come back with some of the concerns brought up tonight regarding tweaking some of the lots, namely 29 and 34. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 22, 2009 - Page 10 of 11 APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Philip Klein moved to approve the minutes from October 22, 2008 and October 29, 2008, with the submitted corrections and comments. Seconded by Michael Perkins. Vote: Amy Durland, in favor; Michael Perkins, in favor; Laura Rappaport, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor; Dan Gaba, abstain; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor. Motion passes 5-0, one abstention, one absent. NEXT MEETING The next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for February 11, 2009, at 7:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Clifford Van Wagner adjourned the meeting at 9:51 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kathleen Livsey Recording Secretary Approved: February 11, 2009 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – January 22, 2009 - Page 11 of 11