Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES WEDNESDAY , APRIL 29, 2009 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Clifford Van Wagner, Chair; Jamin Totino; Vice Chair, Amy Durland, Michael Perkins, Laura Rappaport (arrived 7:05), Philip Klein, Dan Gaba ABSENT: No one STAFF: Jaclyn Hakes, Principal Planner ALSO PRESENT: Stuart Mesinger (arrived at 7:42), Consultant; Mark Schachner, Counsel (arrived at 8:00) CALL TO ORDER Clifford Van Wagner called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING Clifford Van Wagner said the proceedings of this meeting are being taped 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. REPORT ON ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS BY THE CHAIR 06.034.3 Kamen Center, 120 West Avenue, request to remove 3 trees from the site plan, denied on April 24, 2009. In order to modify a site plan the applicant should appear in front of full Planning Board. 09.021 Kamen Center Lot Line Adjustment, 120 West Avenue, denied on April 24. The request would require a zoning chanage. The applicant should appear before the full Planning Board. 09.018 The Elms at Saratoga Lot line Adjustment, 109 Elm Street, denied. The applicant wants to start construction on a third house which is too big for the lot. There are other alternatives, including going to the Zoning Board, coming back to the Planning Board to eliminate one lot, or build a house that is within conformity to the lot size. POSTPONED PROJECT: 09.024 Louden Meadows II, 22 Liz Ann Drive, Sketch plan review postponed at the request of the applicant to May 13, 2009, for preparation of additional work. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR Clifford Van Wagner announced that there will be a joint land use board meeting on June 30, 2009, on the third floor of City Hall. The public is invited. The program will be from the Cornell local roads program on complete streets. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Clifford Van Wagner gave this opportunity to allow citizens to address planning issues not on the scheduled agenda. Hearing none. APPLICATIONS  09.001 Wagner Subdivision, Joshua Road This is a continuation of a public hearing for a 6-lot subdivision in an Urban Residential-2 District. BACKGROUND: Jaclyn Hakes said the last time the Board saw this application it started Part II of the SEQR form and got stuck on question number 8, regarding impact on threatened or endangered species. The applicant had received a letter from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation indicating that there could be endangered habitat in the vicinity. A letter was received on April 22, 2009, from North Country Ecological Services, whose investigation concluded that, “During the site assessment, no suitable habitat or bald eagles, Indiana bats, Karner Blue butterflies and/or Frosted Elfens was found within or immediately adjacent to the site.” SEQR: Question number 8 answer can be changed to “no impact on threatened or endangered species”, with reference on Page 15 made to the ecological investigation. Appearing before the Board were Jason Dell and Joe Pultorek, from Lansing Engineering, representing the Wagner Subdivision. Joe Pultorek said that the subdivision meets all requirements for the zoning district. All utilities were installed during the original subdivision construction. There will be street landscaping and sidewalks in accordance with city standards and the surrounding areas. At the last meeting the Board requested there be a 30-foot length between the edge of the sidewalk and the garage to accommodate 2 parked cars, so the houses have been moved back 8 to 9 feet. Laura Rappaport arrived at 7:05 P.M. Amy Durland stated she had a previous concern an urban zone requires houses to be closer to the road. PUBLIC HEARING: City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 29, 2009 - Page 2 of 18 Hearing none. SEQR DECISION: Jamin Totino stated that based upon the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part II of the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, 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. Based on this, I move to make a SEQR negative declaration for this action. Seconded by Michael Perkins. Vote: Jamin Totino, in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Michael Perkins, in favor; Laura Rappaport, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Clifford Van Wagner said the Letters of Credit for Phase I and Phase II will be consolidated into one Letter of Credit for the Subdivision. The City Engineer will determine what that amount will be. Jaclyn Hakes said the applicant will also work with the City Attorney’s office to make sure that the language for the LOC agreement that already exists for Phase I and Phase II can be folded into one general LOC. PUBLIC HEARING: Hearing None. SUBDIVISION DECISION: Jamin Totino made a motion to approve the 6-lot subdivision on Joshua Road. Seconded by Laura Rappaport. Vote: Jamin Totino, in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Michael Perkins, in favor; Laura Rappaport, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor Motion carries 7-0.  08.005.1 Slade Creek, Buff Road/Route 9N This is a sketch plan review for a 17-lot subdivision in an Urban Residential-1 and Rural Residential-1 District. DISCLOSURE: Philip Klein stated that he lives on the corner of Buff Road and Walter Drive. BACKGROUND: City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 29, 2009 - Page 3 of 18 Jaclyn Hakes said this parcel is located in 2 zoning districts, the focus of the development is on the UR-1 portion. There was a question by the Board as to the extent of the wetlands. The applicant has done a delineation of the wetlands and has identified a wetlands buffer. This is officially the first sketch plan discussion, and the applicant is entitled to 2 sketch plan discussions. Appearing before the Board was Brit Basinger, from Saratoga Associates, representing M&J Construction. Also present was Manuel Ballestero, Tom Roohan and John Witt. Brit said the parcel is split into two zoning districts, east of Slade Creek is UR-1, west of Slade Creek is RR- 1. All development is proposed east of Slade Creek, in the UR-1 zone. The wetlands west and east of Slade Creek will not be disturbed. There are about 4 ½ acres of flood plane in the lower part of the site, there are approximately 4.89 acres of wetlands. There are approximately 1.76 acres of steep slope along the north/south orientation, for total constrained land of 7.57 acres and unconstrained, or buildable land, is 9.69 acres. Brit said the previous proposal had more lots, now there is a total of 17 lots, one is an existing home. All of the home sites are outside a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation required buffer of 100 feet from the existing wetlands. The last time there was a driveway accessing NYS Route 9, this has now been removed. Now 10 lots with curb cuts are accessed from Buff Road and there is a connection to the existing subdivision. Brit said all lots exceed the required minimum of 12,500 square feet. Clifford Van Wagner questioned the amount of total constrained land, stating that the numbers add up to more than 7.57. Brit said this is an error, he will refine the numbers before the next meeting. Brit clarified that the lots are proposed in areas that aren’t considered constrained land. Amy Durland asked if they are invoking the provision in the ordinance about changing the boundary 100 feet. Brit said they are not asking for any revision of the lot lines or zoning changes. The zone boundary between RR-1 and UR-1 will still be in the middle of Slade Creek. Brit said they will locate driveways to accommodate the least amount of clearing. Clifford Van Wagner asked if they are all on the cul-de-sac side. Brit said yes, they are all off of Evergreen. Phil Klein asked how many driveway cuts there are for lots 1, 2 and 3. Brit said site number 3 currently has 2 curb cuts, they are proposing to remove one. He said although they don’t want to do shared driveways, there could be an opportunity to share a driveway with Lots 1 and 2; if not, there could be 2 drives there with an access easement. He said the applicant feels strongly about having single driveways. Regarding the previous question about the existing storm water pipe, no easement was ever prepared for that storm line. The applicant is willing to provide a 25-foot easement based on the configuration recommended by Paul Male. Philip Klein said in light of that, he wonder if any consideration was given to combining the two small lots to be more in conformance. Clifford Van Wagner requested an overlay of lot layout variations with lots 14 and 15 combined, as well as the elimination of the road that goes through there. He said that area appears heavy to him. Brit said cul-de-sacs take up a lot of room, and it would create a lot of impact on the site. The Board would still like to see these options. Laura Rappaport said she would like to see something without the curved road, with the lots facing Buff Road. Stuart Mesinger arrived at 7:42 P.M. Tom Roohan said one of the things that Mr. Ballestero liked about connecting the road to Heritage Manor is that lots 16, 17 and 11 would no longer have a driveway on Buff Road. He said the lots on Church Street would be smaller lots which would allow a broader range of housing value in the subdivision. These houses are in an area where Design Review Commission review would be required. He said this would ensure that they have a positive experience when you come into the City of Saratoga. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 29, 2009 - Page 4 of 18 John Witt said they have looked at a number of different layouts for this project, including an alley with almost twice as many lots, which would fit into the zoning and would match the lots across the way. He said it is more attractive not to have driveways on Buff Road, if possible. He said the looped road, or some creative way to connect through it, makes a lot of sense. He said lot 15 is a little tight, but you could put a small house there and create another level of affordability. Amy Durland asked what he means by level of affordability. John said the more lots you have on a piece of property, the less money you have to get for each lot. He said lot 15 would be a less desirable lot because of the size constraint. He said the house prices would start at $350,000 for that lot, going up from there. DISCUSSION: Amy Durland said the property is at the top of an extremely steep and deep slope, and the creek is incredible, which makes this a potentially environmentally sensitive area. She said she is glad they are not invoking the 100-foot provision, she is still concerned about dividing the parcel up into lots that extend from Buff Road to the creek. She said this will divide up management of environmental issues pertaining to maintenance of the creek. She said it would be more difficult to manage this with that many owners. She said the property owners will have a lot in the RR-1 district, and she wonders how meaningful information could be conveyed to them about the restrictions and the use of the property, she would be concerned about people abusing the slope in some way by dumping trash or leaves or something down there. She asked what is the classification of the wetland, Brit said he will get that information before the next meeting. Amy noted that the stream classification is CT, which is the highest classification of the state stream classification system in need of the most protection, which amplifies her concerns about the environmental sensitivity of the sites. She said when the Heritage subdivision was approved, the City gained access to a site for a trail. She said there was an expectation that that would continue. She asked if the trail system will disappear with this project. Phil Klein asked the applicant if they would be interested in extending the trail system all the way up to Route 9N. Amy said it would be helpful to have more information about the trail system. She understood it would be up along the edge of the slope rather than down by the creek. She said this is a narrow area for building lots and still maintain some of the potential environment features that would protect it. She wondered if the Board would consider a no-cut buffer along the street and slope. She has a concern about the building envelope getting so close to the slope. She said the Board needs a geotechnical report, done by a very authoritative source, regarding the slope’s stability. She said it looks like the building envelope goes right up to the top of the bank. Brit said they don’t intend to build all the way back. Amy said she feels that 10 driveways along Buff Road would change the nature of Buff Road along that stretch, so she feels there have to be shared driveways. She would like to know about the drainage system. Jaclyn Hakes said a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan is not required for a sketch discussion application. Brit said he will present a conceptual plan at the next meeting. Laura Rappaport asked if owner of the property has ever considered donating the creek to a land preservation agency or selling it to someone who would maintain it for the public trust. She asked if they would cut out the RR-1 section for preservation. Brit said nothing will happen on the west side of Slade Creek, and they would like to provide the homeowners with access there. Laura said there is nothing protecting the other side of the bank. Brit said perhaps there could be a Homeowners’ Association with covenants. Mark Schachner arrived at 8:00 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 29, 2009 - Page 5 of 18 Amy Durland said if there is an HOA, there has to be more than just having the restrictions written into the deed, there has to be meaningful way of conveying the information. She said the application should articulate very clearly that there would be a meaningful organization involved in terms of the conservation of that area. Clifford Van Wagner recapped the Board’s concerns: the number of curb cuts on the Buff Road side that doesn’t have Evergreen on it; the wetlands and slope; and the intensity down at the bottom where lots 14, 15 and 16 are. Phil Klein said there are 3 additional curb cuts on the east side of Buff Road, one on the bottom and 2 on the top. He asked the applicant to determine the acreage in that zone. Cliff said the Board is also requesting clarification of the status of the trail that was proposed in the Heritage Manor Subdivision with a map that shows the location of the entire trail. Jamin Totino requested an aerial photo that expands out further. Michael Perkins said an HOA may be a good idea, particularly regarding fertilization near the creek, which flows into Saratoga Lake. Clifford Van Wagner said the applicant should be prepared, if this does proceed, that they might not get 17 lots. He asked the applicant to come back with as many variations as they can come up with. Amy Durland said she would like to make sure that this is complying with Article 12 of the Ordinance, the water course protection section. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hearing none. The Board recessed from 8:10 to 8:20  05.057 Beaver Pond Village, 98 Geyser Road This is a continuation of a public hearing for an 85-lot subdivision in an Urban Residential-1 District and Rural Residential-1 District. DISCLOSURES: Dan Gaba owns rental property on Quevic Drive. Michael Perkins recused himself from the rest of this hearing and left the Board room at 8:22. BACKGROUND: Jaclyn Hakes gave an update. The Planning Board accepted the Final Environmental Impact Statement as complete. The public hearing has been opened for review of the preliminary subdivision, and the Board has been going through this with the applicant. Before the Board tonight is a revised Findings Statement, which is the final step in the SEQR process. The next step is for the board to adopt a Findings Statement, either positive or negative. If positive, the Planning Board will move forward with a review of the preliminary subdivision. Appearing before the Board were Daniel Ruzow, from Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna, representing Saratoga East Avenue Associates, and Chad Cooke, from Boswell Engineering. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 29, 2009 - Page 6 of 18 Chad presented the updated plans, with changes as follows: Parcel 1 will maintain a consistent setback from Geyser Road for all lots; they have narrowed the swale and created a 15-foot no- cut buffer to the properties on Casino Drive; they removed a lot; they increased the buffer to Geyser Road; they have combined 2 lots into one lot, which increased the buffer to the butterfly habitat; they shifted 6 lots to the south away from the wetland and reduced the grading impacts; they added a sliver of a buffer between one lot and the butterfly habitat area; they shifted lots 29 through 34 to the south to increase the buffer to wetland 6; they increased the size of Lot 29; they added an access to the open area; they changed a lot line to maintain a 70-foot buffer area to the properties on Quevic Drive; the rain garden locations were changed to corner lots for larger rain gardens; on Parcel 2, they increased the buffer to Casino Drive from 80 feet to 100 feet; they combined 2 lots into one lot to cluster it in with the others; they moved Lot 74 to cluster it with the other lots; they reduced the pavement width to 24 feet out to Quevic Drive where they tie into existing pavement; the grading was reduced to approximately a maximum amount of fill of 6 feet and reduced the cut to 6 feet; and they included 2 rain gardens. Chad explained the summary table for Parcel 2, which is 106.8 acres. There are no areas on that parcel in the flood plane. There is about an acre with slopes of 25% or more, more than 2,000 square feet. The wetland area is 56.75 acres. The total constrained area is 57.73 acres. 50% of the unconstrained land is required to be a conservation easement, which is 24.54 acres. With a 2-acre lot size, this results in 25 acres for Parcel 2, of which they are proposing to build on 21 acres. Laura Rappaport confirmed that about 73 of the 106 acres cannot be built on, which leaves 33 acres. Chad said they are proposing to build on 13.57 of that 33 acres on Parcel 2. Amy Durland asked Chad what he means by land that can be built on, if it is dry land, regardless of how it might be accessed. Chad said that is correct. Amy said there may be upland in theory that could be developed, but may be constrained by a number of wetlands accessing that land. She said even that could be defined as unconstrained, it is in a sense constrained. Chad said it meets the definition of constrained, whether or not you can build on it is another story. Laura said of the 33 acres allowed to be built on by the City’s code, they are proposing to build on 13.57 acres, which is a little more than a third, not 10%. She said in some places the application portrays that they will build on 13.57 acres of the 106-acre lot, which is 10% of what is owned. Chad said the 13.57 acres includes the area all the way out to the backs of the lots, which contains space beyond the tree line. He said of the 13.57 acres that is shown as developed, not all of it will actually be impacted, which is where the 10% came from. He said of the 106 acres, only 10 acres will actually be impacted, the other 3 acres will remain existing. He said the green areas on the map are upland areas, almost 40 acres, which is a little less than twice of what is required to be put into an easement for a conservation subdivision. Chad said the landscaping plan submitted to the Board now quantifies the number of trees and shrubs that are proposed for each lot. They are 2 trees, one of a larger caliper than the other on Parcel 1, and on Parcel 2 there will be 4 trees per lot, two of which will be at least a 4-inch caliper, the smaller ones will be 2 ½ inches. BOARD COMMENTS/APPLICANT RESPONSES: Jaclyn Hakes read the Planning Board comments on the draft Beaver Pond Village Findings Statement prepared by the applicant as revised: General Comments 1. A table of contents should be provided. [provided] City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 29, 2009 - Page 7 of 18  2. The document occasionally characterizes levels of impact using language such as “only xxx acres will be disturbed” or “only xxx houses will be constructed.” The Findings should not characterize impacts but rather, should simply state the facts in an objective manner. [change made as appropriate] Cover Page 3. As required by 6 NYCRRR §617.12(a)(1), the SEQRA classification (Type I) should be added to the cover page. [change made] Introductory Paragraph 4. This paragraph should indicate that the Findings are also based upon review of comments from the public and other involved agencies and the responses provided by the applicant. [change made] I. Project Background 5. In the second part of the fourth paragraph of the Project Description, “that portion of” should be added to clarify that the entire project does not qualify for the 20% density bonus. [change made] 6. In the last paragraph on page 4, a description of the parking to be provided for the public access to the trail system should be added. [change made] 7. In the Project Description, it is important to make clear that the 85-lot alternative was developed in response to comments made on the DEIS and was thoroughly reviewed by the Planning Board and available for public review and comment as part of the SEQRA process rather than only in connection with the later Subdivision Review. Amy Durland commented that some of the terms of the suggested language, which were largely incorporated by the applicant, could be characterized under the general comments Number 2 as not avoiding those terms that we want to avoid; e.g., “although not required by law, the Planning Board provided opportunities for comments on the DEIS. Following review of this information, the applicant and the Planning Board agreed that this alternative is more appropriate for the project site than the applicant’s original proposal.” “Reduction of the number of lots to be developed clearly will not have any adverse environmental impacts and instead will reduce the potential…” . Amy said she agrees with Comment Number 2, that the document sometimes uses language that characterizes things in a less objective fashion, and she thinks some of the language in Number 7 does the same thing. Laura Rappaport agreed with that assessment. 8. In the fourth sentence of the Agency Jurisdiction, “The County Planning Board approved…” should be changed to “The County Planning Board recommended approval…” [change made] 9. References to comments on the “project” should be changed to comments on the “DEIS and the draft FEIS”, respectively. [change made] City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 29, 2009 - Page 8 of 18 II. Geological and Topographic Resources 10. Finding II should elaborate on the total amount of cut and fill and provide an average of the cut and fill across the entire site. [changes were made, except for an average of the cut and fill across the entire site. Given the variable terrain across the site, creating an average is difficult and does not reflect the localized nature of the cut and fill requirements, and could be misleading. The applicant has attempted to reflect the fact that there will be more fill than cut distributed throughout the site as conditions require] III. Surface Water and Groundwater Resources: Storm water Management 11. The findings relating to the surface water is a general statement about typical impacts rather than a determination of impact . It would be more appropriate to identify the findings. [statement removed] 12. The section on groundwater impacts should be divided into impacts during construction and impacts following build-out and a discussion of why groundwater will not be impacted during construction should be provided. [changes made] 13. At the end of one portion of the storm water section, clarification is needed regarding the treatment of the excepted impervious areas where rain gardens are not applicable. [changes were made and certain paragraphs were re-worked to avoid duplication. Since rain gardens are not being installed in the deviation areas, references to those rain gardens have been removed] 14. The information regarding the Notice of Completion of the FEIS relating to the stream in the center of the property should be added. [change made] 15. Finding III should provide more detail on the depth to ground water across the site as determined from test borings. [changes made] 16. Finding III should discuss the function and maintenance of the railroad and culverts, as they affect drainage on the project site. [change made] IV. Air Resources This was a formatting issue, should be numbered IV and subsequent sections re- numbered accordingly. [change made] V. Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology 17. Finding IV should provide more detail on public claims that there are RTE species on site, the conclusions of the various studies regarding such species and DEC’s concurrence with the adequacy of the studies. [changes made] 18. A portion that identifies “except for requirement management activities” should be added. (“The preserve area will remain undisturbed except for required management activities…”) [changes made] City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 29, 2009 - Page 9 of 18  19. References to the HOA’s responsibilities for management activities and costs should also indicate that the applicant/sponsor will be responsible for these activities until the HOA is formed and is able to assume them. [change made] 20. The Findings should elaborate on the duties and responsibilities of the Homeowner’s Association, the elements of the Open Space Management Plan and the elements of the Conservation Easement, including the possible entities responsible for managing the open space lands. [changes made] VI. Soils 21. There was a request to reiterate information contained earlier on in the Findings Statement of the Notice of Completion regarding farm land. [change made] 22. Finding VIII states that the Wareham Loamy Sand is found in areas of the site containing mostly wetlands. This is mostly, but not entirely true and should be restated. [change made] 23. A portion of paragraph 2 states the development rating for Windsor soils is “highly favorable.” This should be checked, as we believe it is rated as “favorable”. [change made] 24. Item VII should discuss the total amount of grading and site disturbance. [change made] VII. Land Use and Zoning 25. The reference to Subdivision Regulations should be deleted. [change made] 26. Paragraphs 7 and 8 would be more appropriate in the Findings relating to storm water and traffic. [change made] VIII. Traffic 27. Revise to include more specific information provided in the “Summary of the 84- lot alternative”. [change made] 28. Whether there are adequate public lands available for construction of a right turn lane. We do not recall the Planning Board expressing a preference for a turning lane over a signal but, in any event, clarification is required. [The applicant has changed this reference to the County DPW’s expressed preference for a right turn lane (see FEIS). Since the FEIS concluded that Hathorn Blvd. could accommodate 3 lanes without additional widening, the applicant has removed the reference to widening. They have made a conforming change to the paragraph regarding the mitigation in this section] IX. Community Services 29. It is suggested that a range of possible school children generation as analyzed in the EIS be added. [change made] City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 29, 2009 - Page 10 of 18  30. There was a suggestion to clarify the “either multiplier scenario” that was unclear. [clarified] X. Utilities and Public Works and Services 31. Under the treatment facility portion it was suggested that it indicate that the treatment facility also has sufficient capacity to handle the additional waste water. [change made] XI. Cultural Resources 32. The Visual Impacts Findings appear under the Cultural Resources heading. Visual Impacts should have its own section. [change made, applicant broke out the visual, noise and vibration, and historic/archeological resources into their own sections] 33. They should discuss the long-term management of these areas. [change made] XII. Segmentation 34. Paragraph 1 should state that the applicant has “agreed and represented that it will not pursue any development” rather than it has no “intention” of pursuing any development. [change made] XIII. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts No comments. XIV. Alternatives 35. The assertion in paragraph 1 that the “No Action” alternative would not meet the City’s goals is inappropriate. The goals are to guide development rather than affirmatively seek it out and the City would have no objection to a “No Action”. [change made] 36. Paragraph 1 should also note that the Karner Blue butterfly habitat would be degraded and ultimately eliminated by succession if no management is undertaken. [change made] XV. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 37. The reference to 150 acre development is confusing. The consultants suggested refinement of this discussion to explain what portions will be disturbed and what will not be disturbed. [change made] XVI. Growth Including Aspects of the Project No comments. XVII. Effect on Use and Conservation of Energy City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 29, 2009 - Page 11 of 18  No comments XVIII. Benefits to the City 38. Unless the recreation fees and building permit fees listed in paragraph 1 are annual revenue sources, they should not be included in the total revenues. [changes made] Jackie indicated to the Board members that the building permit fee and recreation fee were previous fees that have been changed since then. The recreation fee was $800 and is now $1,500. 39. Paragraph 3 should state school district costs and revenues using the range of school children generated presented in the EIS. [change made] 40. Paragraph 5 should add that the preserve area will remain undisturbed except for the required management activities. [change made] Certificate of Findings to Approve Action 41. The last phrase of paragraph 2 should be revised to read, “outweigh any adverse environmental impacts that may be created by the Project…”. [change made] ADDITIONAL BOARD COMMENTS: Laura Rappaport indicated that she hasn’t had time to read the final draft that was submitted at the beginning of this meeting, so she will make comments based on the copy she received on Monday. She noted that a change she had requested to be made has not been included. She said what she would like to see spelled out in the document is the issue of the constrained land versus the unconstrained land and what is being represented as the number of acres being built on versus the number of acres that are permitted to be built on, particularly on Parcel 2. Clifford Van Wagner asked Mark Schachner if there is a map that includes this information, does it also have to be in the text. Mark Schachner said it doesn’t have to be spelled out, but if the text is inconsistent with the drawings, that would be problematic. Laura stated she would like the math to be spelled out in the written document, to include how many acres are allowed to be built on per City code, including the percentage. Mark Schachner suggested the following: “The project development area on Parcel 2, not including Lot 85, has an area of +/- 107 acres. Pursuant to City Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 of the Conservation Subdivision, 33 acres (x%) are potentially developable, of which +/- 13 acres (x%) will be developed into 21 conservation subdivision lots”. Amy Durland stated that the rest of the document has to be reviewed for that type of comment. Laura said after that, the statement, “As with Parcel 1, the remaining 94 +/- acres…” doesn’t need to say “as with Parcel 1”, because Parcel 1 is not preserving 94 acres. This should outline of the 94 acres that are being dedicated as open space, a certain number of those are constrained by our code. Again, the statement that 79% of the project site will remain open space, as 21% of that area (remove the word “only”) will actually be developed, needs to indicate that that is constrained by our code. She suggested maybe there could be one summary statement suggesting code constraints. Laura stated that the document was written by the applicant, and it advocates the applicant’s point of view. She said it could be written in a way that helps the applicant’s point or harms the applicant’s point, depending on the emphasis and depending on the way you present the numbers. Clifford Van Wagner said the numbers City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 29, 2009 - Page 12 of 18 speak for themselves. Daniel Ruzow said he believes Mark’s suggestion of the simple characterization of what is constrained, with the percentage, of which will be developed, will capture what Laura is asking for. He said this document is written regarding the net environmental effects of what is occurring. He said they are protecting the balance of the property legally in a way that is not currently in existence with conservation easements on 79% of the property. Amy Durland said she is not yet certain if certain comments appear in the final document, because it was only received at the beginning of this meeting, and the Board only received the revised draft Monday night. She said if the Board goes through each comment that each member made, it will take a considerable amount of time. She wondered if there is a more efficient way to proceed. Jackie said that tonight she provided the Board members with a clean copy of the comments, rather than the black-line copy. She suggested that the applicant could go through the comments that she summarized that she received and provided to them, and identify how they have been addressed. Phil Klein said this is a factual document, there are questions and answers, and everyone has to be careful that they don’t try and editorialize the document and sway it one way or the other. Jaclyn Hakes said a comment that she relayed to the applicant regarding the development of Lot 85, which the applicant stated would be not sooner than 4 years from the approval of the project. She said in the Findings Statement, this is identified as the preliminary plat approval. There was some confusion as to whether that meant 4 years after final approval or 4 years after preliminary plat approval. She said the October FEIS states, from any approval. Mark Schachner said it should be final approval, because a substantial amount of time could conceivably occur between preliminary approval and final approval, and perhaps preliminary approval could be issued and final approval could never be issued. Dan Ruzow said they think it should be preliminary plat approval. There was a consensus from the Board that it should be from final approval. Laura Rappaport said on page 4, it is stated that the applicant has “committed” to leaving Lot 85 undeveloped, and in another section “committed” was changed to something like, “represented and it’s been agreed upon”. Mark Schachner said if it doesn’t say “represented and agreed” where he suggested it say “represented and agreed”, he would be more comfortable with “represented and agreed”. There was a question with regard to the deed restrictions that were identified, in that deed restrictions are important in regard to restricting the protected areas, but by themselves are ineffective methods of doing that. This has been reflected to read, “They will be protected by fencing and signage during construction and by deed restrictions and other appropriate methods after construction, to be determined during the completion of the Open Space Management Plan and final plat approval”. Amy Durland said she is comfortable with that, as long as there is similar language in any other section in the document that might refer to other protected sites, not just the archeologically protected sites. Jaclyn Hakes said it was asked what is meant by “active and passive recreational areas and facilities”. She said this is a reference to the Open Space goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan provision will be referenced in quotes in the document. Phil Klein suggested removing the words “active and”, which the Board agreed to. Jaclyn Hakes said the document states “The natural surface water drainage pattern on the property will not be altered significantly”. The question is whether that is true. Stuart Mesinger said he concurs that is true, the goals of the storm water management plan are to ensure that post-development runoff is equal to or less than previous conditions. Runoff will not be directed City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 29, 2009 - Page 13 of 18 into areas where runoff was previously not directed. The Board agreed that this language could be left as is. There was a question asking what is the effect of the ground water and storm water discharge onto the wetlands. Stuart Mesinger said there was concern about an increase in the level of the wetlands because of drainage. For the same reasons, he doesn’t think it will have an effect on the wetlands, because the same amount of rain comes down, it runs off faster because of more impervious surfaces, it is directed to drainage basins and is released to the same drainage system and ends up in the same places, it just gets there by different routes. There was a question whether there are stream buffers. Chad Cooke said there is sufficient buffer on both sides of the stream, at a minimum of 300 feet, which is not much different than it is now. Jaclyn Hakes said the next question was with regard to the season inventory and a clear identification in the Final Statement of the multiple seasons. Dean Long, from the LA Group, said there were biological surveys in the spring of 2006 and 2007 that extended out through June, biological inventories were completed for plant life through spring and summer, additionally there have been frequent inspections of the Karner Blue habitat each summer. Stuart Mesinger requested that the applicant put those dates in the document. Dean said it was March 29, April 3, April 14, May 9, May 18, May 23, May 26, June 6 in 2006, and April 9 in 2007. He said the inspections of the lupines occur in late May and July annually. There was a question with regard to the wildlife section, which quotes, “short term displacement of wildlife during construction”. The question is whether that can be verified and whether that is an appropriate term. Stuart Mesinger said they should get rid of the term “short-term”, maybe some of it will come back, but probably not. A clarification was requested regarding if there is an area to mitigate the compromised wetland buffers as opposed to the wetlands themselves. Stuart Mesinger said there is no regulated wetland buffer, because they are federal wetlands, not DEC. Amy Durland said she thought there was approximately 1 acre of wetland that would be replaced by the mitigation wetlands, and there are something like 4 acres of wetland buffers that were part of the equation. Daniel Ruzow said the impacted wetland is only .27 acres. Dean Long said there will be buffer impacts when they construct the storm water basins, which is a relatively common impact to end up with storm water basins in adjacent areas. They will be seeking authorization from DEC to have this disturbance. Amy asked what the wetland classification is, Dean said 2, because of the open water features and the brush features. Jaclyn Hakes said the next question was with regard to the buffers surrounding the neighborhood. Amy Durland asked the applicant to indicate in the document was size the buffers are. Next was the conclusion of the Planning Board in determining whether to pursue affordable housing in the development, but these comments do not appear to be supported in the Planning Board minutes at that time. The suggestion is to either eliminate those comments or substantiate them further. This sentence now reads, “The concept of affordable housing was explored in the early development phases of the project, but the applicant, with the acknowledgement of the Planning Board, pursued a development with open space”. The sentence that has been deleted is, “The Planning Board concluded that this location, in the outer district of the city, is more appropriate for open space preservation than for provision of City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 29, 2009 - Page 14 of 18 affordable housing.” Amy Durland said it is unnecessary to put in “with the acknowledgement of the Planning Board”, because she is not convinced that that is the case, and there is nothing in the record to support it. Cliff Van Wagner said it was discussed early, and the Planning Board knew that an affordable housing component was not pursued by the applicant. Laura Rappaport said regarding the percentages, what could work would be “Altogether, approximately 79% of the project site will remain open space and (delete “as only”) 21% of that area will be developed (delete “actual”). She requested in the second sentence in the next paragraph to add “…permitted to contain up to 70 lots”. She said the footnote regarding the HOA paying for management should be included in the document text. Mark Schachner said legally this can be a footnote. Where it says the open space is preserved by the project should say, the open space is in the project area. Mark Schachner said legally there is no distinction. Amy Durland said the word “agricultural” should be “horticultural”. Amy said she is uncomfortable with the HOA taking on such a huge responsibility, she would prefer to have some indication of the expectations of the HOA and how their responsibilities will be conveyed to them, so the homeowners understand their responsibilities. Dan Ruzow said this will be in the Open Space Plan and the HOA covenants, which will be back before the Board. Amy requested there be a reference to the HOA responsibilities being delineated in that document, and that discussion will be deferred until then. Jackie Hakes stated that there should be language identifying that the City has to approve of the final language that is in the Open Space Management Plan, and reference the HOA responsibilities to provide education to its members. Mark Schachner said that each individual who purchases a lot in this subdivision will have to do so after reviewing and receiving an Offering Plan, because the HOA is of sufficient size to require New York State Department of Law approval of an Offering Plan. Amy said she is for the most meaningful way of conveying the information both to the HOA as to its responsibilities, and to the homeowners as to their restrictions and responsibilities. Mark Schachner read the sentence he prepared to be added, “All lot owners shall be apprised of HOA obligations and responsibilities through receipt of the HOA Offering Plan and Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions.” Laura Rappaport said regarding the reduction in the number of lots, she has trouble with the word “clearly”. She would like it to read “may”. Stuart Mesinger said he doesn’t have a problem with the statement, because the less lots, the less impact. Amy Durland requested that quantification be added to clauses such as “the buffer between the new homes and the Karner Blue preserve and the archeological avoidance area…”. Laura Rappaport said after the paragraph about the reduction of the lots will not have an adverse environmental impact, the next paragraph, she would like to remove the word “minor” in the sentence regarding modifications to the proposed plat. Regarding the project grading and filling plan, rather than “small” portion of the site, perhaps state the number of acres that will be altered. Dan Ruzow pointed out that the number 11 is now down to 6. Laura requested stating the percentage of the buildable land that is going to have impervious surfaces on it. She requested that the document name the owner of the railroad. Take out the statement, “Due to the heavy usage of the existing track, it is highly unlikely that the railroad would neglect routine maintenance”. Amy Durland said under the Community Services section, the applicant refers to an estimating guide and a portion of the record, but it ignores comments that were made by the Commissioner of Public Safety regarding his view that the project and other relatively high density new projects will affect the level of service provided by uniformed personnel. She said Commissioner Kim’s City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 29, 2009 - Page 15 of 18 statement took into account more than just population, but he included land mass and distance. She addressed the issue of energy efficient equipment used during construction, and asked how the applicant defines this. Dean Long said they are not setting out a standard or a specific goal. Mark Schachner questioned the inconsistent statements that the homes “will” contain high performance windows, “will” include proper insulation, then “may” be equipped with energy star in the home. Further it states the products “will” save energy…Phil Klein said someone may not choose an energy star appliance. Dean Long said the windows and insulation are all controlled under State building code. Amy asked if the project is going to go above and beyond what is required by regulations, because some people do as a selling point. Dan Ruzow said they need a builder to do that. He said with the carrying costs of the project, they cannot intelligently burden it with additional commitments beyond that which they think are financially feasible. He said this developer will be selling lots to builders, who will have their own market. Clifford Van Wagner suggested removing the sentences, “Homes will be equipped with…”, and “These products will save energy…”. Clifford Van Wagner asked what the protective fencing will be made of and how high will it be. After discussion, it was decided the fencing will be a 6-foot high black coated chain link. Amy Durland spoke about a recently received letter from Molly Gagne asking about the possibility of providing any ancillary or additional services that aren’t directly related to the project that might be able to be provided through this project as an incentive. Dan Ruzow said they have no specific proposal for additional benefits outside of the project itself. He said he did previously say if there is a specific proposal they want to present to the applicant, they should do that. He said he doesn’t know that there is any basis for this Board to be requesting something in addition beyond that which they are proposing to do. He said they are connecting Geyser Crest to a new open space area with sidewalks and additional parking, which is advantageous to that neighborhood as well as the others in the area. He said if someone comes to the applicant saying they have money for some additional thing, then the applicant can respond to it. Jackie Hakes said a grass roots group has hired an engineer to do a feasibility study, so there may be something more substantial after that is completed. Dan Ruzow said that would be helpful, but if the Board approves this project and an Article 78 proceeding is brought against the approval and the applicant has to defend that, there will be less money left to do other things for the area. Amy said on Page 24, she would like to change some wording in the statement, “plants and animals on the project site are typical of upland forests in the Northeast…”, and omit “extensively”, and “despite the claims to the contrary by several members of the public”. Also, “to confirm the absence of any other species”, is an incorrect conclusion that is not scientifically valid. She said this didn’t confirm the absence, it simply means that it wasn’t found, absence of proof is not proof of absence. Stuart Mesinger suggested it say “these surveys did not discover any other protected species”. Clifford Van Wagner said although the Board has asked numerous times for people not to E- mail Planning Board members comments and documents, a couple more were received in the last couple of days. This afternoon he received one from David Myers of Myers Engineering. Stuart Mesinger said he also received this by E-mail, and in short summary, Mr. Myers has looked at the old storm water report, not the current storm water report. He said Mr. Myers’ comments were very similar to the comments Chazen raised on the old report. He said the project doesn’t use infiltration basins any more, it uses lined retention basins, so the ground water issue is no longer an issue. There was a comment in the E-mail regarding the DEC regulating excess runoff, Stu said the DEC does not regulate volume, because you size the basins according to volume, they regulate the rate of runoff and they regulate quality. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 29, 2009 - Page 16 of 18 Clifford Van Wagner asked for a consensus of a time frame to get Board comments to Jackie, she will forward them to the applicant, and they will be reviewed at a later meeting. Jaclyn Hakes said two other letters were received today, which are in the Board’s packets. A letter was received on April 16, 2009, to Assemblyman Tedisco from Scott Varley at 28 Division Street. A letter was also received today from David Lee, 2379 Route 50, and a letter was received today from Laura DiBetta, 1 Pearl Street. PUBLIC COMMENT: Clifford Van Wagner indicated that there is no requirement for a public hearing on a Findings Statement, but brief public comments will be heard. Charles Hollinger, 56 Quevic Drive, spoke about the percentage of usage presented on the table. He believes the numbers are incorrect. Mary Beth Delarm, 96 Quevic Drive, presented a letter from Nanette Donovan, 3 Quevic Drive. Mary Beth asked for the storm water report to be provided to her. She said she feels that the storm water sizes are not adequate to hold the water, whether they are lined or not, because runoff would be exacerbated from the impervious surfaces. She said the neighborhood downhill would be flooded as well as the surrounding new homes. She questioned the statement that the DEC does not regulate runoff. She said Mr. Myers quoted from the DEC manual that it does. Stu assured her that the basins are properly sized. Mary Beth asked if the material she asked for can be provided to her. Jackie Hakes said multiple versions of them are available in her office during office hours. Mark Schachner said under the Freedom of Information Law the requestor must know within 5 business days when a copy of a document would be available, and for a charge. Jackie asked Mary Beth to submit in writing exactly what information she would like copied. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSURE DECISION: Motion to close the public hearing on the Preliminary Subdivision by Jamin Totino. Seconded by Philip Klein. Amy Durland asked why the public hearing is being closed now. Clifford Van Wagner said because the Board expects no new information, it expects to work on a final Findings Statement in 2 weeks, which does not require a public hearing. Amy said the Board hasn’t voted on the subdivision. Mark Schachner said the Board can’t vote on the subdivision before it adopts the Findings Statement. Amy said there are any number of things that might come in, since this would close the public hearing for the subdivision application. Cliff said it is within the Board’s means to close the public hearing at this stage, which was affirmed by counsel. Amy asked what the effect of incoming information would be. Mark Schachner said the Board has no obligation to consider comments, verbal, written or in any form, after closing the public hearing. Amy said she thinks it is premature. Phil Klein asked if the Board can still consider substantial incoming information after this. Mark said you can’t be penalized for over-compliance, and this Board has a history of accepting and considering public comments and documents when it is not obligated to. Laura Rappaport said there may still be information coming in. Philip Klein said if something substantial comes in, the Board will recognize it. Jamin Totino said in his judgement most of what has been seen in recent history has been the same information regurgitated in a different way. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 29, 2009 - Page 17 of 18 Vote: Jamin Totino, in favor; Amy Durland, opposed; Laura Rappaport, opposed; Philip Klein, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor. Motion carries 4-2, one recused. NEXT MEETING The next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for May 13, 2009, at 7:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Clifford Van Wagner adjourned the meeting at 11:24 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kathleen Livsey Recording Secretary Adopted: May 13, 2009 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – April 29, 2009 - Page 18 of 18