Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES WEDNESDAY , MAY 13 , 2009 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Clifford Van Wagner, Chair; Jamin Totino; Vice Chair, Amy Durland, Michael Perkins, Laura Rappaport, Philip Klein, Dan Gaba ABSENT: No one STAFF: Bradley Birge, Administrator ALSO PRESENT: Mark Schachner, Counsel; Stuart Mesinger, Consultant CALL TO ORDER Chair Clifford Van Wagner called the meeting to order at 7:03 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 There were no administrative actions reported. POSTPONED PROJECT 09.025 Weibel Avenue retail/office, 72-74 Weibel Avenue. Clifford Van Wagner opened the public hearing and closed it; the reason is that the Fire Department recommended no action be taken on this project until numerous code violatons in the building were corrected. There is no reason to hear the application until the code violations are resolved. There is no follow-up time. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR May 15, 2009, is the First Annual Saratoga Bike to Work Challenge sponsored by the Saratoga Healthy Transportation Network. June 30, 2009, there will be a Joint Land Use Boards meeting in the Music Hall. The speaker will be Lois Chapman speaking about complete streets. June 4, 2009, the CDRPC Local Government Planning and Zoning Workshop is being held from 8 A.M. to 3 P.M. at Hudson Valley Community College. 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  09.023 124 Jefferson Street, 124 Jefferson Street This is a public hearing for a special use permit extension in an Urban Residential-2 District. Bradley Birge gave the background. The 2-lot subdivision was approved on July 27, 2005. At that time, zoning allowed for a density bonus for senior housing. A special use permit was granted in 2005 and a site plan was approved in 2006. Since that time, zoning has changed to better identify as far as public benefit what the City can expect in exchange for a density bonus. Mr. Jelenik had received these approvals, which have since expired, and he is seeking an extension for both. Appearing before the Board was David Jelenik , who said he is requesting to extend the previously approved project. He is not asking for any changes in the site plan or buildings. Clifford Van Wagner said the applicant is entitled to one extension not to exceed 18 months. Cliff said there are concerns about apparent construction storage on the property. David Jelenik said at the moment he is doing the City a favor by allowing Jablonski Construction to use that site as a staging area for the storm water management project on the southeast side of the city. He said they are about 2 weeks away from completion and will leave the site as it was when they started. Amy Durland asked for a brief description of the project. David Jelenik said it will be 6 units of senior housing of attached townhomes. PUBLIC HEARING: Hearing none. The public hearing was closed. DECISION: Jamin Totino made a motion to approve the request for the extension, knowing that the applicant is entitled to one maximum 18-month extension, which if granted tonight, would expire August 7, 2010. Amy Durland seconded. 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. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 13, 2009 - Page 2 of 16  09.022 124 Jefferson Street, 124 Jefferson Street This is a site plan extension in an Urban Residential-2 District. Appearing before the Board was David Jelenik, who said the reason for his request to extend the site plan approval is the market. PUBLIC HEARING: Hearing none. The public hearing was closed. DECISION: Jamin Totino made a motion to grant a one-time maximum 18-month extension of thE site plan, knowing that it will expire August 7, 2010. Philip Klein seconded. 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.  09.020 Saratoga Strike Zone, 32 Ballston Avenue This is a site plan review of bowling alley renovations in a Transect-5 District. Bradley Birge gave the background. The original site plan for this was approved in 1985. Mr. Parillo is proposing a minor expansion of the building, a façade renovation and parking lot improvements. They have received zoning variances for build-out and build-to area reliefs, and have received Design Review Commission approval. DISCLOSURE: Michael Perkins disclosed that he had the LA Group do work for him within the last 12 months. Appearing before the Board were Michael Tuck, Architect, Dave Carr and Matthew Brobston from the LA Group. Also present in the audience were Frank Parillo and Rich Sheldon, from Saratoga 16, applicant. Dave Carr said the applicant is looking to make the facility more family and kid friendly, more accessible to school outings, to provide a safer environment and to give the site a facelift. Michael Tuck gave a power point presentation. He said there are significant water issues and physical problems with the building, which need to be corrected. In addition, they propose to remove 6 bowling lanes and put in more child-related activities. A canopy structure along the front would be incorporated to give some energy to the elevation, and to provide a covered walkway. The entry will be relocated to the addition portion. He said the neighborhood has diverse uses and architectural styles, which lends itself well to preserving the bowling establishment and enhancing it. Dave Carr said the existing parking lot has 141 parking spaces, required is 134. This proposal would reconfigure and re-asphalt the existing lot, which is in disrepair. The asphalt would be moved to the outside and rain gardens would be added in City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 13, 2009 - Page 3 of 16 the center. They would be removing 5,600 square feet of pavement and still maintain the 141 car-count by striping it. TheY will be removing 82% of the pavement in the right-of-way and turning it into a tree-belt, leaving a 20-foot wide access around the building. The site drains in a southerly direction to existing catch basins. The proposal is to re-pave the lot and create rain gardens, which is an engineered depression which promotes ground water infiltration, which will relieve the amount of water going into the City system. The rain gardens will be planted with grass, which works best for maintenance and snow removal. The applicant is proposing to add 6 trees in the new green area located behind the guardrail along Route 50 and adding 3 street trees along Lincoln Avenue in addition to leaving the existing trees. Dave Carr said the applicant is proposing a 2,990 square foot addition. The existing sign will be removed and approval of signage is required by DRC. The paved right-of-way along Route 50 must remain, so there will be approximately 7 feet between the new asphalt and the road. The trees will be on the applicant’s side of the guardrail. There is one existing street tree on Hamilton Street, they could add 4 more if the Board desires. There is an existing sidewalk on Hamilton Street. The existing sidewalk on Lincoln Avenue ends and will be extended to Union Street. There is no sidewalk along Union Street or on the applicant’s side of Route 50, but there is one on the other side of Route 50. Dave said the estimated cost of adding a sidewalk on Union Street would be $6,000 and $10,000 along Route 50. The plan does not include that. Dave said looking at the site, the applicant feels a sidewalk is not appropriate along Route 50, it is fairly narrow at 12 feet, there is an existing guardrail and there is no connection to either side. The applicant proposes to build a sidewalk on Union Street at a cost of $6,000, and make a $5,000 contribution toward the Transportation Improvement Plan in lieu of the sidewalk on Route 50; or, give the City that $5,000 and the $6,000 allocated for the sidewalk on Union Street, for a total of an $11,000 contribution. Dave said they do feel a sidewalk is inappropriate for that side of Route 50. They are not proposing any street lighting around the perimeter of the project, but are providing new low-level cut-off parking lot lighting at a height of 20-feet. They will add arrows in the parking lot for traffic flow. The snow removal will remain the same as it is now, it will be trucked off site if necessary. The shared parking agreement with the Shanghia Grill has been terminated. They can meet the 45-foot turning radius for fire apparatus. Regarding storm water drainage, it does flow away from the property, and the proposed roof drain connects into the municipal system. SEQR: This is a Type II action, a SEQR short-form has been submitted. Philip Klein asked how the applicant will mitigate the roof water shed problem. Michael Tuck said they will be putting in a well connected to the roof drainage system, which will flow into the existing storm drainage system. Dave Carr said with this project they are reducing the amount of impervious area that is being directed to the system, and the rain gardens reduce the flow even more. The storm drainage system capacity is large enough now, and will not need to be increased. Phil asked if there is a sidewalk connection along the building connecting the south parking lot to the main entrance. Michael Tuck said yes. Mark Schachner arrived at 7:55 P.M. Amy Durland asked if the addition will cause a problem with the line of site coming around that side of the building. Dave Carr said the problem is not where the addition is, it is at the bump- out of the existing building. He said it is not bad, it’s just that the 20 feet is a little narrower than a city street, but it is wide enough for 2-way traffic. He said this can’t be changed because of City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 13, 2009 - Page 4 of 16 the existing building, but it could be signed. Amy asked if there will be any plantings along the building. Dave Carr said there will be foundation plantings at the entrance. Stuart Mesinger arrived at 8:05 P.M. Jamin Totino stated that he is in favor of having a sidewalk along Union Street, and he understands the applicant’s point about possibly creating a safety issue having a sidewalk along the project side of Route 50. Bradley Birge said the Transportation Improvement Plan is envisioned as an extension of the work that was done on Broadway and back, to address the traffic light and turn lane on Hamilton Street, potentially leading to the next street north of that. This is meant to address pedestrian movement along Route 50 to connect the streets. He said the City would be open to receiving a contribution for that project. Jamin asked if, keeping in mind that possible expansion in the future, it would be wise to expand the green space now as opposed to later in order to facilitate a future sidewalk along Route 50. Bradley said anything that is going to occur here would not irreparably damage any future changes. Michael Perkins said given the latitude in the Ordinance, and given the conditions on Route 50, the Board has the ability to waive the sidewalk there. He said he is in favor of the donation to the Transportation Improvement Fund. Clifford Van Wagner said he is concerned about how dangerous a sidewalk on Route 50 would be in the wintertime with snow plows going by, particularly with the guardrail where it is. He said adding 4 street trees along Hamilton Street would be beneficial, and he would encourage the additional green space on Route 50, rather than having nothing there. Phil Klein asked if this green strip would be depressed to accept more water. Dave Carr said given that Route 50 is an elevation above the parking lot he is not sure, but if they can, they will. Amy Durland said given the attempt to draw kids in more, and Route 50 being what it is , she thinks it is undesirable to have people crossing it and relying on the sidewalk on the other side. She said taking into account snow removal and the narrowness of that area, she is hoping that some solution can be achieved so there can be sidewalks on that side of Route 50 that are not a hazard. Dave Carr said the addition of a sidewalk on Union Street will lead people across on that side. Jamin Totino said even with a crosswalk on Route 50, that is a tricky intersection, and the crosswalk would make people more confused. Amy said she agrees, which is why she would like to see a sidewalk on the bowling alley side, if it can be arranged. Jamin asked if, in regard to the TIP plan, the City were to get a matching contribution, would that provide some incentive to consider the sidewalk along the corridor. Bradley Birge said it would assist, but it still depends on the overall scope of the project. Amy Durland said given that that property belongs to the bowling alley, she thinks it should be their responsibility to put in a sidewalk. Phil Klein said the problem is that it is not wide enough for a sidewalk with regard to the slope. He said he thinks a sidewalk on the opposite side is adequate, but Union Street should have one. He suggested a walk light with a button to allow people to cross Route 50. Amy said because the cost of the sidewalk is for the benefit of the bowling alley, she doesn’t know why it would be negotiated. Dave Carr said the reason they are negotiating is because if the TIP program wasn’t there, they still wouldn’t be proposing a sidewalk because of the existing conditions of the speed on Route 50 and the lack of area for snow removal, so that is why they are proposing the figure they are proposing. Laura Rappaport asked if the City has any long-term plan for adding a sidewalk on Route 50. Brad said there is a strong network on the north side, and the City would like to compliment that on the south side. He said if the City were to require a sidewalk on the opposite side of Route 50, it would not be impossible, but it would be substantially more expensive to re-engineer the grade change between Route 50 and the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 13, 2009 - Page 5 of 16 bowling alley parking lot. Jamin Totino said the matching fund idea would be lost in that mix, because there is no figure to go off of. Phil Klein asked if the donation must be used in that area. Brad said it would be in lieu of the sidewalk there, not necessarily to create the sidewalk in that specific location, it is to enhance pedestrian access and traffic safety within that general area. Phil said he really can’t see a sidewalk there, and if it were to be done, it would require taking some property, and the loss of some parking. Frank Parillo said there is a traffic light on the corner of Route 50 and Hamilton Street, which is where people cross. He said there is no ingress and egress off of Route 50 to begin with, so if there were a sidewalk there, they would have to climb over the guardrail. He said they cross at the traffic light and enter from Hamilton Street. He said there is nobody more safety conscious than he is, and he thinks it would be a disservice to put sidewalks in on Route 50. After some discussion between the Board and applicant, the applicant has agreed to donate $10,000 to the TIP program in order to move forward. Clifford Van Wagner summarized: the applicant will put in 4 rain gardens, they will remove 5,600 square feet of pavement, they will maintain the existing 141 parking spots where 134 are required, they will re-sheet the entire parking area with a new coat of blacktop, they have agreed to put sidewalks on Union Street from Lincoln Avenue to Route 50 and to turn the corner onto Lincoln to complete that corner, they have agreed to paint a center line and place safety signage on the west side narrow connection, they have agreed to put 4 street trees on Hamilton Street, they have agreed to contribute $10,000 to the Transportation Improvement Plan for potential improvements to the general vicinity sometime in the future. PUBLIC HEARING: Hearing none. Clifford Van Wagner moved that the application of Saratoga Strike Zone for the proposed site plan modification be approved with the above conditions. Michael Perkins seconded. 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.  09.024 Louden Meadows II, 22 Liz Ann Drive This is a sketch plan review for a 2-lot subdivision in a Rural Residential-1 District. Bradley Birge gave the background. He said this is one of the City’s early attempts at cluster subdivisions with conservation as part of that, which included a density bonus. He said the original owner and the site received a 3-unit, 3-lot density bonus in exchange for the conservation of some land and the establishment of what was to be a pedestrian trail, to be maintained by the property owners. The property owners did not wish to have the trail on the front of their properties and wished for that not to occur at all. This proposal is directly south of those parcels. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 13, 2009 - Page 6 of 16 Appearing before the Board were Jason Tommell, with Tommell Associates; Stephanie Bitter, with Bartlett, Pontiff, Stuart, Rhodes; and Greg Kerlin, North Manor Development, LLC. Jason said Greg Kerlin has an option on 4 acres of the Lands of Schleif, where he is proposing a 2-lot subdivision. He said in an RR-1 zone the requirement is conservation subdivision, unless waived by the Board. He said there is no confined land as defined in the code. Jason said each lot would get one curb cut 14 feet wide only. He said they have the ability to do a 2-lot subdivision without affecting Lot 22 of the original Louden Meadows II subdivision. He said the only question is access: they could come through Lands of Schleif with shared access, utilizing the existing curb cut, across Lot 22; the most practical would be to reach the closest public street. They can achieve this by adhering to the rural design and siting standards. Another option would be to have 2 2-acre lots, but change the buildable areas. He said in looking to amend the driveway crossings to Liz Ann Drive, they have the ability to give another 100-foot no cut buffer and preserve the original rural character of Liz Ann Drive. He said they can use the topography to site the houses so they will scarcely be seen from Liz Ann Drive, from the neighbors, and from Schleif. He said by utilizing the topography and having curvilinear driveways, they can meet the same intent of the original subdivision to get 2 additional 14-foot cuts through there. Laura Rappaport asked for an explanation of why a lot line adjustment may be needed. Bradley Birge said the original concept was to open up Lot 22, do a lot line adjustment, and then see if there is an opportunity for 3 lots. That is not what is currently being proposed. He said Lot 22 will remain whole, with the exception of any access through there. Michael Perkins asked how the water and sewer is handled currently. Jason Tommell said there will be on-site septic systems and municipal water tied to Liz Ann Drive. Mike asked if perk tests have been done on Lot 22, since it is extremely sandy. Jason said he doesn’t know, when they got involved Lot 22 looked exactly like it does today. Mike questioned whether septic could be put on it. Jason said they are not subdividing Lot 22, it will remain intact, except for 2 14-foot wide cuts. Amy Durland asked if the 100-foot buffer along the frontage is part of the density calculation. Jason said it is not. He said in addition to the additional 100-foot buffer, they will be able to preserve 50% of the lots. Amy said in a conservation zone, the Board determines which portion of the area is to be conserved, that is supposed to drive where the houses will be. She asked if there has been an identification of the environmental features on the site. Michael Perkins said the first 100 feet is the area he would like to see preserved. Jason said they are giving an additional 100 feet of no cut buffer in order to get 2 additional cuts. He said they have designed around a stand of red pines and a crest, they are tucking the building envelope in an opening, which reduces the visibility of the houses from the neighbors and the roads. Bradley Birge said this is a smaller subdivision that is adjacent to the larger subdivision, so the Board should look at how it impacts what the Board wanted to secure the first time, if it maintains or enhances the conservation qualities that the Board wanted to achieve. Jamin Totino asked the applicant if he could stake out the building envelopes and 2 access points on the land for a site visit with the Board. Amy and Cliff indicated that they would be interested in looking at that. Jason asked for the Board’s opinions on access. Cliff said that depends on what they see out there. Amy asked if they have considered a shared driveway. Jason said it would be difficult because of the topography. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 13, 2009 - Page 7 of 16 Clifford Van Wagner asked if the applicant has heard any comments from the neighbors across the street. Jason said not at this time, they were waiting to see what happens before they knock on doors. Clifford Van Wagner said they are entitled to one14-foot access to Lot 22, so they should stake that out, then show a 14-foot access to each lot, stake out the building envelopes, and where the first 100 feet of no-cut buffer is and where the next 100 feet is. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hearing none. The Board recessed from 8:55 P.M. to 9:05 P.M.  05.057 Beaver Pond Village, 98 Geyser Road This is a review of an 85-lot subdivision in an Urban Residential-1 District and a Rural Residential-1 District. RECUSAL: Michael Perkins recused and left at 9:05 P.M. DISCLOSURE: Dan Gaba owns rental property on Quevic Drive, counsel has indicated there is no need to recuse, just disclose. Mark Schachner clarified it is not his decision whether a Board member decides to recuse or disclose, but he is not aware of any prohibitive conflict of interest here. Appearing before the Board was Dan Ruzow, representing the applicant, who said they have gone through the Board comments on the SEQR Findings Statement, they made some changes and provided additional information. He said the applicant has some questions about whether it was wise to change some things. Bradley Birge read the 3 points that there is still some question about:  Page 24, “Those investigations ensured that no transient species were detected” is not really accurate. The accurate characterization would be “No transient species were detected during the site visits”. The applicant made this change. An additional comment was whether this was restricted to a visual survey, the method should be specified. The response is, “the draft states that a survey was a general inventory and was done compliant with the approved scope”. The applicant asks if there is still more description necessary. Amy Durland asked if it was a visual survey, or if there were other ways of exploring the land. Dean Long (LA Group) said Bagden did visual and auditory surveys, in addition to the typical things like turning over logs, which is explained in the report. He said you could say the surveys were visual, auditory and selective habitat exploration. Phil Klein asked how many times they walked the site and how many hours they have spent at the site over the last number of years. Dean said Bagden did survey the site on about 10 separate occasions. He said they have a detailed map showing the entire parcel, including Lot 85. He said they covered the perimeter a number of times plus all the wetland areas. He said there was a total of about 31 times that either Bagden was there or LA Group’s biologists City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 13, 2009 - Page 8 of 16  were on site. Bagden reported on all the animal species, the LA group reported on the plants and butterflies. He said that encompassed about 400 hours of observation.  Page 26, Number 5, states it was agreed that short-term displacement was an unlikely outcome for the wildlife. The applicant responded that they did not recall such an agreement and respectfully submits that, as used in this paragraph, it remains an accurate statement. Dean Long said on one page they did change it to the more severe language, which states it will be permanently lost.  Page 20, Number 10, the Board requested an HOA inspection to take place in March as well as April and September, as there is usually a spring thaw in March. The applicant responded that inspections in consecutive months would not appear warranted; if the Planning Board preferred the inspection to occur in March instead of April, there would be no objection. Dean Long said in March you can’t really tell if any of the plant life did die, so you can’t estimate how much repair work would need to be done. He said early or mid April can provide a rational guess as to what repairs need to be done from winter kill. He said you inspect in the fall to make sure any repairs that were executed during the summer are stable. The Board agreed to April and September. Clifford Van Wagner gave a background on the process to date, which has been done in the past by him and other Chairs:  January 21, 2004, April 21, 2004 and October 20, 2004, the Planning Board had sketch plans discussions on the proposed subdivision  December 2, 2005, the Planning Board classified this projected as an unlisted action and decided to initiate coordinated review with a request to be lead agency  January 11, 2006, the Planning Board voted to establish itself as lead agency  January 18, 2006, the Planning Board issued a positive declaration.  January 25, 2006, the applicant submitted a Draft Scoping Document  February 2, 2006, the Board released a Draft Scoping Document to the involved agencies and the public.  The Board held to public scoping sessions for SEQR on February 14, 2006 and February 16, 2006  March 15, 2006, the Board adopted a Final Scoping Document for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement  April 4, 2007, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was accepted for public review  A public comment period was held from April 4, 2007, to May 3, 2007.  The Planning Board held 2 public hearings for SEQR April 30, 2007 and May 3, 2007 (SEQR allows, but does not require a public hearing)  January 2008, the applicant submitted a Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement for review. Additional items and corrections were identified by the Chazen Companies on behalf of the Planning Board  February 27, 2008, the Planning Board requested a status update from the applicant  June 4, 2008, the applicant submitted a revised FEIS for review  June 30, 2008, the Planning Board held a meeting specifically for the Beaver Pond Village application to review the FEIS  July 17, 2008, the applicant submitted a revised SWPPP  August 6, 2008, the applicant submitted additional information including an 84-lot alternative and corresponding data for insertion into the FEIS City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 13, 2009 - Page 9 of 16  August 12, 2008, the applicant submitted responses to a memo from the Planning Board consultants  September 3, 2008, additional materials were submitted by the applicant in response to comments from the Planning Board on August 13, and in response to a memo from staff and consultants  September 10, 2008, the Planning Board deemed the FEIS complete by a 6 to 1 vote  October 17, 2008, the applicant submitted the FEIS and it was subsequently distributed to the involved and interested agencies. The FEIS is available for review on the City’s website, the library, and the Planning Office  The notice of completion was completed October 17, 2008, after receiving the FEIS  The Planning Board held a public hearing for the subdivision review on October 29, 2008  The Planning Board closed the public hearing on April 29, 2009 Mark Schachner highlighted a few of the meetings and plans that indicates the extent to which this Board has offered review of this case. He said as a credit to the Board, the Board has engaged in a SEQRA review process that has been very thorough and very detailed and, in many respects, has actually gone beyond the requirements of law. He said he himself and the Board have been criticized for giving the SEQRA process short shrift. He reminded the Board, the applicant and the public that there are a number of very, very significant review process steps that the Board undertook for this project, regardless of the outcome of the review, that went above and beyond the requirements of law, which were: the Board engaged in coordinated review under SEQRA, which was not required because this is an unlisted action, not a Type I action. He added that in each and every step the Board acted very appropriately. The Board issued a positive declaration requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, which theoretically might not have been required; having done that, the Board engaged in a scoping process, which is optional under SEQRA review, with no requirement for public hearings at that stage, although the Board conducted 2 scoping public hearings; when the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared, the law requires a public comment period, but not a public hearing, the Board conducted 2 public hearings; the Board has been, in his experience, extraordinarily generous in allowing public comment after the close of formal processes, including allowing public comments on the Final Environmental Impact statements, which are not required to be allowed at all, and similarly on the SEQRA Findings Statement stage. He said from his standpoint, the Board cannot in any way, form, shape or manner, be fairly criticized for giving the SEQRA review process short shrift; in fact, just the opposite. He commended the Board for the depth, the thoroughness and the completeness of the SEQRA review, regardless of what the outcome of the process is. Amy Durland asked Mark to extend an observation that the Board received at times from the applicant or his representatives that the process has been unduly delayed, because her feeling is that the Board has never not continued with this application if there was a request to do so and if the request was accompanied by the appropriate material. Mark Schachner said he feels equally strongly, if not more so, that the Board, in his opinion and his experience, cannot possibly be fairly criticized for having delayed its review of this application. In his opinion, the Board has acted appropriately in terms of what it’s done and when it’s done it. He said for a substantial project of this complexity with some differing views, it is not unusual to have multiple years of SEQRA review. He said the gaps in the timeline are typical when the applicant has to prepare the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and when the applicant and Board together prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statement, SEQRA Findings Statements, and the like. He said the Board cannot be fairly criticized for having delayed its review of this application at any juncture or any step along the way. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 13, 2009 - Page 10 of 16 Amy Durland asked how differences in the revised Findings Statement and the FEIS/DEIS can be reconciled. Mark Schachner said there shouldn’t be any differences, but keeping in mind that this project has undergone some evolution post FEIS acceptance, that should be addressed in the Findings Statement in an appendix that lists the project modifications. He said the SEQRA process is envisioned as an evolutionary process, so during the evolution, potential environmental impacts are decreased or lessened, not increased. Clifford Van Wagner read a statement summarizing his feeling on the case in total: “As this project approaches a vote on the Findings Statement, I wish to offer the following comments. I truly respect the concerns of the Geyser Crest residents regarding the proposed Beaver Pond project. Every resident has the right to express their concerns to the Planning Board regarding any development. I also respect and commend each and every member of this Planning Board, regardless of their vote, for their extreme diligence and dedication to this project. This Planning Board has invested literally hundreds of hours reviewing the Beaver Pond proposed subdivision. There are, however, some points of clarification that I, as Chair, wish to make. This Planning Board has been accused of rushing this project through our process to force a vote. Nothing could be further from the truth. Beaver Pond has been on the Planning Board agenda since January 2004. I would suggest that no other project in the City of Saratoga Springs has spent that length of time on any Planning Board’s agenda. The Beaver Pond project has reached a point where the comments are repetitive. There comes a point in time, when after 5 years of presentations and neighbor comments, it is time to vote. The majority of this Board has voted to close the public hearing and move on to the Findings Statement. As I stated, I do respect the rights of some city residents to not be in favor of this project; but, those same residents must not substitute their negative opinions of the Beaver Pond proposal with inaccurate statements that the process is flawed. With legal counsel at our table throughout the process, I assure you that the letter of the law has been followed along with the spirit of the law. For example: we are falsely accused of violating New York Code regarding revisions of an FEIS. We are not obligated to request a new FEIS following changes to the project suggested by both neighbors and the Board. If the proposed changes diminish rather than increase the project impacts, a new FEIS is not required. I am truly troubled with the accusations that the Planning Staff has either hidden information or attempted to discourage citizens from obtaining documents. This is absolutely not true, it is unsubstantiated and is an insult to the integrity of the Planning Staff. In fact, our staff has gone far beyond legal requirements in providing information to the public and facilitating public participation. As far as accusations of placing Beaver Pond last on agendas to discourage public input, that is a statement without merit. At some meetings, Beaver Pond was in the beginning of the agenda. As time progressed and the Beaver Pond item began to take many hours at each meeting, it was placed last so that other applications could be heard and then the balance of the meeting could be dedicated to Beaver Pond without interruption. There have also been special meetings called with Beaver Pond as the only agenda item. Specifically, this application is a request for an 85-lot residential subdivision in an RR-1 and a URI-1 zone. RR-1 stands for rural residential and UR-1 stands for urban residential, as defined in the Zoning Code of the City of Saratoga Springs. The proposal does not require a use variance, residences are an allowed use on these parcels. This is not a request to put a round peg in a square hole. Our responsibility is to determine that the points of concern have been mitigated. Mitigate does not necessarily mean eliminate. The FEIS has been deemed complete. In many respects, the Findings Statement is a summary of the effort by the applicant to provide the mitigation required. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 13, 2009 - Page 11 of 16  I firmly believe that the Beaver Pond subdivision will have a positive, not a negative, impact on the nearby Geyser Crest subdivision. I believe that the buffers are very adequate, that the drainage will be improved due to new technology and an improved SWPPP, and the approximately 119.2 permanently preserved open space acres will most certainly provide for wildlife refuge. It is time to call the vote on the Findings Statement”. DECISION: Jamin Totino said he agrees with the Chair’s comments, and he thinks that the Findings Statement does address the environmental impacts identified in the FEIS. He said he thinks it does balance the environmental, social, economic, public safety and other considerations that the public has had and that this Board has had. He said he thinks the action successfully avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practical, and the adverse impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practical by applying mitigating efforts that are identified in the FEIS. He said based on those things, he moves to adopt the Findings Statement as amended. Philip Klein seconded. Amy Durland stated her reasons for her vote. I am voting against the motion for a positive Findings Statement, on the basis that the document describes a proposal that does not minimize or avoid environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and that the adverse environmental impacts are not outweighed by the needs and benefits of the proposed project. These are among the items that demonstrate unacceptable environmental impacts as balanced against the benefits of this housing development: As I've indicated throughout this process, I object to the use of Lot 85 for the applicant's development purposes without considering it as part of the project in any other meaningful way, specifically, without providing a conservation analysis of the lot. Although the applicant has stated that no development plans for Lot 85 will be forthcoming for at least four years, and that Lot 85 and Parcel 2 are separated by a railroad track, the fact remains that these parcels are: (1) adjacent, (2) owned by the same property owner, (3) both zoned RR-1, the City's conservation development zone, (4) have contiguous wetlands, (5) are connected by drainage flow, (6) presumably have wildlife traveling between the lots, (7) are regulated and/or guided by a zoning ordinance, comprehensive plan, and county-based Green Infrastructure Plan which emphasizes the need for contiguity and connectivity in conservation areas. Furthermore, Lot 85 is adjacent to the State Park. If a conservation analysis is not undertaken prior to this development, opportunities to create connections, trails, and/or corridors, as well as other possible conservation opportunities, may be limited or eliminated by development patterns in the current proposal that do not take adjacent areas into account. In addition, the applicant is using Lot 85 to locate mitigation wetlands to address wetland elimination and disturbance elsewhere in the project. The FEIS and the Findings Statement cannot assert that no meaningful connection exists between Lot 85 and the rest of the project when Lot 85 is supplying the resource for mitigation of the disturbance of protected wetlands in the rest of the project. The applicant's refusal to undertake the relatively simple procedure of a conservation analysis on Lot 85 makes me concerned that plans for that lot may be inconsistent with the zone, the project, and/or the state park it borders. I remain concerned that the surface water runoff due to the increase in impermeable surface will cause eventual disruption to the wetlands in both parcels, but particularly in Parcel 2. The project fails to institute adequate long-term wetland protection measures, instead routing runoff into these areas. The Economic Feasibility Study undertaken last year indicates an acceptable rate of return for the applicant just from the development of Parcel 1, and even City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 13, 2009 - Page 12 of 16 without the Parcel 1 density bonus. Parcel 2, with its large areas of protected wetlands, is not necessary to develop at all to be financially viable to the applicant. It is also noted that the Project SWPPP includes a “deviation from standards” section, addressing impervious areas which are not directed to an acceptable stormwater management area. That those areas rely on practices, such as the seeding of disturbed areas and providing homeowners with information regarding maintenance and upkeep to reduce erosion, does not inspire confidence that the control of water flow in this project will remain effective over time. I remain concerned that the flooding potential on Quevic Drive and the flooding that has been described by neighbors in some of the nearby Geyser Crest homes, based on their personal knowledge of these conditions, may either be exacerbated by the project or may strain the capacity of the project to contain the flow. The Conservation Easement and Open Space Management Plan have been presented in draft and will require discussion and modification. There is an over-reliance on the Homeowners' Association to control the conservation proposals for the property, without indicating how the HOA will sustain its commitment and tap the expertise needed to implement the project's short- and long-term goals in any meaningful way. In addition, we are proceeding without the benefit of having identified an Easement holder, or Grantee. Meanwhile, conservation plan proposals are outlined in the Findings Statement, despite the fact that both Planning Board members and a conservation expert have recommended that the easement holder be identified early in the process, so as to factor in on the terms and details of the conservation proposals. The project fails to institute energy conservation measures and energy efficiency standards (such as CO2 impacts, carbon footprint targets, more sustainable equipment, including grinder pumps that will need to be running most or all of the time in 24 of the proposed homes, some green homes Energy Star ratings), beyond what would be required by existing standards. SEQRA changes are forthcoming which will emphasize greenhouse gas and climate change impacts, and this board should be responsive to those concerns now. The landscaping plan substantially underestimates the number of trees and native vegetation to be reinstated on both parcels, despite a significant amount of clearing of forested lots on Parcel 2, in order to ease construction and create “usable backyards.” The City's regulations for that zone indicate that “vegetation, not structures, is the primary determinant of how far we see and where we look.” Although the City's policy is that all intersections should operate at a Level of Service C or above, the project would introduce a Level of Service D intersection. The applicant's response that it is only slightly within the Level of Service D is not satisfactory. The traffic mitigation should have restored acceptable levels of service. My concern is that we are creating a precedent to allow a policy exception that could have significant safety implications. Although there have been modest reductions in fill, grading, and clearing, this remains a fundamental flaw with the proposal, particularly the RR-1 parcel, which, according to City regulations, is intended to incur a minimum of cuts and fills to blend into the surrounding landform and slopes, with the topography being the main feature that should be reinforced. Instead, the applicant has indicated that the landform cannot be maintained in this location, and that significant amounts of fill and cuts are required in order to create the grading that is needed to sustain the project's roadways and sanitary sewers. The Findings Statement ignores spoken testimony given by Public Safety Commissioner Kim, in which he stated that in his view Beaver Pond and other relatively high density new projects will affect the quality of service that is able to be provided by the city's safety officers. While the applicant cites a generic guide (Estimating Guide—Project Land Use and Facility Needs, 2004) that uses population to determine the numbers of police, fire, and EMS personnel for a given area, Commissioner Kim's testimony factored in distance, uses, and other factors in City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 13, 2009 - Page 13 of 16 determining that Saratoga Springs is at risk of lowering its emergency response time to increasingly unacceptable levels. In the current economic climate, if the project is abandoned or unable to proceed as planned, the applicant has not adequately addressed recourse for the City. Safeguards need to be put in place that will ensure, if the project cannot be completed, the protection of the landscape and the natural community. Finally, and importantly, is the fiscal impact analysis of the proposed project. The applicant supplied financial information and methodology in the DEIS and the FEIS, approved by the Planning Board, regarding the costs and revenues of the proposed project to the municipality. The applicant's Fiscal Impact Analysis report states: “The fiscal impact analysis utilizes the per capita multiplier method. It is the most commonly applied method and the most straightforward. . . . [This method] was utilized because local service costs appear to be close to the actual demand for local services related to the residential component of the project, therefore, an accurate projection of future service costs can be estimated. The per capita method was enhanced in this case with the case study method to most accurately identify the potential costs to the communities and school.” The original draft Findings Statement found the project “leads to a surplus of $126,474, which demonstrates that sufficient revenues will be available to cover costs.” However, the analysis needed to be adjusted primarily because it was discovered that the applicant used revenue numbers in the DEIS/FEIS that added the County tax rate to the City tax rate, which of course inflated the tax revenue estimates. With those adjustments, the applicant indicates in the current draft Findings Statement that municipal costs are now estimated to be $287,730, while the estimated revenues are only $168,147, resulting in an annual deficit of $119,583. The figures appear in the section entitled “Benefits to the City,” although, with the revised figures, it is clear that this element of the project does not actually confer a benefit. These figures appear in the final draft version of the Findings Statement, received this past Sunday, with this comment added by the applicant: “The Planning Board finds that this deficit is acceptable.” In other words, the project will result in an expense to the City. Thinking of it another way, in the first decade of the project, when built, municipal costs associated with the project are projected to exceed $1,000,000. Contrary to the conclusion in the draft Findings Statement, I do not find this deficit acceptable. Furthermore, the recent downturn in the housing market suggests, if anything, that the tax revenues are overestimated. Also, municipal expenses, such as health care and personnel, continue to rise, so, if anything, the costs, and therefore the deficit, could easily increase. The applicant also provides a separate revenue/cost analysis for the project's effect on the School District, using a similar analysis and based on the School District's budget. That portion of the Findings Statement states: “Given revenues of $494,088, there is a surplus of $264,988 for 29 students and $20,088 for 60 students, demonstrating that, under either scenario, sufficient revenues will be available to cover [school district] costs.” However, data from the U.S. Census Bureau, which indicates that approximately 20 percent of citizens are school age children, would suggest that the estimate of 60 students is likely to be much closer to the school age population of the project at full buildout. Thus, the $20,088 school district revenues, when added to the municipal deficit of $119,583, still leads to an overall real property tax deficit of almost $100,000 per year. But, regardless of the school district figures, that almost $120,000 annual municipal deficit is borne by the City regardless of the School District budget. The City and the school district are separate jurisdictions, with separate budgets; one does not affect the other. They do not share monies. I note that, in the FEIS, Comments 242 and 243, which raised this very concern that the project's tax benefits would not compensate for the increased need for community services, City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 13, 2009 - Page 14 of 16 received this response by the applicant: “ . . . The revenue generated by the project will more than pay for its share in increased demand for community services. Annual revenues will exceed costs for both the City and the School District. . . . Financially, the Project will have a positive impact on the City and School District.” Clearly, this information is incorrect. I have identified a number of concerns about this proposed project, some of which could stand on their own in my vote against a positive Findings Statement. But the fact that, based on the applicant's own figures, this project will need to rely significantly on municipal monies to cover its own costs is wholly unacceptable. For the aforementioned reasons, I find that the adverse impacts of the project outweigh the benefits, particularly given the Findings Statement's conclusion that the project represents a significant deficit to the city in terms of municipal costs. Let me repeat—By the applicant's own numbers, the project will cost the City $120,000 a year. And therefore I do not support the motion for a positive Findings Statement. Laura Rappaport stated her reasons for her vote: “We have been asked to determine whether the SEQRA positive findings statement strikes a balance between the public cost and benefits of this proposed 85-lot subdivision. In my opinion, it does not. I believe it does not avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts to the greatest extent practicable. Even with the minor revisions over the last year, the environmental and social costs outweigh the benefits. The proposal favors houses over land preservation, sprawl over compact development, dependence on City services and private cars over the need to cut spending and reduce fossil fuel emission. I also note Amy’s noting of the deficit outlined by the applicant. The proposal favors building as close as permitted to wetlands over prudent action that would protect future homes from seepage if the wetlands expand over the years, which has been suggested. It favors road and sewer line layout over placement of homes and keeping with the topography of the site, as recommended by our zoning code. This would require all of the land in Parcel 2 that is to be built on to be raised and then re-graded. In this, it favors chopping up the city’s cherished greenbelt over preserving the country part of our “city in the country”. While I could be persuaded that the development on Parcel 1 in the UR-1 district is infill, the development on Parcel 2, in my mind, clearly is not and has land surrounded on 3 sides by wetlands and predominantly inaccessible uplands and it abuts State Park land. I also disagree with the Findings Statement assertion that the project will contribute in a meaningful way to the public enjoyment of open space in accordance with our Comprehensive Plan. The trails on the open space of this project is largely wetland, and that land is boggy, marshy and swampy. The applicant proposes just under 6,000 linear feet, or a little over a mile of trails. In my opinion, a mile of trails spread out over about 100 acres does not provide high quality outdoor recreation area, as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. Then there is the segmentation issue of Lot 85. I’ve never understood how that piece has been ignored throughout the SEQRA process. The applicant proposes the put a mitigation wetland in that lot, without doing a complete conservation analysis of the lot, so on the one hand Lot 85 is part of this development, and on the other hand it is not. I believe it is clearly part of this project, whether any development there will be designed in 4 years, 4 months or 4 decades from now. Finally, on Page 66.9 of Benefits to the City, the Findings Statement indicates that the project will not contribute to sprawl. On the contrary. I believe that as proposed, it will be sprawl. Sprawl is the spreading out of new homes and other development outside a municipality’s core, or center. This project is a couple miles from the center of town, and not near existing services or retail stores. You can only get into and out of the site by car, there are no services within walking distance, no shops, supermarkets, restaurants, public recreation centers, no meeting places, places of worship or schools. Indeed, children are not even permitted to cross Geyser Road to get to the elementary school because of the traffic. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 13, 2009 - Page 15 of 16  Finally, in this era of increasing awareness of the need for sustainable development and walkable communities, the premise of this Findings Statement favors traditional lot upon lot development over creative contemporary planning practices that would enhance and protect our entire community for future generations. In short, my reading of this Findings Statement finds more negatives than positives”. 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. Clifford Van Wagner said the applicant now needs to prepare a Preliminary Plat to be submitted to the Board based on the Findings Statement. Mark Schachner said the applicant has done some of that Preliminary Plat submission, that is why the public hearing was opened and closed on that. He said the next step would be for the Board to review that Plat application. Cliff said after that, the applicant is then obligated to go to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the New York State Department of Health and other agencies and an easement holder. Bradley Birge said it will also require Final Subdivision review. Mark Schachner said if Preliminary Plat receives approval and it includes conditions about DEC permits, Army Corps, final conservation easement holder and the like, then the applicant will have to fulfill any conditions of Preliminary Plat approval prior to receiving any consideration on Final Plat. Clifford Van Wagner said the Final Subdivision application is a new application. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Amy Durland moved to accept the April 16, 2009, and April 29, 2009, Planning Board minutes with submitted changes. Dan Gaba seconded. All in favor. NEXT MEETING The next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for May 27, 2009, at 7:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Clifford Van Wagner adjourned the meeting at 9:57 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kathleen Livsey Recording Secretary Approved: June 10, 2009 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – May 13, 2009 - Page 16 of 16