Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2015 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Mark Torpey, Chairman; Dan Gaba; Clifford Van Wagner; Howard Pinsley; Tom L. Lewis; Janet Casey ABSENT: Robert Bristol, Vice Chairman STAFF: Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Planning Board arrived at 7:41 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Mark Torpey, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the proceedings of this meeting are being recorded for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADJOURNED PROJECTS: ADJOURNED PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 14.067 STONE PROPERTY, 68 WEIBEL AVENUE, 30 Church Street, site plan modification in a Transect-6 (T-6) District. 14.074 UNION FOX APARTMENTS, 72 Union Avenue, Site plan review for multi-family residential in an Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. 14.010 SUBDIVISION OF LANDS OF HARRISON, 180 Meadowbrook Road, public hearing for a two-lot subdivision in the Rural Residential District. 15.022 EXPERT INSPECTION SUBDIVISION, 508 Grand Avenue, 2 lot residential subdivision in the Suburban Residential-2 (SR-2) District. 14.053 21 PARK PLACE CONDOMINIUMS, 21 Park Place, Site plan review for multi-family residences in an Urban Residential-4(UR-4) District. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION: 112 SPRING STREET – Easement for shared parking for 110 Spring Street, Relocation of existing garbage enclosure and dumpster. ACTION: Approved by Chair. UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS/AGENDA WORKSHOPS: Planning Board Caravan, Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 4:00 P.M. Planning Board Workshop, Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 5:00 P.M. Planning Board Meeting, Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 7:00 P.M. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR: None heard. APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. 14.060 HOFFMAN CARWASH FACILITY, 2216 NYS Route 50, proposed special use permit for a car wash facility in the Highway General Business District (HGB) District. BACKGROUND: Site is between existing used car sales directly to the north and Adirondack Trust Bank is directly to the south. Site is located at southern boundary of the City just north of the Route 50 Northline Road intersection. Site is located within the Highway General Business District and within Gateway Design Overlay District. Site plan formally approved by Planning Board for Retail (Family Dollar) use. Special Use Permit, site plan review and architectural review (DRC) is required for application. Items received by the Planning Board include: • (NEW) July 15, 2015 Department of Transportation correspondence expressing continued support for shared access currently at site. • (NEW) August 6, 2015 Army Corp of Engineers email regarding forthcoming permit. • May 20, 2015 correspondence from Mary Beth Slevin, Attorney for the applicant. (There is a discrepancy the numbers noted do not correspond correctly with the alternative number on sheets). • May 14, 2015 series of alternative access designs. • April 3, 2015 Creighton Manning Engineering letter to Department of Transportation requesting input on access. • DOT correspondence regarding access (April 29, 2015 – received May 4, 2015). • Bill Morris (northern property owner) correspondence (April 23, 2015). • Creighton Manning Engineering Access alternatives analysis. • Adirondack Trust correspondence. • Department of Environmental Conservation permit. • Army Corp of Engineering permit (forthcoming). • Correspondence from attorney for Adirondack Trust received August 12, 2015. Applicant: Tom Hoffman, Hoffman Development Agent: Gavin Vuillame, Environmental Design Mr. Vuillame stated two issues which we have been discussing over the past few months are the Army Corp of Engineers permitting, the entrance to the site and the various options explored with this Board, Creighton Manning Traffic Engineers and the Department of Transportation. We have received an authorization letter from the Army Corps of Engineers. We do have permission to disturb .19 acres of wetlands. As part of our wetland mitigation we will be creating new wetlands in the rear of the property to offset what we are disturbing. Several deed restrictions will also be placed on the property. We have provided to the bank several alternatives for access which were acceptable by the Department of Transportation which would allow the project to continue to use access onto Route 50. There were five alternatives which were provided to the Board. The choices which we felt would meet the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – August 12, 2015 - Page 2 of 18 requirements of the Department of Transportation were alternatives #2, #3, and #5. A visual presentation of the alternatives was provided for the Boards review. Discussion ensued regarding alternative entrance/access. It was the consensus of the Board to resubmit to the Department of Transportation alternative #4 which provides the most separation between parcels with the largest widening of the access/entrance. It is a very large driveway. This information was also provided to the Bank. Discussion ensued regarding reviewing SEQRA. Some consideration was voiced concerning which site the Department of Transportation will approve. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we could review SEQRA, Site Plan and Special Use Permit we prefer to defer to the September meeting. We could take care of all three items at once. The applicant was hoping for some type of progression in the application. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated that the applicant has been very compliant with all requests from the Board and in providing requested information. The Board will review SEQRA this evening. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated Part I of the SEQRA short environmental form was provided by the applicant and reviewed by the Board and is correct. Part II of the SEQRA Short Environmental Form was reviewed by the Board. No large or important areas of concern were noted. Howard Pinsley 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. Dan Gaba seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further question or comments from the Board. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, opposed; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-1 PUBLIC HEARING: Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. 2. 15.020 BETHESDA PARISH HOUSE, 26 W Washington Street, Consideration of SEQRA Lead Agency for 4-story mixed use addition in the Transect-6 Urban Center (T-6) District. BACKGROUND: City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – August 12, 2015 - Page 3 of 18 The current proposal seeks to construct a 4 story mixed use addition to the structure in the T-6 (Urban Core) District. Proposed uses of Day Care Center, Group Entertainment, Office and Retail are permitted uses with site plan review in the T-6 District. DRC Architectural Review is also required for the application. The site is within the Broadway Historic District (contributing structure) and adjacent to the Casino-Congress Park-Circular Street Historic District. Washington Street is the City’s current designated truck route. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated what is before us this evening is consideration of Lead Agency Status for SEQRA. We have received some correspondence from Greenman and Peterson concerning the traffic and parking analysis. We also had some discussion with Tim Wales relative to the SWPPP. The City Engineer feels this project requires a full SWPPP. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated we did receive notice from SHPO where they are requesting additional information. Shannon Brown on behalf of the applicant is providing that. I did speak with someone from SHPO who stated once the information was received a decision would be forthcoming. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated a few items were discussed at the workshop. DRC does have Architectural Review jurisdiction and that will be required for this project as it is a contributing structure to the Broadway Historic District. Applicant: Bethesda Episcopal Church Agent: Mike Ingersoll, LA Group Mr. Ingersoll stated what we are asking for this evening is for the Planning Board to deem themselves Lead Agency for SEQRA. Mark Torpey asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board. None heard. Clifford Van Wagner made a motion for the Planning Board to accept Lead Agency Status for SEQRA. Janet Casey seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 The agenda was heard out of order awaiting the arrival of Planning Board Counsel Mark Schachner. 3. 15.033 EXCELSIOR PARK PHASE 2, Excelsior Avenue, proposed three-lot subdivision In a Transect-5 Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. 4. 15.026 EXCELSIOR PARK, PHASE 2, Excelsior Avenue, site plan review for multi-family Residences in a Transect-5 Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. BACKGROUND: City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – August 12, 2015 - Page 4 of 18 Outer Excelsior Avenue recognized as City Special Development Area in 2001 Plan. Transect zoning instituted to reflect desire for mixed use new neighborhood that offered residences and neighborhood level services and establishments but with commercial uses that were not deemed to be in competition with or detract from downtown. This is a four phased Special Use Permit approval that provided overall desired mix of land uses. Each phase had a sunset clause for expiration. It was determined that Phase I and Phase II received Site Plan approval, and site construction activities have been initiated. Overall infrastructure including water, sanitary, roads, curbs, sidewalks in place being verified by the City Engineer with as-built. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated as per the workshop more information is needed concerning the site plan. This evening the focus of the presentation will be concerning the subdivision Applicant: Saratoga Excelsior Apartments, LLC – Burns Management Agent: Mike Ingersoll, LA Group/Dave Carr Mr. Ingersoll stated this is the beginning of Excelsior Avenue Development Project. A visual presentation was provided illustrating what has been built, including the hotel and the condominiums, as well as the streets and infrastructure. A view of all elevations was provided as well. The parcels in question do need to be individual parcels due to the fact that there are new owners. A brief history of this project was provided to the Board. Special Use Permit Phases III and IV have sunsetted. We are able to build up to 140 units. If this project is approved the developer will return before this Board and redo the Special Use Permit. We are speaking about the three apartment buildings this evening. We are still in keeping with the original plan concerning the streets and alleys. Landscaping plan was also shown. Parking plan was reviewed. The subdivision discussion came down to two items. The trail connection from the site to the Spring Run Trail required before conclusion of Phase 2 work. Permit with the DEC attained for a boardwalk/trail connection. In Phase II of the project a paved pedestrian/bike path shall be made from the main street of the project to the Spring Run Trail, including an appropriated crossing over the Spring Run Brook. Discussion ensued regarding the non-buildable parcel solely for access and the roadway. An easement will be obtained for parking access for the other lot, Lot#3A. Residential units are proposed for Lot #2. Mark Torpey, Chairman summarized the project for the benefit of the public and audience. The project is in its second Phase. The summation of Phase I and Phase II, looking at the original Special Use Permit, allows for 160 residential units, and also allows 100,000 SF of commercial space. What has been constructed at the site to date are 30 condominium units, 3 single family homes, and a 76,000SF hotel. The remaining number of residential units is 127 and the remaining non residential commercial space is 24,000SF. What is being proposed in this project are 3 separate buildings, 35 units per building for a total of 105 units for the project. Mr. Ingersoll provided a visual of exactly where the Spring Run Trail exists and where it will be connected with the completion of Phase II. Department of Environmental Conservation and Army Corp of Engineers approvals have been received. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: Mark Torpey, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:55 P.M. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – August 12, 2015 - Page 5 of 18 Amy Durland, Lakewood Drive, Saratoga Springs. With all the time which has lapsed on this project I do believe the original Special Use Permit required starting in Phase II a mixed income housing. So, it required a degree of affordable housing. I also remember while I was on the Planning Board one of the times the applicant appeared before the Board affirmed that starting in Phase II, there would be a percentage of affordable housing in their proposal. I just want to bring that to the Boards attention. Mark Torpey, Chairman questioned the applicant concerning the affordable housing. Mr. Ingersoll stated the size of the units being proposed will be within the workforce market of cost and rent. So they meet the market demand. Of the 105 it triggered after the hundredth unit or Phase II, or 10% whatever was stated would be worked into each floors plan. Mark Torpey, Chairman questioned if there was an incentive bonus. Mr. Ingersoll stated the incentive bonus to get up to or over 200 units. That has expired with the sunset clause in Phases III and IV. This is market driven. We were prepared to have a further discussion at the September meeting. The applicants are aware of this provision. Debbie Kwasniecki, 63 Gilbert Road. Regarding this project is this complete streets where the sidewalks will continue into the development. Mr. Ingersoll stated this will be part of the site plan presentation. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner reviewed the extensive project between the City and the DOT along Route 50. The City right of way on Excelsior Avenue touches the State right of way. This will allow for a parallel multi-use path which will traverse along 50 heading east, go over the bridge and terminate at the DOT facility. In the future this will continue down Weibel Avenue, as well as on the Wilton side, with consideration to continue down to the commercial destinations east of the Northway. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated a few items for the Board to consider. This project resulted in one of the most comprehensive Special Use Permits ever in a project. It was subject to a SEQRA review a GEIS, in terms of environmental review for the project. There are a number of items in the Special Use Permits such as the Phasing, and affordable housing. There is a provision which discusses over 200 units 15% of the units for occupancy for affordable housing. Additional density bonus of 30 units. In addition 10 units will be affordable housing in the first 100 units interwoven. There are other issues, traffic thresholds, form based zoning, new urban mixed use development within the T-5 District, commercial with residential. There is a sequencing and phasing built in. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we have a lot of loose ends to clear up. We have an extensive GEIS and Special Use Permit. The affordable housing clause and Phase III and Phase IV. I feel we need more information before voting on the subdivision. Mr. Ingersoll asked the Board to try to see their vision and move this project forward for financing this project. Mark Torpey, Chairman questioned the Boards feeling on moving this project forward. It was the consensus of the Board to move this project forward. Clifford Van Wagner made a motion to reaffirm SEQRA, a GEIS was submitted, no new significant or substantial impacts to note. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – August 12, 2015 - Page 6 of 18 Tom L. Lewis seconded the motion. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 PUBLIC HEARING: Mark Torpey, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:14 P.M. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was a motion for a three lot subdivision. Howard Pinsley made a motion in the matter of the Excelsior Park Phase II, three lot subdivision to approve with the following condition: those lots 1, 2, and 3 are approved with appropriate easements in place for access. Janet Casey seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 8:17 P.M. The Board recessed. 8:25 P.M. The Board reconvened. 5. 15.019 PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT – CLUBHOUSE DEFINITION (SARATOGA NATIONAL), Advisory Opinion to the City Council Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the City Council requested an Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board on June 3, 2015. They were seeking input for a new definition for “clubhouse”. There were 3 versions of that definition which were provided to the Board. These are up on the web for the public to view. There is no official applicant before the Board. We are responding to the City Council in terms of their request to us to discuss the definitions. We convened a workshop on August 5, 2015 to discuss the definitions provided and reached the consensus that a more simplified definition maybe a better starting point for our conversations this evening. On August 4, 2015, the Planning Board received a fourth definition. It was provided by Commissioner Madigan who worked with Mark Schachner on a more comprehensive amendment. The term golf resort which was introduced as opposed to looking at a term clubhouse. There was a framework there which was more comprehensive and lengthy to show how all of the different components of a definition could fit together and weave through the different documents and sections of the zoning ordinance. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Planning Board clarified what is being called the 4th definition is really a three part possible amendment. In fairness to the Finance Department, I am really the author based on a short consultation at City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – August 12, 2015 - Page 7 of 18 which time I was asked to evaluate the proposed clubhouse definition for potential legal vulnerability. I felt that there was some potential legal vulnerability, so I was asked to put something together that might get over the hurdle of the potential vulnerability, and that is what I came up with. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the Planning Board received the 4th definition the Tuesday before our workshop. We didn’t broach that definition at the Special Meeting but we did review it at our workshop on Monday, August 3, 2015. We felt that it was a better starting point for discussion this evening. We initially received the Advisory Opinion request from the City Council on June 3, 2015. A 60 day period is provided for an answer. The Planning Board did request an extension which was granted for an additional 60 days. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the application originally consisted of a definition provided by the Council. The Council was very clear that they wanted the Board to receive that definition that they have reviewed as part of that subject application. Upon consideration by the Council, I did provide information that it was an iterative process in terms of an Advisory Opinion. It is within the Boards scope of review. There can be times where you can consider different items. That piece is what evolved into the two alternative definitions which were provided. On August 5, 2015 following the workshop the Board did modify and refine the last modified version of clubhouse golf from the definition to really contain the first paragraph of the definition. As it results now: Clubhouse-Golf A structure or clustered group of structures associated with an 18 hole golf course, which measures in excess of 5,000 yards, that may include locker rooms, spa, health and fitness center, golf and fitness related retail, restaurant, and banquet facilities, business center and lodging. Additional information related to those uses, ownership as well as specific spatial requirements and height restrictions as well as public access shall be considered by the Planning Board during Special Use Permit evaluation and Site Plan review. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner read into the record the following definition authored by Mark Schachner, Legal Counsel to the Planning Board. It is a varied approach. It has some reflections of other specific uses in our Supplemental Section in our Zoning Ordinance. In the 2012 update of the Zoning Ordinance, there was much consideration and effort in terms of what had been placed within definition section regarding uses and removing the detail from that and placing it in a more centrally located accessible portion of the Zoning Ordinance with all the specific information related to it. This precedence is how we have treated other items such as telecommunication towers. This is where you have a basic definition provided for in our Appendix A and the specific items relating to that use in terms of process, how that is seen in terms of use, and specific provisions related to that are all contained within that one section. The first item is the definition. This is varying from a clubhouse definition this is a little more comprehensive in terms of the overall concept. Golf Resort: A full regulation size 18 hole golf course and associated structures which may include amenities such as clubhouse, locker rooms, spa, health and fitness center, golf and fitness related retail, restaurant and banquet facilities, business center and temporary lodging. So, moving through the Section 2.0 Base Zoning Districts within the use schedule. This alternative would add Golf Resort as Use Permitted with Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval in the Rural Residential (RR) District. In the Supplemental Regulations, there is a category specifically related to specific uses. This is where this particular alternative is housed. To specific uses such as telecommunications facilities and towers, and vehicle fueling stations. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – August 12, 2015 - Page 8 of 18 6.3.6 is a potential addition for Golf Resorts. You have a section related to golf resorts in its entirety. Within the section which has been provided here, something else to stress here is this an alternative approach in addition to what Mark Schachner provided or noted. It is a means to look at how the proposal could be embodied. This doesn’t provide the sense that you have already answered the questions you know you need to answer in the Advisory Opinion which is in compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan. This provides for another means for evaluation either should you seek moving forward with any specifics on it or provides a potential option to the Council regardless of where they might want to head. They are the actual decision makers. Under this section it states the following shall apply to any Golf Resort located within the Rural Residential District (Conservation Overlay District) in addition to any requirements related to a Special Use Permit or Site Plan Approval: Item A - Minimum Lot Size. Item B - Clustering- Physical Layout. 35% of the developed land shall remain permeable. Item C - Setback. Item D - Height Restriction Item E - Lodging Facilties – Provides a threshold. There may be no more than 100 guest rooms in a Single structure providing temporary lodging. Additional temporary lodging may be provided in not more than six smaller, freestanding structures containing common areas and up to eight guestrooms but with no associated kitchen facilities. Temporary lodging facilities shall not be used as seasonal or year round residences. Item F - Preservation of Open Space: The developer of any Golf Resort shall dedicate not less than 50% Of the unconstrained land for open space purposes. There may be some additional questions regarding the Comprehensive Plan and how they tie into the Zoning Ordinance. In speaking about the Rural Residential District there is a tie between the Comprehensive Plan and the Conservation Overlay District. There are specific provisions that speak to the intent of the district, and tie to a Conservation Analysis being required as well as 50% of the open space being protected being provided and where that ties into the Zoning Ordinance is in the Conservation Subdivision Regulations. This is where the Board will see what has been laid out, the City’s vision document, the Comprehensive Plan, and tying it site to site review as well as action and application and how that could take place. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we have two things to do. Does this golf resort definition comport with the Comprehensive Plan, and is the golf resort consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. That is what our job is for the Council this is complicated. I just wanted to take a few minutes to set the stage to look at this in the most comprehensive way possible. Does it fit with the Comprehensive Plan and is it consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. This is the format we thought was best. This is open for discussion. Mark Torpey, Chairman read the intent of the Rural Residential District - which is to provide low density residential and agricultural uses, in order to preserve open space and a rural character, limiting topography, soil conditions, slopes and lack of public infrastructure also warrant the low density. The uses which are permitted in the Rural Residential district are: animal kennel, farms, riding stable, nurseries, golf course and clubhouse, private civic clubs, religious institutions, cemeteries, heliport, marinas, docks, neighborhood bed and breakfast and neighborhood rooming house. There is an overlay associated with this area as well. The Corridor Lodging District is an overlay that also applies in this area because of the fact that it is on Union Avenue. That allows as a use corridor bed and breakfast, corridor rooming house and an inn. When you look at those the inn is probably the most intense non- residential use that allows up to 25 rooms and 50 guests. In the Zoning Ordinance you have in that area a two acre lot size, front yard setback of 60 feet, and a building height of 35 feet and minimum permeability of 80%. On the Comprehensive Plan side, this area sits in the Conservation Development District, and is also part of the Country Overlay. There is a Zen ven diagram. They both overlap in this area. Based on the new Comprehensive Plan which City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – August 12, 2015 - Page 9 of 18 was passed, in that Conservation Development District a conservation analysis is required for any development in this area. This identifies constrained lands, wetlands, steep slopes, flood plains. The other part of that is to identify the other areas that have conservation value. It is an extra step to identify things above and beyond what is technically constrained that then gives you the protected area of the property. What you are really trying to preserve. Now you are left with developed property, and fully constrained property based on that analysis. The Rural Residential Zone requires us also to set aside 50% of that developed property under a conservation easement as open space as well. That is what is required. The term clustering is only relevant in the UR-1 and SR-2 District. So that term is confusing to me. It is a fairly complex problem. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if any of the other Board Members wished to comment. Howard Pinsley stated that was an excellent presentation. PUBLIC HEARING: Mark Torpey, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:49 P.M. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Mike Toohey, Attorney here on behalf of the person who started this process moving forward. It appears we are moving in a new direction to achieve the same goal which is exactly the direction my client wants us to achieve with this text amendment request. Our goal is to construct something that is sensitive to the City in the Country. There is a desire within the community for a broad base of green space and we believe that what we are proposing will do just that. Since 1982 there has been a right to have a golf course within this zone. We are not trying to introduce a use and utilization that is different from what has historically been in this zone. It is important that we have the clubhouse nomenclature in the definition Golf Clubhouse-Resort because it can’t stand alone it has to be part of this golf experience. It better defines it. It ties it back historically into the zoning code. With regard to clustering 6.3.6 B although not specific to this zone it is very well set out at this point. What we want to do in this side of the City is to avoid sprawl. Clustering is the opposite of sprawl. What we are attempting to do is consistent with the Master Plan. If you have 100 acres of land allowing for the 50% to remain permanently protected open space and 35% of the land to remain permeable you can only build on 32 acres of land. We are not opposed to that. We understand the constraints being imposed. We also understand the community wants to have an extent of green space. One of the ways within the zoning code is to give it a setback. We have proposed 3,000 feet for our setback. This is more than a half a mile. This proposal will be a money maker for the City of Saratoga Springs. This proposal is a smaller footprint than the development of homes. A review of the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to this proposal was reviewed for the Board and the public. Debbie Kwasnieski, 63 Gilbert Road. Mrs. Kwasnieski questioned if there is a NYS definition of clubhouse resort. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Planning Board stated there is no New York State Zoning Code. There is not a state definition of clubhouse. Sam Palazo, Campion Drive. I urge the Planning Board to approve this text amendment. I do attend destination resorts and see what they do for the community and the restaurants in the area. The net revenue referred to perhaps this could help reduce taxes. This will have a lot less environmental impact than 30-40 homes being built. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Planning Board voiced his concern regarding comments being made regarding a particular project. It is very important from the legal perspective that this is not site plan review or special use permit for a particular project. What you have before you is a proposed definitional amendment. The first thing the Board should indicate why you are not pursuing review or Advisory Opinion of the definition that was referred and why you have decided to shift gears. This needs to be discussed in a resolution. My concern is that two of the three City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – August 12, 2015 - Page 10 of 18 comments that have been made so far have been explicitly referring to a specific project that has been proposed. It is very important that the Planning Board recognize that you are not reviewing a specific project at this time; you are reviewing a proposed amendment to a zoning law. Mark Torpey, Chairman reiterated the comments should be focused to the definition. Does the amendment comport with the Comp Plan and is it consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Any further comments should be directed to those two points. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Planning Board reiterated his concern for both the public and the Planning Board to continue to be focused on the potential project when in fact there is no specific project. Anonymous audience member, 2 Eaton Court, Regatta View. Approximately 1 mile away. It will do nothing but increase the value of homes and the impact on the economy of Saratoga Springs. Todd Garafano, Saratoga Convention and Tourism Bureau. This shows a great deal of cooperation between the Board and the public. This is a great definition and hope this moves forward to the City Council. Joe Mack, property and business owner in the City. Anything that will help encourage revenue and jobs in the area. John Kaufman, Saratoga Springs. The fact that the attorney has to direct you that this is not about the proposal of Saratoga National is disturbing. Bob Anns, 525 Crescent Avenue. I would like to say that as you look at the language you have here. One of the key things is a golf course resort is a huge economic driver plus a tax benefit and great potential for open space. The success of this spills over into dining establishments the businesses and the hotels. Harry Moran, Sustainable Saratoga. On July 20, 2015 we provided to the Board some detailed comments with regard to the proposed zoning text amendment submitted by Saratoga National Golf Course, which added a new definition for golf clubhouse. The threshold requirement for the Planning Board is to address the simple question, is this consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. We believe clearly it is not. This could create a precedent in the City’s greenbelt. Therefore, the Planning Board should issue a Negative Advisory Opinion to the City Council. Patrick Kane, 19 Marion Place. As a former land use volunteer and I understand the complexities you are addressing. This definition fits nicely with what the intent of the new Comprehensive Plan. Ago Fusera, 59 George Street. Our community is a mixed bag. We have a great history and are growing at a dynamic rate. This works for the community. Peter Tavares, 458 Union Avenue, Golf Professional, Saratoga National, PGA member. Golf has its own culture and following. People who play the game understand the importance of what we are trying to do. Tom L. Lewis stated he is taking in what counsel said and in reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and the comments which were made by the public I feel that this will enhance and further protect the City in the Country. This is totally compatible and a great compromise. Clifford Van Wagner stated he agrees with Tom. This definition sets the tone for the future. We have rules and regulations in place. This protects 75-80% of what is out there. Opening up a bike path and access to Lake Lonely is impressive. This definition has taken a huge change. It is what it should be. It is very compatible to the Comp Plan. I am comfortable with what we have seen and ready to send this definition back to the City Council. Howard Pinsley stated zoning allows golf courses in the RR-1. This is a simple place to start from. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – August 12, 2015 - Page 11 of 18 Janet Casey stated she agrees as well. This definition of golf resort is absolutely compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. I agree with Cliff. I like the way this now puts into the Supplemental Regulations the requirement for a conservation analysis. Public access is a great thing. What this gives us as a definition gives us a context within which individual applications can be appropriately evaluated. One thing golf resort is an appropriately broad concept for a definition. Mark Torpey, Chairman reviewed the zoning ordinance and does not believe it speaks of this use allowing the commercial activity at this location. It is my opinion this is not compatible with the Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan. What numbers do we send back to the Council. A conservation analysis cannot determine the clustering arrangement without proceeding through and determining the conservation value. I cannot come up with a set of numbers for any of these. I do not have a feel for the math. Janet Casey questioned if the blanks in the document would be a model denoting specifics which need to be completed for each application. Tom L. Lewis made a motion for a positive advisory opinion to the City Council. The motion shall include the following four components: 1). A new definition of golf resort. This definition was changed due to the fact that the Planning Board felt the definition was too specific. The one sentence definition with then supplemental regulations is more in compliance with our zoning code. This is now a definition followed up with supplemental regulations and is more appropriate for what we do. It is not contrary to the intent or purposes of the zoning ordinance and is compatible or consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Refer to Appendix A Definition of Terms – Zoning Law Amendments – attached. 2). Adding golf resort as a use permitted in the Rural Residential (RR) District. Refer to Section 2.0 Base Zoning Districts – Table 2: Use Schedule – Zoning Law Amendments -attached. 3). Addition of a new section 6.3.6. to the Supplemental Regulations. Refer to Section 6.0 Supplemental Regulations – Zoning Law Amendments - attached. 4- Possible amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Refer to #2 – Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Zoning Law Amendments - attached. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Planning Board stated if you are making a motion to send this Advisory Opinion to the City Council it should contain three components. Why the definition is different from the one which was sent to you to initially, a determination of the compatible and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and not contrary to the intent or purpose of the Zoning Law. This was neither proposed nor endorsed by any particular commissioner. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed language in the Advisory Opinion motion. Janet Casey is in agreement with Mark Torpey concerning the necessity for the figures to be placed in the supplemental regulations. We are too quick here. That is moving too fast. PUBLIC HEARING: Mark Torpey, Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:08 P.M. Clifford Van Wagner seconded the motion. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – August 12, 2015 - Page 12 of 18 Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, opposed; Janet Casey, opposed. MOTION PASSES: 4-2 The Board recessed at 10:10 P.M. The Board reconvened at 10:18 P.M. 6. 14.038 CITY CENTER PARKING GARAGE, Maple, High Rock and Lake Avenues, proposed two lot subdivision in a Transect-6, Urban Core (T-6) District. BACKGROUND: On July 21, 2015, the City Council authorized the release of the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the High Rock Parking Lot Redevelopment. The RFP is noted to broadly include consideration of the entire parcel and notes that “it is expected that any proposal presented by qualified applicants would offer maximum opportunities for downtown mixed use development and an associated multi-level parking structure.” Mark Torpey, Chairman stated there is an RFP for this property. In setting the agenda I sent a letter to the Mayor asking how to handle this. Do we handle this in parallel to the RFP. I received no response. It was the consensus of the Board at the workshop to proceed with this application and analyze this in parallel to the RFP. The applicant is at risk if the RFP yields the projects that might obviate the need for this subdivision. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated basically after it was determined this project was subject to Land Use Review, there are several items which are required in moving forward with the Land Use Boards. The Planning Board both subdivision and site plan. The applicant is before the Board this evening for a 2 lot subdivision. DRC has Architectural Review still to come. Also, there was identified variance required in regard to the Solar Access Provision within the Zoning Ordinance. That variance was denied. Subsequent to that the City Council did consider and move forward with a text amendment which took T-6 out of the required Solar Access Provision. Hence, the project is moving forward today. The application is the same the applications that were active prior, without the provision for Solar Access. The project was renoticed to the public. The RFP’s are due back on September 29, 2015. Applicant: Mark Baker, President City Center, Joe Dalton, Chairman; Tom Roohan Agent: Matthew J. Jones, Attorney, Jones Firm; Mike Ingersoll, LA Group Mr. Jones provided a visual presentation of the project. The applicant filed the application for a two lot subdivision following the City Council’s adoption of the Resolution on September 2, 2014, which authorized the applicant to file applications with the Land Use Boards. Lot to the north is ¾ of acre, which is the lot proposed for the parking structure. Lot #2 is everything from the subdivision line to Lake Avenue. We need a subdivision to become zoning compliant. In the absence of a subdivision we would occupy an entire City Block. There are four street frontages on the lot as it currently exists. In the T-6 a number of regulations deal with development, and one is that you need to develop within 12 feet of the frontage of the building. The frontage of the building is determined by the street with the highest capacity. In this case it is Lake Avenue. It needs to be oriented on the frontage and needs to occupy 80% of City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – August 12, 2015 - Page 13 of 18 the frontage. That does not work at all. To remedy that situation we have proposed a two lot subdivision which would take the property to be leased from the City of Saratoga Springs and divide that. A visual concept of the subdivision was provided. The proposal would be to lease two parcels of land from the City one parcel ¾ of an acre and another .185 acres. This is very tight to the street and very tight to the lot. PUBLIC HEARING: Mark Torpey, Chairman opened the public hearing at 10:21 P.M. John Kaufman, Saratoga Springs. In support of the City Center. Well thought out plan. Parking is critical for the City. Encourage the Planning Board to looks favorably on this application. Andrew Gilchrist, Attorney representing Diane & David Pedinotti. Consideration of the subdivision at this point is inconsistent with the RFP which was issued in late July. The RFP requests consideration for alternate parking as well as mixed use development on a 2.62 acre parcel. Subdividing that parcel is inconsistent with the proposals that the City Council is now seeking. When the City issued the RFP there are many members of the business and technical community that are spending time and resources compiling responses to that. Considering a subdivision application at this time while an RFP is pending is inconsistent with that and undercuts consideration of proposals for this lot. The RFP did not include a two lot subdivision; it references the lot as 2.62 acres. We encourage this Board to keep the public hearing open and stay any action on this application until the RFP date arrives and the City Council has time to review them regarding parking as well as other infill and mixed use development as stated in the RFP. That is both reasonable and appropriate in light of what the City Council did in issuing the RFP. Howard Pinsley stated we did not receive any guidance as to how to proceed with the application and we have no way of knowing if there will be any response from the RFP. There was no way not to look at this application. Mr. Gilchrist sated it is an unfair presumption to suggest that there will be no responses to the RFP. Tom L. Lewis questioned how Mr. Gilchrist would presume there would be a response to the RFP. Mr. Gilchrist stated when a municipality publishes and issues and RFP to the business technical community it does so with the intent of receiving proposals. If the Board approves the subdivision this evening there are two parcels. That is not consistent with the description of what the City Council was asking for in the RFP proposals. That is why we suggest this is inappropriate to act on this evening. The Board should wait for the receipt of the RFP proposals to expire. This subdivision request is premature. According to your subdivision regulations, within the intent section it states one of the intents is to avoid premature subdivisions. This is not consistent with your subdivision regulations as well as the RFP. In your 2015 Comprehensive Plan- Transportation section it is identified it states a parking inventory is still required, an analysis of alternate parking availability is still required, an analysis of new technology is still required. The subdivision has a rather irregular lot line which has no rationality in terms of proper planning specific to this project. It makes no sense on its own. As a subdivision the line makes no sense. A variance approach was tried and denied. There was a subsequent zoning change and the fact that it was in the T-6, shows spot zoning at its best. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Jennifer Lightig, Saratoga Springs. Questioned the application on the agenda in August. There has been one letter of intent from a potential developer. We have people who are looking and working on submitted criteria for the RFP. There has been time and attention into this. If this gets passed it sends a mixed message. Julie Kuneu, 7 Beacon Drive. I am the Chair for Citizens for High Rock. The City Council issued the RFP and we are very happy and hopeful for its success. The current RFP sets forth 600 parking spaces, 100 more than originally City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – August 12, 2015 - Page 14 of 18 proposed by the City Center. Questioning the request for a subdivision at this time. We are not opposed to a parking garage. We want an opportunity to review the proposals. Denise Desmond, Saratoga Farm Road. Part owner of Mouzon House. We are not against a parking garage. We are for multiuse design which takes into account better urban planning. This subdivision is premature. Please give this time. This is too early in the process. We need to give people with vision time. Jane Wie, Saratoga Springs. The parking garage structure has been in the works three years. The City Center is the engine of downtown. The structure would leave plenty of room on the lot for multiuse development. Denise Desmond, the garage will be on one lot but all the ramps will be utilizing the second lot. There is no room for multiuse development once this is built. Mike Ingersoll, LA Group. Lots of fallacies. The City Center did instead of access from York Street tried to mitigate traffic by making it internal. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the subdivision is set up specifically for the garage itself. Two thirds of the property is being allocated for this use for a period in the lease. Mike Ingersoll, LA Group stated if the second lot is being used, will eliminate public parking. Tom Newkirk, 553 Crescent Avenue. Property owner, business owner and a member of the Convention and Tourism Bureau. I am in support of this proposal tonight. The City Center is a destination for the City of Saratoga. It is one of the economic drivers. Let’s build some parking. Sarah Berger, City of Saratoga Springs. The only thing that is really relevant this evening is the subdivision proposal. The City Council issued an RFP. It is out there. It is completely inappropriate at this time to consider a subdivision proposal application in light of that. I echo all the legal concerns Mr. Gilcrest cited earlier this evening. I think this is completely inappropriate at this time. The RFP should be given due consideration. There will be ample time in the future to come back with the subdivision. The City cannot give due consideration to an RFP when the property has been subdivided. Dan Gaba questioned if the City Council wanted the RFP and the subdivision request to proceed concurrently. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, stated there was an informal reference by Commission Madigan and potentially by Commissioner Mathiesen to allow both to go forward. Tom L. Lewis feels there is no real problem with moving the subdivision forward. Mr. Gilchrest stated if the Planning Board is intent on moving forward, could we suggest that you look at the actual project site as the subdivision. To present a subdivision plat creating this lot line merely to address zoning code non compliance yet also hear that the need to lease additional area for this project to work. What should be before you is a subdivision showing the entire project site whether zoning compliant or not. That what appropriate subdivision is all about. What the Board should be reviewing, if the intent is to move forward is a subdivision for this project not a part of it. Then a lease on another piece. Very unusual to have a Planning Board review a subdivision that actually bisects the actual project site. Matthew J. Jones stated the applicant met with the building inspector and laid out the subdivision in an intent to offer a zoning compliant project. We think this is the correct project. The building inspector agrees with us. Regarding the City issuing an RFP make this project for subdivision premature. We are authorized to do what we are here to do based on the resolution issued in September 2014. There is no harm in passing a subdivision request since the City needs to sign a mylar. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – August 12, 2015 - Page 15 of 18 Diane Pedinotti, owner Mouzon House. Encourages the Planning Board to take the long view. Great citizens have come before the City Council stating their concerns. We want to see something beautiful and great. We can do better than what this plan is. The City Council responded by issuing an RFP. This is a costly expense to respond to an RFP. We are asking you to not put out mixed messages. I do not understand what the hurry is. Have faith in talent and people who will invest in the City. Let’s see what we can do. David Pedinotti, owner Mouzon House. As a committee of the City it is very dysfunctional and sending mixed messages to developers. Tom L. Lewis stated we are not the authority who decides. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Planning Board. Law and logic do not always match perfectly. I understand and everyone understands that there may be an aspect of mixed messages. There may be some tension here about the perception of some inconsistencies between the City Center Parking Garage Plan moving forward while the City Council’s request for RFP is out there. Legally speaking I don’t believe you have the authority to not see this application because the City Council has issues an RFP. The reason is because the applicant has the written authorization of the property owner to proceed. The property owner at the same time issued a document to the community or the public indicating that the property owner may choose to go in a different direction. But the property owner did not revoke the authorization for the applicant to proceed. Clearly the property owner had the opportunity to revoke the authorization for the property owner to proceed and it did not do that. That does not mean you have to make a decision on this application this evening. There have been a number of comments made that you may wish to take into consideration. You may wish a different subdivision plat that shows more of the property. You may wish to consider and reflect on the written comments submitted by attorney Gilchrest. You haven’t closed the public hearing. You are not under any legal requirement to make a decision on the subdivision application this evening. I don’t believe you have the legal authority to simply postpone the decision because of the issuance of the RFP. I understand the arguments about illogic, inconsistency, perceived prematurity, but I don’t believe you have the legal authority to delay solely on that basis. David Pedinotti, owner Mouzon House. I am not speaking about the legality of it I am speaking about the morality of it. Think about the citizens of Saratoga Springs and wait 45 days. Mr. Gilchrest asked for the record to be clear. What you said earlier there was not a resolution requesting an RFP. It is my understanding that on July 20, 2015 at a City Council meeting there was authorization for issuance of the RFP and it is dated July 21, 2015. That action is not consistent with the authorization to continue with this subdivision. Mr. Jones stated there was no resolution. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if the Board would like to weigh in. Howard Pinsley stated as in our workshop and again reiterated by our counsel Mark Schachner, because we don’t have any reason not to. Mark Schachner stated I did not say that. You are clearly not obligated to make a decision tonight. You have a public hearing which is still open. Even if you close the public hearing you don’t have a legal obligation to make a decision until 62 days after the public hearing. What I said was I don’t believe you have the legal authority to not consider the application because of the issuance of the RFP. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – August 12, 2015 - Page 16 of 18 Janet Casey stated we did agree at the workshop to hear this application. We cannot deny the applicant. We have to hear the proposal. It doesn’t mean that there isn’t interpretive latitude here. There are a lot of assumptions being made about what the people at the table think. I for one agree that this is premature given the RFP at the same time. The lack of council response to the chair’s reasonable question about process suggests that we have some discretion here in how to move forward here. I am not opposed to this particular project or to a parking garage hypothetically but I do think that subdividing prematurely could deter some very good responses to the RFP. That concerns me. So, given the shortness of time up until the deadline I would be in favor of not making a decision on this and keeping the public hearing open. Clifford Van Wagner stated in light of Mark Schachner's comments that we cannot just postpone this. I have in my history here seen subdivisions that have been applied for granted by this Board and if the mylars are not sent to the County in timely fashion then the subdivision is null and void. If the City Council decides to proceed in a different direction that is their decision. I am ready to vote on this subdivision tonight. Dan Gaba stated it comes down to a two lot subdivision. Tom L.Lewis stated he is ready to vote on the two lot subdivision this evening. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated for a project of this magnitude and size we need to look at the subdivision and the site plan together. What is driving the subdivision is the building is the structure. The fact that the site plan materials and application has not been processed, for something this complex we need to look at this part and parcel. So, therefore I am not ready to vote on this. I am also not in favor of this as well because we are looking at a lot division that is expressly for a single purpose use, single structure. When you look at the T-6 zone and requirements the mixed use is on a lot level not on a neighborhood center. I am not willing to move forward with the subdivision at this time. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Planning Board stated if you move forward with a motion I would encourage you in the strongest terms to make sure explicit reference is made to the criteria of the subdivision regulations. I mean go through the criteria, and have evaluations for each criterion. That is if there is a motion this evening. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated in order to proceed properly we need staff to help craft the wording. Discussion ensued among the Board. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated at the late hour going through each criteria in the subdivision regulations to craft a motion, we are not going to do this tonight. We would like to take the time to craft that and have some language we agree to and vote on this at the next Planning Board Meeting on September 9, 2015. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Planning Board stated that will also give the Board time to review the written comments submitted. PUBLIC HEARING: Mark Torpey, Chairman closed the public hearing at 11:45 P.M. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Mark Torpey, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11:45 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – August 12, 2015 - Page 17 of 18  Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 9/9/15 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – August 12, 2015 - Page 18 of 18