Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES (FINAL) THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2016 7:00 P. M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Mark Torpey, Chairman; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman; Clifford Van Wagner; Janet Casey; Ruth Horton, alternate LATE ARRIVAL: Jamin Totino arrived at 7:05 P.M. ABSENT: Tom L. Lewis; Howard Pinsley STAFF: Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Justin Grassi, Counsel to the Land Use Board CALL TO ORDER: Mark Torpey, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:02 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: 1.15.049 LANDS OF STONE, 68 Weibel Avenue, sketch plan review of office, retail, and multi-family residential in the Transect-4 Urban Neighborhood (T-4) District. 2.16.025 MENDENHALL SUBDIVISION, 101 Old Schuylerville Road, 4-lot preliminary conservation subdivision within the Rural Residential (RR) District. 3.16.027 WEST AVENUE APARTMENTS, 246 West Avenue, Special Use Permit for construction of 16 multi-family residential units within the Transect-4 Urban Neighborhood (T-4) District. 4.16.027 WEST AVENUE APARTMENTS, 246 West Avenue, Special Use Permit for construction of 16 multi-family residential units within the Transect-4 Urban Neighborhood (T-4) District. 5. 12.023.4 CONGRESS PLAZA EMBASSY SUITES, 46 Congress Street, proposed site plan modification to eliminate vehicular access from South Federal Street in a Transect 5 Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. 6. 04.029.1 ICE HOUSE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION, 70 AND 72 Putnam Street, site plan modificaiton review in a Transect-6 Urban Core (T-6) District. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS/AGENDA WORKSHOPS: Planning Board Caravan, Tuesday, October 24, 2016 at 4:00 P.M. Planning Board Workshop, Tuesday, October 24, 2016 at 5:00 P.M. Planning Board Meeting, Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR: None heard. A. DISCUSSION ITEM 1. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, DISCUSSION OF DRAFT DIAGNOSTIC REPORT. Presenter: Tina Carton, Parks, Open Space, Historic Preservations/Sustainability Coordinator B. APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1.16.031 ZUMPANO SUBDIVISION, 119 East Avenue, proposed final 2 lot subdivision within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the Board has received updated information and new drawings following the applicants last appearance before this Board. The applicant has addressed the issues which the Board had concerns with. SEQRA: Action appears to be Unlisted, short form Part I provided. Agent: Bill Thompson Applicant: Albert & Nicole Zumpano, owners Mr. Thompson stated there were several revisions to the plan. We have added street trees. Two street trees will be placed on each street. We revised the driveway so the proposed access has now returned to a single point of access at the existing driveway. Discussion ensued concerning the criteria for sidewalks. PUBLIC HEARING: Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Mark Torpey, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:13 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 13, 2016 - Page 2 of 8 SEQRA REVIEW: Short form Part I was provided by the applicant. The Board reviewed Part II of the SEQRA EAF. No large or important areas of concern were noted. SEQR DECISION: Clifford Van Wagner stated that based upon the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part II of the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, the project will not result in any large and important impacts and, therefore, is one that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based on this, I move to make a SEQR negative declaration for this action. Seconded by Jamin Totino. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Ruth Horton, alternate, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 Jamin Totino made a motion in the matter of the Zumpano Subdivision, 119 East Avenue, that the application for a two lot subdivision within the Urban Residential-3 District be approved as submitted this evening. Janet Casey seconded the motion. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Ruth Horton, alternate, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 NOTE: The agenda was heard out of order per the recommendation of the Chair. 3. 16.039 BEEKMAN STREET CHILDCARE, 48 Beekman Street/51 Ash Street. Special Use Permit for day care center within the NCU-1 District. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated this item was discussed at the workshop in terms of parking, and drop off and pick up of the children. A request was made of the Planning Board to request a waiver from site plan review, and also a waiver from two parking spaces. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 13, 2016 - Page 3 of 8 SEQRA: Action appears to be a SEQR Type II action, no further action is required. BACKGROUND: Daycare is proposed within existing. SF space at 48 Beekman Street. Due to the increase in required parking, a special use permit and site plan review are required within the NCU-1 District. Applicant: Jenna Eddy, Kristin Marshall, co-owners, co-teachers A visual presentation was provided to the Board noting the site 48 Beekman Steet/51 Ash Street, as well as an overview of the project. The applicants are asking for a permanent Special Use Permit to allow a childcare facility in the building. NYS Licensure requires the childcare designation. We are a small preschool which is operated all day. We have requested a waiver from site plan review as well as a waiver from one parking space. A floor plan was provided to the Board noting less than 600 square feet of space, one entry on Beekman and one on a side alley. We are entirely fenced in the rear. The impact on the parking has been discussed and reviewed we feel we will have a minimal impact. Kristin and myself both live nearby and we are avid walkers. We will never be using our cars and we are the only employees at the school. Some families who live in the neighborhood will also be walking to the school. Drop off is between 8:00-9:00 am and pick up from 4:30-5:30 pm. We have a maximum number of 12 children allowed in our program. Currently we have 8 students. Current state regulations allow for 15 people with our size building. We are happy with that teacher to student ratio. We feel comfortable with 12. Photographs of the area showing parking availability was provided to the Board. Both co-owners have strong community support, and longtime Saratoga residents whose families are local business owners. NYS licensure process is underway. Letters of support from the community were provided to the Board. DISCLOSURE: Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman disclosed he does own property in this area. There is no conflict no need for recusal. Jamin Totino disclosed that he does live on Beekman Street. This area is a good mix of uses. He does have some concern for parking. This will be a great addition to the neighborhood. PUBLIC HEARING: Mark Torpey, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:40 P.M. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Mark Torpey, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:45 P.M. Mark Torpey, Chairman reviewed the conditions of the Permanent Special Use Permit: - Days of Operation Monday – Friday 8:00 AM – 7:00 PM - 2 Employees - Parking Waiver of one parking space - Site plan waiver - 12 Student maximum City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 13, 2016 - Page 4 of 8 Jamin Totino made a motion in the matter of the Beekman Street Childcare, 48 Beekman Street/51 Ash Street to approve the Permanent Special Use Permit with the conditions as listed by the Chairman. Ruth Horton, alternate seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Ruth Horton, alternate, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 8:46 P.M. The Board recessed. 8:58 P.M. The Board reconvened. 3. 16.034 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL. DISCLOSURE: Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman noted that he does own 5 properties within the City that all fit the criteria for affordable housing totaling 15 units. I do not have a conflict rendering an advisory opinion. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated again this is an Advisory Opinion to the City Council on the proposed zoning text amendment. We had an overview of the ordinance at a previous Planning Board meeting and provided some comments to the applicant. Also at the workshop there was a couple of items we asked to be reviewed. Those were as follows: If the ordinance was passed what would the impact be on the Planning Board concerning additional roles and responsibilities we would be involved in. Also, concerning the rental proposal and ownership proposal the mathematics for both are different. An example or two would be helpful. Our responsibility this evening is whether this is consistent with Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and whether this is worthy of the review of the City Council. SEQRA: Action appears to be Unlisted. Short form Part I provided. BACKGROUND: In February 2005, the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Development (IZOD) Committee drafted an ordinance providing for affordable housing. The Committee was formed by Mayor Lenz in 2005 and consisted of members: Monte Franke, Chair; Sonny Bonacio, Amy Durland, Matt Gabryshak, Vilma Heramia. The Committee presented the draft text amendment to the City Council on April 6, 2006, following 30 meetings and 14 months of work. The proposed ordinance was not adopted at that time. This proposed amendment is essentially identical to that effort. The City Council determined that the petition had merit for review and forwarded for an advisory opinion on August 16, 2016. The ordinance would require developers of housing developments of 10 or more units to set aside up to 20% of the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 13, 2016 - Page 5 of 8 Units as affordable in sale or rental to households of modest income. Developers are given up to a 20% density bonus or right to builod more units on the same site, to offset the cost of providing these affordable units. This ordinance takes advantage of market forces and development capacity to produce affordable units that are integrated into housing throughout the community. There are no State or Federal subsidies or actions in this program. There would be anticipated administrative costs to the City, although previous review did not anticipate more than half time of an employee, or potential to outsource to a non-profit entity. Applicant: Sustainable Saratoga Agent: Harry Moran, Geoff Bornemann, Sustainable Saratoga Mr. Moran spoke concerning the role and responsibility of the Planning Board. The committee developed and submitted a letter dated October 6, 2016 which was a detailed response to the ten questions which we heard voiced during the first meeting. One item which needs more discussion is the role and responsibility of this Board. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated he hoped they would have come forward with a format as to what the Planning Board would be requried to do in implementing this. What additional responsibility will we have that isn’t already in place. Currently the Planning Board can grant a 20% density bonus in addition to the maximum permitted density in underlying districts to offset the cost of providing affordable units during subdivision approval. This had never been exercised so we have no idea how it should be implemented. How is the process you envision here different in the very simple way this is described. Geoff Bournemann spoke regarding the Planning Board duties in the new proposed text amendment. The City Council has no involvement. The Planning Board makes the decision on the affordability inclusionary units. What is crucial is the inclusionary housing agreement that the Planning Board works out with the developer. Most of this document will be developed by the City attorneys before you even reach this point. All you are doing is filling in the blanks. This is a legal document and that runs forever with the land. This applies to 10 or more units. Discussion ensued concerning the Planning Boards role and responsibility in the proposed zoning text amendment as well as eligibility requirements. Mr. Bournemann discused the Planning Board’s ability to impose waivers and ability to control the site height and density requirements with the applicant as it concerns height and other spatial requirements. Jamin Totino stated he is concerned regarding the information which has just been presented goes against everything which was presented this evening in the Unified Development Ordinance presentation. I am having difficulty seeing how these are consistent with one another. Janet Casey stated she is having difficulty with this and the UDO presentation. I am all for affordable housing but appears that everything is going to get bigger. The UDO portrayed a better emphasis on context. This emphasis is on the project. So that project can be bigger now without any attention being paid to what is around at all. This troubles me. Mark Torpey, Chairman reviewed a portion of the UDO concerning the affordability and diversity section of the ordinance and how it relates to the Inclusionary Housing Zoning Text Amendment. Mark Torpey, Chairman read a concern provided by Tom Lewis who is out of town for this meeting. He noted his concern was the proposal may indeed induce the opposite effect you are trying to achieve. Mark Torpey, Chairman suggested running an updated financial assessment to see if the plan plays out appropriately and this should be completed with an independent analysis. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 13, 2016 - Page 6 of 8 Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Matthew J. Jones, attorney and here this evening as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber was involved in this project. Mr. Jones spoke regarding affordable housing availability in Wilton and Greenfield which is in close proximity to the City. The Chamber feels the Inclusionary Housing Proposed Zoning Text Amendment is not the best way to go. The UDO is a better approach. The right balance has not been struck on the Inclusionary Housing Proposed Text Amendment. DISCLOSURE: Clifford Van Wagner disclosed that he has been on the Chamber for one year. I recused from the discussion on this matter and did not participate in this discussion in any way shape or form. Rabbi Jonathan Rubenstein, Temple Sinai of Saratoga. I came here in 1986. We were involved with SHIP and built 7 duplexes on South Franklin Street which was a successful attempt at affordable housing. We have been hearing about affordable housing for 30 years, but no one does anything about it. This ordinance does not do enough to correct a serious imbalance that we have in our city that is getting worse and worse. Reverend Joe Cleveland, Minister of Unitarian Universalist Congregation. I moved to this town two years ago. Very excited to and thrilled to move and minister here. We lived here for two years and we had to move due to the cost of housing. We have a duty to be the welcoming place that Saratoga Springs aspires to be. Geoff Bornemann stated the Board’s responsibility is to determine whether this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated this is a very complicated ordinance assessing and analyzing it is not an efficient use of our time. It is the responsibility of the City Council. Is it generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Some of the issues are worth noting such as the ZBA jurisdictional issues, income eligibility, and income versus asset. Due to the complex nature of this I am inclined to move forward with this. I believe it is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and this provision exists in the current Zoning Ordinance. Janet Casey stated agrees entirely, and she is ready to move forward on this Advisory Opinion. Clifford Van Wagner stated he is not ready to vote this evening. Jamin Totino stated he is conflicted over it. I am not sure. This seems to circumvent the UDO. Ruth Horton stated she is ready to move forward on this Advisory Opinon. Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman stated is conflicted as well and is not ready to support this Advisory Opinion at this time. Justin Grassi, Attorney for the Planning Board spoke concerning the Planning Board responsibility to determine if this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Procedurally the Board does have 60 days with which to respond. After the 60 days the City Council will have to act. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated August 23, 2016 was the official date of referral. We are fairly close. We could ask the City Council for an extension. Discussion ensued concerning the request for an extension on the Advisory Opinion. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 13, 2016 - Page 7 of 8 Mark Torpey, Chairman made a motion to proceed with a Favorable Advisory Opinon to the City Council with the following recommendations. Updated financial analysis of the proposal would be valuable. This should be accomplished by an independent entity to obtain the effect the applicant is trying to achieve. Janet Casey seconded the motion. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, opposed; Jamin Totino, opposed; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, opposed; Ruth Horton, alternate, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION FAILS: 3-3 Justin Grassi, Attorney for the Planning Board stated the Planning Board can revote at the next meeting. Procedurally an extension should be requested from the City Council. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated she will request an extension from the City Council. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the applicant can re-appear before the Board again in two weeks. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Clifford Van Wagner made a motion to approve the July 28, 2016 mintues of the Planning Board meeting minutes. Janet Casey seconded the motion. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Ruth Horton, alternate, abstained; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 Jamin Totino made a motion to approve the September 8, 2016 mintues of the Planning Board meeting minutes. Clifford Van Wagner seconded the motion. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Ruth Horton, alternate, abstained; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 Ruth Horton, alternate made a motion to approve the September 22, 2016 mintues of the Planning Board meeting. Clifford Van Wagner seconded the motion. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 13, 2016 - Page 8 of 8  Ruth Horton, alternate, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Mark Torpey, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 2/23/17 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – October 13, 2016 - Page 9 of 8