Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES ( FINAL) THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2022 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER : Mark Torpey, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:01 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT : Mark Torpey, Chair; via Skype; Kerry Mayo; Todd Fabozzi; Mark Pingel; Chuck Marshall; Bill McTygue STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Patrick Cogan, Zoning Officer/Building Inspector Leah Everhart, Counsel to the Land Use Boards – arrived at 6:30 P.M. ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: 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. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: Mark Torpey, Chair, stated this is Ruth Horton’s last meeting. We appreciate her service to the city and her insight as a member of the Planning Board. We will miss her. A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the end of the meeting. B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: NOTE: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any application that appear to be “approvable” without need for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wished to further discuss any proposed consent agenda item, then that item would be pulled from the “consent agenda” and dealt with individually. 1. #20220957 176 S. BROADWAY SPECIAL USE PERMIT EXTENSION, 176 S. Broadway, Proposed extension of a previously approved Special Use Permit for a 120-room hotel in the Transect-5 (T-5) District. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated this is an extension of a previously approved project. The current project expires on November 18, 2022. The applicant is requesting an 18-month extension to May 18, 2024. Chuck Marshall made a motion in the matter of the application of 176 South Broadway Special Use Permit Extension, 176 Broadway an 18-month extension be approved until May 18, 2024. Kerry Mayo seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Mark Torpey, Chair, in favor; Kerry Mayo, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Mark Pingel, in favor; Chuck Marshall, in favor; Bill McTygue, in favor MOTION PASSES : 6-0 C. APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. #20220957 RICHARD AVENUE SUBDIVISION, 23 Richard Avenue Preliminary plat review of a proposed three-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated, we discussed this at the workshop and requested additional information. One was a tree survey, looking at the larger growth trees on the site, and there was an issue with regards to the city right of way which could be remedied with the adjustment of property lines. The applicant has provided an updated subdivision plan based on these comments. Applicant: M&A Capital LLC Agent: Nick Costa, Advanced Engineering & Survey Mr. Costa stated they have prepared the proposed subdivision of this parcel located at 23 Richard Avenue. This is located at the southwest corner of Penn and Richard Avenues. This parcel is 24,000 sq. ft. in size. The applicant is proposing to subdivide this into three parcels. The two new parcels, lot #1 and lot #2 will be 6600 sq. ft., in size and a minimum of 60 ft. of frontage on the city street. The remaining lot #3 will be 10,800 sq. ft. We have provided an updated subdivision plan. The larger trees added and adjusted the property boundaries at the intersection of Penn & Richard noting the portion of the parcel to be conveyed to the City as part of the right of way. This will eliminate the city roadway encroaching on the subject parcel. Also, we have adjusted the rear lot line of the new lot#2 to obtain the minimum lot size of 6,600 sq. ft. We discussed with the applicant the addition of sidewalks. They would like to construct sidewalks in the area in front of the two new lots to be consistent with the neighborhood. Todd Fabozzi spoke regarding sidewalks in this area as being a part of the subdivision requirements. Chuck Marshall stated the requirement can be waived if there is a payment in lieu of. It makes more sense to have the Richard Avenue connection then to have sidewalks that are not going to connect. The requirement is to have sidewalks Installed in front of the newly subdivided lots. Discussion ensued regarding sidewalk installation and contribution for a fee in lieu of. Mr. Costa stated the requirement is to install sidewalks in front of the newly created lots. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 13, 2022 - Page 2 of 18 Bill McTygue questioned if there is to be a sidewalk along Richard Avenue eventually. Mr. Costa stated along Richard Avenue the applicant will contribute money towards the sidewalk funding the city will keep in an escrow fund. Chuck Marshall stated on the east side of Richard Avenue, the applicant cannot place sidewalks on property they do not own. Susan Barden, Principal Planner, stated the Board has accepted a fee in lieu of and noted the sidewalks should be constructed in another location in that neighborhood. Then those funds are earmarked for the missing link sidewalk program. Todd Fabozzi questioned if the funding which we earmark for this program has made it to the program. Susan Barden, Principal Planner, provided information to the Board on how these funds are provided to the missing link program. Mark Pingel stated since the large trees cannot be saved, what is the current plan. Mr. Costa stated there is a notation on the plan, that there are trees which need to be reviewed by the City Arborist. If the trees cannot be saved, then new trees will be planted in conjunction with what is recommended by the city. Mark Torpey, Chair, questioned why the large trees cannot be saved since they are outside the building envelope and are within the setback. The City Arborist could visit the site and recommend how they can be preserved. Mr. Costa stated with all the activity going around the trees in the area they may not survive. Mark Torpey, Chair, questioned if the applicant engaged in the project on Richard Avenue across the street and built the homes across the street. Mr. Costa stated yes. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated he remembers that since he was a part of the approval for that. We had identified a significant buffer to be maintained on the rear of the property. The city was informed after the project was built that all the trees on the property were removed. For this application, those trees in the setback should be preserved. Chuck Marshall stated on 6600 sq. ft. lots with a 2,000 or 3,000 sq. ft., home on it is difficult to do. If the applicant can do that fine if not the CO should be contingent upon tree replacement. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding inviting the City Arborist to the site to provide information on saving the trees, if possible, if not what type of trees should be replanted if mitigation is necessary. Mark Pingel questioned if the Board were to continue with approvals would it be with this as a contingency. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated having an approval that requires further analysis from the City Arborist as to what would be approved on the site would be appropriate. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 13, 2022 - Page 3 of 18 Leah Everhart, Counsel to the Land Use Boards, stated this is a preliminary plat. So, you can condition approval on the final plat containing the same sort of notations. You can also require before the final plat is submitted the consultation with the arborist. Mark Torpey, Chair, questioned if correspondence has been received from DEC regarding endangered species. Susan Barden, Principal Planner, stated she does not have any correspondence from the DEC regarding threatened or endangered species. Mark Torpey, Chair, questioned if the Board had received Saratoga County Planning Board approval at this time. Susan Barden, Principal Planner stated no County Planning Board approval is required for this project. SEQRA: Part I of the SEQRA Short EAF has been submitted, reviewed and is accurate. Chuck Marshall reviewed the SEQRA Short EAF with the Board. No large or important areas of concern were noted. SEQRA DECISION: Chuck Marshall made a motion based upon the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEQRA Short Environmental Assessment Form, and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part II of the SEQRA Short Environmental Assessment Form, I make a motion for a SEQRA negative declaration since 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. Todd Fabozzi seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Mark Torpey, Chair, in favor; Kerry Mayo, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Mark Pingel, in favor; Chuck Marshall, in favor; Bill McTygue, in favor MOTION PASSES : 6-0 Mark Torpey, Chair reviewed the conditions of approval. -Language for the sanitary sewer easement and cross access easement language be approved by the City Attorney. -Subsequent meeting or discussion with the City Arborist to review the larger species trees in the setback areas as well as develop a strategy/plan to preserve them during the construction process. Participate in the replacement strategy for those trees which are removed. -NYS-DEC confirmation of no endangered species. - Waiver of the sidewalk along Richard Avenue contingent upon the applicant’s payment in lieu of to the city. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 13, 2022 - Page 4 of 18  - Lot#2 is to be modified to provide the city areas for the right of way. Paperwork which provides that offering to the city to the satisfaction of the City Attorney for the transference of city property. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated in a subdivision, sidewalks are a condition of subdivision approval. In this case it would be for all three lots. Have these rules and regulations changes with the new UDO. Susan Barden, Principal Planner stated it is required if the sidewalk is within the inside district. So, it would be required. It is just like you are considering the fee in lieu payment on the one side you can consider requiring the payment in lieu of for the entire frontage or just the portion in front of the proposed new lot 2. Todd Fabozzi stated then it is as the Chair stated it is required for the entire project not just the new portion. It is my recommendation that we stay with that. Mark Pingel stated the fee in lieu of will be calculated for the entire side of the lot. PUBLIC HEARING: Mark Pingel opened the public hearing at 6:57 P.M. Mark Pingel asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Clifford Washington, Maxine Washington, owners of 23 Richard Avenue. Mr. Washington stated their paperwork from the city regarding preliminary plat review stated a 3-lot subdivision. Then, we received paperwork which stated a two-lot subdivision. Is it a two-lot subdivision or a three-lot subdivision. Susan Barden, Principal Planner, stated she can clarify this for the applicants. The application itself is identified as a land use subdivided into two lots. It does not correspond with the plan. There are two new lots created but then there is an existing third lot where the house will remain. It is a three- lot subdivision, creating two new building lots. Mrs. Washington stated there is a lot line dividing my home and one of the homes. What would happen to the tree which is right through the middle of the lot line. Susan Barden, Principal Planner state there is a condition of approval that those trees are to remain in the rear. Mark Pingel stated he has not heard anything specific tree or trees named in any of our conditions. The trees Mrs. Washington is referring to right on the lot line we can also make those trees explicit in our condition. Kerry Mayo stated we have adjusted lot lines in the past so that they do not go straight through the trees. We can approach it that way. There are questions with this application. This application may not be ready. Susan Barden, Principal Planner stated this is preliminary plat so any conditions placed on the preliminary plat should be placed on the final plat. Then, there should not be any conditions on the final plat. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 13, 2022 - Page 5 of 18 Mark Pingel stated typically tree ownership on the lot line this is managed by either adjusting the lot line or by contractual agreement, neighbor to neighbor. Since this is preliminary, we make this a condition. Leah Everhart, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated when you are approving a preliminary plat plan, what you are doing is setting the lots lines and other infrastructure that is shown. If you want the preliminary plans to be amended, you can request that to occur or if you want to if you deal with the tree situation by requiring first of all that they be saved and not removed, and then just addressing it through basically recognizing that it is a private property matter for the two neighbors to address. There are ways under the law to manage this type of situation that do not deal with Planning and Zoning. Mrs. Washington stated she has no problems in dealing with the neighbors. Chuck Marshall stated this entails shifting the lot line and taking land away from what you would retain because the lots proposed are minimal size for the zoning ordinance. We can as a body preserve those trees, but they need to be on one side of the property line or another. You would lose square footage on your side of the line because the lots must be 6600 sq. ft. to meet zoning requirements. They are currently 6600 sq. ft. Kerry Mayo stated we can protect those specific trees and make them part of the subdivision approval. We have a developer that is not necessarily following our instructions. Todd Fabozzi stated what difference does it make. If it is made part of the subdivision conditions, it does not matter that it is on the property line. Mr. Costa stated the trees are shown on the map which was provided to staff on Tuesday. They have been located and are shown on the map. The next time the surveyor is out to the site he can place stakes to indicate where the property line is. Discussion ensued regarding the trees in question, and if they are worth saving, and incorporating it into the conditioning of subdivision approval. Bill Yousis, 283 Jefferson stated he is confused. The notice stated a three-lot subdivision. Then we received another letter stating a two-lot subdivision. He would like clarification. Chuck Marshall stated Ms. Washington is subdividing the two lots that are discussed. Kristi Keegan 9 Doten Avenue. Where will egress be for the two houses, will it be onto Richard or Penn Street. Susan Barden, Principal Planner stated onto Penn Street. Ms. Keegan stated then the sidewalks will cross that going to the end of the street where it drops off. That corner is incredibly dangerous as it is. Not having the sidewalk puts everyone at a blind corner. Now we have egress happening. Please reconsider the sidewalk issue on Richard Street. If you brought the sidewalk around the corner, it would not be as dangerous. Mark Mead 15 Richard Avenue stated his question about the property numbers has been answered. He has not seen the plans, but what you are suggesting is putting a sidewalk down one of the side properties on Penn St as opposed to over on the Whitmore side, which would place a midwalk crossing, instead of right around the corner. It is not a very heavily traveled road and City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 13, 2022 - Page 6 of 18 would be better than having no sidewalk on either side of the north end of Richard St. He is concerned regarding the high-water table in the area. which collects on the roadway. Road width is also an issue as it is very dark in this area. A streetlight would be a great addition. Jeff Wood 26 Lincoln Avenue. Provided information to the Board regarding the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law which requires pedestrians to walk facing traffic. Sidewalks on both sides would alleviate the need for a mid-block crossing. Ms. Washington spoke regarding the need for a stop sign in the area. Chuck Marshall stated a letter to the Department of Public Safety would be required. The Planning Board does not have the authority to require a stop sign. Susan Barden, Principal Planner, stated we do not have any concerns or comments from the Department of Public Safety on this application. We can reach out to them in their review of the subdivision. It was not something they suggested. Mark Pingel closed the public hearing at 7:22 P.M. Mr. Costa spoke regarding the lighting and noted the drawings submitted show the new lighting proposed for this area. Regarding the water issue we are proposing the installation of dry wells which are shown on the drawings. Sidewalks were discussed this evening and will be further discussed and placed on the site plan when the applicant returns before the Board for final approval. Mark Pingel stated there were different concerns regarding safety and what would be the best approach for safety. Mark Pingel stated from a neighborhood point of view does it make sense to extend the sidewalk around the corner, allowing it to terminate so that you can get to the street for crossing. Chuck Marshall stated the reason he was in favor of the east side for the sidewalks because at the corner you would have a ramp down with the detector strips. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding the sidewalk installation. Susan Barden, Principal Planner, stated the applicant can take all the comments and produce an alternative plan to have reviewed by DPW, DPS and the Board in advance of the subsequent meeting. Chuck Marshall stated he is the only member of the Board who wants the sidewalk on the east. He is willing to relinquish and that is fine with him. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated he feels the midblock crossing as suggested by one of the neighbors he feels is the way to go for safety purposes. Mr. Costa stated if the applicant meets all the conditions set forth by the Board and comments from the public regarding the water issue the Board would then consider final review and approval and this subsequent meeting. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 13, 2022 - Page 7 of 18 7:32 P.M. The Board recessed. 7:37 P.M. The Board reconvened. 2. #20220690 CRESCENT AND JEFFERSON PETITION FOR ZONING AMENDMENT, Crescent & Jefferson consideration of deferral of Lead Agency Status and an Advisory Opinion to the City Council for a Zoning Map Amendment from Rural Residential (RR) to Urban Residential 4 (UR-4) to provide for a proposal; Mark Torpey, Chair, stated there are two items to consider with this project. The first is to defer Lead Agency Status to the City Council for SEQRA Review. The City Council identified the action as Type I Action, Initiated Coordinated SEQRA Review and is seeking Lead Agency status. They have also requested an Advisory Opinion for the project from the Planning Board. There are other involved agencies. We have 60 days from September 6th to provide an Advisory Opinion back to the City Council. If necessary, we can request additional time to prepare this documentation. This is a big project, and we may not be in a position tonight to formulate the Advisory Opinion. We would like to have our attorneys and staff help us to craft this language noting all the issues which would be helpful to the City Council with respect to the project and how they may wish to address the SEQRA process along with additional suggestions. Applicant: Liberty Affordable Housing, Inc., Randy, and Nicole – Liberty Affordable Housing Agent: Stephanie Ferradino, Attorney; Steve Dodds, Mike Phinney, Phinney Design Group; John Vaginelis, Attorney, Expert on affordable housing; Sarah & Courtney, Engineers from LaBella Ms. Ferradino stated this is a complex project. We would like to present the project tonight, listen to comments, suggestions, and what needs to be re-worked. This is an introductory meeting. In 2018 this project received a unanimous disapproval. We have studied and re-read all the comments made at that time. Things have changed since that time. There is an employment crisis in Saratoga and around the country. There is an affordability crisis for housing in Saratoga. This project involves a workforce housing initiative. A visual of the 30-acre site was provided to the Board. It is currently a standalone Rural Residential-1 property, and we are asking for a zoning amendment to a UR-4. Four additional sites were noted within a block of this site which remain zoned UR-4. Ms. Ferradino reviewed the five standards for a map amendment. The 2022 Concept Plan was provided noting the entrance to the project off Crescent to Bunny Lake. The parcel was discussed during the Comprehensive Plan Process as a possible new entertainment venue and why that parcel was not developed. Our configuration plan shows T-shaped buildings brought up to the sidewalks coming off a boulevard entrance providing the streetscape Saratoga is known for. We have bike parking and a bus round stop shelter with a roundabout. Parking will be provided in the rear of the buildings. An aerial view of the trail connections in and through the acreage which will remain wooded as a buffer. We think this natural remaining buffer will provide a significant buffer from the other development in and around the site. We will require only one variance for height. In the UR-4 District there is a 40 ft. height limit, and we are proposing about 48 ft. In comparison the hotel located at the Racino is at 67-68 ft. almost 20 ft. higher. A visual of the project site shows a boulevard entrance with parking in the front and the sidewalk will extend out to Bunny Lake Drive. Additional renderings have been provided to the Board. The design has been influenced by the architectural style and feature of the nearby historic racetracks. A visual of the site was provided outlining the wetlands on the 20 +/- acres and the 9-acre area proposed to be developed. We are providing a connection from where the sidewalk ends at Jefferson, pedestrians can continue in City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 13, 2022 - Page 8 of 18 through this site, access the racino, the soccer fields, the Hemlock trails, the track and eventually the Crescent Street connector which will connect to the park. Todd Fabozzi questioned if the applicant will be impacting the wetlands with the footprint. Ms. Ferradino stated the trails may impact the wetlands. We are trying to stay away from the wetlands. We are also discussing elevated walkways that would cover and we will work through during site plan review. We are outside the buffer zone. There are significant differences between 2018 and 2022. We are simply asking that you extend UR-4 over. We are not asking to change any of the text simply a Zoning Map Amendment. The design is significantly different. We are looking for a Zoning Map Amendment and a height variance. We have doubled the 1 bedroom and added studios. We have decreased density. Ms. Ferradino stated she the structure of how workforce housing has changed significantly over the last four years. With our ownership and regulatory agreement and the pilot agreement which were all included in our presentation to the City Council does not appear to have made it into the drop box. There is information which was not provided and is missing. Mr. Vaginelis has provided a great summary of how those three independent means guarantee affordability. HFA regulates and requires compliance on an annual basis. Management company must independently, continually verify income for the applicants and tenants within the structure. In 2018 you had about 550 units of affordable/workforce housing proposed to be built at that time. There was concern regarding oversaturation. As of today, only 200 of those units have been built, and we were told that the projects have a current waiting list of over 300 people trying to get in and there are just not enough units within the city. The 2022 the design is different. We now have a traffic study which shows that no improvements are needed which has been submitted to city council but not the Planning Board. This information will be provided to the Board as well. We comply with complete streets, trails and connections, areas which were highlighted by this Board in the 2018 narrative and decision. We have indoor and outdoor bike parking and are working with CDTA to get a bus route to the site. We have trails and pedestrian connections. We sought public input in advance of our application, comments from the neighbors, communicated directly with Clubhouse Estates and sent out mailings to neighbors within 1000 ft. We held two public meetings in the park in a convenient location near the neighborhood. We wanted to hear what the issues were prior to finalization of our plans. We requested a meeting with Sustainable Saratoga they agreed and then canceled. We have attempted to reschedule without success. They issued their letter without knowing anything about the project or even where it was located. In 2015 Comprehensive Plan articulated four guiding principles. We meet all four solidly. This is re- iterated in the 2015 Comprehensive Plan with comments and goals related to workforce housing, and it states that is the key to Saratoga’s future. When we look at an issue brought forth by Sustainable Saratoga is the Comp Plan and density. One of their critiques was that this does not satisfy the Comprehensive Plan density requirements. Ambiguity within your own municipal documents always is construed in favor of the applicant. The language on pg. 55-56 in Comp Plan is rife with information which support the analysis which will be provided. The Comp Plan stated “the map sets the direction for future land uses within the city. It illustrates the City’s vision by identifying broad categories of land use. It is not a zoning map.” The various land use categories shown on the map represent the intended uses and densities desired or anticipated for the community in the future. The land use categories in the map are not zoning districted. The land use categories are broader and more general than zoning districts. The boundaries are intentionally non-precise and are meant to be fluid. What this is saying is that they are giving you a vision for the city it is articulated in your zoning map. These are two separate functions set forth in State Law. I drafted the analysis and realized I provided it in draft form to the City Council but never formalized it. I will provide a finalized document to the Board which has specific legal analysis. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 13, 2022 - Page 9 of 18 Steve Dodd took the site plan and overlayed it on the Comprehensive Plan. The Blue area designates the equine district. The yellow is the RN-1. All our development falls with the blue or the buffer to it. The equine district has no density. The RN-1 district show the constrained lands which are highlighted. There is no density within the RN-1 site. We believe this fall solidly within the guidance issued in the Comp Plan. In the 2018 proposal the Board spoke about the guarantees. One is related to zoning and the other is once it is built will it remain affordable. Affordability guarantee related to rezoning states rezoning for specific uses beneficial to a community is common for a specific project use that is desirable, necessary, and needed for the public good is common. There are mechanisms to ensure that once the project is built. Sunset provision states if the applicant does not make a building permit application for the project within x date, typically 5 years is utilized, the zoning reverts to the RR zone. We would add that type of provision to ensure that this zone change results in Liberty Affordable Workforce Housing project. Others way this can be done is condition of approval, restrictions tied to the rezone, restrictions of use within a zone, and future rezone. We compared the UR-4 uses versus RR-1 allowable uses. There are six specially permitted uses – Adult care facility; Community center; Hotel-20 rooms or less; Neighborhood Commercial Establishment; Residential Care Facility; Rooming House. UR-4 Permitted Uses – Dwelling Type – Townhouse; Multi-family, two family, transitional; secondary dwelling units are allowed in UR-4. We are looking at the most impactful of those. Earlier we spoke about the continued affordability guarantee. There are affordability enforcement mechanisms. For 30 years there is a regulatory agreement with HFA and the tax exemption agreement the PILOT with the City both guarantee it for 30- 32 years depending on the document. The ownership of this property is a tax credit investor. He will own 99% of the project and will ensure he maintains his tax credit. There are three independent compliance mechanisms to help maintain the affordability of this project. Todd Fabozzi requested the applicant to elaborate more on the PILOT. Mr. John Vaginelis, Mazzone & Vaginelis, Attorney-Liberty Affordable Housing. He has been working with Liberty for about 15 years. Regarding the PILOT they would be looking for an agreement like what was granted to the Entrada project under Article 11 of the New York State Private Housing Finance Law. There would be a Housing development funding company sponsored by Liberty Affordable Housing which is a 501c3 non for profit and pursuant to that state statute the city council could grant a tax abatement for that project which is typically 30-32 years. Todd Fabozzi stated there are two things going on here a recommendation for a zoning change that does not guarantee that the City Council approves the Pilot. How important is that to your project. Mr. Vaginelis stated it is especially important to our project. The City Council has noted that the project has merit. We are hopeful the city will approve the pilot same as they did for the Entrada project. It is necessary for the projects economics to make sense and be doable. Without the PILOT the project cannot be financed. Ms. Ferradino stated in 2018 the Planning Board was concerned regarding the proposal lacked discussion of how income eligibility would be determined. Liberty continually works with CRM Management Company. That company is certified in the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program, and they have satisfied compliance requirements and regulations. They are trained to ensure applicants qualify as well as perform annual income certifications and audits which are required for compliance by HCR. Ms. Ferradino reviewed the concerns which the Planning Board had during the 2018 review of this project were preservation of open space and wetlands, build out more reflective of Broadway – 60 ft., integrate into the fabric of the city, provide City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 13, 2022 - Page 10 of 18 essential street front qualities, pedestrian linkages, concern regarding expansion of uses on all INST-HTR parcels, and the request for a traffic study. We now have a traffic study done. The funding required to build this project has a requirement by New York State that requires compliance with green building program requirements. Compact development –connection to transit, proximity to open space, services, and community resources. The building envelope more must be at least 15% efficient than the 2020 energy code. All electric energy star rated appliances and HVAC. Water-consumption and low flow water sense rated. Lighting efficient and dark sky compliant and Low VOC materials for interior air quality measures. This will be a sustainable development, a model for development, community connectivity, economic health, aesthetic design/architecture green pursuing net zero carbon neutral development and a compact development design. Ms. Ferradino stated they are going through the UDO process requesting a map amendment with the City Council. The City Council has declared Lead Agency Status and have coordinated review. Following this Board’s review and Advisory Opinion the City Council will hold a public hearing prior to rendering a decision. Ms. Ferradino reviewed the information yet to be supplied to this Board. These materials include an amended application – a modification to pg. 1 and affordability enforcement information; power point presentation; 2019 Traffic study which indicates 66 AM and 86 PM trips. The level of service unchanged. The sight distance meets standards, vegetation removal. The Comp Plan density analysis and the 2019 endangered species screening will also be supplied to the Board. Mark Torpey, Chair, questioned what the Comp Plan Density analysis is. Ms. Ferradino stated she put together something like a memorandum of law which was aimed toward the city council to review if there is a density issue with the Comp Plan raised by Sustainable Saratoga. We do not believe there is one, but the issue was raised. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated we are proposing to convert this from an RR designation to a UR-4. What is required of this parcel is a conservation analysis as part of our review. The new UDO requires this for site plan review. One of the requirements is to set aside 50% of the developable lands in a permanent conservation easement. How much of the developable land is not being developed. Sarah Drury-LaBelle Associates, Civil Engineers for the project. This site has a large portion of acreage in the DEC wetlands as well as ACOE wetlands. The DEC does have a 100 ft. buffer offset to that. We are planning to develop everything outside of that buffer. The usable area, deducting the wetlands the project site becomes 10 acres. So, we would not have the 50% conservation. But of that entire 30 acre parcel we would not touch 20% of it. This development of 10 acres which is not in an adjacent area or wetland or cut that down to five there is no project. In addition, usually when we do the developable area envelope back out steep slopes in the area, this area is not impacted by steep slopes. This area is gentle and that is why we have wetlands. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated then the RR restrictions to set aside the 50% of developable lands is not something you are proposing since it would leave you with not enough property to work with for this proposal. When we look at these RR restrictions and try to develop these parcels in the most environmentally sensitive way. Would the applicant be able to commit to a permanent recognition of affordable housing for this lot. Something that is not limited to 32 years. Ms. Ferradino stated she has no idea but will speak with the applicant and have an answer on a subsequent appearance before the Board. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 13, 2022 - Page 11 of 18 Mark Torpey, Chair, questioned the other uses for the UR-4 District. If this converts from RR to a UR-4 district, you do open this area up to be considered as part of a PUD. A PUD is wide open in terms of every use under the sun and whatever the Council feels is appropriate. How do you propose a SEQRA review when you have a PUD potential that would open to everything. Chuck Marshall questioned in the sunset provision; does it prevent subsequent legislative acts. You could not go from UR-4 to a PUD because the sunset provision would trigger your project not being constructed. You would lose the original zoning. Ms. Ferradino stated if we do not build this affordable project the zoning reverts to RR-1. A PUD becomes obsolete because they are not allowed in the RR-1. A PUD is not within the applicant’s site for this project at all. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated NYS-DEC was not only speaking about endangered species but also certain protective habitats. They identified maples, and white oaks and other things. What does that mean in terms of SEQRA review, he is unfamiliar with that. Ms. Ferradino stated she is unsure but will address that issue when the applicant returns before the Board. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated bedrock is within 6 feet and the water table is within one foot. How is the design of the project being respectful of that in terms of blasting and assuring structural supports are not impacted. These are all issues to think about. Sarah Drury-LaBelle Associates, Civil Engineers for the project, stated they are still in the concept phase of this project. The project site is very gently sloping, there is a high point in the center of the project, and everything radiates out toward the wetlands and adjacent areas. Anything we cut; we will have to get drainage out. The lower we go we cannot get the water out to daylight anywhere. There is no municipal storm sewer on Crescent Avenue, only a ditch with a culvert. Whatever we do we will need to daylight it. To cut into bedrock, groundwater whatever it may be, minus building foundations it is not advantageous. She prefers to pick the site up in portions if we can, keeping in mind we do not want to bring all this fill in. The other portion that is for stormwater practices. We are going out to the site to do preliminary testing, deep testing, and infiltration testing to see what type of practices we will be able to use. We prefer infiltration, ground water recharge, put it back in the earth keep it green. If we cannot because we do not have the required separation by the DEC manual to groundwater or bedrock, we will do everything we can to protect it. If we must line it, we line it. We do not want to step outside the grounds of the DEC and reduce their required separation just to build a building. We will work around the ground water, the bedrock. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated the last point is if you are looking at this project and go through the math and the density The amount of land you must work with is 9 or 10 acres. Everything else is wetland. The 200 units being allocated for those 9 or 10 acres which works out to 22 units per acre which exceeds the UR- 4 requirements on density. As you go through the Comp Plan Density Analysis, give thought as to whether effectively this project as proposed adheres even to the UR-4 requirement or limits. An interpretation might suggest that it does not. That would be helpful to look at. It would be great to have Complete Streets provide comments regarding this project before we meet again. Ms. Ferradino questioned how to facilitate getting this over to the Complete Streets Committee. Susan Barden, Principal Planner, stated she will communicate with them. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 13, 2022 - Page 12 of 18 Todd Fabozzi stated it is a significant improvement over what was presented before. He is in favor of what he is seeing and what you are proposing. There are still details and the density issue. It is worth it to capitalize and obtain as many units as you can for the purposes of affordable housing. He had raised issues regarding the isolated nature in the prior proposal. This is still isolated to a point, but you are doing what you can in this case to create a setting that is walkable urbanism as opposed to project type housing from the 1950’s. There will be challenges with CDTA. He likes the green building aspect of the project, and happy NYS is making that happen. A suggestion to investigate geo-thermal but happy to see the applicant using heat pumps. A big improvement from what was presented prior for this site. Chuck Marshall questioned if the applicant would consider the easement area approximately 20 acres that you are not going to build on can that be placed in a conservation easement, so it is guaranteed not to be developed. Ms. Ferradino stated she will bring that up to the team for conversation. Bill McTygue questioned the project near the racino and the harness track that the owners of the parcel have a big stake in what happens to this property. There is no avoiding the activity going on in the immediate area of this site. A major facility overseen by the State of New York raising money for New York and the community here of Saratoga Springs as well. This is an important part of our economic footprint and support system in the community. They are in the racing business and the racino business and there is no avoiding who the neighbor is adjacent to the site. The current owners of the site would like to see this project accommodate employees currently working there. Ms. Ferradino stated they could more than fill what the demand is. There is no preference. Whoever applies first. If someone could walk to work, across the parking lot would be huge. 75% of their employees do not live in our community. Bill McTygue stated he like Todd is liking what he is hearing. This is a perfect location adjacent to a major employer in the community and offer workforce housing. This is exactly what we need and go a long way in fulfilling a need. Ms. Ferradino stated the income range is $44,000 to $80,000. Kerry Mayo stated he feels it is a nice project and is crucial for the development of the city. He is extremely interested in the Comp Plan Analysis. We are simply providing and Advisory Opinion to the City Council but if it comes back UR-4 how do we deal with the density question and how does it fit in the UR-4. If you look at the map it makes sense. There is no continuity in the zoning in this area. Chuck Marshall stated he feels the Planning Board should defer to the City Council Lead Agency Status for SEQRA. Ms. Ferradino stated in 2018 the City Council was Lead Agent for SEQRA on this project. The Planning Board did provide recommendations to the City Council regarding that. Mark Torpey, Chair agreed with Chuck and in the Advisory Opinion provided to the City Council we will again provide guidance and recommendations regarding SEQRA for this project. Bill McTygue questioned there would be no curb cuts on Crescent or on Jefferson just on Bunny Lake Lane. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 13, 2022 - Page 13 of 18 Ms. Ferradino stated that was correct. Bill McTygue stated regarding CDTA they currently go into the racino site. Mark Pingel stated he feels this is a good project. He hopes that it succeeds. The legal pieces of this are the places where this project could stumble. It is not clear to him on the surface if zoning and the Comprehensive Plan is the way it has been laid out. He does not want the applicant to lose this project because of legal problems. There are two pieces to this. There is the ability for the council to not approve the zoning change and then there is lets no let this project get away. The connections to the neighborhoods across Jefferson he would like to see more detailed. To allow for movement of people into the neighborhood to somehow connect these neighborhoods. Ms. Ferradino stated everyone in town will benefit from this project and the amenities it is providing for pedestrian traffic, bike traffic and access other paths which can be accessed soon. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated in the presentation you spoke about extending UR-4 across the street to this new area. Clubhouse Drive even though it is designated as UR-4 when you look at what has been built there it is more like UR-3. Two family townhouses. It is not exactly a robust UR-4 design now. Next to this parcel the analogy is not perfect. The context of this is lower density in terms of the area then even what currently exists there. Ms. Ferradino stated just north of this the mobile home park exists, and that is very dense. You can put your arms out and touch the houses. Chuck Marshall questioned how the Board feels about the ability to have a public hearing for this project. He feels the City Council has requested and Advisory Opinion. Susan Barden, Principal Planner, stated it up to the Boards discretion it is not required. This project will come before this Board prior to the finalization of the Advisory Opinion. Mark Pingel questioned when will the Board allow for public comments since the Board has a tradition of wanting to obtain public comment. Susan Barden, Principal Planner stated the Board can take public comment at any time. Leah Everhart, Counsel to the Land Use Boards recommended if the Board is planning to allow for public comment on a specific application, it makes sense to notify the public and conduct a public hearing. You are not required to do so, but the City Council is. There will be a public hearing scheduled by the City Council. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding public comment period prior to the finalization of an Advisory Opinion. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated at the next meeting we will have more information and a chance to review the updated traffic study and have comments from Complete Streets to review. The applicant can field further questions regarding density. Then we will be able to then to draft our opinion. The City Council can hold the public hearing. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 13, 2022 - Page 14 of 18 Chuck Marshall stated he feels we should request additional time with which to submit our Advisory Opinion. RECUSAL: Chuck Marshall recused from the following applications and exited the meeting. 3. #20220064 STEWART ’S 177 S. BROADWAY & 28 LINCOLN SKETCH PLAN, 177 S. Broadway & 28 Lincoln Second sketch plan review for proposed construction of a new 3,700 sq. ft., convenience store and associated site work in the Transect-5 (T-5) District. Applicant: Stewart’s Shops Agent: Libby Coreno, Attorney; Ryan Rubado, Stewart’s Ms. Coreno stated South Broadway is a former Stewart’s Mobil station which has existed for decades, and we were before the Board earlier in the year to look at the site constraints for the parcel and examine alternatives. Particularly consider a two-story building since it is in the T-5 district. Looking at the site against the T-5 regulations the existing building does not comply. We were requested to look at a two-story building and if we could orient the gas pumps away from South Broadway. That truly is an impossibility for safety reasons as well as serious concerns from the neighbors to the west. From a landscaping perspective, this is not a squared off corner. Trying to incorporate civic space and greenspace with seating and signage is a challenge. The Lincoln Avenue side will have pedestrian access from the sidewalk directly into the store and an entrance that faces Broadway. This would create a midblock connector which the T-5 looks for. Outside moving the gas pumps all the other Board recommendations were taken into consideration. The greenspace to the left is the location adjacent to the most immediate neighbors. There has been written correspondence to the Board about the concerns regarding relocation of the gas pumps. These concerns as well as regulatory requirements noting the line of site requirements has necessitated the pumps remaining in their current location. We are proposing a two-story building. It is a true second floor to meet the T-5 build out for the façade, mass, and scale and keeping an eye on the safety mechanisms. Trying to meet the T-5 requirements will not result in a perfect plan, due to site constraints, but how we can get as close to the requirements as possible. Of importance here is the impossibility of site flow anywhere but right here since the tanker trucks are not permitted on Lincoln Avenue due to weight restrictions. If we placed the store adjacent to Broadway the trucks would not be able to access the site at all. We were constrained by many factors. Is there a way to improve the site and get closer to the T-5 District and requirements. Kerry Mayo stated the store needs to front on one of the streets and it is Lincoln. Ms. Coreno stated it is as close as we can get to Lincoln without crossing the property line. The problem is the way the site is cut. There is no way to bring it any closer. This will be an entrance. Mr. Rubado provided views of all elevations. Previous printed renderings were provided to the Board. Mark Pingel stated in reviewing the renderings he feels we have not achieved an urban look all the way around the building. He feels there is an opportunity to improve the look of the site and hide the canopies from different views if you have a dense high landscaping. Sight lines are still to be considered. It still looks like a gas station. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 13, 2022 - Page 15 of 18 Ms. Coreno stated for people looking for gas we do not want to hide it so they cannot see it or the use that it is. Often when Stewart’s does the renderings, they omit the landscaping to provide a better view of the building. Mr. Rubado stated there is a large maple tree on the front on Lincoln. Our neighbor noted it was an original tree to the street and area and we redesigned the project to accommodate that tree. Ms. Coreno stated they will provide renderings to the Board with the proposed landscaping. The corner area on the site is where the landscaping creativity can be applied. Does the Board prefer, landscaping, art, what would the Board like to see on the entryway into the city. Todd Fabozzi stated what you see there is a gas bay, and it is more prominent than ever. Original comments were their possibilities for setting it back, putting it behind the building or de- emphasizing it. It has been completely inverted and more pronounced than you can make it. I am disappointed I think the corner should be shaped by a building, on both sides of the corner. It is a great opportunity to use the building to shape the corner and still have the gas bays accessible. The building as it sits on its own, works facing Lincoln. It just so emphasizes the barren corner of the gas bays. Ms. Coreno spoke regarding the design concept and the site constraints. Mr. Rubado spoke regarding the tanker trucks navigating the site and the property lines. Mr. Jeff Wood 26 Lincoln Avenue stated truck movements is his business. He has lived in his house for over 30 years. He has seen truck traffic. The less reputable businesses do not pay attention to your ordinance or signs. The 45-degree angle of the intersection makes it impossible for a truck to turn left onto Lincoln. Even if the weight restriction on Lincoln is removed trucks will still not be able to make the turn on that corner. Todd Fabozzi stated what you are proposing is the building is more on Lincoln, but the gas canopy is similar. Mr. Rubado stated the gas canopy is the same canopy, we hope to reuse the canopy. Mr. Coreno stated if the Board is interested in alternative canopy designs, we can show them superimposed onto the site. The original concern was the roofline draws too much attention. It pronounces the canopy rather than blend in. Our hope is the two-story building in the rear will draw the attention away from the gas canopy. Mark Pingel questioned if there is a height limit for the canopy. Mr. Rubado stated the tanker truck must be able to fit under the canopy. Todd Fabozzi stated with the building facing Lincoln you are doing ok but the civic space adjacent to it and the corner is so un-urban having it exposed with nothing there but the bays. Ms. Coreno questioned what something would be exciting, interesting in that area. Trees are one thing. Is there an art feature, something that creates connectivity, something more urban. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 13, 2022 - Page 16 of 18 Todd Fabozzi stated a low wall, something more masonry on both sides. There are ways that can help to define a corner better. This is an example of what could work. Todd questioned the neighbors feeling regarding the building right and the design presented. Mr. Wood stated he is supportive of this project. The thought of moving the gas canopy closer to the neighborhood is not something he is in favor of and cannot believe it is something that the Board is suggesting. Shaping the corner to be more urban in his profession, they remove buildings too close to the corner since they inhibit vehicles turning and sight distances which is problematic. I have been working with Stewart’s regarding my concerns regarding drainage, security, and lighting. The tree I have requested saving is the last of ten trees which have been removed over time in this area. Having this a two-story building is what is making this much more desirable and acceptable proposal. The current building at 28 Lincoln has had problems over time. This will be an improvement in the neighborhood. John Yakuponia Saratoga Springs, has a fundamental comment on what is allowed in the zoning ordinance. The definition of a gas station Is specific in the zoning ordinance. “The facility that is used for the sale of motor vehicle fuel, it does not say where the pumps are, it does not say where the canopy is. This location of the building where I walk in with cash to buy gas Is part of the gas station. What is the property line associated with this gas station. The existing gas station is over to the right. Now, you are speaking about putting a gas station one lot further down Lincoln. Section 6.3.3 of the zoning ordinance speaks about proximity of a gas station to other zoning areas. This is T-5. Gas stations are allowed in T-5. Just down Lincoln, about 100 ft. less than 250 ft. is a UR-2 District. An abutting residential district. My question is the property line associated with this gas station the zoning ordinance states shall not be within 250 ft. It says shall not be. Is the gas station even allowed. He has not heard that addressed. Patty Morrison, Saratoga Springs. As we build out Broadway and our old buildings are taken down and new ones put up is there a requirement that a new structure would sit on South Broadway so there is no parking lot between. Parking should be in the rear and is it a requirement. Mark Pingel stated there have been two comments regarding what the zoning ordinance states. One has to do with the proximity and the second has to do with frontage, especially on the corner. Susan Barden, Principal Planner, stated one thing, is the formal application will be under the UDO. One of the things done in the UDO was to try to separate uses so this overall use would be retail, more than 2,000 sq. ft., and a gas station. There are two separate uses to consider here. The T-5 comprises all the lots shown there. Beyond that is the UR-2. Ms. Coreno stated there is a code enforcement process. This is sketch plan review. If there needs to be interpretation, that goes through Patrick Cogan’s office. We are all dealing with the new UDO. There is an extensive zoning approval history on this site existing. It is not a naked site and that comes into play as well. Those are things that would be appropriate to start with the City’s zoning enforcement officer, and they will be during formal application. We are in no way trying to supplant the formal approval process. Susan Barden, Principal Planner, stated she spoke with the Zoning Administrator as well and there are approvals on the site for the canopy and the pumps. They are not moving the pumps so there would be no formal approval required for the pumps. Mark Pingel stated he would like to have the comments responded to. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 13, 2022 - Page 17 of 18 Ms. Coreno stated all comments are heard and incorporated into a demonstration of meeting zoning compliance and those places where we do not meet zoning compliances, we need to seek variances or rely on pre –existing approvals and uses. It is not a naked site. It has history which comes into play. Sketch plan is to dialog with the Planning Board. T-5 is an extremely specific zone on an incredibly unique site. Bill McTygue stated this is a unique site on a tough corner. It has limited room to make a significant change to fully comply with the all the good thoughts we have heard. He does not want to see a building that has a false façade on Broadway and Lincoln Avenue. We can satisfy these concerns. Stewarts has an option to do nothing. The Board discussed what was presented and it was the consensus of the Board for Stewart’s to proceed with their detailed site plan review. 4. 20210989 STEWART ’S 402 LAKE AVENUE SITE PLAN, 402 Lake Avenue, Site Plan of a proposed new 4,000 sq. ft., convenience store, gasoline pump and associated site work in the Rural Residential (RR) District. Applicant: Stewart’s Shops Agent: Libby Coreno, Attorney; Ryan Rubado, Stewart’s Shops Ms. Coreno stated a question from the workshop was the design which was approved by the DRB. A visual of the approved site was provided to the Board. It is a farmhouse style building. Rockers out front providing an agrarian farmhouse type feel. There is a weathervane on top and that was done with the comments and suggestions received from the DRB. One of the other aspects of major change was the driveway location because of speed. When we brought this before the traffic engineers and public safety, it was their determination it is not the driveway that is the issue. In fact, as cars turn if we move it further, they can speed up. There is a slip lane that you can speed around the corner coming off Lake. Remove the slip lane and square off the corner as a traffic calming measure which will reduce speeds as you go around the corner making a right-hand turn. The driveway is in the correct location and DPW agreed. They also had comments. They do not wish to have the curbing installed. They want to revisit it in a year. Landscaping of the corner will be done in concept, and it will be a second permit. We request you approve it in concept. If DOT does not approve the plan, then we will return before the Board. The bike lanes must comply to the NACTO standards on city streets. DOT has primary jurisdiction here. We submitted DOT correspondence citing they will not approve a bike lane without significant widening of the road. The road widening is substantial due to the topography of the road. Mark Pingel spoke regarding information from Carrie Woerner and her conversation with DOT and a sketch from DOT on their idea for the area and how you can stripe the westward lane without widening the road. They have re-visited this. Complete streets did send information. Ms. Coreno stated Stewart’s is amenable to any striping plan from DOT. We cannot agree to a plan they would not approve, nor can we agree to widening the road of this size because it is not impacted by our project. If it is a stripping issue and is approved by DOT, we are in. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 13, 2022 - Page 18 of 18 Mark Pingel stated the Board wants this project to go. The improvements you are making on the intersection are good for the city, vehicles, and everyone. There has been a flurry of activity leading up to this meeting. We are ready to approve this. We will condition this whereby Stewart’s meets with DOT and Complete Streets and come to an agreement. Ms. Coreno stated she will agree to DOT, she cannot agree to Complete Streets since they are advisory, and it is DOT’s Road. Leah Everhart questioned the mechanism for the applicant to return in a year. Ms. Coreno stated she believes it would be an administrative action by DPW regarding curbing. Mark Pingel stated we have the following conditions for approval -Site Plan as revised and submitted on August 29, 2022. - Implementation of the landscaping plan on DOT lands within 24 months from this approval. - Road Stripping “to provide for a bicycle “thru lane” at the Lake Avenue/Weibel Avenue intersection in the westward direction, subject to DOT approval. This condition does not require the widening of the roadway. -The applicant shall address any remaining technical comments from Barton & Loguidice. -The applicant shall provide final plans to the satisfaction of DPW. -Waiver for parking to allow 22 parking spaces. Kerry Mayo made a motion in the matter of the application of Stewart’s Site Plan, 402 Lake Avenue, be approved with the conditions as previously noted. Bill McTygue seconded the motion. No further discussion. VOTE: Mark Pingel, in favor; Kerry Mayo, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Bill McTygue, in favor MOTION PASSES : 4-0 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the October 27, 2022, meeting. UPCOMING MEETINGS: Planning Board Workshop, Thursday, October 20, 2022. Planning Board Meeting, Thursday, October 27, 2022. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 13, 2022 - Page 19 of 18 Meeting Minutes approved January 26, 2023 City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 13, 2022 - Page 20 of 18