Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES ( FINAL) THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 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 zoom; Todd Fabozzi; Mark Pingel; Chuck Marshall; Bill McTygue ABSENT: Kerry Mayo STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs 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. 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. #20220946 AGROCHEM SITE PLAN EXTENSION, 26 Freedom Way, Proposed extension of a previously approved site plan for a 16,000 sq. ft., warehouse expansion in the Industrial-General (IND-G ) District. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated this is an extension of a previously approved project. The current project expires on November 13, 2022. The applicant is requesting an 18-month extension to May 13, 2024. Chuck Marshall made a motion in the matter of the application of AgroChem Site Plan Extension, 26 Freedom Way Site an 18-month extension be approved until May 13, 2024. Bill McTygue seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Mark Torpey, Chair, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Mark Pingel, in favor; Chuck Marshall, in favor; Bill McTygue, in favor MOTION PASSES : 5-0 C. APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 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 proposed affordable housing project (200 units). Mark Torpey, Chair, stated new information has been provided to the Board since the last meeting. We are providing the applicant an opportunity to present this information and receive feedback. The City Council identified the action as Type I, Initiated Coordinated SEQRA Review and is seeking Lead Agency Status. They have also requested an Advisory Opinion for the project from the Planning Board. The Board will see view the power point project presentation and discuss the project. We will not be in a position tonight to formulate the Advisory Opinion. We want to craft language noting all the issues which would be helpful to the City Council with respect to the project and how they address the SEQRA process. Applicant: Liberty Affordable Housing, Inc., Randy, and Nicole – Liberty Affordable Housing Agent: Stephanie Ferradino, Attorney; Steve Dodds, Attorney; Mike Phinney, Phinney Design Group; John Vaginelis, Attorney, Mazzotta & Vaginelis; Sarah Drury, Courtney Welcher, Engineers from LaBella Ms. Ferradino provided visual depictions which were shown with the Zoning Board. We appeared before the ZBA on October 17th to provide information on environmental impacts so they could weigh in on SEQRA as well as visibility since we are asking for one variance for height the project. A visual of the project site was provided. 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. We will be maintaining the natural buffer. The project will cannot be seen from the adjacent neighbors since we will provide a significant buffer in and around the site. A line-of-sight illustration was provided to the Board. At our last appearance before the Board, we provided a density analysis, 2019 Traffic study; 2019 Endangered Species Report, including the wetlands delineation, the Comp Plan density analysis, and the affordability in perpetuity. A density analysis was requested by the Board at our previous appearance. DENSITY ANALYSIS UR-4 – 3000sq. ft./density unit or 14.53 units per acre - 198 units require 13.64 acres. - Constrained lands not a part of the analysis RR-1 Conservation Analysis - 30.28 acres – 9.4 constrained = 20.88 acres of developable land. - 10.44 acres +9.4 constrained = 19.88 acres of conserved land. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 27, 2022 - Page 2 of 20 Ms. Ferradino provided a visual map of the density analysis for the Board. Sarah Drury – LaBella Engineering, Civil Engineers for the project. As part of the UDO and the City of Saratoga there is a Complete Street Checklist, we compared proposed conditions and existing conditions. There are six areas of comparison. Bike Facilities, Transit Facilities, Access and Mobility Facilities, Pedestrian Facilities, Connectivity, and Streetscape Elements. The site is currently undeveloped. At the last meeting there was concern regarding pedestrian walkways. Under existing condition there are no sidewalks. The sidewalk terminates halfway through our property on Jefferson Street. No sidewalks on either side of Crescent. There are no sidewalks on Bunny Lake Road. The only transit route currently operating cuts through the Racino and is a CDTA trolley route. Jefferson Street and this site are not part of it. Access and Mobility. Currently the site can be accessed from Jefferson, Crescent, and Bunny Lake Road. There are no pedestrian facilities along any of these three roads. There is no connectivity or streetscape elements. We are proposing to check all the boxes on the Complete Streets checklist. We are providing bike facilities, transit facilities, working with CDTA for future connection, access and mobility facilities, sidewalks, ADA ramps, pedestrian facilities, stripped crosswalks, signage for crossing, safety island, medians and raised crosswalks as well as connectivity to other paths and facilities, destinations, and neighborhoods. Streetscape elements, landscaping, buffer strips pedestrian level lighting and public seating. Todd Fabozzi questioned where the current CDTA bus route is. Ms. Drury stated she is unsure of the exact route; it is mentioned in the Traffic Study. It comes from Crescent up Bunny Lake Road and to Jefferson. It runs a loop. Chuck Marshall questioned if the Traffic Study removes trips based on the CDTA bus routes. Ms. Drury stated no, the traffic study completed as if everyone was driving. It does not factor in people walking or taking public transit. With the traffic study both AM and PM peak trips we were below the 100 thresholds. Todd Fabozzi questioned where the stone path is located. Ms. Drury provided a visual of the location of the stone path which is a temporary turn around and cuts through the forested area and come out on Crescent. We are also proposing a sidewalk extension all the way to Crescent. Todd Fabozzi questioned the viability of the stone path during winter weather conditions. Ms. Drury stated we will look at the materials for that surface, we are still in concept. Mark Pingel stated there was a comment from Parks regarding the Hemlock Trail and their concern regarding wear and maintenance. Ms. Ferradino stated there are many steps in this process. They anticipate having discussions with Parks regarding all the areas they are looking into. She believes they are looking to contribute to the increased usership. Regarding the traffic study, when it was completed, the casino in Schenectady had not yet been built. That has had a very drastic impact on the amount of people going to our Racino. Those figures are pre-competition impact. Those figures should be lower. Ms. Drury stated as part of the SEQRA, NYSDEC did submit a letter and targeted four specific areas: City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 27, 2022 - Page 3 of 20 NYSDEC COORDINATION RESPONSE -NYSDEC Article 24 Permit–this is for the disturbance of wetlands as well as wetland adjacent areas with the 100ft. Buffer. The project will pursue an Article 24 permits for disturbance generated from the trail. -NYSDEC SPDES General Permit-this is required when the applicant disturbs of more than one acre. The project is Prepared to complete a SWWPP with post-construction storm water management practices, green infrastructure to meet the State’s water quality and quantity objectives as well as those outlined in the UDO. -NYSDEC Threatened & Endangered Species & Delineation Report – An Endangered Species Screening was performed on 08/17/17, 04/19/18, and 06/0719. It was identified determined that the site has potential for Karner Blue Butterflies and Frosted Elfin. After the three site visits identified above it was determined that there is little potential on the site for any occurrences of endangered, threatened, or rare species and is not expected that these species will be impacted on the site. - NYS OPRHP Coordination – This project is located within an archeologically sensitive area and requires SHPO Coordination. We are in coordination with SHPO already. A Phase 1A has been prepared and submitted to SHPO. We are awaiting their response to prepare a scope for the Phase 1B. Chuck Marshall questioned the possibility of a conservation easement over the unconstrained lands? Ms. Ferradino stated we are anticipating that that would be highly recommended within your recommendations to the city Council. We are willing to do that. We are anticipating losing up to 2 ½ acres of developable acres of the parcel. We are reviewing the site to see if we can add more units in that space while maintaining the walking paths and types of amenities, we are anticipating for recreation purposes. Mark Torpey, Chair, questioned if the applicant had considered a conservation easement for the 20+ acres not being developed. Ms. Ferradino stated they looked at it and understand what the Board wants but to give up those 2 acres we are attempting to up the density a bit to make the numbers work. If we up the density by 10 -15 units than this is entirely doable. AFFORDABILITY -in perpetuity Mr. John Vaginelis, Attorney-Liberty Affordable Housing. Liberty is 501c3 developer. Liberty’s affordable organizational documents and tax-exempt status only allows it to develop affordable housing. We understand you concern regarding the project remaining affordable. The reason for not having the affordability restriction in perpetuity and not have it tied to a number of years is really the financing mechanism. Liberty Affordable is proposing the same financing structure-organization structure as the city currently sees with the Entrada project. It would be a regulatory agreement that is in place for a minimum of 32 years. Affordability in perpetuity is not a viable concept as it runs contrary to the affordable housing industry financing requirements. Equity investors and financing sources are constrained by IRS code and NYS Affordable Housing programs. The project cannot City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 27, 2022 - Page 4 of 20 be recourse debt. To our knowledge the City of Saratoga Springs and other municipalities have not imposed an “affordability in perpetuity” requirement on other similar projects within the city. We are also have a PILOT agreement with City. 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. Mr. Vaginelis stated 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. Chuck Marshall questioned if this project would have units set aside for Captain or Wellspring clients? Mr. Vaginelis stated there will be no supportive services at this project location. Mark Pingel questioned what happens to the occupants at 32 years and 1 day. Mr. Vaginelis stated under the Code – Section 42 a tenant that resides in an affordable project and there is a foreclosure or the end of the affordability project there is a three-year window in which they can stay. They must be provided notice, giving them ample time to relocate. What typically happens to this project in they go through a rehab component and need to be upgraded and the housing agencies work with those projects to preserve the affordability and the additional tax credits. Mark Pingel questioned why this project chose 30-32 and not 50 years affordable housing component. Mr. Vaginelis stated we have not chosen it. It depends on what specific programs and money sources the state makes available to the project. Many times, it is not the 30-32 years, but the state imposes 50 years on the project. It is dictated by the monies the state agencies can tap into. Mark Torpey, Chair, questioned what experience Liberty has had to date and their record data. Mr. Vaginelis stated Liberty has been in business for about 20 years and have developed over 4,000 units. 22 different projects both in New York State and Massachusetts. They have a mix of new construction as well as rehab projects. Liberty has been a go to by the State agencies to rehab properties in Buffalo, Rome, Syracuse, Utica, and Albany. They have taken on projects with great success. They have a proven record. As an organization they have not reached that 30–40-year threshold yet. They have exited on at least 2-3 projects he personally has been involved with. The 15-year initial tax credit compliance period and Liberty has in those instances elected to purchase those projects from the equity investor and keep them as part of their portfolio. So, they are continuing to hold them as 100% owner not simply as the managing member or general partner. Mark Torpey, Chair, questioned if there are any other banks - non-profit banks who will provide more of public benefit Lending a set of terms than perhaps then the ones you are speaking with now. If there are institutions out there to provide funding for a project such as this that would be amenable to the perpetuity clause. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 27, 2022 - Page 5 of 20 Mr. Vaginelis stated the mortgage lender for this project will be the New York State Housing Finance Agency. So, it is the State of New York mortgaging agency Sunny Mae will ensure the permanent mortgage loan. So, it is a public lender. And NYS Housing Finance Agency is the largest public housing finance agency in the country with the best history. Mark Torpey, Chair, questioned how the Section 8 projects able to last if they do as compared to something that would only be for 30 years or so. Mr. Vaginelis stated on the Section 8 projects they also have a use agreement that is entered into with HUD. In exchange for the HUD vouchers or housing assistance payment contract, which is beneficial to the project and the tenants there the project owner must agree in exchange for that revenue from the Federal Government to extend and have a use agreement in place. Those projects typically last a long time and are renewed by the Federal Government and HUD which provides that subsidy. Mark Torpey, Chair stated for this project we may be speaking about a conservation easement on the 20 acres for the project that would be in perpetuity. The banks have no problem with restrictive covenants in that regard in perpetuity, but the affordable component is vastly different and considered a challenge from a financing standpoint. Mr. Vaginelis stated yes. Covenants and restrictions regarding use in designating certain areas on a parcel as non-developable is not an issue for the lender so long as the developable land and the improvements there satisfy their underwriting requirements. Bill McTygue stated about 4 years ago NYS offered up a law and the opportunity for communities and developers to consider these types of projects with the tax credits guaranteed with the commitments that the developer offers and makes. It is not low-income housing, and it is not luxury housing. This housing falls somewhere in the middle. The goal of the applicant is to offer something in the way of housing for the current employee staff at the Racino and Harness track. They are a major employer and economic contributor to the city and the State of New York. This project will offer opportunities for residential and housing needs for the employees that work there. Is that a correct observation. Mr. Vaginelis stated that is a fair statement. Many of the employees at the Racino 86% live outside the city of Saratoga Springs may in fact qualify and be interested in living there. The same would be the case for other employees in other professions. Young professionals who can satisfy the income requirements. Bill McTygue questioned what happens with the tax credits after the 32 years. Mr. Vaginelis stated the tax credits are under a 15-year tax credit compliance period. The equity investor and the state require in connection with the HFA bond closing and financing that the developer also enter into an extended use agreement beyond 15 to cover the remaining years. Bill McTygue stated this is private investments supported with government rules and regulations allowing for certain tax breaks and allows this type of project to happen. Mark Pingel stated there must be other types of affordable housing development which have exceeded the 32-year clock. Is it possible for the Board to receive an example or two which demonstrates that these kinds of developments do extend further than the initial period. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 27, 2022 - Page 6 of 20 Mr. Vaginelis stated he can put together a list for the Boards review. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated providing this information to the Board to ally their concerns would be helpful and beneficial. Ms. Ferradino stated another concern voiced by the Board is the analysis on the Comp Plan itself and the density requirements. As noted at the previous meeting the two land use categories set forth in the Comp Plan bisect our site. A memorandum was provided to the Board which crafted a strategy where we anticipate the City Council will be making a motion to amend the Comp Plan to change our land use category to CRN-2. As you can see in the visual provided. We anticipate that will be introduced at the City Council meeting on Tuesday and that will start the process. By state law, currently under the UDO you do not have a mechanism to make an application for a Comp Plan Amendment. The State Law does allow the City Council to do that. That is why they are taking on this role. As part of that their requirement is to send it to County Planning for a mandatory review. A discretionary review to you. We ask that you consider this modification based in part on what we were hearing from the Board at our last appearance. When you make your recommendations if you can include language regarding that it would be helpful. Chuck Marshall stated the current zoning in the UDO is RR. When you make a CRN-2 recommendation does that create a conflict with RR. Ms. Ferradino stated yes. The density is higher. Chuck Marshall stated the remedy to that would be your Zoning Amendment which would fix the violation in the Comp Plan. Ms. Ferradino stated yes, the two would be tied together. The City Council’s draft resolution has language which ties the rezoning with the Comp Plan modification. There is one caveat, which is the sunset. The mechanism then is the City Council would again return and adopt if the site reverted to RR-1 because this project has not been built. Chuck Marshall asked for the applicant’s agent to explain their sunset provision. Ms. Ferradino stated the sunset provision which would give the applicant five years to make an application for a building permit for the affordable housing project. If we have not satisfied that condition, automatically the RR zone is back. Chuck Marshall questioned if the five-year plan was your recommendation. Ms. Ferradino stated yes, it was their recommendation. Part of the issue is obtaining the state funding. Discussion ensued regarding shortening the sunset provision clause. Todd Fabozzi questioned if the Comp Plan has been amended since its adoption. Susan Barden, Principal Planner stated we have a 2015 Comp Plan, and she is unsure if it has been amended. She will research this and provide the information to the Board. The Zoning Map has been amended. Mark Pingel stated there is no revision page on the Comprehensive Plan. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 27, 2022 - Page 7 of 20 Ms. Ferradino provided a visual of what the City Council is proposing on the map-CRN-2. Photographs of the present site were provided from Crescent Avenue. A rendering of the proposed project was also included. Mr. Ferradino provided a timeline of the project. -The Planning Board spoke regarding requesting an extension to go beyond the 60-day Advisory Opinion window to the City Council. We hope the Board can render an Opinion by November 17th, 2022. -SCPB-reconsidering the project from the Comp Plan Map Amendment- November 17, 2022. -City Council – initiating the map amendment to a (CRN-2) on November 1, 2022; and November 15th, set a public hearing for the December 6th meeting – begins the SEQRA process and vote on December 20th. -Contract deadline, December 31, 2022. Bill McTygue stated Bunny Lake Drive is a private roadway owned and maintained by the Harness Track and Racino. Mark Torpey, Chair, questioned if the council was looking to have an RN-1 and a CRN-2 designation for that parcel. Ms. Ferradino stated no, that remains the Racino parcel and will remain as it is currently designated. Mark Torpey, Chair, noted he previously spoke regarding the density on the ten parcels used for this project. This translates into 20 units per acre which is greater than what the UR-4 allows. Ms. Ferradino stated this project will not move forward with less than 200 units, it becomes unfeasible, and it could not be financed. Discussion ensued regarding the need for 200 units, the possible land costs, and economics of the project. Chuck Marshall questioned if the City Council can exceed the density requirements. Leah Everhart stated she is unsure of what the question is. If the density is consistent with the zone in which the City Council, then put this property, then it is not exceeding the density. Chuck Marshall stated if the property is zoned CRN-2 you meet the density requirements. Ms. Ferradino stated yes. What the Chair is stating is that he would like the density to be analyzed with our usable land and not our total acreage. That is not how the UDO reads. Mark Pingel stated there is a question when you put land into a conservancy, is it then developable. This is something we do have to settle because it then becomes a legal question. Depending on how it is calculated under the UDO you may need a variance, or someone will have to manage the conservancy or obtain a legal opinion that says you can place developable land in conservancy and use it as a density calculation. We will need to have that discussion. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated you have provided the Board with a great deal of good information this evening. We have City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 27, 2022 - Page 8 of 20 a lot to think about and the challenges facing this project what. Our Advisory Opinion should include information and recommendations for SEQRA analysis to the City Council to consider. Based on what the City Council is intending on pursuing at the next meeting, the Board can share our thoughts regarding amending the Comp Plan as they have proposed. Ms. Ferradino stated we took cues from what you were suggesting and so we have pursued that. We anticipate the Board to find this favorable and hope you comment on this in your Advisory Opinion. We will also provide information on examples of other projects in the thirty years. Chuck Marshall stated he will draft a recommendation for discussion at the Planning Board Workshop on November 10th to meet the November 11th deadline. Mark Torpey, Chair stated following our workshop on the 10th we will review and comment the draft and be ready for finalizing and voting on the Advisory Opinion on the 17th. 7:12 P.M. The Board Recessed. 7:17 P.M. The Board Reconvened. 3. #20220735 EXCELSIOR AVENUE APARTMENTS, Excelsior Avenue, site plan review of proposed workforce housing project and associated site work in the Transect-5 (T-5) District. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated this project has appeared before the Board previously. The last appearance was on September 29, 2022. At that meeting, the Board identified and reviewed conditions of approval. The Board Requested additional time to craft a proper Notice of Decision. At this time, we will hear from the applicant for any further comments. Mark Pingel questioned if the Board intended to allow for public comment this evening. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated he did not intend to have public comment this evening. The Board has provided ample opportunities. The intention here was to walk through our notes and our Notice of Decision. Leah Everhart, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated we do have audience members who wish to speak this evening. We do not think the Board should allow one or two comments. Either we should allow anyone who would like to comment or no one. Mark Pingel stated we have people who have indicated a desire to speak and one power point presentation. Applicant: Beacon Communities Agent: Jessica Sheldon, Beacon Communities Ms. Sheldon stated the project has not changed at all since their last appearance before the Board. The only substantive direction we were given by the Board was to review and consider the crosswalk from our building and the tot lot we are constructing. We are open to enhancing that crosswalk to help make it standout. At the last meeting, the Board was prepared to draft a resolution, there was support for the project and no changes requested. We have not come to this meeting with any changes or presentations. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 27, 2022 - Page 9 of 20 Mark Pingel stated the Board has no further questions from the applicant. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated we will open the floor for public comments. PUBLIC COMMENT: Diane Chechowicz - 30 Whistler Court. A power point presentation provided information regarding the current density and the traffic. There is one-way in and one-way out. Not a safe situation for current residents or proposed tenants. Parking illustrations which currently exist. Deliveries, moving vans and daily traffic. Substantial modifications are needed before more residents are added. Claudia Braymer, Attorney – Whistler Court Homeowners Association. Ms. Braymer stated she has spoken before and submitted documentation. She does not think the SEQRA Review was completed correctly. That is an issue which is in the current litigation. We believe the Board needs to comply with all zoning requirements. If anything is not done correctly, we will challenge it. Also, under your current code whether you look at the new UDO or the old zoning code, it is within your authority to look at traffic, circulation, and emergency access as part of a site plan review. This was just presented to you and there are concerns, which have been brought up to the Board over and over especially our concern regarding the intersection at Excelsior Avenue and Veteran’s Way. There needs to be mitigation at this site. While Beacon is not responsible for that potentially you still have Excelsior Park owner on this application, and they are required to do other offsite mitigation measures for traffic. She does not see why this Board cannot require additional mitigation. We are asking for you to take these safety concerns into consideration once again. We ask for a denial and hope you do not approve this project this evening. Carl Korn – 30 Whistler Court. At the last meeting Mr. Torpey, Chair, stated he likes this project, talking about Beacon. It is green, it provides workforce housing, which is sorely needed, it is a nice building. Even though we had a raucous and spirited session, we agreed with you. The problem is it does not belong here. It does not belong in Excelsior Park. Mark Richardson-30 Whistler Court. This drastic change in the density does not benefit anybody except for the developer. The density and parking studies were not done effectively. We have an opportunity here before anything happens to fix this to correct this. One way in and one way out. How are you allowing this to happen. Gilbert Matson-Whistler Court. Original owner. He bought here in the hopes that he was going to have a fine community that was in a suburban community and that was what was presented. As this project has developed, it has gone on and on and now will look like a community you can call urban, like New York City. It is not why he purchased here or what he bargained for. The city is not doing taxpayers any good by taking away what we planned to live here for. Dr. Laura McMahon- 30 Whistler Court purchased in 2015. She loves her condominium and the area. It is a nice small postage stamp community cul-de-sac. She understood there were smaller- same type as developments coming up. She had trees in front of her when she moved in. Within two years there were apartment buildings. She now has trash on her porch, beer cans, people parking in front of her home. This is where she planned to live right near the city. She is concerned regarding her safety walking the dog and the trails. She cannot even live in her own area or sit on her front porch. It is incredibly stressful to see what has happened to this area. Debra Brodski-30 Whistler Court – original owner. Traffic coming out of the Marriot drives through the neighborhood. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 27, 2022 - Page 10 of 20 When construction crews come in there is trash strewn about. It is going to be a nightmare year around but especially in the summer. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated this is a specific project with Beacon. We have asked the fire department, traffic, police, and we have the benefit of their input. There has not been a definitive statement from any of them that has been shared with us now. We have an opportunity to work effectively with DPW and DPS to address the issues long term with us and the City Council to address your concerns with this project and other projects in this area. We understand there is an article 78 lawsuit filed for the project and we will see how that plays out. The broader concerns that you have would be better addressed to the city departments. This project is a distinct and separate entity from the issues you are raising. We received good feedback from the residents concerning the leasing option that is currently happening at the condominiums. There have been persistent comments about the Board making a review of this Special Use Permit during the covid. The applications that are submitted for the Special Use Permit date back to 2017. The Board has been reviewing this project prior to the pandemic. The notion of doing something without proper transparency is not true. Are there any further comments from the Board. Chuck Marshall stated people reflected more applications that are coming but only the 52 units proposed by Beacon are being considered tonight. That leaves more units to be developed. He has a question for Ms. Braymer. We do not have any correspondence from Ms. Braymer indicating that this is not zoning compliant. This is not our determination to make that would come from the Code Enforcement Officer. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated the crux of the concern is with the Special Use Permit. What has happened in the 20-year period from 2002 to 2022 is that the zoning laws have changed in the city. This area is now a Transect zone. We have spoken about this before. That is something that is guiding our decisions now. The T-5 district which this is – is the second highest density area in the city. The intention was to provide that level of density within this area. Those are rules that we are working off. At the last meeting, the Board members did show support for this project. We took time to craft thoughts for the Notice of Decision draft to assure we captured and identified all the points, areas, and issues we have for this project. Mark Pingel stated he does have a question for the residents. Over the last month or so, what engagement have you had with our city officials and how have they responded. Mr. Korn stated over the last month they have had no engagement. We have had meetings with staff beginning in December with the mayor elect and other department commissioners. Mark Pingel stated the issues you have raised are not directly attached to this project. They are city issues. In hearing today you are dealing with garbage, that today you are dealing with one way street violations, that today you are dealing with narrow roads, etc., those are issues that the city must address. This project is not the project that is going to solve these problems. This is not a debate this is a comment. He understands your frustration but as the Chair noted we have reached out to Mr. Golub, and he indicates he is interested in speaking with you more. His department that would be responsible for any additional action. We have spoken with Mr. Golub, and he is interested in pursuing these issues. Bill McTygue stated he is on the record expressing his concerns. The legal predicament that the city is facing regarding this. This is in the wheelhouse of the City Council. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 27, 2022 - Page 11 of 20 Leah Everhart, Counsel to the Land Use Board stated the Planning Board’s Subdivision in reference to this project is being challenged. The Planning Board is the named party. It is not a lawsuit in the sense that anyone is seeking money. It is an Article 78. They are seeking the nullification of the determination. It is the Planning Board not the City Council. Her law partnership is representing the Planning Board in this matter. Bill McTygue stated that is the dilemma because the court will have a say in how this ends up. That is the frustration that he is feeling. He would like to discuss this with legal counsel and what the legal ramifications are and what it leads to before the Board makes any further decisions. The court could interrupt our decision down the line. Chuck Marshall stated at that point it would be our opportunity to address as guided by the court. Right now, if we took a path other than a negative declaration for SEQRA and the adopted zoning ordinance we face a separate potential for different legal action. Todd Fabozzi stated we have already been advised by our legal counsel that it is acceptable to move forward on this site plan application. Leah Everhart, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated there are two separate applications. There is no legal prohibition for moving forward. The UDO requires action on site plans within 60 days if there is no public hearing and there has not been one here. There is no reason not to move forward. Bill McTygue questioned if the 2021 determination was based on a determination from back in 2002. Leah Everhart, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated the SEQRA determination was supplemental SEQRA review. The original Findings Statement and Environmental Impact Statement were adopted in 2002. That SEQRA review in 2021 is not the subject of this litigation. It is not something that can be invalidated in the pending litigation. What is being challenged in the subject litigation is the action taken in our June 23rd meeting where this Board took two actions. Determined that the subdivision was part of a larger SEQRA action and that no further SEQRA review was warranted due to no new or different impacts which would result and the adoption of a four-lot subdivision. That is the only thing being considered by a judge. Todd Fabozzi stated that is not something we should be discussing any further here. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated as a Board we have tried to take the position to try to be efficient in working with the project applicants and everyone else to not hold up our review pending issues in court. It sets a bad precedent holding up our review on any projects if we adopt that philosophy. Todd Fabozzi stated as a Planning Board we have deliberated long and hard on this. There are different issues and concerns as residents. We have heard from people in other city departments. Professionals who have completed traffic analyses for us and we have done our own observations. He has spent time in this development walking it end to end multiple times and at different times of the day. He lives directly on the other side of the Spring Run Trail. He has his own perspective on the observations. We must disentangle what are factual things that we can affect as part of this project versus citywide issues that the Chair and other Board members have pointed out. That are a matter of perspective and opinion. There is no right answer. An opinion that states this is supposed to be suburban. The zoning for this area states it is to be urban. A perspective that on a public street in a city you should know who goes up and down on your street, or they do not have City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 27, 2022 - Page 12 of 20 access this public street. I do not share that opinion. I believe in freedom of movement in a public place. Some people have the perspective and feel this is near the city, he feels it is the city. You are a part of the city not near it watching it. Some people have the perspective that the Spring Run Trail is dangerous. He loves the Spring Run Trail, and my kids love the Spring Run Trail and so do my neighbors. We use it all the time. He stopped riding his bike on the trail in the summer due to the amount of people and children and dogs and the fear of hitting someone. We have tried to disentangle what is opinion and what is fact, and he is ready to proceed through the determination which the Board has composed and move that forward. Chuck Marshall seconded Todd’s opinion. Leah Everhart, Counsel to the Land Use Board stated as a reminder to the Board that this is your resolution. When we draft a resolution for the Board we do our best to put your thoughts, impressions, and findings. Feel free to make changes or additions that does not reflect the Boards intentions. We want to ensure the result is what the Board wants it to be. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated, this is our resolution. We have had help in drafting it and streamlining it. The resolution is based on the Planning Board acceptance, review, and modifications. Mark Pingel stated he will begin to read the Planning Board resolution as proposed and drafted. We will then have an opportunity to discuss it. We will not be accepting any further public comment. NOTICE OF DECISION In the matter of the application #20200735 Excelsior Avenue Apartments Excelsior Avenue Saratoga Springs, NY 1286 WHEREAS Beacon Communities, LLC (Applicant) made a Site Plan Application concerning property located on Excelsior Avenue in the Excelsior Park Project within the City of Saratoga Springs seeking to pursue construction of its Excelsior Apartments Project (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project is part of the Excelsior Park Project, a mixed-use development in the City of Saratoga Springs (“City”) which was the subject of a special use permit application made on September 19, 2001, by Excelsior Park, LLC; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), the Planning Board identified the project as a Type I Action under SEQRA, declared itself Lead Agency and conducted coordinated review pursuant to SEQRA; and WHEREAS, after analyzing all potential environmental impacts, the Planning Board adopted a Positive Declaration which resulted in the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement; and WHEREAS the Planning Board’s SEQRA Review culminated in adoption of a Final Environmental Impact Statement and Statement of Findings on October 16, 2002; and WHEREAS, Excelsior Park, LLC submitted a new special use permit application on November 18, 2017, seeking to increase development parameters; and WHEREAS, between February 2018 and April 2021, the Planning Board, again serving as Lead Agency, conducted numerous public hearings, received and reviewed updated SEQRA materials City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 27, 2022 - Page 13 of 20 from Excelsior Park, LLC, engaged a thirdparty designated environmental and engineering consultant to review the updated technical and environmental materials, reviewed and commented on various submissions and environmental studies (including an updated traffic impact study by GPI Engineering), and received and reviewed public comments on the application and the updated SEQRA record; and WHEREAS, following this extensive review, the Planning Board issued an Amended Statement of Findings pursuant to SEQRA on April 26, 2021 (“Amended Statement of Findings”), determining that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement would not be required, and granted the special use permit application on May 13, 2021 (“2021 Special Use Permit”) which authorized a total of 179 residential units and 147,600 square feet of non-residential use, as an addition to what had already been constructed; and WHEREAS the Applicant now seeks to develop the Project as part of the latest phase of the overall Excelsior Park development project; and WHEREAS, as originally proposed, this Project consisted of a mixed-use building fronting on Excelsior Avenue with commercial space on the first floor for a daycare facility and 48 one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments on the remaining three floors; ten, three-bedroom townhouses fronting on Whistler Court; a two-lot subdivision; and a satellite parking area; and WHEREAS, based on the public’s concerns raised before the Planning Board, the Applicant modified the Project to eliminate the two buildings which were proposed to house the ten townhouses on Whistler Court; removed the daycare facility in the mixed-use building on Excelsior Avenue; adjusted the apartment bedroom sizes to allow for a total of 52 apartment units without changing the building size or footprint; and eliminated the satellite parking area; and WHEREAS, as a result of these project modifications, the Applicant submitted the pending Site Plan Application on January 31, 2022, and submitted a subdivision application on February 24, 2022, which was granted by the Planning Board on June 23, 2022; and WHEREAS, at this Board’s June 23, 2022 and September 29, 2022 meetings, the Applicant presented the updated Project design and, while no Public Hearing is mandated, the Planning Board received comments from the public including concerning the current conditions in the neighborhood concerning the width and sufficiency of the access road, sufficiency of on-street parking and general dissatisfaction concerning possible future inhabitance of the proposed apartments including units to be made available to domestic abuse survivors through the Wellspring organization; and WHEREAS the Planning Board referred this Application to the Saratoga County Planning Board and received a recommendation dated June 23, 2021, that the Project will have no County-wide impact or intercommunity impacts; and WHEREAS, despite adoption of the City’s Uniform Development Ordinance, the previous Zoning Ordinance still applies to this Application and, the Planning Board reviewed the Site Plan Application pursuant to the evaluation criteria set forth in Article 7 of the City Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has provided a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) and drainage designs demonstrating that the Project meets the most recent New York State Department of Environmental Conservation guidelines; and City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 27, 2022 - Page 14 of 20 WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the 2020 Traffic Impact Study performed by GPI which included certain mitigation to offset traffic-related impacts including extension of the westbound left turn lane from 100 feet to 325 feet of storage length along Route 50, construction of a northbound right turn lane 100 feet in length on Veteran’s Way to provide for turning onto Route 50 and optimizing signal timing for the new lane geometry; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has received guidance from the City Designated Engineers, Department of Public Works, Saratoga Springs Fire Department, Saratoga Springs Police Department and Department of Public Safety; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has received comments from the public concerning road width and access-related issues along the boulevard entrance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has also received comments from the public concerning the proposed inhabitance of the residential units to be constructed in the multi-use building; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered all comments and materials submitted in relation to this Project and all materials related to the 2017 special use permit application and SEQRA Review Record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has received, reviewed, and considered the Site Plan Application, the presentations by the Applicant, and the comments submitted by the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board hereby makes the following findings: 1. The proposed Site Plan comports with the Excelsior Park SEQRA Amended Findings Statement adopted by this Board on April 8, 2021, including all thresholds, limitations and mitigation measures set forth therein and that no new or different impacts will result which have not already been identified, analyzed, and addressed during the previous SEQRA Review process. 2. The proposed Site Plan comports to the evaluation criteria set forth in Section 7.2.4 of the City Zoning Law: a. The location, arrangement, size, design, and general site compatibility of the Project are satisfactory, particularly given the modification of the Project by the Applicant following receipt of public comments regarding density of development as well as parking and traffic issues. b. Vehicular traffic access and circulation at the Project site are adequate, except where stated otherwise below. While public comments were received concerning the width and sufficiency of emergency access, this Board also received comments from the City Fire Department that the Site Plan causes no issues. In addition, Board Members have individually visited the site and have not witnessed the conditions complained of. However, in an urban environment, sometimes stopped or standing vehicles temporarily impact two-way traffic, requiring drivers to “take turns.” This is not viewed as a condition which should prevent project advancement. In addition, modifications to the Project design have been made to address these concerns to the greatest extent practicable. While the Applicant has demonstrated that it is providing a sufficient number of parking spaces for its residents, the Board is concerned that by charging residents a separate and voluntary fee for parking, those residents may opt to park on the street which would either cause or unreasonably exacerbate on-street parking issues. This concern is consistent with the comment raised by the City Police Department. In addition, based upon the 2020 Traffic Impact Study performed by GPI, the Project will have avoidable and undesirable impacts upon the intersection of Route 50 and Veteran’s Way/Gick Road. Absent mitigation, the circumstances noted in the Traffic Impact Study City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 27, 2022 - Page 15 of 20 would render vehicular access inadequate. With appropriate conditions imposed by this Resolution, vehicular traffic access and circulation at the Project site are adequate. c. The Applicant has demonstrated that off-street parking and loading at the Project is sufficient, and there has been no reliable demonstration to the contrary. d. Pedestrian traffic access and circulation at the Project is more than adequate as the Project design will ensure walking paths. Sidewalks are available for pedestrian access and the Spring Run Trail will not be negatively impacted by the Project. In addition, the Downtown Connector, which is part of the larger Saratoga Greenbelt network, will soon be accessible and will provide greater pedestrian access to and from this development. e. The stormwater and drainage facilities at the Project are adequate based upon drainage design and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan submitted in reference to this Project. It is noted that the Project will not encroach into jurisdictional wetlands or wetland buffers. f. Water supply and sanitary sewer/sewerage disposal facilities at the Project site are adequate. It is noted that the Project’s estimated water consumption is within the maximum water consumption anticipated as set forth in the Amended Statement of Findings. g. The arrangement and adequacy of onsite and offsite lighting at the Project is sufficient. The Applicant has demonstrated that the Project will utilize LED lighting throughout the property with vacancy sensors and daylight timers. h. Landscaping and screening of parking areas at the Project will be adequate as the Project design includes ample green space, including landscaping around the proposed building and parking area, and the Project design will maintain the 100-foot vegetative Northway buffer. i. Access to the Project site and other fire safety facilities for emergency vehicles is adequate. The Planning Board has taken into consideration the opinions of the City’s Fire Chief, Police Department and Commissioner of Public Works. While public comments have centered around the boulevard entrance being the sole point of access and incidents in which access was limited due to lane obstruction, denial of the Application on this ground is not warranted. The Planning Board notes receipt of the Memorandum of the Commissioner of Public Works dated September 2, 2021, in which it is recommended that Planning Board Members visit the site, consider the one-access point issue, current conditions related to parking and traffic and suggests that development should proceed in accordance with a holistic approach. Planning Board Members have visited the site, have considered the point of access issue, have considered current parking needs/conditions and current traffic conditions. In addition, the Project is part of a larger, multi-year review effort and is therefore part of a detailed and thorough holistic approach to development. However, the Planning Board finds that it should not be the Applicant’s obligation to address current conditions which are not being unreasonably intensified by the Project and which do not exceed any threshold established during SEQRA Review. While severe storms may very well slow emergency response times, this is the case throughout the City and is likewise the case in this specific area whether or not this Project advances. Based on all facts and circumstances specific to this Application and the larger Excelsior Park development and all related Planning Board considerations, findings and actions, the Planning Board hereby finds that access to the Project and access by emergency vehicles is adequate and further finds that it would not be appropriate to deny this Application based solely on the current road configuration over which the Applicant has no control. j. While the UDO does not apply to this Project, the Project nonetheless satisfies the evaluation criteria set forth in Article 13 of the UDO; and be it further City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 27, 2022 - Page 16 of 20 RESOLVED, that Site Plan 20220735 for the Excelsior Apartments Project is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the final Site Plan be modified to add the following: “On October 27, 2022, the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board determined that these plans conform to the SEQRA Amended Findings Statement adopted by the Board on April 8, 2021.” 2. That the Applicant not charge a separate and/or voluntary fee of its residents for on-site parking. 3. That the Applicant extend the westbound left-turn lane on Route 50 at Veteran’s Way from 100 feet to 325 feet prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Compliance being issued. 4. That the Applicant construct a northbound right-turn lane on Veteran’s Way at Route 50 prior to any Certificate of Occupancy of Certificate of Compliance being issued. 5. That the Applicant optimize signal timing for the new lane geometry. 6. That the Project meet NYSERDA new construction standards and Enterprise Green Community standards for energy efficiency. The Applicant is to copy the City Office of Planning & Economic Development on all related application submissions to NYSERDA. The foregoing Resolution was Adopted October 27, 2022, by the Planning Board of the City of Saratoga Springs by a 4-1 vote (ayes: Torpey, Pingel, Fabozzi, Marshall; nay: McTygue). The applicant is required to: 1. Provide documentation of conformance with all required conditions of approval. 2. Deliver a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount approved by DPW to the City per Article 7.2.15 of the Zoning Ordinance. This must occur prior to final signature by the Planning Board Chair. 3. Submit one (1) mylar and two (2) paper copies of the final approved site plans for signature by the Planning Board Chair within eighteen (18) months of approval as per Article 7.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Note: this approval shall expire within eighteen (18) months of the signature of final plans if the applicant has not started actual construction as per Article 7.2.14 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mark Torpey, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. Chuck Marshall stated he has two amendments – traffic improvements are to be subject to the certificate of occupancy. Also, the site plan – the Board approves site plans with their amenities, but the construction of net zero could become problematic as it requires certain elements such as fixtures, and appliances be a part of the site plan while not necessarily inspectable by this Board and becoming an enforcement issue. Ms. Sheldon – Beacon Communities stated there are green building programs out there. We have come before this Board five or six times and she does not believe they ever stated they were doing net zero construction parameters. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 27, 2022 - Page 17 of 20 She is unsure how they would begin to comply with that since there are so many different programs. This is vague and we are endeavoring to make this building very energy efficient and green. Our design will comply with the highest standards set by the State for affordable housing. Mark Pingel stated your construction packet does call out for certain construction standards. It seems appropriate that we refer to a document that the applicant makes a statement about what you do intend do regarding green construction. Can you provide us with a document that we can refer to. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding what the applicant previously referred to in the application materials is what it should be. Ms. Sheldon stated what the applicant will absolutely comply with is the NYSERDA new construction housing standards. As part of affordable housing, we will be required to meet their program. A subcomponent of that is comply with Enterprise Green Communities. These green standards have been updated and are even more stringent than what was originally presented. Discussion ensued among the Board with modifications to the proposed resolution to be incorporated into the final resolution and documentation. Also, it was requested that the city be provided with certification documents presented to NYSERDA. Chuck Marshall made a motion in the matter of the application of the Excelsior Avenue Apartments Site Plan Review, Excelsior Avenue, that the resolution be approved in the language as presented this evening, discussed, and read into the record by Mark Pingel and agreed to by the Board. Todd Fabozzi seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. Bill McTygue stated as a member of the Board he was brought into this discussion at the end of the discussion of this project. This puts him at a disadvantage as compared to fellow Board members. Months ago, he put in writing as a new member of the Board and that statement was provided to the Board prior to the filing of the Article 78. He is a supporter of workforce housing for this community. However, given the circumstances under which this project is being proposed and the substantial amount of comment we have heard from the public, the fact that there is ongoing litigation, and the fact that he was not given an opportunity to discuss this with legal counsel, he will cast a negative vote for the reasons stated. VOTE: Mark Torpey, Chair, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Chuck Marshall, in favor; Mark Pingel, in favor; Bill McTygue, opposed MOTION PASSES: 4-1 NOTE: Leah Everhart, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated it was just brought to the attention of staff that Chuck Marshall must recuse himself from the last application. While that leaves us with four Board members – a quorum – it does not City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 27, 2022 - Page 18 of 20 leave us with quorum present in the building. This is problematic due to your policy on remote participation at meetings which requires a quorum present in the building. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated considering this we can either adjourn the application to the next meeting or allow the applicant and applicants agent an opportunity to present the changes made since their last application before the Board. Leah Everhart, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated she is unaware of any provisions in the Open Meeting Law that you would be violating by allowing the meeting to continue, with the public in attendance. No action can be taken this evening. Doug Heller, LA Group stated the applicant has come from Rochester to be available for comments from the Board. We have received comments following the workshop and we would like to go through and receive comments so we can be prepared for the next meeting to complete any questions or concerns. RECUSAL: Chuck Marshall recused from the following application and exited the building at 9:00 P.M. Mark Pingel stated there is a consensus here that that is a good plan. We are well represented here with the applicant and his agent. This will allow us to make progress this evening. 9:00 P.M. The Board recessed. 9:12 P.M. The Board reconvened. 4. #20220235 131 EXCELSIOR NORTH SPRING RUN SPECIAL USE PERMIT, 131 Excelsior Avenue, Consideration of coordinated SEQRA review for a proposed 102-unit multi-family residential project in the Transect-5 (T-5) District. Applicant: Michael Birkey - Conifer - Developer Agent: Doug Heller, LA Group Mr. Heller stated throughout this presentation he will review the items discussed at the workshop. The first is the potential impacts to Loughberry Lake. We have provided the city with a letter summarizing the potential for surface water and ground water impacts. Surface water impacts – Loughberry Lake normal water elevation is at 283.4. The site is 230 ft. to the south and is 13 ft. lower than the Loughberry Lake surface elevation. The entire site in the existing conditions and the proposed site will all sheet flow or be captured and discharged to the drainage channel along the western portion of the property. That flows then to the south. No surface water impacts from the site discharged into Loughberry Lake. Next is the potential for groundwater impacts. There was a Geotech investigation, completed borings on the site. They found groundwater elevations ranging from 264 to 266 and with this boring completed on the site along the site and the back it was determined ground water flows to the west, to the drainage channel. The drainage channel acting like a drain for the groundwater. No adverse impacts to groundwater or to Loughberry Lake. The property was formerly use as a brewery a manufacturing use, there was no stormwater treatment on the site, along the western side it sheet flowed to the existing drainage channel. There are existing catch basins City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 27, 2022 - Page 19 of 20 behind the brewery which directly discharge to the drainage channel with no treatment. This project will be providing stormwater treatment through bioretention hydro generic separator and detention pipes as well. We will improve the water quality to the drainage channel. Mark Pingel questioned if there was anything historical which states that the old brewery had no impact. His issue is intuitively this makes every bit of sense in terms of pollution for the city water supply. Is there a professional engineer who has said that. Mr. Heller stated he provided the letter and is a professional engineer. Mr. Heller stated there was a study done on Loughberry Lake as well and that is where we obtained the water elevation as well as the geotechnical report performed by a licensed engineer. Mark Torpey, Chair, questioned if the city has any guidelines for parking lots and driveways within a certain location from Stream corridor or stream you need to adhere to specific rules. Is the drainage channel you refer to apply to these same rules and regulations. Mr. Heller stated this was brought to Patrick Cogan’s attention and he determined this was not considered a city stream, so no water course protection was required over that drainage ditch. Susan Barden, Principal Planner, stated it was stated verbally from Patrick Cogan to her, but she can obtain it in written form if you prefer to have it more formally. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated that is fine. One other question, there appears to be a dam that controls the water flow into the city water works. To do repair work, they would need to access the property site to do that. Is there language in place that will allow for that access. Mr. Heller stated his understanding is that it is part of the DOT easement, that the city would have access through the DOT easement for that. Mr. Heller provided photographs of the site. A visual was also provided of the DOT drainage easement. We submitted to DOT for their review, and we received an email from the DOT Regional Engineer which states after his review he conceptually approves the proposed work in the state drainage easement. Todd Fabozzi questioned why is that a state easement. Mr. Heller stated it is their Route 50 drainage. The culvert goes into a drainage channel and a visual of where the drainage channel goes was provide. Mark Torpey, Chair, questioned if this drainage channel easement accepts the water from Route 50 storm water shedding as well as an overflow from Loughberry Lake to control the level. Mr. Heller stated that is his understanding. Mark Pingel questioned if the applicant’s water was all surface into that channel. Mr. Heller stated we did not want to touch the channel itself or create any new outlets, so we have utilized existing outlets and limit the amount of disturbance. Mr. Heller stated in summary of the project they are proposing 102 apartment units. They are proposing for 20% of the units to be held as affordable housing for households earning 80% area median income for 15 years. Todd Fabozzi questioned how people apply for this housing. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 27, 2022 - Page 20 of 20 Mr. Birkey stated we will advertise for the apartments and affordable housing units. This is our forte and something we have experience with including a compliance department for the tax credits. We are mission driven for profit. We are open to have a type of document filed with the city to keep the units affordable for at least 15 years. Mark Torpey, Chair, questioned the number of years for the affordable housing component. Mr. Birkey stated it is what they are used to dealing with in the affordable housing component portion of their projects. It is something they are comfortable with in the current market conditions. Mr. Heller continued with parking portion of the project was a concern as you enter the project on the left. We have removed those 5 parking spaces which has brought the parking number down to 148. We are also providing 4 EV charging stations for the tenants. There is a large internal bike parking space provided for 56 bikes. The project will be at least 10% more energy efficient than those built to standard code. Appliances will all be electric, the building is designed to meet requirements of energy star. Mechanical units are PTAC and VTAC (thermal air conditioners). To meet the greenspace requirements within the parking area we increased the size of the island and shifted the parking area 5 ft to the east. Those were the only site plan changes. A visual slide was provided noting the steep slopes on the site. The proposed slope will be stepped up trying to reduce the impacts and balance keeping it easily maintained. Mark Pingel questioned if vegetation or trees are proposed to be removed due to the project. Mr. Heller stated they are proposing to remove 11 - 3”– 8” trees; 6 - 9”- 16” trees and 2 - 16” trees will be removed. We are providing a 60 ft. buffer to the property line to the east. He reviewed the parking screening and landscaping plan with the Board. Mr. Heller provided a street view of the project showing building heights in the neighborhood. We have appeared before the DRB back in April. Comments that were made – the liked the way the building height was broken up and stated no vinyl windows to be used in the project. We just began to speak about materials. Once SEQRA has been completed we will return before the DRB for final approvals. Regarding the civic space we are proposing a crosswalk with activated beacon pedestrian crossing on both sides. This is needed especially with the Green Belt Trail coming through. Also, we are proposing directional signage which would direct pedestrians to the Green Belt Trail and the Spring Run Trail. We are proposing bike racks. We are proposing seat walls to match the building materials. The small courtyard area the surface condition with the trail being asphalt and promote more people to gather versus a drive by or ride by. Todd Fabozzi stated he would like to see a more conceptual design of this. Something that would provide a 3D type look so we could better visualize it. Mr. Heller stated there has been dialog with improving the path. We have had preliminary conversations in this regard. Conifer is agreeable to contributing to these improvements. Lastly the traffic study. This project will increase the peak hour trips by 24 to the Marion/Excelsior intersection. EP Traffic study indicated a traffic signal warranted if an additional 75 trips at peak hour are generated. 2022 GPI estimate $225,000 to design and construct a traffic light. TDE reviewed the estimate and agreed with the estimate. They did note $32,000 contingency should cover potential cost adjustment. 131 Excelsior fair share would be $72,000 based on 24 trips or 32% traffic contribution to the intersection. 32% x $225,000 - $72,000. This would be a private agreement between Conifer and Excelsior Park LLC for providing an escrow of $72,000. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 27, 2022 - Page 21 of 20 Mr. Birkey stated that would be a private agreement between Excelsior Park LLC and Conifer. Mr. Birkey stated he feels it would be in the city’s best interest to hold those funds for these improvements. Leah Everhart, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated this will take thought. Typically, you would see this type of cost sharing is where you would see a single SEQRA review effort. This is different while relying on the 2020 traffic study done by GPI, this project was not considered. What we are doing is using the 2020 estimates and calculations and identified mitigation and figuring this applicant will have some degree of impact. There has been no SEQRA review that results in a finding statement that identifies what this projects impacts will be monetarily. What it will be for traffic and what it will cost to address those impacts. We do not take issue with the calculations. We are trying to identify an appropriate path forward. We appreciate the applicant’s willingness to contribute to this mitigation. We are glad to hear the applicant say these funds may be provided to the city to hold until mitigation measures are constructed. We are unsure if there is a mechanism for the city to hold these funds and we will discuss this with the Commission of Finance. Mr. Heller spoke regarding the civic space and additional information to provide for the Board. Todd Fabozzi provided additional guidance and information to the applicant. Mark Torpey, Chair, spoke regarding the shifting of the parking area and infringing a bit on the steep slopes. Further clarification would be helpful to the Board at the next appearance before the Planning Board. At the next meeting we anticipate reviewing SEQRA which will allow for the applicant to move through the ZBA and DRB. We will need to send an Advisory Opinion to the ZBA as well. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Mark Torpey, Chair, made a motion to approve the September 29, 2022, minutes. Todd Fabozzi seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Mark Torpey, Chair, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Mark Pingel, in favor; Bill McTygue, in favor MOTION PASSES: 4-0 UPCOMING MEETINGS: Planning Board Workshop, Thursday, November 10, 2022. Planning Board Meeting, Thursday, November 17, 2022. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 10:07 P.M. Respectfully submitted, City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 27, 2022 - Page 22 of 20  Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Meeting Minutes approved January 26, 2023 City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Meeting – October 27, 2022 - Page 23 of 20