Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2023 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Chuck Marshall Chaired the meeting called to order at 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Chuck Marshall, Acting Chair, Kerry Mayo, Bill McTygue, Patty Morrison ABSENT : Mark Torpey (Chair), Mark Pingel (Vice Chair), Todd Fabozzi STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, James Salaway, Principal Engineering Tech, Leah Everhart, Miller Mannix, PB Legal Counsel A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: There were no minutes to approve. VOTE: MOTION PASSES : B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: NOTE: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any application that is “approvable” without need for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wishes to further discuss any proposed consent agenda item, then that item would be pulled from the “consent agenda” and dealt with individually. 1. #20230830 125 High Rock Ave, extension of a previously approved two-lot subdivision in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District Chuck Marshall, Acting Chair, made a motion in the matter of 125 High Rock Ave. that this application be approved as submitted. VOTE: Chuck Marshall, in favor, Kerry Mayo, in favor; Bill McTygue, in favor; Patty Morrison, in favor MOTION PASSES : 4-0 C. PB APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. #20230712 , 1 Kaydeross Ave. West, Special Use Permit for a marijuana dispensary in the Gateway Commercial – Rural (GC-R) district Presenters: Stephanie Ferradino, Attorney and Mike Ingersoll, LA Group, Matt Malone, Reverie 73 Stephanie Ferradino presented for the applicant, Matt Malone, Reverie 73 . They are proposing a marijuana dispensary on Route 9 and Kaydeross Ave. West which is a permitted use in the GC-R district. The building would be located behind PJ’s Barbeque. It is a SEQR type 2 exempt because the building is under 4,000 sq. ft. Mike Ingersoll said they are focused on the 2-acre parcel. The site has community water, but no sewer. There is a re-built septic system on the site. The restaurant portion of the property has been continually used as such since at least the 1960’s. One entry is being used for deliveries, will come under discussion. They want to separate the traffic coming in for the restaurant from the dispensary. Approximately 17 parking spots will go up into the new area, plus the 13 they need for the new facility. The upper entrance can separate the flows if they need to so they can manage the property better, and leave the restaurant operating, while they come and go with deliveries. By using this curb cut (north) we may be restricted as well. Mike thinks removing the pavement improves the whole circulation quite a bit. Part of the program with the new facility is that there is a requirement that all deliveries come in a secure manner. They will have small delivery trucks like Amazon Prime which will be required to pull into a sally port. They will be allowed to deliver and unload their packages very privately. They hope to continue the operation of the restaurant. The management of the property will be in the hands of the new owner so if there are issues, they could limit the hours of operation. Mike said the County brought up the car shows that take place on Thursday nights and that the cars are all over that area. Mike said they will have to manage that and there is plenty of room in other areas of the property for cars if car shows continue to be a use. That will be addressed at site plan review. They will come back and show how that lays out. Mike said anything new that’s built will be within the setbacks required. They will reuse the septic field that’s there by the existing house. Mike talked about the design of the building and that it’s meant to depict the “spirit” of what they must comply with in this zone (not 2-stories, but 24 ft.). The taller building in the rendering shows the spirit and nature of the architecture. The character is trying to follow the spirit of what PJ’s is now, using new modern materials. This might be what it looks like. Chuck said they talked about queuing for the West Ave. dispensary and that he would like Mike to address virtual queuing with the Board. They don’t want people meandering around the parking lot. Mike said they will talk about that – how many people and when. Mike said most of the pavement will be corrected and minimized so there’s an environmental improvement. Mike said they will talk further about curb cuts. Mike said they are well over the greenspace requirements and the building is not obtrusive. The new owner could take over the restaurant and go into the building but that’s not the goal. Chuck asked if there might be the ability for shared access. Mike said the location is opposite the hotel, but they don’t know what will happen there. Items raised at the workshop : 1. SEQRA form – Type II – The reason they checked the “yes” box for the wetlands on Item 13 is it has the word “adjoining”. They don’t have any wetlands on the site. The second part of that was a “no”. The wetlands are around the property and the flood plain is below. Just a clarification. Can be confusing on the SEQRA form. 2. Wetlands- none on site 3. County Advisory Opinion – County Planning Board – had no significant impact. Will look at it again at site plan review. Concerns were mainly about the events and the overflow that happens now. Mike thinks this is manageable, but the traffic consultants will have to talk about that issue further. County forewarned that when they come back, they will have to look at that. 4. Merging properties – focusing on the use that is the restaurant not the paper streets for now – to be determined. 5. Operations proposed at 8:00 am to 10 pm, 7 days a week, which is standard with businesses around town. They’re moving that time slot forward but it may change. Mike said it could be less, they just don’t know right now. The biggest issue is security. If the Board has questions, they can talk about the on-site personnel, also monitoring integrated systems. Mike said this is very regulated. Deliveries are secure. Queuing – most users do call ahead for pick up and will be in the store for 3 to 7 City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – October 12, 2023 - Page 2 of 9 minutes. Maybe 45 to 50 percent will come to the dispensary. The timing is infrequent, not constant. About 8 people on a shift and they do anticipate the restaurant use to remain 6. Existing restaurant use – anticipate will remain 7. Access Chuck – on the “delivery only” entrance can you look to connect the northern in and out so that you can pull the truck for the restaurant in and then back down to the restaurant? There’s currently trucks parking on Route 9. If you could get them off Route 9 that would be considered an improvement. Something showing the interconnect now so that you can circulate a truck in and out without backing up. Mike said he’s certain it will be discussed with DOT. Bill McTygue asked that they talk about the driveway on Route 9 just south, explain the use of that. He said it’s wide right now, like 30 or 40 ft. There is a turning lane where people can cut in there, which is not a great idea. Mike said It might be restricted to right out only or it might be reduced. Mike agreed that it needs to be less open. Mike brought up the points used to satisfy for a Special Use Permit which Stephanie will explain: 1. Consistent with the comprehensive plan for the Gateway which looks for low to moderately dense commercial uses with a focus on distinct entrances to the city. The plan hasn’t been through the site plan review process because it’s a property that pre-dates. Modifications they are proposing will help to bring forth those points of the comprehensive plan regarding distinctive entrances to the city. The goal is to improve the appearance of the commercial uses. They feel that they will be doing that with landscaping, greenspace, an aesthetically interesting building on the site, and the removal of the large portion of paved area right on the roadway. 2. Will this property enda nger the Public Health, safety, and welfare of the community ? Stephanie said they don’t believe it will, it’s simply a retail facility. Part of the goal of NYS in regulating the use of marijuana is to make it safer. She said by regulating you create safety within a product itself. There is less concern over things being slipped into the product. The plan is compatible with the neighborhood where there are diverse commercial businesses along the corridor such as dog day care, hotels, and restaurants. 3. Safe and efficient circulation within this space . There will be safer parking, ingress, egress to the site than currently exists with the proposed improvements. 4. Environmental impacts – low impact use on the site. Reduction of impacts that the site currently has by capturing the stormwater, creation of more greenspace, modernizing the stormwater improvements and management of the site as well as integrating new things like lighting with dark sky compliant fixtures. Stephanie said they would be happy to answer any questions. Bill Mctygue asked where they are in the process with the State. Chrissy Cicon , Chief Operatin g Officer of Reverie 73, said they are in the process of preparing the application now and hope to submit it for November 3rd, which is expedited with the site identified. They have a 30-day window and Reverie will meet the first 30-day window with expedited site control. Patty Morrison thanked Stephanie for her very good presentation and all the information. Always appreciate that. For the paper streets, will there be an easement? Stephanie said they’re purchasing both properties but not looking to merge it at this point. It’s a very competitive process so they are racing to get the license and get established. The applicant didn’t want to complicate it with merging the two parcels when it wasn’t necessary. Stephanie said they can satisfy the ingress and egress with an easement, as James Salaway mentioned in the workshop. They will have site ownership of both parcels. Chuck formally opened the Public Hearing at 6:20 PM Mr. Niels on 20 Kaydeross Ave., 38-year resident is most concerned about the parking and the number of cars. There are frequent motorcycle and car shows and they park up on the backside. What about nights that something big going on at SPAC? He thinks the parking lot would be a mess, and that people would be at Reverie more than 3 to 7 minutes per visit. He said the raised septic City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – October 12, 2023 - Page 3 of 9 system leaks continuously and that there’s water runoff that goes down into the creek that eventually exits into the Kaydeross. He’s concerned about another business tapping into that septic system. He stated that the amount of volume at peak times would be overwhelming. Mr. Nielsen also noted that there’s a lot of traffic on Kaydeross, which is a 30-mph zone where cars are going 60 mph. There were no other public comments. Chuck Marshall, acting Chair closed the Public Hearing at 6:30 p.m. Board deliberation – Bill Mctygue noted the intensity of use. Is the applicant’s intention to continue the same kind of restaurant operation that currently exists, like the barbeque that invites outdoor shows on the property? Stephanie – the new owner will have the ability to manage what’s on the site. Whether that type of business will continue is yet to be seen because they need the site to function properly. Stephanie said what the restaurant will be used as will be discussed at length during site plan review. There’s a limited amount of room to move in and through the site. They must be very careful to select things that don’t interfere with the operations of both businesses. The restaurant might have to have an event during a low peak time for the dispensary to be operational. Technology has allowed Reverie to control the flow in and through the dispensary. They can adapt and shift by scheduling pick-ups to off peak times. People can order online and go pick it up. The dispensary can put people into time slots and block order pick-ups when there’s higher volume. This can be done on a day-to- day basis. Chuck – said the applicant and DPW will have to address the leakage out of the septic system. Bill McTygue said site plan review will take care of this issue. Bill said car shows, the restaurant, the dispensary, SPAC, the racetrack will all be competing. He doesn’t think the dispensary should compete with the restaurant. Chuck said concerning the Special Use Permit – will continue to go through it. There is general acceptance that this should advance. PJ’s will go away when the property gets sold and no one is certain what will come next. Matt addressed Mr. Nielson and told him that anything they can do to address any issues, they are a family-owned company and are there to help. Matt said they have a technology component for boots on the ground to manage the site. They will have parking lot attendants if they know there’s a concert or a busy day with heavy flow of traffic during track season. They want to figure out how to get people in and out as quickly as possible and to not jam up the site. Matt said they obviously want to make money at the dispensary and can’t have a site that’s clogged up and creates an unsafe environment. He said he works with Ed Davis , former Police Commissioner of Boston for security planning and traffic. They will also do police details. Chuck said with the other dispensary they approved they put in a pretty lengthy series of conditions. Their special use permit had a sunset clause for a different set of reasons, but he thinks that might be what they will also be faced with. A timeline where the special use permit will be reexamined so it’s not indefinitely open. Matt said his other dispensaries have worked with the fire and police departments to make sure that on opening day there’s a coordinated plan for how they’re going to operate. Safety is number one. They are looking for maximum flexibility on the hours because they’re not sure what the site’s going to be going forward. They need to figure it out in terms of the State requirements too. The state has other components –like limiting to 70 hours per week that you can have a dispensary that’s open. The applicant is looking for flexibility to find the sweet spot for revenue, taxes. How to maximize the site. Bill Mctygu e – what is the time frame, considering sunset and the time element? Matt said they’re looking at it from an economic perspective. They’re investing heavily in the redevelopment of the site, the building, the State Licensure process, so if there’s a piece that did sunset, it brings great risk and they’re not sure how they would accommodate that. Stephanie brought up the fact that if the site isn’t functioning correctly anyone can raise an issue within City Hall itself. City Hall can then evaluate it and issue a violation. Then the company would have to come into compliance and deal with that. She feels that mechanism is already in place. Bill Mc Tygue asked if the Special Use Permit is granted to the applicant. Patty Morrison noted that the approval would be an approval of the application and the special use permit would attach to the land. So, it’s issued to the contract vendee (applicant – the people under contract to purchase), but it would run with the land. The SUP would be in place if they ever sold the land after acquiring it. If the project falls through any City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – October 12, 2023 - Page 4 of 9 future user would have to comply with the site plan obligations. They’d have to come back to the Planning Board. Stephanie said some concerns that the Planning Board has can be addressed during the site plan process and be made conditions of the site plan. For example, if the site is not functioning from a traffic standpoint. Chuck –asked if the hours of operation they’re requesting extend to the site and restaurant. Patty said no, they are specific to what they’re seeking a special use permit for. The restaurant doesn’t need a special use permit. Stephanie said they need flexibility with the times because the state keeps changing the rules. They don’t want to limit the SUP because the state will limit it also. Bill Mc tygue addressed Mr. Nielsen’s concerns regarding the limitations of the current septic system and said that all of that would be reviewed and brought up to date. Mike Ingersoll said they redesigned the system when it failed before. They were cited and they were shut down. The new system that’s there is less than 10 years old. Within the existing house they do the laundry and that’ll go away. There will be less impact on the system. But 100% they’ve already talked to the consulting engineers and they’re going to examine the system. If it’s leaking, there’s no question there’s a violation and DOH is involved. The special use is contingent upon applying and receiving site plan approval. The applicant has 18 months to get approval. Mike said they also must go before the Design Review Board and the County. Chuck – in consideration of the Special Use Permit: 1. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan associated with the adopted land use policies and the purpose and intent of the ordinance. The applicant has provided adequate information. It’s appropriately zoned for the use. 2. The proposed use will not endanger the public health, safety, or welfare – type 2 action and when the city adopted the UDO – this is a lawful use, the environmental implications were considered which would have considered the public health, safety and welfare. Once it gets to site plan it can be made an even safer parcel. 3. Density, safety to the neighborhood, vehicular access and accommodation. 4. The existing and future demand on public services. – the existing water line adequately services. No need for additional public infrastructure. The only element would be the private sewer – make sure that it adheres to both city and state or county standards. 5. Environmental and natural resources on site neighboring additional lands, erosion, flooding, excessive noise, vibration, and light - this special use permit enables a site plan which will achieve those elements. Patty Morrison made a motion to grant the Special Use Permit, 2 nd by Kerry Mayo. All in favor . 4- 0 Chuck told applicant the permit was granted they must make application for site plan review . 2. #20230032 , Crescent Ave. and Jefferson St., Site Plan Review of a proposed multi- family residential project to include 212 affordable units and associated site work in the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. Stephanie Ferradino and Sara Drury presente d the project . The parcel is interior to the Racino, fronting Bunny Lake Drive. Stephanie said the overall site plan has not changed that much and that Sara Drury will handle the technical issues. Stephanie said a lot of the reason for the discussion this evening is that the project is a public benefit project, and the UDO seems to have missed any assistance that could be granted. They are a bit constrained with finances and requirements. To the extent possible, Stephanie asked that the Board keep that in the back of their mind. They will be asking for help and relief in certain circumstances. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – October 12, 2023 - Page 5 of 9 For example, on the private drive, Bunny Lake Dr. they will be asking for it to be asphalt instead of concrete. Per the UDO they don’t have to use concrete, so the Board could give some relief with that. Perhaps some of the application fees could be a little lighter. The UDO doesn’t have that. Stephanie displayed a slide of the site plan which they will be referring to throughout the meeting. The following are responses to Staff comments made at the last workshop which were provided to the City and they advance to the County: 1. Updated test pit results they received since the last meeting . The “will serve” letter saying that the County will allow the project’s flows into the sewer system. 2. Site connectivity – slides and discussion to follow 3. CDTA coordination – Stephanie said they talked with CDTA about extending route 451 to the Racino and possibly to the Liberty site if their users need it and that’s part of the universal access program. Once they advance through the State they’ll have better discussions with CDTA. They are less focused on the project right now because the applicant doesn’t have their approvals. 4. Conservation easements - Leah has been working with John Vaginellis on the conservation easement language and she has provided us with modifications to that. County Planning will be hearing this again at their October 19th meeting, so another letter is anticipated before they come before the City Planning Board again. They have received the Open Space Advisory Committee recommendations. Sara Drury, LaBella Associates talked about connectivity recommendations on issues raised by City Planning Board, Staff or the County as it relates to connectivity within the site. “The Board suggested reducing the width of the Boulevard entrance and removing the parallel parking spaces in the front of the building s. Was this change considered? ” Sara said initially she didn’t think so, but she would take a look. There’s a couple of concerns: 1. The parking stalls are strategically there to serve a purpose. The leasing space, package room, mailroom, trash room, elevator, stairs, etc. are all in the front of the building. All those things are the main core. It makes sense to have quick stop parking for UPS and Fedex trucks, and future renters who want to come and look. They only have to pull in the main entrance, park in the front, and go in and deliver their package or take their tour. You don’t want them to have to drive all around the site trying to find a parking spot on a site they’re not familiar with. Those stalls serve a purpose. 2. Other than those who may be looking for a rental it would also serve the renters who live there. Not everyone is handicapped and needs an ADA parking stall, but people do benefit from spaces close to the doors. Expectant mothers, visitors, someone who is picking up their friend. It doesn’t make sense for them to park far away when you could have adequate parking. 3. & 4. The UDO allows for parallel parking stalls if they are 9’x20’ and ours are. The fire department has signed off, they don’t have an issue with them being there on the boulevard. They’ve reviewed our plans, we made minor tweaks to the pavement radii, but no comment was made about the location of the parking stalls. 5. The applicant looked at relocating the parking stalls to an area where they would fit, but to put those10 parking stalls in most of them would push into the wetland buffer, even before grading. Which means it would indirectly be wetland disturbance because it’s a DEC applied buffer. The preference would be to preserve the environment, preserve the wetland buffer to the greatest extent possible and keep them where they are. Stephanie The Nature trail to Jefferson Ave. was raised by the Open Space Advisory Committee. The most significant concern for the applicant is cost. The OSAC already talked about how easy it was to walk through there because of the high tree canopy. The applicant will be clearing an area to put in the sewer. Where the draft path goes through, those 20 acres are going to be dedicated to the City. Stephanie said they recommend that it remain for passive use. If the City wanted to make some improvements to the wetlands crossing, they could make that effort, but Stephanie feels it makes more sense to leave it as is. It will be cleared by the applicant for a sewer pipe which will create a natural path. Recommend that the City look at the site as a whole and program it for whatever use they want to utilize and make improvements based on a long-term plan. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – October 12, 2023 - Page 6 of 9 Sara Drury – The next comment was can we add sidewalks on the north side of the site? This is the same area they discussed about relocating the parking stalls, on the same side. They wanted to know if we could add a sidewalk that runs all along these parking stalls because we have it on the other side as well. The reason we have it on the other side is because it discharges pedestrians onto Bunny Lake Dr. quite easily and adjacent to Crescent Ave. Including a sidewalk on the north side would be a sidewalk to nowhere. In talks with Racino they made it pretty clear that they do not want a sidewalk next to their tower, so we can’t send anyone to our new path through those woods. Chuck asked if the applicant could stripe crosswalks on the asphalt to designated landing spots, collector spots. Chuck does not support the perimeter parking himself. He thinks there should be asphalt crosswalks or striping on the asphalt to designate it and then where you’re doing your development there should be internal sidewalks that direct people to the different nodes. Just his opinion. Chuck thinks that that should be explored more than putting an additional section of sidewalk around the perimeter. Sara said she agrees, and they did. Sara displayed a slide titled “Parking Crosswalks”. In the UDO the city defines it that you have to have internal sidewalks to your site, you need to get pedestrians places safely. They don’t define what safely is, or when they’re applicable to non-roadways. Sara said the next step in the process was to use engineering judgement by going to the MUTCD (traffic control design manual). Their entire crosswalk code is written on intersections, not parking lots. It says that crosswalks should not be used indiscriminately and that they are specific to roadway intersections. All our intersections at the drive aisles do have crosswalks. Sara said they don’t have crosswalks where you cross over from a parking stall because it doesn’t make sense in a low volume, low traffic area. People coming through the site will be the people who live there. If there was another drive aisle that connected to Crescent Ave. and we had a loop, that would probably make more sense because you could have cut through traffic. You’re not going to have cut through traffic here. Sara said they have so many drop curbs in an effort to make this pedestrian friendly, the whole drive aisle is going to be striped. Sara said another question that was discussed asked if they could put a striped lane along the drive aisle. Sara said they can’t because the drive aisle is 24’ wide and they would have to make the drive aisle bigger. It didn’t seem feasible or necessary because there would be so much striping and so many channelized lanes. Instead, people will park their car, look both ways and cross the 24’ drive aisle. Stephanie said the parking is dispersed with great regularity all around the building. Patty asked Chuck why he didn’t like parking on the perimeter. Chuck said he doesn’t support the additional sidewalk on the backside of the parking. He thinks all the sidewalk connections should be internal to where the bldgs. Are. Should be directing people toward the buildings not the perimeter. Sara – talked about connectivity. The last time they were in front of the Board it was brought up by a couple of members that because their site plans are so zoomed in there really wasn’t a cohesive look of what the navigation was around the site. Sara showed some slides with the existing conditions and their project. If somebody from Clubhouse drive wants to get to the Racino, they can currently get there by crossing Jefferson go up and go to the Racino. They can’t get to Cresent Ave. That was brought up because the City received partial funding for the Crescent Ave. Connector project that will be coming at some point. Stephanie said the dashed red areas are where sidewalks already exist and showed another slide “Existing Jefferson Street Sidewalks” which shows between Crescent St. and Crescent Ave where there are sporadic sidewalks. She said there are basically sidewalks near the new buildings and then it jumps the street. Stephanie said directing people in and through the site is much safer. They are proposing to continue that loop which will eventually give them an almost closed loop. Chuck asked Susan if this sidewalk was something the Board could waive. Leah said not on Crescent and Jefferson. It’s a requirement in the UDO that you install walkways. Chuck said from a technical, logistical perspective he doesn’t think installing a sidewalk on Crescent Ave. is achievable on the north side. There’s a very narrow right-of-way before it dips into the drainage swale. Stephanie said they would ask that the Board consider a fee in lieu of like they would do for Crescent Ave. Contribute to the City’s connector funding where the city can utilize those funds to make those connections. Kerry – asked if the trail was a 4-season trail and if it could connect the Jefferson Street sidewalk to the trails they’re putting in. Chuck answered saying they’re looking to not do the trail because it is not economically feasible. Chuck acknowledged that tonight is not a full City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – October 12, 2023 - Page 7 of 9 Board, and the applicant will be coming back so he thinks the recommendation is going to be that the Jefferson segment be installed. He said he believes that would connect to the Crescent Ave. Connector. Sara and the board agreed that the Crescent Ave. sidewalk would likely be a fee in lieu of, and the Jefferson St. sidewalk has issues on both the city maintenance front and a design front. Sara said she’s guessing there’s a reason why that sidewalk was not currently extended to Crescent Ave. She said during SEQRA Clubhouse Drive residents said their street is constantly flooded and underwater. National Grid is saying that their things are getting damaged because of water. Sara agrees that it’s because of the wetlands that abut the property. Very good chance Jefferson Ave. was built through a wetland when it was constructed because there were no regulations back then. Sara said by installing sidewalks you’re raising the grade, basically building a berm which will dam up the wetland creating a low point on Jefferson where you are trapping water that will then go to Clubhouse Drive. She said their plan shows that you would have to put in a catch basin which is in the City r-o-w which the City will have to maintain. Sara said the catch basin will have to daylight to the wetland and if that wetland backs up it’s going to back up the pipe and the catch basin and Jefferson is going to flood. Bill Mctygue – that sidewalk already goes to Clubhouse Drive. Sara said it stops at Clubhouse Drive. Bill said the sidewalk on Jefferson was put in along with the Racino project to accommodate foot traffic from Clubhouse Estates. Chuck said if DPW says they agree with the applicant that the sidewalk should not be constructed in that manner, then he thinks the Board would say the sidewalk should not be constructed and the fee in lieu of would be acceptable. Chuck continued with but if you’re doing a construction project shouldn’t there be an opportunity to make a connection from it? If you put a catch basin on the left side, couldn’t you pipe the water over to the right side? Sara said if you put a catch basin on the left you have to pipe it to the right into the wetland. She said when that wetland backs up it’s going to back up into the pipes. Sara said the other issue is to grade the sidewalk in you would have to disturb the DEC and Federal wetland and the DEC buffer. Sara said you would also be adding City maintenance because infrastructure would have to be installed on a road where they may not want it - they may want it to function the way it is. Bill said the problem exists because of the configuration of the city streets. He said there’s sheet drainage coming across Clubhouse Dr., across Jefferson St. and there’s an existing low point at Clubhouse and Jefferson – that’s a city problem. Chuck recommended that James bring the issue back to DPW that it’s not conceivable. Chuck said if it exacerbates an existing problem, it shouldn’t be on the applicant to mitigate an existing condition they didn’t create. Sara said they are trying to do the right thing and save the wetland and buffer and not give the city a ton of maintenance. Bill said it would be a nice contribution for this project to finish that sidewalk along that side of the street. He said since the City has gone about changing the zoning to make this project possible, he thinks this is a good gesture by this project to finish this sidewalk along the east side of Jefferson Street. Chuck, or come up with the fee that would maybe offer some mitigation for the stormwater, then the sidewalk could come down the Clubhouse side. Stephanie said that if they were to pay fee in lieu of the City can make a determination about what users need to get to Crescent. She said their residents don’t need to get to Crescent, Clubhouse Dr. does. Patty made a comment about who uses the sidewalk saying it’s not about your residents, it's not about the people on Clubhouse, it’s about the community. She said we’re looking to be a connected community. Sara said she feels they’ve demonstrated that they have a connected community through the project, even without the Jefferson connection. Patty said Jefferson is a main thoroughfare, it’s a visual, the city is under a microscope with other applications. Bill said it will provide connectivity to the new trail that’s going to be on the south side of Crescent Ave. Sara said there is also a connection from Bunny Lake. Patty said that someone coming out of Clubhouse is going to want to walk down to the new trail. Sara said they’re also going to have to cross a major intersection that’s unsafe. Sara said you have to consider where the sidewalk discharges to. Chuck the connector proses something like a pedestrian beacon at the Jefferson crescent interchange – a crossing that will be safely done. Chuck said the applicant has demonstrated on their side that it’s unlikely to be feasible to put in the sidewalk. Chuck said he thinks the sidewalk is required, so the mechanism is more the how than the if. Sara agreed. Chuck said it’s up to the City to determine if it can go on the left side or right side and what if anything has to be done. If the city’s getting connector money and the applicant is paying for fee in lieu of on Crescent, then subsequently making a fee in lieu of on Jefferson, with those dollars combined there should be some opportunity to City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – October 12, 2023 - Page 8 of 9 fix some of the drainage issues or else you’re not going to have any connectivity and more of a detriment. He said the Board is not satisfied with not doing the sidewalk on Jefferson, but the “how” is not clear today. Stephanie said they will have to have some discussions with the City about what makes sense. She said let’s have common sense rule the day as opposed to UDO says we ought to do it here. Chuck said the applicant needs to come back with ideas. He said we have DPW rep at this meeting and he can talk about the issues that were raised here tonight. DPW then can come up with some mechanism to work with the applicant. Chuck said he doesn’t see this as a project killer, but the Board is not sold that it can’t be done. Sara said one of the comments they received was that some of the comments from County Planning in May hadn’t been addressed. Sara said they were addressed in the June comments. Summarized: The applicant received a conditional “Will Serve” letter for sanitary sewer asking them to work with DEC Region 5. Sara said they are in the process of working with them. She said it is not a project killer because they already said the pump station can accept the flow. Sara said the 2019 traffic study was gone through in SEQR and everyone reviewed it. Sara said to note that a lot of the 3 bedrooms were removed so that makes up for some of the discrepancies and the casino is seeing lower attendance, especially with the construction of the Schenectady Casino. Sara said when they went through SEQR determined that there was no or little impact. CDTA was already discussed, conversations are happening. Sara said the County brought up parking that parking wasn’t allowed in the building’s front setback. Sara said the UDO says it is not a restriction of the UR-4 so that comment goes away. Sara said they were asked for additional site plans Army Corps verifications for the wetlands, and they supplied all of that. She said they will resubmit to them by the end of the week or Monday of next week in advance of their meeting on the 19th for County planning board. Stephanie said the other area where the Board could be of assistance to their project is by allowing them to construct the connectivity on Bunny Lake Drive with asphalt. She said their obligations for connectivity for pedestrian’s purposes runs to and through the site where they’re purchasing the property. Stephanie said they are proposing to put in connectivity at Bunny Lake at their own cost, through the Racino site to ensure that the sidewalks are connected all the way down and through. They are only obligated to build this component of it. They are voluntarily (price tag ½ million) constructing all the way in and through here. Chuck asked if it was on both sides of the street. Stephanie said just on our side. She said they are asking for that to be asphalt, which is $15 per sq. ft versus concrete at $45 per sq. ft., a significant savings. Chuck asked if the asphalt would be at grade or slightly elevated. Sara said the way it’s drawn now there’s a grass strip where they’re going to grade up and then the asphalt will be slightly higher than the road. There will be 3 feet of grass separation. Bunny Lake right now is just an asphalt, private road. Bill asked if there was parking in there. Sara said there is, and the parking will be striped. Chuck asked why is concrete typically used. Reply - it lasts longer and looks nicer. Sara added that harsh winters and salt eats concrete. She said it is a higher maintenance and cost concern because it is reinforced. Sara said they aren’t required to put a sidewalk on Bunny Lake because it’s private and not a city right of way. She said they’re doing it for connectivity because this is affordable housing, and they want to provide a safe path for people working at the Racino. Patty asked if there had been any discussion with the Racino. Sara said yes, that’s how they came to this. Stephanie said the Racino is not making any financial contribution, and that they’re allowing us to do work on their site. To the tune of ½ million. Bill commented that since you’re in the area of the harness track and their Racino it’s in their interest to have that maintained. Stephanie said they are hoping that there will be a partnership between affordable housing and the Racino. Patty asked if there was sidewalk all the way into the Racino. Stephanie said all of the red dashed area is existing sidewalk which they are going to continue. It’s made of concrete. Sara said there is no technical standard requiring concrete. Stephanie said this is an affordable housing project funded by the state. This is one of those few opportunities to help this project out. Chuck said he wants to wait for a larger contingent of the board. He said from the perspective of including it on the plans or not, the applicant won’t be delayed by lack of decision tonight on this element. Sara said she can’t resubmit to the TDE until they can answer that question. Bill said he doesn’t have any problem with the path being asphalt. Sara said It’s a walkway and not a City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – October 12, 2023 - Page 9 of 9 multi-use path (needs to be 10 feet wide). Their walkway is 5 feet wide. Ten feet wide would disturb more of the mature trees that you’ve asked that they maintain. The Board is fine with the 5-foot path. Chuck would like to see a checklist showing what the next stage is and what they’re coming back with. 1. County comments 2. Conservation easement – Leah said they were provided with a draft, and we provided some very preliminary comments back. They had not yet met with the Board so they didn’t know what the Board wants out of the conservation easement area. It’s undeveloped where it looks like a path going through but it’s really a sewer. As the easement is currently drafted the owner will have no ability to put that to residential, commercial, or industrial use. There is no ability to dump anything, and no ability to mine or disturb the topography of the site. The easement itself is something that the City council will have to agree to and accept so it will be in the City council’s hands. What we’re anticipating for the board to do is if you approve it would be contingent upon a conservation easement given by the owner to the City council in a form acceptable to City council. Leah said the Board may want to have some impact on the provisions before the draft is shared with the City in a formal way. She said for example right now the easement would not permit the City to construct a path if ever it wanted to or to have any sort of pergola, no structures of any kind. They would have no ability to disturb the topography of the site. So that may be something the Board would want to consider. Chuck asked Leah to forward the draft to the Board. He said the things they would want to include would be the ability for the applicant to install the sewer as depicted. Leah said that passive recreation is allowed. It would be for the purpose of allowing members of the public to enter the site (not to the exclusion of the people who live there). Chuck – don’t want structures. Patty all along there was a path on the northern part of the property. Why was that taken out? Sara said the path can be built but it’s going to go over wetlands. Sara said there will be a 5 ft swath for the sewer but no formal surfacing on the path. They will need a disturbance permit for that. Chuck asked if once you’re disturbing the wetland, is there a post-disturbance surfacing (restoration). Does your restoration permit differ if you’re putting a path? Sara said they want to see you put it back to wetland, unless you include in your permit that you are going to surface it. She said it’s a harder process to get them to approve than to just say we’re putting a sewer through here, 5ft wide, 40 ft long and we’re going to put the wetland back on top. Which is the current proposal. Then it will fill back in naturally. Bill said he thinks people shouldn’t be allowed in there. If you open the pathway up into the wetland and wooded area, you’ll create an attractive nuisance. Patty clarified that Leah is asking the board how we want the conservation easement structured. Stephanie commented that there is a significant change in the affordable housing realm with the ability to get insurance for things like these types of paths. She said sometimes insurance is doubling in one year. It is also becoming very difficult to even get insurance. She asked if the Board could leave it for passive recreation with no structures on it. This would inadvertently be helpful to the applicant because it helps limit their liability insurance constraints, which is another financial component to this project. Chuck recommends leaving it on and let the two missing Board members, Mark and Mark return and let them have the final say. The Board consensus is that the path was supposed to be there. It’s easier to leave on and take off than to take off and have to add back. Chuck said this will be a very deliberate discussion at the next meeting. Leah said the applicant drafted a document that they forwarded to her that was not circulated Board. Chuck asked Leah to upload the next draft to laserfiche and tell us that it’s there. Chuck summarized. 1.Easement 2. Sidewalk at Jefferson and that’s an applicant /DPW conversation – the Board is supportive of Crescent Avenue payment in lieu of. Jefferson street does not have the same support for fee in lieu of. The Board would have to know the mechanics of what the fee in lieu of looks like. Chuck said as a resident of the city, I would hope that the fee in lieu of for Crescent could stay within the same project and help to mitigate some of the concerns on Jefferson. 3. Will leave the additional sidewalk as asphalt unless the majority of the Board (including those not here) want to change it. At that point you change and go to concrete. There is general agreement that asphalt was an acceptable solution at this time. Chuck said he doesn’t see any other outstanding City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – October 12, 2023 - Page 10 of 9 items for them to come back with. Sara mentioned that the visitor parking, as long as it doesn’t change the total parking count, shouldn’t be a problem with zoning. As long as it still counts toward the 318 parking stalls. Chuck said sidewalks should be internal to the buildings and parking lots. We’re not supportive of the perimeter sidewalks. Stephanie thanked the Board for sticking around for the dialog because it helps them advance to the next meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Chuck Marshall, Acting Board Chair, adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – October 12, 2023 - Page 11 of 9