Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2023 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Mark Torpey, Chair called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mark Torpey, Bill McTygue, Patty Morrison, Kerry Mayo ABSENT : Mark Pingel (Vice Chair), Todd Fabozzi, Charles (Chuck ) Marshall STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, James Salaway, Principal Engineering Tech, Mark Schachner, 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. #20230771, 75 Weibel Special Use Permit for a Marijuana Dispensary in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District Mark Torpey, Chair noted that this is an adaptive reuse of an existing structure - Type 2 SEQR action, so SEQR will not be part of the Board’s deliberation. Gavin Vuillaume , Environmental Design represented the applicant, Spa City Cannabis (was Excelsior Cannabis, LLC). Gavin distributed new maps to the Board members. The property is 1.03 acres on the western side of Weibel Ave., Tractor Supply is to the north, the landfill is to the south, lands of Niagara Mohawk to the rear. The building is currently half occupied with a dentist’s office on the northern portion of the building (larger rectangle near the entrance drive). The applicant is looking to occupy the smaller section on the south side of the building. They are not proposing any new parking. There is a very large field to the south of the existing building reserved for additional parking. The site has sewer and water service. There’s a sidewalk to the rear of the building where most of the main entrances are located. The applicant and Planning are discussing placing an additional sidewalk on the south side of the building to be used as direct access to the cannabis store. Gavin said they would place a small sign plaque on the existing sign at the front of the building near the driveway. Josh Silver, Spa City Cannabis opened a cannabis dispensary in 2019 in Williamstown, MA. Josh said he has opened 7 dispensaries across Massachusetts, Maine, and Vermont. They are currently developing an eighth dispensary in the City of Boston. He said they have retrofitted other buildings for their dispensaries. Josh said the changes will be mostly cosmetic – new floors, change out lighting fixtures and replace counter tops. They will install a security system that will consist of cameras inside and out with a battery back-up system. They will have burglar alarms. The inventory will be stored in an “employees only” area behind the counter. Josh said they have implemented an order ahead system where customers can order online and then come and pick up their purchase packaged for them. Josh said this gives the dispensary flexibility with controlling the flow of customers. Mark Torpey asked Josh if there were any issues or challenges that stand out to him in his experience with the other dispensaries. Josh said traffic and parking are always a concern with planning boards. He said they have had good relationships with Town managers in the communities where they’re located and haven’t had any complaints about adverse impacts. Mark said with a recent cannabis dispensary applicant in the City they issued a temporary Special Use Permit for 12 months to reexamine how things were going. Josh agreed that was fine with him, he has no problem with checking back in to see if there are any issues to be addressed. Bill McTygue said the city had installed methane gas collection wells on the south side of the building at the edge of the landfill and asked if that would be a mitigation issue for the applicant. Gavin said no, they’re far away from their dispensary. Bill said he believes they’re near the applicant’s future gravel parking area. Josh said they have cleared the area they are proposing for overflow parking and there’s none in that specific area. He said they will make sure they are located before any official parking goes into that area. Patty Morrison said she would like to see site plan review on the project with the one-year review clause as was done with the previous approved dispensary. Patty asked if site plan could be done on a property already in use. She said she drove to the property and felt trees, sidewalks and signage would need to be discussed at site plan review if allowed. Mark Torpey said if the Board moves forward with site plan review it would include all the components Patty mentioned. Patty asked what the hours of operation would be. Josh Silver said 10 to 8, 7 days per week. Patty asked about lighting and Josh said they’re not proposing any additional lighting. Patty asked what the percentage was for ordering ahead of time for pick-up. Josh said it depends on where they’re located but generally about 60 to 70 percent. He said during Covid they were 100% order ahead and now they encourage people to order that way. Patty asked if the applicant had spoken with the neighboring business (dentist). Josh said he had not, but the landlord has. Patty asked how they control foot traffic. Josh said their customers tend to be repeat business and they order ahead. Kerry Mayo noted that the previously approved dispensary with the one-year site plan review was on an existing property as well. There were some traffic concerns that had to be worked out. Kerry asked the applicant if they tend to be very busy when they first open. Josh said business starts off slow and then ramps up. He said there are legal dispensaries within 30 miles of this proposed location in another state and they need to win those customers back. Mark Torpey mentioned to Susan Barden, Planner that there were 3 separate parcels identified on the schematic and he wondered if there is a lot line consolidation being considered. Susan said not at this time, but it may be discussed in the future when the applicant returns. Mark Torpey noted the same landowner owns all three parcels (Stone Family) as well as Stone Drive which is across the street at the end of the third parcel. He said there will eventually be a large development project there with residential units and some mixed use. Mark said this would be a great opportunity to provide a sidewalk connection down at the end of the third parcel allowing for a future mid-block crossing across Weibel Ave. where pedestrians could safely cross and shop. Mark said he understands that Josh is the tenant but thought it would be great if he could get the owner to the Board to talk about extending the sidewalk at that location. Josh said the owner would likely be in favor if Josh paid for it, which he is happy to do. Mark asked if there was any need for additional striping in the back of the building. Josh said no, it’s in pretty good shape. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 26, 2023 - Page 2 of 9 Mark Torpey said he thinks this is a more manageable site than the larger mall area dispensary that the Board looked at previously. It’s more contained, less safety issues, etc. Mark said he’s inclined to push off the site plan review and provide a temporary Special Use Permit for a year. Then after that period perform site plan review. This would give the applicant time to gather operational data to come back to the Board. Patty said she would be open to that if the site plan review was required. Patty noted that the applicant would still have to go to the Design Review Board for signage. The Board decided that the 12 months would start from the day the business becomes operational. Mark Torpey, Chair opened the Public Hearing at approximately 6:32 p.m. Hearing no comments from the public, the Public Hearing was closed at approximately 6:32 p.m. Mark Torpey, Chair said the Board is inclined to support the application. Mark said personally he feels this is a great opportunity for the city and he appreciates the applicant bringing the project forward. Mark Torpey said the Board would use the same approach that they used with the Washington Ave. dispensary, where they would provide a temporary Special Use Permit for a 12-month period, commencing from operation and a certificate of occupancy. During the 12 months the applicant should gather information on traffic flow, number of customers, necessary improvements, etc. to provide that data for the formal site plan review. Mark also suggested that the applicant have a conversation with Planning Staff to find out key things that the applicant can provide that would help the Board make an informed decision. Mark noted that the Board would like to see the digital queuing program to take pre-orders formally in place. Mark Torpey said he would like to see the continuation of the sidewalk down to the southern end of the third parcel which would eventually connect to the residential area across the street sometime in the future. This could be discussed at site plan in 12 months. Josh said they would be installing the sidewalk alongside the building, so it makes sense to have the crew install the connector sidewalk at the same time. Mark noted that the applicant will have to talk with the owner of the property to discuss details about the sidewalk installation. A motion was made by Kerry Mayo to approve the Special Use Permit as requested with the stipulations that were just discussed. The motion was seconded by Patty Morrison. There was no further discussion on the motion. Motion carried 4-0. 2. 20230868 , 2356 Route 50 Sketch Site Plan for construction of a 30,450 sq. ft. place of worship and associated site work in the Gateway Commercial – Rural (GC-R) district. Mark Torpey, Chair said the Board is here to provide advice to the applicant about the project – a two- story place of worship. Scott Lansing, Lansing Engineering , representing the applicant (Dave, Tim & Isaac from Grace Fellowship). Looking for feedback from the Board to move forward with implementing that information into the plan. The site at 2356 Route 50 is located directly across the street from the access to the Environmental Conservation offices on the west side of Route 50. The overall parcel is approximately 5.09 acres and is zoned Gateway Rural Commercial. Scott noted that there is a drainage channel, a portion of which is an Army Corps wetland that has been delineated and is outlined on the proposed Grace Fellowship Site Plan. They are proposing a 50’ buffer around the wetland. They are proposing a 2-story building of approximately 30,000 sq. ft. The footprint will be 20,000 sq. ft. with a 10,000 sq. ft. second story for administrative offices. The remaining 10,000 sq, ft. would be for a sanctuary area with a higher ceiling. Access for the parcel is proposed to line up with the access for the ENCON City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 26, 2023 - Page 3 of 9 offices across the street. They are proposing a circular drop off area at the front of the building where there will be an overhang for protection from the elements. There will be parking in front for handicapped people, Senior Citizens and people who would need close access to the building. The balance of the parking is around the structure. Parking calls for one stall for every 300 sq. ft. of office space and one stall for every 10 seats. They are proposing 350 seats, making the overall parking ordinance requirement 103 parking stalls. They are proposing 144 parking stalls, which will be further discussed. Scott said public water (Village of Ballston Spa – per James Salaway ) is available on Route 50. The public (City of Saratoga Springs) sewer line is down the road (about 2,000 to 2,500 linear ft.) and would have to be extended to the site. Stormwater is proposed to be managed on site at the back of the parcel. Scott said he would like to discuss some of the comments from the previous week’s Public Workshop: Banked parking – the applicant will substantiate the parking and banked parking based on numbers from their other facilities. Parking over 20% typically goes to ZBA so they will look and determine what the parking is for and if they need to go to the ZBA. Signage details – Scott said they would like to push that more toward preliminary final. There probably would be a monument sign by the access and the rest in accordance with the City Ordinance. Screen entrance drive – Scott said they found a picture in the UDO and discussed with the applicants who are on board with achieving the goals of the UDO as far as screening the access drive and providing some plantings along the frontage. Buffer to the rear of the parcel – there are train tracks immediately behind the parcel with a residential zone beyond that. The applicant is proposing to shield their facility from the railroad track which will also provide a buffer to the residential zone. Zim Smith Trail Connection – Scott spoke with Jason Kemper, Saratoga County Planning Department, to get information regarding the proposed Zim Smith Trail Northern Extension. The trail currently ends far south of the applicant’s site but there are future plans to extend it further north. Scott said the proposed trail would be over the railroad tracks and across private property from the applicant’s site so alternatives could be discussed in the future. Site lighting – will be downward and dark sky compliant. This can be addressed again during the preliminary final. Request for applicants to c ontact property owners to the south – will do so as the project advances. Scott said there is vegetation along that property line that will be maintained and enhanced is needed. Mark Torpey, Chair opened it up to questions from the Board. Bill McTygue noted that there’s no way the railroad would allow any connection to the Zim Smith trail across the railway. The buffering across the back is adequate. Contact the neighbors to the south and they’re all set. Patty Morrison said it looks great and she appreciates the applicant addressing all the workshop items. Patty clarified with the other board members that the project will go to the Design Review Board. She likes that the parking in the back. Patty said the plan looks solid. Kerry Mayo asked what other uses there might be within the building. Isaac Denton, current campus Pastor of the Saratoga location (165 High Rock Ave) of Grace Fellowship said functions throughout the week are mostly evening activities, mostly adults, with students on Wednesday evenings and services on Sunday mornings. Isaac said they have four full-time staff who work throughout the week. Mark Torpey asked Susan Barde n if there were any uses that are not allowed that the Board needs to be aware of in the GCR. Susan said the proposed uses are allowed. She added that because the property abuts a residential district a larger rear and side setback is required. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 26, 2023 - Page 4 of 9 Mark Torpey asked how the project moves forward procedurally between the Planning Board and Design Review. Mark is trying to save the applicant from going back and forth between the two boards with different purview. Susan said once formal applications are submitted, the PB would need to issue the Special Use Permit first, then the applicant could seek Site Plan Review and DRB Architectural Review at the same time. Mark Torpey suggested that when the applicant comes up with their final iteration, they contact Planning and see how they could coordinate the timing between the two boards (planning & DRB) in the most efficient manner. Patty Morrison asked why the parking was 40 spots over the requirement. Scott said he would discuss that with the applicant and analyze it more closely. They will work on tightening it up to avoid having to go to Zoning for a variance. Bill McTygue had questions regarding sewer and water line extensions. James Salaway said the public water is coming from the Village of Ballston Spa. Scott said the City of Saratoga Springs is providing sewer. Bill said the county sewer line is nearby and asked why they couldn’t connect at that location. Scott said that would require crossing the railroad tracks. Mark Torpey clarified with Susan that sidewalks are required per the UDO and the Planning Board cannot waive that requirement. He asked if a fee in lieu of would be appropriate in this case. He said funds could be appropriated elsewhere in the city where there is a sidewalk need. This will be discussed later at site plan review. 3. 2023084 7- 395 Broadway two-story addition Sketch site plan review for a proposed addition to an existing commercial building and associated site work in the Urban Core (T-6) district. Mark Torpey, Chair said the Board is providing advice and guidance on a Sketch Plan approval for 395 Broadway – addition to an existing building. Mark said this project is a SEQR action Type II because they will not be expanding the footprint but adding on vertically. Scott Lansing, Lansing Engineering , Brett Balzer & Shawn Corp, Balzer Tuck Architecture. The overall parcel is 0.8 acres, the former Borders location. Scott showed images of the existing building from various directions and pedestrian viewpoints. Scott displayed the existing survey and showed an easement in the back of the building that allows access to the parking lot behind the structure. There are three access points to parking as it exists right now. Scott said the front of the parcel has two planted areas -one with lower lying shrubs, the other with a tree in questionable condition. Scott said the parking lot would be modified, with two of the access points removed, leaving one access point from Division Street. Scott said that would secure the parking area. They are proposing fencing and plantings around the perimeter of the parking area. They are also proposing an amenity space/civic space in the upper corner by Woodlawn in the intersection area. The main access in would have a gate with combination for the overall parking area. Scott said the code does not require parking for vehicles, but it does for bicycles. Thirteen spaces are required for bicycles, ten of which can be exterior (civic area) and three secured spaces (back of the building). For the amenity area they are proposing pavers, green plantings, benches, and a fence with plantings in the background. Scott said the applicant is working with the utility company to have four utility poles eliminated and put in the ground to help with beautification of the Division St. area. For the front civic area, they are proposing three canopies extending off the building out into the right-of-way which they will need to coordinate approval for with DPW. Other improvements include deciding whether the mature tree in one of the two planting areas needs to be replaced or retained, additional plantings, and sitting areas. Scott said the grade in that area is relatively sharp, so they are proposing a set of steps between the two planting areas that are centered to the building. They have proposed ADA access around the sides of that. Scott said the building is an existing two-story structure which Shawn Corp will talk about. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 26, 2023 - Page 5 of 9 Brett Balzer, Balzer Tuck Architecture said they received mass and scale approval from the Design Review Board on October 20th and will be returning to DRB for final approval. The DRB asked if they could move the proposed entrance for Prime Group Holdings from the corner and center it on the building and put retail on the corner in its place. He said Prime Construction would also have frontage along Broadway. Brett said the Preservation Foundation also commented that they would like to see retail pulled to the front corner of the building. Mark Torpey asked how the use of this structure compares with the building owned by Prime Holdings located across from Congress Park on So. Broadway (approved condominiums). Brett said there were several approvals required for the So. Broadway project and it was going to take quite a while to build. There was an urgency to get Prime Group under roof because they have over 200 employees in Saratoga. The Fingerpaint building became available for purchase, so they jumped at the chance to purchase it to become Prime Group Headquarters. They expect to house all their employees at their 395 Broadway site. Brett said it hasn’t been decided what will happen with the So. Broadway site. Brett showed renderings that have yet to be shared with the DRB. They added glass to the seven existing bays on the front and side of the building along Broadway and Division Streets, further accentuating the arches on the bottom two stories. Brett said they are proposing to add two stories above that. The perimeter footing and walls for the building will remain intact. Because those walls can’t bear any more weight, they will essentially build within the building by threading through the existing structure with new steel columns and footings. Bill McTygue asked about accessing the rock underneath to pour new footings. Brett said you will see rock and they have drawings that will show how that will be done. Bill McTygue asked about lighting along the street. Scott Lansing said they haven’t quite gotten that far but it will be according to city standards. Patty Morrison asked if it was necessary to close in the parking area with one access and a gate. Brett said Prime Holdings wants to retain that parking for their employees. The public have tended to use the parking at that location in the past even though it was not for the use of the public. Patty said it would be ideal if the utility poles can be eliminated. She’s very happy to see all the improvements – trees, plantings. Patty asked if the community space meets the requirement for size. Scott said the Code says 5% of the total lot area is required, which in this instance equals 1,737 sq. ft. The area in the back by Division St. is about 600 sq. ft. and 3600 sq. ft. on the front portion of the building, which far exceeds what is required. Patty asked Susan about the procedure for approving awnings, benches, etc. Susan said the applicant will work with DPW regarding right-of-way and a license or easement for the awnings. The PB’s review of the site plan would be contingent on those items and Design Review Board recommendations. Brett said awnings are allowed provided they have signage. They need DPW approval to do that. Patty said her feedback to DPW would be in favor of awnings. Kerry Mayo said he would like to see screening or hedges along the parking lot and a lot of attention given to the two planting areas in the front of the building. Mark Torpey asked for clarification that the awnings extend beyond the property line and above. Brett said the awnings on either side of the main entry extend 5’ and the center awning extends 7’ (the maximum that it can extend). Mark said when the applicant returns, he’d like to hear more about the civic space and see how that lays out. Mark clarified that the 14 parking spaces mentioned in the applicant’s narrative are public spaces and not designated for anyone. Scott said they included them as an accounting of parking near the building. Mark said he likes the setback and dark color. Brett said their goal is to be filing for a permit by the end of this year and to begin building in the spring of next year, dependent on the permitting process. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 26, 2023 - Page 6 of 9 Bill McTygue said for the applicant to promote this idea and take over this building and enhance it in a very significant way is a wonderful economic addition to Broadway, especially at that particular corner. 4. #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. Mark Torpey, Chair said the Board is providing site plan review of the Liberty Affordable Housing Project at Crescent Ave. and Jefferson St. in the UR-4 district. Mark said the board will focus on some of the outstanding issues relative to sidewalks, trails, mixed-use multi paths and connectivity. As an affordable housing project, it’s key to the Board that the applicant provides a safe and efficient way for people to walk, ride their bike and get to the city. Mark said because the project is a little further out from downtown it’s important to make it feel linked in. The Board received a letter from James Salaway, City Engineer, providing the DPW’s perspective which will be discussed. Mark Torpey said the class B 3-acre offering of passive land punctuates the corner of Crescent and Jefferson and provides a focal point for cyclists and pedestrians. A safe means of getting people across Crescent. There’s a need and a plan for extending along the south side of Crescent Ave. so getting over to that area that’s going to be the main thoroughfare for folks to get to the park I think is key. That offer also allowed the applicants not to have to pay the rec fees – 450,000. Significant savings with that class b offering. Let’s do the best that we can with this new anchor point. Susan Barden said the County Planning Board referral is in place. Presenters: Stephanie Ferradino, Sara Drury, LaBella Stephanie Ferradino talked about the resolved and outstanding issues from the last meeting. Resolved : Saratoga County Planning Board vote – Susan gave the overview of the SCPB discussion which was unanimously in favor of the project. Northern sidewalks – it was discussed whether to put sidewalks near the few parking spaces close to the Racino – consensus was that they weren’t necessary. The sidewalks would touch the buffer and would create some wetland issues. Also, the sidewalk didn’t lead anywhere. Stephanie said Racino is also concerned about bringing people near the cell tower in that area. Crescent fee in lieu of sidewalks – the applicant advocated for fee in lieu of for sidewalks on the northern side of Crescent Ave. because of the site constraints. Boulevard parking – signage – the applicant agreed to incorporate signage on the boulevard for one hour parking. Sara said the parking spaces are close to the leasing office, mailroom, trash, etc. Mark Torpey expressed concern over visibility at the crosswalk. Sara said the crosswalk is raised about 4” and there is a concrete space in the island as a median so you can cross and take a break in the middle. Stephanie listed the outstanding issues: Jefferson sidewalks – Bunny Lake – asphalt or concrete – the Board is fine with the asphalt. Mark said because Bunny Lake is a private road, there’s flexibility with respect to City standards so a multi-use path/asphalt is acceptable. It just must be wide enough to accommodate the use. He said the Board talked about having it extend from Crescent across the front of the property all the way to the Racino. Stephanie showed a slide of that configuration. Path through Conservation Easement – Use of the Class B Lands City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 26, 2023 - Page 7 of 9 Stephanie said they have a large gap in their funding and are looking for all available resources to close that gap. She said they have started conversations with the City Council regarding the absence of assistance for affordable housing projects in the UDO. Stephanie said the UDO is geared toward private development. This project is 100% public benefit for work force housing. One example she cited is $80,000 in application fees (applicant paid $54,000 for site plan, $10,000 for zoning amendment, $11,300 for designated engineer). Stephanie highlighted some of the discretionary actions – utilization of the fee in lieu of sidewalks, lower application fees, applying application or other fees to support the project, waivers of some requirements (asphalt vs concrete) – Stehanie said that saved a huge amount of funds for them with the cost of concrete at $45 per sq. ft. vs asphalt at $15 per sq. ft. They are very grateful for that. Lastly, for the city to fix their own drainage problems. Stephanie said one of the asks is for the applicant to construct the sidewalk along Jefferson which would eliminate one of their funding sources. The Federal funding source says they cannot apply for those funds if they’re doing anything to affect the wetlands. If you check all the boxes that funding source could be $125,000 per unit - potentially$26.5 million dollars. Stephanie said the city can do the work, but they can’t as the applicant because it would mess up their funding measure. Mark Torpey clarified that the applicant could pay a fee in lieu of that would cover the entire cost of the sidewalk project. Stephanie agreed. James Salaway said he doesn’t think the City has any interest in putting that connection across the wetland. Stephanie said it’s her understanding that the fee in lieu of would be 50,000 to 60,000 which represents the cost for the city to construct the sidewalk. Sara explained further that if their project touches federal or state wetlands then they are not eligible to apply for that funding. It won’t matter if it’s on the applicant’s property or not because it's tied to their project. Sara said the city is not subject to the same hurdles and it is city property. She said the cost for the applicant to install the sidewalk would be $265,211 vs the City’s cost $50,000+. There was a discussion about the applicant being required to pay a fee in lieu of for Crescent St. sidewalks that are along a County Road and will likely never be built because of a steep ravine that runs alongside the street. There is no possible waiver for the fee in lieu of for Crescent. It was suggested that the City take the fee for Crescent ($150,000) and use it to build the sidewalk on Jefferson and fix the drainage, all of which is on City owned property. Stephanie cited UDO Section 18.5.C “The requirement of a sidewalk may be waived for a fee-in-lieu payment when existing conditions do not allow…”. The existing conditions are: State and Federal wetlands – UDO, Drainage patterns, and Drainage Structures ($11,500). Sara cited section 7 of the UDO which states “no paved surfaces are permitted on land within 100 feet of lands and waters identified as Class I and Class II Freshwater Wetlands by…DEC or within 50 linear feet of federal wetlands”. Sara said their property touches the wetland so they can’t build the sidewalk and meet the UDO. Bill McTygue clarified with the applicant that the sidewalk would be built within the city right-of- way which would be touching wetland. Sara agreed with that clarification. The city can touch the wetland because they’re not subject to their own UDO. Patty Morrison asked what if the Planning Board agrees with the fee in lieu of for Crescent (required) which could pay to put sidewalks on Jefferson and then DPW says they don’t want to do it? James said his understanding with sidewalk in the right of way next to the wetlands - either the applicant or city would need to go to DEC to see if a sidewalk can even be put in there. James said based on what they said about the HCR funding with the catch basin, which is shown to outlet into the wetland, they would not be able to put anything in there. Patty said no matter what they need to get the DPW and DEC side of it. James suggested getting something in writing from DEC and the funding sources that shows that the applicant cannot do either of those things due to the wetlands there. Then the fee in lieu of is fine with DPW. Sara said DEC won’t tell them that they can’t do it, that they need to mitigate it one for one if you disturb more than one tenth of an acre. DEC decides what the applicant would need to mitigate to. She said if the sidewalk piece is removed then they are still eligible for funding because they can directionally drill instead of trench digging. Sara said her question to the funding agency would be does the buffer count as the wetland or is it just the wetland itself, it would just City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 26, 2023 - Page 8 of 9 depend on the length of directionally drilling. She said if the sidewalk is included then it’s not valid anymore. If the City is less than a tenth of an acre to install the sidewalk they won’t have to mitigate. Sara said if they wanted the sidewalk up against the roadway they could. Sara answered Bill McTygue that the wetlands are Army Corp and DEC. Patty Morrison asked again what happens if the Board accepts fee in lieu of and DPW can’t do the sidewalk for some reason, what happens then? Sara will send James a copy of the form that says the applicant will lose their federal funding if they touch the wetlands to build the sidewalk. Bill McTygue suggested that the applicant and DPW come to agreement about doing the sidewalk. That will be discussed further. Mark Torpey suggested they move on to the nature trail to Jefferson. Mark asked if there were additional wetlands on the applicant’s property that they were encroaching on. Sara said there are two small, isolated wetlands at the Bunny Lake entrance that they need to get the interpretation from the funding language to see if isolated wetlands count toward that total. Sara said if the funding source is jeopardized, they’ll get a new plan. Sara said she’ll also need to clarify the buffers. Mark asked if any of the parking is in the buffer zone. Sara said no because there was a UDO requirement that they had to stay 100 feet away with paved surfaces. Sara said if the sewer line gets directionally drilled, there’s a pipe with a flared end section that discharges to one of the isolated wetlands from their detention basin. If that’s a problem, they’ll find a new spot to discharge that pipe away from the wetland. Mark asked Sara if they would be in jeopardy of losing their federal funding source because of the isolated wetlands elsewhere. Sara said no. Kerry Mayo asked why the nature trail doesn’t have the same wetland limitations. Sara said if they constructed the trail, they would have the same limitations because they would be touching the wetland. If the city does it, they would have to talk to DEC. Putting anything on the surface or digging on the surface counts as a disturbance. If that is part of the applicant’s project, then they would have the funding problem as well. Directionally drilling for the sewer would go underground so it doesn’t count. James said he thought the applicant had a permit to trench dig. Sara said they hadn’t applied for a DEC permit yet because they were waiting to see what was going to happen with the Jefferson Street sidewalks. Once they have that answer, they’ll move forward with the permitting process. Mark Torpey asked the applicant what they can do with regard to the Jefferson nature trail without jeopardizing their federal funding. Sara answered that they can directionally drill under the wetlands, that’s it. A discussion ensued among the Board members about when the Jefferson Street trail came off the table and went on to the Jefferson Street sidewalks. Bill McTygue read a memo from DPW that says that they do not want a nature trail to Jefferson through the woods. DPW doesn’t want to be obligated to maintain a path through the wetlands. Stephanie noted that a lot of things have changed over the two-year period that this project has been in the works. Interest rates have gone up. Stephanie said recently the City has lost its ability to get liability insurance, which would be required for the city and the applicant with a conservation easement, and liability insurance for affordable housing is super volatile with increases of 25% or more. Stephanie said in 3 years premium increases specific to affordable housing are 30-100%. Mark Torpey summarized the discussion saying that everyone is in agreement that a sidewalk on Jefferson would be a good thing. Everyone agrees that the passive Class B donation of land on the 3- acre corner is a good thing. Mark asked James if the city had agreed to be the recipient of Class B passive uplands at the corner of Jefferson and Crescent. Mark said there are 20 acres of conservation easement, three acres of which are uplands identified as class B open space land that he assumes the city would have to take ownership of to satisfy the UDO. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 26, 2023 - Page 9 of 9 The remaining 17 acres could be held in private property with the city having the ability to enforce any cuttings, etc. Mark said he thinks the city would have to accept the 3-acre donation. Mark suggested a more detailed conversation with DPW and the applicant to figure out the details. Patty Morrison said she would like the Planning Board’s recommendation to DPW to include the sidewalk on Jefferson. Patty said it’s not just for the affordable housing property, it’s for anyone coming down the street. Mark Torpey said for him it would be the sidewalk on Jefferson, a potential trail from the development to Jefferson, acceptance of open space class B land at the corner, and the safe crossing from that corner to the south side of Crescent Ave. so people can safely walk to the park. James Salaway said the biggest issue that DPW has is the maintenance associated with the nature trail. Trails get approved and there become discrepancies about who’s responsible to maintain them. James said that DPW has had to maintain trails that are not their responsibility stretching their budget and employees very thin. Mark asked who maintains the trail through the wetlands at Excelsior Park that goes to Spring Run. Answer – HOA. Sara said they can’t put the trail in. Mark said no, but they could maintain it without jeopardizing funding. Mark Torpey said he wouldn’t feel comfortable deciding tonight, even with it contingent on DPW and city engineer approval. Mark said he thinks it requires more discussion to make sure everyone is on board and comfortable with the decision. With the spirit of taking an affordable housing project and providing safe connections to the city it seems important to have further discussions about the limitations with DPW, some PB members, the applicant. Mark Schachner added that they should also discuss whether the city council is willing to accept the 3-acre Class B donation. James asked for clarification on the nature trail. It can’t be installed by the applicant because it would jeopardize their federal funding. DPW would install the trail and there would need to be further discussion on who would be responsible for maintaining it once it’s in place. Mark Torpey said yes, and it would also include the sidewalk on Jefferson. It needs to be decided what materials, who installs it and who maintains it for the proposed nature trail, Jefferson Street sidewalk and 3-acre Class B uplands. Susan will coordinate a meeting with DPW, 2 Planning Board members, the applicants, and their experts to discuss the issues further. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Chuck Marshall, Acting Board Chair, adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:42 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 26, 2023 - Page 10 of 9