Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200574 Excelsior Park SUP SUP modification 10-15-18 CARTER I CON BOY ATTORNEYS AT LAW M. Elizabeth Coreno Director Email: lcoreno@carterconboy.com October 16, 2018 Mark Torpey, Chairman City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs,NY 12866 Re: Excelsior Park Special Use Permit Modification Application Excelsior Park, LLC Dear Chairman Torpey: Our office represents Excelsior Park, LLC (the "Applicant") with respect to the above reference Special Use Permit Modification application(the "Application") currently pending before the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board (the"Board"). As part of the review process, the Board also undertook a review the entire Excelsior Park master plan under SEQRA via a positive declaration which resulted in an Environmental Impact Statement (the "EIS") and a Statement of Findings for the entirety of the project in 2002. The original Special Use Permit (the "Permit") was approved by the Board in 2002 for the entirety of the site and then the same with the Phase 1 site plan in 2004. In the years since the original approvals, two of the proposed four phases have been developed at the site and market conditions have resulted in the need to project modifications to enable Excelsior Park to meet the new conditions. Therefore, in November of 2017,the Applicant filed the Application and proposed changes to the Special Use Permit which must be reviewed under the SEQRA Statement of Findings. In order to assist in the review of the changed conditions and the original Findings, we have undertaken a review of the EIS to outline those findings which we believe are germane to the changes and to provide the technical data relevant to the changes. We request that this letter be considered as part of the Long EAF filed with the Application on November 8, 2017. A. The SEQRA Process As a threshold matter, the manner in which the project changes are reviewed under the SEQRA regulations by the Board is important to the framework of the information provided by the Applicant. Once a Statement of Findings has been adopted by the Lead Agent, any changes to the project requires a determination whether the project change "may result in one or more CARTER, CONBOY, CASE, BLACKMORE, MALONEY & LAIRD, P.C. 20 Corporate Woods Blvd.,Suite 500,Albany,NY 12211 I TEL 518.465.3484 I FAX 518.465.1843 I carterconboy.corn City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board October 16, 2018 Page 2 significant environmental impacts not addressed in the original EIS."' While it our position that our proposed changes do not alter the scope of the original EIS and do not result in one or more significant environmental impacts which would necessitate a Supplemental EIS, it is our obligation to provide the information necessary for the Board to evaluate such a position independently. Therefore, our team has prepared a list of project changes and what, if any, impacts to the original findings are implicated. We have also provided a list of thresholds for which no changes are implicated. From there, it is our hope that the Board, as lead agent, will determine that no supplemental EIS is necessary. B. The Changed Conditions Attached to this letter is a table containing the SEQRA findings and thresholds from the Statement of Findings from 2002. The most notable change to the project from 2002 to present is in regard to the non-residential square footage of the development. The original EIS allowed for 130,000 square feet of non-residential development (so long as 20,000 square feet was for office or manufacturing uses), including office, small scale commercial, light manufacturing, institutional uses, a hotel, daycare center, health and beauty spa, and limited neighborhood type retail. Since 2002, 76,000 square feet of nonresidential development has been approved and completed at the site. The Applicant proposes to develop an additional 147,600 square feet (including the 54,000 square feet remaining from the original permit) for a total of 223,600 square feet of nonresidential space or a net increase of 93,600 square feet of nonresidential space on the site. While the increase in square footage represents a changed condition, estimates for any additional traffic, utilities and stormwater are within the SEQRA thresholds from 2002 and compliance with those threshholds will be confirmed through the site plan approval process. Additionally, the Applicant has submitted an Engineering Report on Water and Sanitary Sewer from The LA Group with its application which indicates the anticipated demand for water and sanitary sewer at the site, along with confirmation that the existing pump station for the site will be able to meet the expected capacity demands found in the Report. The Applicant has also submitted a traffic analysis for the proposed modification from Greenman-Pederson, Inc. which indicated the increase on traffic to and from the site by the proposed modifications are still within the volume thresholds based upon the traffic mitigation requirements in the 2002 special use permit. The second change to the project is with respect to the number of residential units at the site. Under the original Statement of Findings, 230 residential units were proposed and 160 units have actually been constructed (3 single family residences, 48 condominiums and 109 apartments). The proposed modification requests an additional 169 units to be built for a total number of 329 units (61 condominiums, 102 apartments and six short term rental units). The change is a 99 unit increase in residential development on site from 2002 Statement of Findings and Special Use Permit. Similarly to the nonresidential development increase, the changes do not 1 The Third Department recently looked at the role of the supplement EIS consideration in Matter of Green Earth Farms Rockland,LLC v.Town of Haverstraw Planning Board. In that case, all project changes must be evaluated to determine impacts as part of the decision whether to require a supplemental EIS. CARTER, CONBOY, CASE, BLACKMORE, MALONEY & LAIRD, P.C. 20 Corporate Woods Blvd.,Suite 500,Albany,NY 12211 I TEL 518.465.3484 I FAX 518.465.1843 I carterconboy.com City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board October 16, 2018 Page 3 materially impact the traffic,utilities and stormwater thresholds from the original SEQRA findings and compliance will be addressed through the site plan approval process. Moreover,the increase in units will not impact the original footprint of the development site but rather represents smaller units to comply with current market demand. Lastly,the development site has changed with respect to the phasing set forth in the original SEQRA findings. The 2002 approval indicated that Excelsior Park would be built in four phases over ten years. To date, Phase I has been constructed and Phase II has been approved and construction is under way. The Applicant proposes to amend the phasing to allow the remaining development to be completed in eight phases over the course of ten years running until 2028. Although this is a change from the original Special Use permit Approval, it will have little or no significance, as the original special use permit approval indicated that"phases will correspond with actual demand". The Applicant is extending the phasing in order to allow for traffic and non-traffic mitigation measures to be considered prior to the approval of each phase, and to ensure there is demand for each phased part of the proposed development; both items which the original special use permit required the applicant and the Planning Board to consider before approving of site plan on each phase. No other SEQRA findings or threshholds are implicated by the application to modify the Special Use Permit. The Applicant submits that the changes outlined above do not warrant the need for a supplemental EIS for the Special Use Permit Modification. The modifications proposed to the Special Use Permit issued in 2002 are not substantial changes to the scope of the development and the total land area impacted by the development has not changed. Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to discussing this with the Board. Sincerely, / M. izabeth Coreno c : Vince DeLeonardis, City Attorney CARTER, CONBOY, CASE, BLACKMORE, MALONEY & LAIRD, P.C. 20 Corporate Woods Blvd.,Suite 500,Albany,NY 12211 I TEL 518.465.3484 I FAX 518.465.1843 carterconboy.com E' • �° m 4, cu. a 0 V) "0 ° On CO cz, 00 •- • NGA U P"N n.0O� cr, .zi C 0 o0 'd I U 4). ,-1 cd cicl)d �" `—° o etid4 Z Z Z ›-' Z ZZZ U U ~ a) S-I O *o O d'U 4) UOcc74 5 g � cn CO ,0 'd v 5 - . o U 0i -d Fcgs g O O g w w o0 , . • w � o o 05"Den o " aU;- �.5 •- o o No v K MI- o -0 0 .OPk 0 U O ,A 0a) N 0 O ¢ aOa) en I-I vr Im .� "" . N U ad� a U ' ON O tin " 0 L 0 A 44,O n •O y E i; — ci) O0O 4M N o 6.00 9 U p O . . OU .. . g ,. ,_, .1=1 C nOmUmO "4 U4 - d a O - vLi - o -0 U O �" p U fs bFo N "un 0un y0 0 ~ yQ '� 'C3 C/1 U cd 'd •N co cd O" cl tz -4 '" to • ;-' ..-0 'MI ,.,4° g 0 ji up' "7-1 '?' '."4 8 o 2 5 f,;,-, cn '-'"., cd . 2 '''''' .5 z -8Z .0 —, 4. N 53w4, a g E N o7a 3 �Z � wo 73 0 sl C) } PI M \O \O Vl Lin Vl qD 01 Q• QA Q1 O' I 1 0 U 5U U a) cd 4. U '0 o a) O ., a) bA I a O N C Uril c~i� , �d U v� v o a) Ind -� t `' Ee o � � 3 - o 0 s- Q- p O U O ,0 E cd U � � z � ,. •~ mo o ° ? a ., y . . , f 0 0.. d - w o o > o 0 e 0 U cd •a- •+� 0 wdwNw P., ,—+ N N O a Co � v 1 - f N 0 , 0 •, 0 o 0 a O O d , ° 0 ° ° z z z �� 0 , z Z 4 zz � ° � �: a)En En0 a) 0 -,--, N 0 0 N 0 O N EL) A ° . • O .N -i y zz � z z � z 0-1 St.,' `ES ,0o a) Il 0 u) � ai.,W 0 , ° 0 Q �, +- aL U r/1ra-i 5 v, - cA .—i v] g c 5 " ° N Cll cd ut) • cczt 0ate-+ 2 -0 0 4 0 0 r. a) M00 cil -d vi .9., ° -, -0 k N � � , °' 0., fib`" "A ) •7i 9, - w I) 3 ) a, 4, ° T• •2 i o no g. g2 •. g 1 x � z UU UUCcc) c 76 0 6 `a 00 000 ' O ,-1 ,--i — ,--i ,--- N N N - 4-1 0 >, +, 5.--.) Q. vd a) aON p ccl E I a a ) • g a 3 -o �° ti �a ' v cg cd O �+ O 0 wd'w"" xwC7 M 00 O N -- U O z z z 0 z v z z z z z ca o .� ?V g a 0 0 r04 ca cd •› O" "0 0 .4C./) o N o 0 a) ami o 0, o 0 5 0 ai cd o V a 478 bA 4� rry v) c, ,--' cg rd i U ~ a) `n " ' ' ." O c `n "Ci Ce, N dcz) �, UUp U p M , ,� i,5 g ON 0 in tit k '-in., A �'aa) o U O U " v1 v - lO N — a •0 g cd [ U OV U O C X 3 Q + in m r{ymlyQU EC=) › 40,U , - Vg � ° cdNo° g ga � I) 0L, 0 _, cdnn ."5, .5, a °' o d �' Q, ac ° a ' '� o a mo ° ° .° S i obo.'.,n g IQ a o ° o o .0r UUH '' A0.)p.., tip ' M a) j1Ea) O D H oy , o .°A �, a o o = o 0 0 3T.: 4-1 a" �, 6, �, 2 ° p� 73 ri! v] 3Z -gZZ ZZv] hH v 2 H H H 0,Z U N V] ,,.., N c� n 00 00 0 0 ,--i ,--i .� N .Q ?, czt a O © p i. o oU U v z � U W "wc ✓ v°J H I-1 dr g 0 .r,,--, Erzi a; © tefn 0 O N O r-. a) to Z0 ') z z z z a) rO cd o) ct0 a) V 0 0 0 y' o O O y O O rj O N O .2. `� cd 3 7� 0 O" .o C.) b5A '� I O ''-, 0" N ^� •� 0 ." c Cd �, c- , c,_-_,) tiC7 0 E O O LH O E � ZZ oo en NCS DC7 � t+ o rn a) • • • • • 4; N O •a O - U a) co cio N cd � vs co 00 p N N N ul Cd U _ V oc_c_.) . V ao �g •4 6. . o Z W O W d U v) U I- Development Comparison ! �� : lpprloetlanostructed; u�eaf"e• Wro rl`P( s �.� ,+ � •.p•ro ediPlan '',' g.�[nci?m Phase • e", .1-. .a -4'. :r,� . gE. 1 s, '.Dove op e tr �2 i 181" ,t ,e„.- ,ofal ” Non-residential Space 130,000 76,000 54,000 147,600 223,600 1 Residential Units 230 160 70 169 329 Single family residences 3 3 Condominiums 48 61 109 Apartments 109 102 211 Short term rental unit 6 6 Development Area 21.6 AC 21.8 AC Building 5.10 AC 2.20 AC 2,90 AC 3.00 AC 5.20 AC Pavement 8.20 AC 5.60 AC 2.60 AC 3.00 AC 8.60 AC E 3 I I