HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200574 Excelsior Park SUP Revised Plans (2) kcj
The LA GROUP
Landscape Architecture(Si Engineering RC_
People.Purpose.Place.
40 Long Alley
Saratoga Springs
NY 12866
p:518-587-8100
j:518-587-0180
www.thelagroup.com
December 18, 2020
Mr. Mark Torpey, Chairman
City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
RE: Excelsior Park Special Use Permit
Response to verbal comments of the Planning Board (11/19/20)
Dear Mr. Torpey:
The following are responses to additional information requested at the November 19 Planning Board meeting
and further enumerated in an email sent by Susan Barden on December 1St
1. Clarify the area of Preserve from 27 acres indicated in the findings Statement and the 20 acres
that exist.
• Statement of Findings adopted October 16, 2002, states.
o Section B. Summary references an Approximately 27 acres will be established as a
Preserve, and...
o Section C. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
■ 7. Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology, references
• Reserving in perpetuity(through some as-yet-unnamed vehicle) the southern
27 acres of the site (with the exception of the 3 lots at the end of Eureka) as
undevelopable open space.
• Permitting development of the Spring Run trail across the southern end of
the site, and
• Construction and maintenance of public parking area, viewing area, and trail
connector from the proposed new development through the preserve and to
an existing public street at the southern edge of the site.
• Special Use Permit granted October 16, 2002 (public hearing on October 2nd and 16th), states.
o Page 5, Phase 1 , Spring Run Preserve: Phase 1 site plan review shall include a
determination of the methods and devices, which may include a conservation easement, to
secure and preserve that portion of the project referred to as "Spring Run Preserve." The
applicant shall work in collaboration with the Planning Board, the City Council, the Open
Space Project and Urban Heritage Area program to ensure the most appropriate
development of the "Ten Springs Wood"corridor and the Spring Run Trail.
• The filed subdivision plan includes a preserve area conservation easement of 20.17 acres.
• Management Plan was completed in December Of 2004 which included the draft conservation
easement and includes a Preserve Boundary figure showing the 20-acre area.
We do not have any specific information with respect to the change in area between the Statement of
Finding and the Special Use Permit only that this reduction occurred with the subdivision approval for
phase 1 and the management plan that was completed. An assumption may be that the original
preserve contemplated development areas such as parking and the Eureka Avenue Subdivision
which were subsequently removed with the development of the management plan and conservation
easement.
The minutes from the April 30, 2003 Planning Board meeting include the following statements from
the public hearing.
Management Plan: Jeff Pfeil said there would be a conservation easement for the preserve. Nancy
Butcher felt that the Board really needed a management plan for the 27 acres preserve because it
includes mud baths and other landmarks.
Jeff Pfeil said the mud baths are not part of the preserve, but they are part of the path and there
would be a management plan for the path. Dave Carr said that a management plan could be
constructed, and access could be limited via signs, etc. Bob Israel said that the White Sulfur Springs
should be part of the management plan. Jeff Pfeil said they would prefer to give the preserved land
to the City because they have no desire for long term management. He said the City DPW has said
they do not want to incur the liability associated with the preserve. He said he believed that at the last
meeting he made it clear that this would-be passive recreation only.
Lew Benton said the concept for the preservation of Spring Run preserve was required in the special
use permit and that the special use permit requires it this to be done in Phase 1. Although nothing
was originally submitted by the applicant, on April 28, 2003 the applicant submitted a proposal to set
aside about 20 acres for a preserve that would be owned by the applicants or the HOA and a
conservation easement would be given to the City. He concluded that only recreational structures
would be permitted, and the area would require low maintenance.
2. What specific traffic calming measures along Excelsior spring Avenue would be
recommended and considered.
The traffic study produced by GPI dated, October 20, 2020 concludes that the remaining traffic
calming measures at the Excelsior Spring Ave., Victoria lane and Audrey Lane intersection should be
completed once 50 additional peak hour trips are generated. The original Special Use Permit
required, narrowing of the travel lanes with the installation of curbing, the installation of stop signs and
the addition of a crosswalk and concrete pad for a bus stop.
The four-way stop has been installed along with curbing at the Excelsior Spring Ave, Audrey Lane
intersection. Our proposal would be to coordinate with the City DPW on any further required
improvements during site plan approval when this threshold is met. I do not believe the crosswalk, or
the concrete pad makes sense at this time since there are no sidewalks in this area and Excelsior
Spring Avenue is fairly narrow. There is no bus stop for children at this location and those locations
move year to year based on school-aged population.
3. When would the traffic mitigation improvements be completed as part of the project(s), at
issuance of building permit, C.O.?
All mitigation measures including traffic mitigation are detailed during site plan review. The on-site
and off-site improvements are secured in the required letter-of-credit to be submitted at the filing of
the site plans and prior to issuance of a building permit. All required improvements are required to be
completed prior to the issuance of a final C.O. and release of the letter-of-credit.
This fact is also referenced in the minutes of Site Plan review for Phase 1A, dated April 2, 2003; Lew
Benton said that as far as traffic mitigation measures, the applicant would not be able to obtain a
certificate of occupancy unless traffic measures are complete. Lew Benton was the Chairman of the
Planning Board.
There is also reference to; the Board working a new fair share plan for the corridor and that some
preliminary recommendations should be developed in a month...with respect to off-site traffic
improvements.
4. How would a cost-sharing of traffic mitigation measures be structured and implemented?
The 2002 Excelsior Park Statement of Findings made determinations about the impacts to the traffic
corridor at Veterans Way and Route 50, among others. It determined a mix of on-site and off-site
traffic improvements which would be necessary at future threshold exceedance to be confirmed or
modified during updated traffic information at the time of site plan applications for each phase. In
accordance the NYS SEQRA Handbook(2010), "mitigation on the project site may not be feasible or
would not adequately address an identified impact. In such circumstances, some form of off-site (or
compensatory) mitigation may be offered. Off-site mitigation may address a shared impact, or may be
an environmental benefit not directly associated with the proposed project that serves as a trade-off
for unavoidable impacts on-site." (p. 129)
It should be noted that cost-sharing is referenced in the original special use permit, to wit: "If any of
the above traffic improvements are required by the City to be made by any other development project
in the vicinity of the site prior to the requirement being made by the owner/developer of the project,
those improvements will not have to be made by the owner/developer of this project. In addition, if
any other development in the area is required to make such improvements at or about the same time,
the City may assign a fair share cost to each development for such improvements."
In the minutes of the April 2, 2003 Planning Board meeting for Phase 1 of the development with
respect to Off-site traffic improvements; "Lew Benton (chairman) noted that in accord with the
conditions of the special use permit the applicant would be required to install a traffic signal at the
intersection of East Avenue and Excelsior Avenue and extend the westbound turning lane on Route
50 at the Veterans Way intersection, because the trips exceed 100. He also noted that the Board is
working on a new fair share plan for the corridor and that some preliminary recommendations should
be developed within a month. Mike Ingersoll agreed to have these traffic improvements designed and
secured as part of this approval but noted that they would like this to be part of the fair share traffic
mitigation. The Board agreed that the design would be subject to the chair's approval after
consultation with the Department of Public Works and the Department of Public Safety." The cost
share approach is also included in the City Planners notes for discussion at the April 2, 2003 meeting.
As such, the applicant proposes the creation of a City escrow account for the applicant's portion of
the"shared impact" and related traffic mitigation within the Excelsior Avenue corridor. Moreover, the
City has precedent for this type of shared impact mitigation such as the traffic signal at the corner of
NYS Route 9P and Crescent Avenue and for the East Avenue/Excelsior Ave traffic signal. In those
two instances, projects that contributed to the degradation of those intersections were required to pay
into a fund that was held by the city, to be used for the future improvement. If the funds were not
utilized, then they were to be returned to the developer.
A written agreement would establish the creation of the fund; the basis for determining the cost of the
improvement; the proportionate share of cost to be paid by the applicant; and the timing of the
payment or payments. Any such agreement would necessarily require a resolution of the City Council
authorizing the Mayor enter into the agreement, establish the account and the limits for expenditure of
the funds. Any resolution by the Planning Board as lead agent could properly make such City Council
action a condition of its approval.
By way of structure, the escrow account would be based on the total estimated cost of future
improvements in the corridor which would include but not limited to.
• The extension of the left turn lane from 100' to 325'
• Construct a northbound left turn lane on Veterans Way at Route 50
• Installation of a traffic signal at the Marion Ave/Excelsior Ave intersection
• Traffic calming measures at the Excelsior Spring Ave and Audrey lane intersection
• Any additional perceived requirements in the Excelsior Avenue corridor.
The total cost of theses improvements would be calculated by the applicant's traffic consultant and
reviewed by the City's consultant. Once the full value is agreed upon then proposed projects in the
corridor would contribute to the account, at the time of approval based on future peak hour vehicle
trips.
The fees would be based on current value but may be adjusted each year to account for inflation.
This adjustment would be necessary so that sufficient funds are available to pay for future
improvements.
5. How was the 45% contribution indicated in the traffic study derived?
The 45% contribution proposed in the GPI letter is in reference to the extension of the left-bound turn
lane on Route 50 and the improvement of the Veterans Way and the northbound, right-turn lane on
Veterans Way. The original Special Use Permit required an extension from 100' to 200'. The revised
traffic study shows that 250' is currently needed and that 325' will be required in the 2030 build
condition, which includes contributing background traffic not associated with Excelsior Park. The 100'
extension originally proposed to accommodate site traffic represents 45% of the additional 225'
needed to accommodate all future year traffic.
6. Revisit/update the fiscal impact analysis.
In the original Excelsior Park DEIS, the project sponsor set forth a variety of potential impacts related
to the socio-economics which were then further clarified by the Planning Board, its consultants and
the public during the public comment period for the development of the FEIS (6 NYCRR 617.9,
617.10). The ultimate determination of"the relevant environmental impacts presented in an EIS"was
the Statement of Findings which "weighs and balances [impacts]with social, economic and other
essential considerations, [and] provides a rationale for the agency's decision and certifies that the
SEQR requirements have been met." (See 6 NYCRR 617.11) For the Excelsior Park Statement of
Findings, Section 9 represents the conclusions reached by the Planning Board in the original SEQRA
process and no potential adverse environmental impacts were identified. Therefore, no mitigation was
required.
As the Project has required an examination under SEQRA of the "changed circumstances" presented
by both the passage of time and the proposed modifications beginning in 2017, the City's review
consultant, Chazen, issued the following comment as part of their comment letter dated February 26,
2019 related to the Socio-Economic setting as derived from the original scope of the EIS and the
2002 Statement of Findings.
Socio-Economic Setting
Page 28 of the 2002 Statement of Findings indicates that"based on the results of the fiscal impact
analysis, each of the project alternatives considered as projected to result in a net gain in revenues to
the City." Please provide additional documentation that this statement is still correct, in consideration
of both the additional units being proposed and the changes in background existing and future
conditions.
On October 10'2019, the applicant's team met with representatives from Chazen and City Staff to
determine the level analysis required to respond to comments since the level of concern over this
type of mixed-use development has changed significantly since 2002. The reason for the meeting
was to assess "the importance and relevance of the information" (6 NYCRR 617.9)given the elapsing
of eighteen (18)years and whether the same concerns of fiscal impact were germane. In particular,
the meeting sought to assess whether a full, updated fiscal analysis was required for the revised
project to respond to this particular comment and other comments with respect to impacts on the City
of Saratoga Springs, given many factors which are now self-evident (i.e., Spring Run Trail, Fresh
Market complex, etc.). It was determined that a full analysis was not required, and the following
comparison was submitted.
Response 29: The 2002 Statement of Findings made the fiscal impact determination based
upon the following support: "The retail component of the project will be ancillary and
is not expected to draw customers beyond the immediate area of the proposed project
site. New residents and employees will increase overall spending. The Spring Run
Trail connection to Excelsior Park will provide potential customers with a direct link to
the downtown area, in particular during the summer months" (page 28).The retail
component of the project remains ancillary even with the proposed changes and
consumer spending will necessarily increase with new residents and employees. The
Spring Run Trail connection has been fully completed[] and operates as intended with
the ability for the Project residents to walk or bike to downtown. It is the applicant's
position that none of the Project's proposed changes implicate the Findings and, in
fact, reinforce the prescient view of the Board in 2002.
Chazen issued an additional comment letter on July 8th of this year and it was determined that the
comment was sufficiently addressed.
7. Provide details about affordable units —proposed income levels for the beacon project (58
units) and for any other affordable units envisioned.
Below is correspondence from Paul Kruger, Development Director for Beacon Communities which
explains their concept for the affordable project. The remainder of the residential portion of the project
is proposed to be market-rate housing.
Paul writes, "The Beacon at Excelsior Park is a new Workforce Housing project comprised of fifty-eight
1, 2, and 3-bedroom apartments. The project is located within the Excelsior Park mixed use community
in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY and will consist of two building styles: a multifamily building with a
total of forty-eight units, and two blocks of townhomes with a total of ten units. The multifamily building
would include approximately 4,000 sq. ft. of ground floor commercial space to be leased to an agency
providing pre-K childcare services.
This property will primarily house low to moderate income residents who work in the city of Saratoga
Springs but are unable to find affordable apartments in the city's costly housing market. Rents would
be regulated by NYS so that residents would pay no more than 30% of their income to rent. For
example, one-bedroom apartments would be targeted to households earning between $20,249 and
$54,000,with rent ranging between$859 and$1,315. Rents on the two-and three-bedroom apartments
would range between $1,036 and $1,783 and similarly be affordable to the household's income.
The buildings will be designed to far exceed the energy efficiency and green building measures called
for by the NYS Energy Code. The project will be certified to NYSERDA's Low Rise New Construction
Program and performance as well as to the Silver level under ICC/ASHRAE 700 National Green
Building Standard.
Beacon has also formed a partnership with Wellspring, a local nonprofit serving victims of domestic
violence and sexual abuse and will set-aside ten of the project's fifty-eight apartments for Wellspring's
clients. Under this partnership, Wellspring will receive rental and supportive service subsidy from the
NYS Empire State Supportive Housing Initiative. We will submit a funding application to NYS HCR in
January 2021, and anticipate construction start prior to the end of 2021."
8. Explain the HCR letter
The letter from Homes and Community Renewal (HCR), dated October 6, 2020 was in response to
the standard request for SEQRA Lead Agency. They are an involved agency because Beacon
Communities, the applicant for the 58-unit affordable housing project is planning on applying for
funding from their agency. The letter details the requirements of Beacon's submission for funding
which are standard requirements.
Their requirements in the letter are listed below and this case, Beacon Communities is the project
sponsor.
a. The project sponsor would be required to submit a copy of a final impact determination letter from
the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.
The determination is attached.
b. The project sponsor would be required to submit copies of a SPDES General Stormwater Permit
if the project would disturb more than one acre.
A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) has been submitted with the site plan
application. If the project is approved this will be submitted to HCR along with the signed NOI
and the NYS DEC project registration.
c. The project sponsor would be required to submit copies of a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment
(ESA) report which must meet, at a minimum, the ASTM standard for site assessment and
include a Vapor Encroachment Screen. Any recognized environmental conditions or
environmental concern would need to be resolved per HCR RFP requirements.
The project sponsor has completed a Phase 1 including a Vapor Encroachment Screen. A Vapor
encroachment Screen is an analysis of the presence of chemicals in the soil that concern vapors
in the subsurface caused by the release of vapors from contaminated soils and/or ground water.
No evidence of any recognized environmental conditions where found at the site.
d. The project sponsor would be required to submit a copy of all wetland and flood plain permits.
No wetland or floodplain permits are required for this project since there will be no encroachment
on wetlands, wetland buffers or floodplains.
e. The project sponsor would be required to submit evidence to support compliance with the NYS
Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act.
The NYS Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act was signed into law in August of this year
as an amendment to the Environmental Conservation Law. There is a form that is required if a
project is seeking Environmental Facilities Corporation funding which I do not believe this project
is seeking. The form is attached,
f. The project sponsor would be required to submit a site suitability analysis per HCR requirements.
This includes an impact analysis of flood hazards presented by upstream dams. In this case the
flood mapping included in the Loughberry Dam studies would need to be consulted.
Beacon Communities received a Site Suitability study from C.T. Male associates dated October
30, 2020. The study found that while there was one bulk storage facility and two manufacturing
facilities within 1,320 feet of the property, they did not anticipate that any of these features would
adversely impact the health and well-being of the future tenants.
Also, with respect to the dam, the City owns Loughberry Dam and are responsible for maintaining
a safe dam as required by New York Codified Rules and Regulations (NYCRR)and enforced by
NYS DEC. In 2016 the City hired Schnabel Engineering to study the Loughberry Lake Dam. An
analysis of the dam study with respect to the project is attached and concludes the site will not be
subject to flooding with a dam failure (which is not anticipated).
The above items included in the letter were submitted to HCR reviewed with representatives of the
agency by conference call on December 14,2020. The agency was satisfied with the studies
provided and had no further environmental comments.
9. Provide data to support the 135% increase in the parking spots (546 spaces) and as it relates
to increase in impervious surfaces.
The parking space total is based on the maximum square footage and unit count of the proposed
uses. Parking can be reduced with shared parking scenarios and waivers during site plan review for
each project however, the plan indicates the maximum required to show the maximum amount of
impervious area and site disturbance associated with the parking.
The increase in parking doesn't lead to a significant increase in impervious area and the development
envelope has not been expanded. This is due to the fact that 55% of the proposed parking spaces
are within buildings and an additional 27% of the surface parking spaces exist as part of the phase 1
construction. The breakdown is as follows.
Enclosed Garage Spaces 155
Covered Spaces (under building footprint) 30
Townhouse Garage Spaces 113
Subtotal 298
On-street Parking 98 (68 exist)
Townhouse driveway spaces 23
Surface parking lots 127
Subtotal 248
Total 546
10. In addition to bike/pedestrian accommodations, what public transportation/transit stops are
considered.
A CDTA bus stop was considered as part of the Excelsior Avenue apartments project along Excelsior
Avenue across from the proposed building. Beacon Communities continues to have discussions on
siting a bus stop within the neighborhood.
I hope this answers your questions and we look forward to continuing our dialogue with the Board
with the goal of achieving a Special Use Permit for the project
Best Regards,
A/4/
David R. Carr, Jr., RLA,ASLA
Associate Principal
dcarr@thelagroup.com