HomeMy WebLinkAbout20220502 UDO Amendments Council Advisory Opinion
MARK TORPEY, Chair
C ITY OF S ARATOGA S PRINGS
RUTH HORTON
TODD FABOZZI
P LANNING B OARD
KERRY MAYO
JASON DOTY
City Hall - 474 Broadway
CHARLES MARSHALL
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
MARK PINGEL
Tel: 518-587-3550 fax: 518-580-9480
SHAWNA JENKS, Alternate
www.saratoga-springs.org
WILLIAM MCTYGUE, Alternate
July 6, 2022
To: Ron Kim, Mayor
Minita Sanghvi, Commissioner of Finance
Dillon Moran, Commissioner of Accounts
Jason Golub, Commissioner of DPW
Joseph Montagnino, Commissioner of DPS
RE: Advisory Opinion to the City Council Proposed Amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO)
Dear Mayor and Commissioners,
Pursuant to City Council action on May 3, 2022 requesting an advisory opinion from the Planning Board, this
board reviewed and discussed at its June 9 and
June 23 meetings.
document is
(1) consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and (2) not contrary to the general purposes and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance.
On June 23, the Planning Board made a motion to pass the following favorable advisory opinion:
Amendment 1: Remove inappropriate uses from the Greenbelt
The Planning Board issued an advisory opinion on the final draft of the UDO on July 29, 2021 and specifically
was asked to opine on the appropriateness of certain uses in the Rural Residential district. The Board found
the following (in part):
The Planning Board finds that the following proposed new uses are too intense and
recommends their removal and .
The Planning Board recommends revisions to the definitions an
consistent with the CDD designation going forward.
Country Club: The proposed definition in the UDO is too broad and the last portion of the
sentence should be removed.
The Planning Board was also asked to consider the appropriateness of certain uses in the Gateway Commercial
Rural (GC-R) district. The Board found the following (in part):
Revised 7/6/2022 2:37 PM
Proposed Amendments to Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
Planning Board Advisory Opinion
The Comprehensive Plan designates the area on South Broadway directly across the street
from the Saratoga Spa State Park as Specialty Mixed Use Park (SP). This unique area was
-elf to support
research and development, creative economy workplaces, green and clean technology
Many of the proposed uses allowed
under the GCR zoning designation are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan SP
designation. Potential uses that may comport (depending on appropriate definitions) with the
Resolution:
Limit the SP area to a subset of GCR uses as highlighted in green in Appendix B and provide
more detailed design standards for this area of the gateway.
The Planning Board is satisfied with the changes made to the final draft of the UDO in response to the above
recommendations in our prior advisory opinion including the r
enhanced Gateway Commercial Design Standards.
Amendment 2: Establish clear criteria and requirements for land use boards to maintain rural character in the
Greenbelt
The Planning Board is satisfied with the changes in the UDO that strengthened the design standards from a
Boardcurrent practice is to justify when a waiver is granted and we will continue to do
so.
Amendment 3: Enhance stream and wetland protections
The Planning Board is satisfied with the current language in the final draft of the UDO pertaining to stream
and wetland protections as greater protections to these important City resources has been included. The
Board also notes that the ability to increase a stream or wetland buffer on a case-by-
established that additional protections are needed are
criteria.
Amendment 4: Amend land disturbance activity permit
The Planning Board agrees that 13.7 Land Disturbance Activity Permit could incorporate some of the language
found in 11.9 Tree Preservation that would require a tree survey identifying any existing significant trees in the
area proposed to be disturbed and the ability to condition issuance of the permit on tree replacement or
mitigation.
All four of the proposed amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and not contrary to the
general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning Board recommends that the City Attorney review each proposed amendment from a legal
perspective to determine if there are any unforeseen procedural/enforcement concerns.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact me.
2
Proposed Amendments to Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
Planning Board Advisory Opinion
On behalf of the Planning Board, I welcome any questions, requests or follow-up ideas you may have
concerning this issue.
Thank you for allowing the Planning Board your time and attention in making this important
recommendation.
Sincerely,
Mark Torpey
Chair
3
Proposed Amendments to Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
Planning Board Advisory Opinion
Appendix B
4
Proposed Amendments to Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
Planning Board Advisory Opinion
cc: Susan Barden, Principal Planner
5