HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB advisory opinion to CC for Liberty proposal Final
Revised 12/2/2022 12:05 PM
CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS
PLANNING BOARD
City Hall - 474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
Tel: 518-587-3550 fax: 518-580-9480
www.saratoga-springs.org
MARK TORPEY, Chair
MARK PINGEL, Vice Chair
TODD FABOZZI
KERRY MAYO
CHARLES MARSHALL
WILLIAM MCTYGUE
PATTY MORRISON
December 2, 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 – Liberty Affordable Housing, Inc. Petition for Zoning Amendment
Dear Mayor and Commissioners,
Pursuant to City Council action on September 6, 2022 requesting an advisory opinion from the Planning
Board, this board reviewed the Petition for Zoning Map Amendment submitted by Liberty Affordable
Housing, Inc. and the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment as initiated by the City Council on November
1, 2022.
Per the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the Planning Board recommendation and the City Council
decision on any zoning map amendment must consider the following standards (13.15 E.1):
a. The consistency of the proposed amendment with the Comprehensive Plan and associated
adopted land use policies.
b. The extent to which the proposed amendment promotes the public health, safety, and
welfare of the City.
c. The suitability of the property for the purposes for which it is presently zoned, i.e. the
feasibility of developing the property in question for one or more of the uses permitted
under the existing zoning classification.
d. The extent to which the proposed amendment creates or eliminates nonconformities.
e. Whether adequate public facilities are available including, but not limited to, schools, parks,
police and fire protection, roads, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and water lines, or are
reasonably capable of being provided prior to the development of the uses, which would be
permitted on the subject property if the amendment were adopted.
The Planning Board discussed the proposed amendments at its October 27 and November 17 meetings,
and, passed by unanimous vote a motion that a favorable advisory opinion be forwarded to the City Council.
This favorable opinion is contingent on the City Council ensuring that only an affordable housing project will
be built on the site and that if the project should not move forward in a timely manner (within three years),
the City Council will proactively change both the UDO zoning and 2015 Comprehensive Plan designations
back to RR and RN-1, respectively.
2
Advisory Opinion regarding the Zoning Map Amendment
The petitioner, Liberty Affordable Housing, Inc., requests a zoning map amendment for a 30-acre parcel on
the corner of Crescent St. and Jefferson St. (tax parcel no. 179.-5-8) from Rural Residential (RR) to Urban
Residential – 4 (UR-4) to provide for a 215-unit affordable housing project.
Consistency with neighboring zoning
The subject property is currently zoned RR and is surrounded by three different zoning district types: INST-
PR, INST-HTR, and UR-4. The UR-4 district is located immediately adjacent to the property to the west
across Jefferson St. and encompasses the Clubhouse Estates neighborhood. The change from RR to UR-4
would permit multi-family residences (a land use not permitted in RR), as well as an increase in residential
density from .5units/acre in RR to 14.5units/acre in UR-4. The change would effectively continue the existing
UR-4 zoning eastward.
It should be noted that while the UR-2 zoning immediately to the west of Clubhouse UR-4 district has a
density about ½ of Clubhouse Estates, the mobile home park immediately to the north has a density
significantly higher than Clubhouse Estates.
The Planning Board was advised by legal counsel at its last meeting that this project does not represent an
example of “spot zoning” considering the context of the parcel within the surrounding neighborhood. The
Planning Board does, however, recognize that a 29-fold increase in density is substantial and that absent the
broad public benefit provided by an affordable housing project, this is not an appropriate map amendment
for a market rate development.
Consistency with conservation zoning
If the zoning for the subject property were to remain RR, any development within the property would
require a conservation design, i.e. – developing on only 50% of any developable lands, after removing any
3
constrained lands (wetlands) from the calculation. The constrained lands, plus the 50% reserved land would
be required to be placed in a permanent conservation easement. The wetlands (constrained land) within the
subject property total more than 9-acres and 50% of the remaining developable land (10.5-acres) make a
combined total of 19.88-acres, which any developer would be required to put in a conservation easement by
adhering to current conservation design principles.
The Liberty project proposal, though not required by UR4 design criteria, is reasonably consistent with the
RR conservation easement requirements. The project – a 215-multi-family dwelling units within two
buildings and all associated site work would be located within approximately 10-acres of the total 30-acre
parcel. The remaining 20 acres, which includes wetlands, wetland buffers and natural habitat areas, will be
placed in a permanent conservation easement. The city thus gains a similar result from the Liberty
development that would accrue from an RR development. 20 acres will be permanently protected in a
conservation easement to be held by the city and enforceable by the city.
Advisory Opinion regarding the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment:
New York State General City Law §28-a, Article 21, Chapter 3.12 states: “All city
land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan…”.
The Planning Board recognizes that a corresponding change to the City’s Comprehensive Plan is necessary
to maintain consistency with the zoning modification request from RR to UR4.
The 2015 Comprehensive Plan Map designates the parcel primarily Residential Neighborhood-1 (RN-1),
with a small section on the western edge of the parcel designated as Equine and Related Facilities (EQ). The
RN-1 zoning map designation has a recommended maximum density of 10 units/acre. The requested
Comprehensive Plan Map amendment would change this designation to Core Residential Neighborhood – 2
(CRN-2), which has a maximum density of 15 units/acre. It should be noted that the Comprehensive Plan
designates the parcels across Jefferson to the west as CRN-2 also.
It should be noted that the parcel is not located within the Country Overlay that depicts the “greenbelt”
which defines the “Country” in the “City in the Country” vision of the Comprehensive Plan. This may be
the reason that this specific RR zoned parcel is not currently reinforced with a Conservation Development
District (CDD) designation in the 2015 Comprehensive Plan. In fact, this may be the only RR zoned parcel in
the city that lies outside of the CDD defined area.
2015 Comprehensive Plan Map
UDO Zoning Map
The project would further many of the recommended actions within the Comprehensive Plan including:
Environmental Health and Resiliency
3.2-1 Protect important open spaces and natural areas including stream corridors, wetlands, and agricultural
4
resources. The creation of approximately 20 acres of permanent conservation land responds to this objective.
3.2-8 Continue to adopt and enforce land use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and maintain
a compact, walkable urban community. The project reflects an urban density and has proposed a system of
sidewalks and trails to enhance residents’ access to City sidewalks and trails.
Community Character
3.4-50 Encourage a range of residential opportunities that will be available to all residents to promote the
social and economic diversity vital to a balanced community. The city needs additional workforce housing, as
emphasized by the letters of support from business leaders in the community.
3.4-51 Promote diversity of housing types near employment centers such as Downtown, the hospital,
Skidmore College, the racetracks, etc. The proposed project falls within the city’s inner district and many of
the potential qualifying residents will have the ability to bicycle, walk, or ride the bus to their places of
employment.
Further considerations:
1. Height Variance: The applicant has identified that the proposal exceeds the maximum height for the
proposed district where the application proposes a 48-foot building and the maximum in UR-4 is 40-
feet. The Council should consider the appropriateness of four-story buildings in this neighborhood.
The height analysis provided by the applicant suggests that the height variance is not inconsistent
with nearby Racino buildings. In addition, the development is on the Bunny Lake side of the parcel
and will be hidden from travelers on both Jefferson and Crescent by the creation of the conservation
easement and a substantial tree-lined buffer.
2. Sunset Provision: The applicant’s proposed sunset provision provides a five-year period for obtaining
a building permit or the Zoning Map Amendment expires and reverts back to RR. The Council
should consider reducing that period to 3 years for obtaining land use board approvals and obtaining
a building permit. The Council should require that only an affordable housing project is authorized
to seek Site Plan Review. The Council should further reinforce the sunset provision by proactively
rezoning the parcel RR if the project has not commenced within the specified period. A revision to
the Comprehensive Plan reverting to its original designation will also be required if the sunset
provision takes effect.
3. Term of Affordability of Units: The Liberty proposal’s anticipated financing would be for 32-years.
If the City Council were to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map and the Zoning Map to provide for
the project because of the community benefit of providing affordable housing, the Council should
consider a longer term of affordability. The options that were discussed included requiring at least a
50-year commitment or that the units would remain affordable for the life of the buildings. This is a
complex area, with an interaction between the City’s commitments to affordable housing and the
realities of affordable housing financing. Nevertheless, the Planning Board believes that the longest
possible term practical should be required of this project. It is worth noting that every affordable
housing project approved thus far in the city has incorporated a financing term of 30 years. This
means that in 30 years all the affordable projects run the risk of transitioning to market rate housing
should the property owner choose to sell. This presents a major risk to the city’s ability to maintain
an adequate workforce over the long-term. In many areas of the country, the conversion from
affordable back to market rate housing - after the initial financing period expires - exceeds 50%.
4. Multi-Modal Accommodations: Liberty’s amended plan includes installation of sidewalks along
Jefferson St. and Bunny Lake Rd. The City Council should consider requiring installation of an
enhanced pedestrian crosswalk on Crescent St. at the intersection of Jefferson St. to connect the
sidewalk to the future Crescent St. connection of the Saratoga Greenbelt Trail on the south side of
Crescent St. and to the NYS Hemlock Trail. The applicant should commit to continuing their
negotiation with CDTA to expand trolley/bus service to this area.
5
The City Council has requested SEQRA Lead Agency status and has requested Planning Board comments
pertaining to the Long Form EAF, as prepared by the applicant as part of their submittal. The applicant has
also provided the City Council with a draft of the SEQRA Part 2 form. The Planning Board does not believe
that using the applicants draft SEQRA Part 2 as the basis for SEQRA determination is appropriate, and that the
City Council should carefully walk through all topics diligently on the Long Environmental Assessment Form
from a clean sheet of paper.
The Planning Board defers SEQRA Lead Agency responsibility to the City Council and provides the following
comments for City Council consideration and discussion. Typically, the Planning Board would make the
issuance of a negative declaration contingent on the applicant addressing any issue raised during the SEQRA
review.
FEAF Part 1:
A. The description of the proposed action should be revised to include a total of 215 residential units (as
presented in the applicant’s most recent application submittal).
D.2.b. There are NYS DEC and NWI wetlands on the property. The applicant has proposed utility and
walking path developments, which would disturb some of these wetlands. The City Council should consider
the value of wetland disturbance to provide for the proposed nature trails. The applicant’s plans show raised
wooden pathways through any wetland areas, which will minimize disruption. The City Council should
consult with appropriate DPW staff regarding possible alternate placement for utility connections that could
avoid wetland disturbance.
D.2.d. The applicant indicated sanitary sewer service must be provided from Jefferson Street; however, the
Saratoga County pump station is located at the southern terminus of Jefferson St. on Crescent St. and the
route should be confirmed by City or County DPW. There should also be investigation into the pump
station sizing, which was increased to support the recent Racino expansion, to confirm that no further
upgrade is required.
D.2.j. The traffic assessment that accompanied the 2018 application indicated that “… the completed
project would not affect roadway/intersection capacities warranting mitigation”. The traffic analysis was
completed for a total of 192 units, not the recently proposed 215 units and should be updated to reflect the
increase. The Planning Board recommends that the city engineer and/or city designated engineering firm
review the analysis for accuracy prior to taking any action regarding SEQRA. In addition, Bunny Lake Road is
a private road that does not meet city street standards. The applicant is proposing an easement to permit
access to the development from this road. The City Council should consult with appropriate DPS staff for
review of the traffic report to ensure that its conclusions are still valid and to confirm that the Bunny Lake
access will not create any traffic hazards. The Council should request that review to include
identification of any concerns or recommendations for improving traffic safety.
E.2.a. The average depth to bedrock for this project is about 6 ft. The Planning Board would typically
request the City Engineer’s Office to review the plans for any possible issues during construction. The
applicant’s plans state that there will be no blasting during construction. This should be confirmed.
E.2.d. The average depth to water table about 1 foot. The Planning Board would typically request additional
information regarding stormwater management, building foundation design and the potential for flooding to
be reviewed by City Engineer’s Office or third-party engineering review.
E.2.h. The Part 1 SEQRA form submitted by the applicant listed the actual wetland area on the parcel as
approximately 20 acres, not the nominal 9 acres stated in the project narrative. This discrepancy is
substantial and both NYSDEC and the ACOE must confirm and accept the wetland boundaries on the site
prior to taking any action regarding SEQRA. The Planning Board would typically request letters for the DEC
and/or ACOE regarding acceptance of wetland delineation/jurisdictional determination.
E.2.n. The property is designated a significant natural community: Red Maple Swamp and White Oak Swamp,
totaling 2.67-acres. The Planning Board recommends that the appropriate letters from DEC addressing
these habitat issues are received prior to taking any action on SEQRA.
E.2.o. The DEC lists 2 endangered or threatened species on the property: Frosted Elfin and Karner Blue
Butterfly. The Planning Board recommends that all letters from DEC regarding any documented presence
6
of threatened or endangered species that could be impacted are received prior to taking any action on
SEQRA.
For similar projects, the Planning Board receives general technical review comments from City staff in DPS
and DPW, and a DPW-designated third-party reviewing engineer. In addition, the Planning Board often
requests advisory opinions from the Design Review Board, Compete Streets Advisory Board, and Open
Space Advisory Board to assist in the SEQRA analysis and project review. The Board recommends that the
Council use these City resources to assist in the SEQRA review.
The Planning Board recommends that the City Attorney assist the City Council with drafting of the legal
mechanisms for maintaining affordability of units for the determined term, sunset provision/RR and RN-1
revert provisions, and conservation easement language.
Lastly, the Planning Board notes that the process being undertaken to modify both the UDO and the 2015
Comprehensive Plan in this manner is problematic for many reasons. It shortchanges the formal public input
process and sets a risky precedent for market-based projects to push for the same expedited treatment. The
City Council should recognize the precedent setting nature of this less than ideal process and formally state
on the record that it is only to be used in rare circumstances where broad public benefit is fully
realized/guaranteed and specifically not for market rate developments.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Mark Torpey
Chair