The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20221065 500 Union Longfellow's Correspondance C it of Sa rato a S ri n s ,,��t��:;� . Y J p J �� f;, BUILDING DEPARTMENT PATRICK COGAN � �� Zoning&Building Inspector �� : CITY HALL � � '��'= _ � �;:' Extension 2491 � , � -_ 1f`"�.� � 474 Broadway DUANE MILLER :.,t . . i �;.�� Saratoga Springs,NY 12866 Assistant Building Inspector f �`='��,�;c'��r��;ti' Extension 2512 Telephone (518�587-3550 Ext. 2511 JOHN BARNEY • B U I L D I N G & Assistant Buildin & www.saratoga-springs.org g P L U M B I N G Construction Inspector � C O D E S Extension 2521 RICHARD TIERSCH Assistant Building& Construction Inspector Extension 2563 October 25,2021 M. Elizabeth Coreno,Esq.P.C. 63 Putnam Street, Suite 202 Saratoga Springs,NY 12866 RE: 500 Union Avenue, Parcel#180.-4-24 Dear Ms. Coreno, This letter is in response to your inquiry dated 8/4/21 for 500 Union Avenue(commonly known as "LongfelloW's"),parcel# 180.-4-24 in the City of Saratoga Springs,hereinafter"the property". The subject property is located within the Planned Unit Development commonly known as and referred to as the Interlaken PUD. The portion of the Interlaken PUD containing the subject property has been identified as "Zone AA" since the original zoning change request/PUD concept documents in 1982 and continues to be referenced as Zone AA to the present day. Your inquiry provides an Exhibit A,Which you note as the 1982 zoning legislation and map. Through my research I have determined that the legislation you included was actually the prelude to the 1984 clarifying legislation, and the map you included was a 1989 comparison of the Environmental Design Partnership revision with the original"Concept Plan"maps prepared by Sasaki Associates. I have attached what I believe to be the Sasaki concept maps as evaluated in 1982. Substantively, I find no difference between the "Program" identified for Zone AA in the 1982 Concept Plan: Land Use,the 1984 legislative prelude, and the 1989 EDP Concept Plan comparison. After thoroughly researching and evaluating the approval history of the Interlaken PUD by City Council and the Planning Board, it becomes quite apparent that the Planning Board has wide latitude to determine the specific mix of uses,residential housing types, number of residential units, and area&bulk requirements Within each zone of the PUD. This is entirely consistent with the enabling PUD legislation in the City's Zoning Ordinance from 1982 through 1986 (Chapter 13 5, §13 5-41 through §13 5-48). The only changes to the Interlaken PUD which required City Council approval or modification of the PUD legislation were changes to allow uses which were not contemplated in the 1982 approval or which were determined to be inconsistent with the approved conceptual plans. In general,I concur with the summary of events from the 1998 Site Plan Approval and 2001 modification of the Site Plan provided in your narrative. The only point I wish to clarify is that the referenced letter from Building Inspector Michael Biffer indicated a willingness to issue a zoning letter,but refrained from any specific commentary on compliance with the intent of the PUD. I have attached the correspondence that I Page I 1 believe Mr. Olson referenced during the 1998 Planning Board minutes. As you will see, it offers very little regarding the zoning and focuses primarily on the building code issues. It was the Planning Board that concluded the proposal was in compliance with the PUD intent. I believe they had every right to make this determination, and I agree with the determination they made. Mr.Biffer apparently also agreed, as evidenced by Certificates of Occupancy issued at the completion of the projects. Regarding the specific proposal in question,which I will reference as the narrative provided in your correspondence dated 8/4/21 and the Sketch Plan dated 7/6/21 by The LA Group,I offer the following: I agree that the sketch plan indicates that the proposed uses are lodging, restaurant, lounge, ballroom, meeting rooms,pool, and fitness center. I also agree that all of these uses were contemplated and/or previously approved in a combination of PUD approvals, prior zoning interpretations, and permitted under prior Planning Board approvals. I would also note that these uses were approved in equal or greater intensity in Zones AA and BB in the original PUD revieW and approval. They were contemplated in some form and combination in the initial SEQR review and initial water& sewer usage calculations. I therefore agree that the redevelopment proposal is consistent with the uses contemplated under the intent of the PUD. I have found no evidence that the"Program"established for Zone AA of the PUD was intended to place a hard cap on the square footage,number of occupants,number of seats,number of rooms, or number of parking spaces for any particular use. If that ever was the intent, it has not been effectively established by the PUD legislation. It is entirely appropriate (and I believe originally intended)for the Planning Board,through Site Plan review,to establish the applicable limits for the proposed mix of specific uses in Zone AA. I therefore determine that a modification of the 2001 Site Plan would be required in order to proceed with the redevelopment proposal. The Planning Board should conduct the appropriate SEQRA review, and evaluate any potential impacts of the proposed redevelopment which have not already been mitigated by prior approvals. I find that the applicant's request to return to the Design Review Commission for architectural review is consistent with all proj ects on this property since at least 1997, and would be appropriate for the current proj ect as well. In consideration of all above factors, and in honoring the precedent of prior approvals for the Interlaken PUD, it is my determination that the scope of the current proposal does not involve uses not previously contemplated or approved, and does not constitute a revision which would"substantively alter"an approved PUD, and is therefore not subject to the zoning amendment process. I hope you find this information helpful in your endeavors. Sincerely, Patrick D. Cogan Zoning and Building Inspector Page I 2