The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20210564 Weibel Plaza PUD Advisory Opinion Correspondance �.��fJ� •�;�� CITY OF SARATOGA SPRI NGS MARK TORPEY, CHA/R ..,�� *..i' �J MARK PINGEL, VCE CHA/R � �'�� s;:. �. PLANNING BOARD � ,,. ,;. .�. TODD FABOZZI .��_�� .�., �_ - -�� '�_� KERRY MAYO � - , - , � F � �` �.�� :'� City Hall -474 Broadway CHARLES MARSHALL �, ,�i. j� �' *'� ��.�� Sarato a S rin s New York I 2866 WILLIAM MCTYGUE . �f�:��::::�:�,�:��.�A g P g � �.,�..� ��;kf � F��,��i Tel: 5 I 8-587-3550 PATTY MORRISON '��'�� www.saratoga-springs.org February 13, 2023 Ron Kim, Mayor Minita Sanghvi, Commissioner of Finance Dillon Moran, Commissioner of Accounts Jason Golub, Commissioner of DPW Joseph Montagnino, Commissioner of DPS RE: Weibel Avenue PUD—Planning Board Advisory Opinion The Commissioner of Accounts (Dillon Moran) provided a letter to the Planning Board (dated 1/10/23) seeking further support and/or clarification for the Planning Board's previous finding that the addition of the new uses (Warehouse, Distribution Plants and Wholesale Establishments) within the existing PUD legislation is inconsistent with the Community Mixed Use (CMU) designation in the Comprehensive Plan. The letter poses the following three questions: 1) Does the addition of the transect zone design standards to the PUD legislation provide what is necessary and sufficient to support the proposed uses (Warehouse, Distribution Plants, Wholesale Establishments) and make those uses consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? 2) The previous Zoning Ordinance (ZO) included a separate and distinct Warehouse District(Washington Street located adjacent and westerly of the train tracks/station) that fell within the boundaries of the Comprehensive Plan's CMU designation. Doesn't this set a precedent for finding that the warehouse use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? 3) The current Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) includes a separate and distinct Industrial Light (IND-L) District (exact same location/boundaries as under the previous ZO)within the boundaries of the Comprehensive Plan's CMU designation. Since the warehouse use is now included under the newly revised IND-L District in the UDO, doesn't this also support a finding that the warehouse use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The letter additionally seeks overarching guidance to assist the City Council to evaluate the Weibel Avenue PUD Amendments more fully before taking legislative action on the proposed text amendments. Attachment A is included in this memo as a reference to assist with the Planning Board's response to the Commissioner's letter. Question 1 Response At a high-level the question asks whether any use should be permitted as long as the physical design/layout meets a certain design standard. If added to the PUD,compliance with transect standards would then be necessary, but not sufficient, to ensure that proposed uses would comply with the Comprehensive Plan and would not be contrary to the UDO. The Planning Board believes, however, that there are some uses which 1 simply do not comport, by their very nature, regardless if physical design standards are strictly adhered to. This is the reason why the new UDO has taken a different approach to uses as compared with the previous Z0. Unlike the previous T4/T5 districts where all uses were permitted, as long as a Special Use Permit (SUP)was issued and a Site Plan (SP) approved,the current UDO expressly states which uses are allowed. Warehouse and Wholesale Establishment uses are expressly not permitted in the Urban Neighborhood (UN)/Neighborhood Center(NC) areas of the city without a zoning variance. (The UN and NC designations replaced the T-4 and T-5 designations, respectively). Further,the term Distribution Plant is not listed anywhere in the UDO as an eligible use. The bottom line is that these three proposed uses are not properly aligned with the long-term vision of neighborhood-scale businesses, complemented by safe and engaging pedestrian connectivity. Question 2 Response The CMU designation overlayed one small pre-existing Warehouse District, as well as the surrounding T4/T5 areas in 2015. This, however, does not mean that the CMU designation expressly endorses any or all pre- existing conditions or uses that were present in 2015.The Comprehensive Plan establishes a future long-term vision for all areas in the City,which, by law, must guide zoning ordinances,which then determine how further development will proceed. It is worth noting that the bulk of the CMU area in the area under discussion is designated transect zones (T4/T5), and that the actual portion allotted as Warehouse District is quite small by comparison. The Warehouse District in its "as is" state (as of 2015) represented what could more aptly be described as a pre-existing"non-ideal" condition to be grandfathered until new development was proposed. It was expected that any future development in the area would need to comport with the Comprehensive Plan's CMU designation by supporting neighborhood-scale businesses and services that are walkable and connected to adjacent residential neighborhoods. Question 3 Response The recently enacted UDO reviewed this area on Washington Ave and changed the zoning of the Warehouse District to IND-L. This change was intended to more closely align with the CMU designation, but still fell short of the Comprehensive Plan's aspirational goals. The IND-L purpose statement lists "warehouse" as an eligible use, but also says that any use must have "minimum adverse impacts on neighboring uses". It seems clear that the UDO does not want any IND-L development to adversely impact surrounding neighborhoods. Additional UDO clarity is probably needed to more accurately define the type of warehouse intended within the IND-L designation in the new UDO. Significant discussion occurred throughout the UDO development process about the need to attract different types of businesses that would diversify the city's economy. Much discussion centered around the importance of the IND-L district to attract such businesses as prototyping facilities and innovative "maker spaces" that employ locally sourced and skilled professional talent.The incorporation of the warehouse use into the IND-L was more intended to serve as an "ancillary" use,which would support principally neighborhood-scale businesses that complement and interconnect with mixed use residential neighborhoods. The Planning Board recommends that the City Council add clarifying UDO language to the IND-L warehouse definition to ensure full compliance with the CMU designation going forward. The more appropriate location for commonly defined and typically larger general warehouse use should be limited to the IND-G District. Overarching guidance—Weibel Avenue PUD The Planning Board's opinion is based on our reading of the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. A CMU area "includes areas of moderate density residential and community-supported commercial uses",which "are intended to be pedestrian-oriented with an attractive streetscape, along with amenities such as small parks 2 and plazas." (CP p. 57)The development of Zone 1,which was completed under the auspices of the Weibel PUD, and which also predated the Comprehensive Plan, is not consistent with this aspiration. Regardless of underlying causes,Zone 1 was developed similar to the Wilton commercial and shopping areas immediately to the north of the PUD,with large swaths of parking and large-scale commercial retail. The CMU description in Comprehensive Plan contains the following words: "In some areas, identity is already well established...". The Planning Board believes these words indicate that the Comprehensive Plan authors understood that there would be areas already developed that might not fully comport with the future aspirations expressed by the Comprehensive Plan. Just as the small self-storage facility in the city's western- most CMU area (adjacent to the railroad station) does not match the future aspirations for development, neither is the DOT maintenance facility next to the northwest corner of the Weibel Avenue PUD, zoned NC by the UDO,fully consistent with the CMU designation. It does, however, predate the Comprehensive Plan, and its identity is certainly well established. The Planning Board is constrained to keep its opinions and decisions consistent with our controlling documents: the Comprehensive Plan and the UDO. These documents motivate the opinion and guidance we have offered in this letter. As we consider the trajectory of development in the areas around the PUD, especially to the east,the Planning Board believes this further legitimizes the CMU designation for the area in general. We believe the Stone property behind the Weibel Ave apartments will eventually be developed as residential units, and further eastern development to the south of Louden Ave will yield additional residential dwellings. The Comprehensive Plan's CMU designation,which overlays both the PUD area and the areas to the east should not be changed simply because Zone 1 of the PUD is inconsistent with the desired direction of development the City wants to take. These observations, however, suggest a second approach the City Council could take. Rather than envisioning Zone 2 as an implementation containing a mix of residential and commercial,the Council could consider the Weibel Ave PUD as a de facto commercial district that supports and complements the larger CMU area, which encompasses both the PUD commercial area and the residential developments, current and future, to the east of the PUD. It could also acknowledge that the development already in place in the Weibel PUD is not compatible or consistent with the CMU designation or the Comprehensive Plan's aspirations. It could encourage largely(and perhaps exclusively) commercial development in Zone 2 of the PUD,which is perhaps a more reasonable expectation for this property, but insist that any permitted future development be done consistent with the design standards of the T4 and TS zoning requirements. It could ensure that while there may be small-scale warehousing needed to support the supply chain needs of the permitted businesses, no large-scale warehouse development (like an Amazon facility)would be permitted. This approach would also bring pressure on the owners of the Zone 1 properties to improve their streetscapes, public spaces,walkability, and other amenities to make them consistent with the developments of Zone 2. The Zone 1 properties currently do not represent the aesthetic standards to which the City aspires. Regardless of the exact path the City Council chooses, any future development should follow the overall spirit and philosophy embodied in the Comprehensive Plan and UDO. These are our two principal documents controlling development and have as a foundational principle that our City should be livable, i.e.—people friendly, attractive, safe, and environmentally responsible. Regardless of history,any future development must comport with these principles and include walkability, streetscapes, public spaces, trees, attractive architecture, etc. The detailed guidance in the UDO has made these aspirations much clearer and drives development toward these goals. Whatever changes the Council makes to the PUD should provide similar and explicit guidance, so that when a site plan review for the UDO reaches the Planning Board, it will have the legal 3 basis for ensuring that the development is consistent with the aspirations, principles, and standards outlined above. Finally, as noted earlier,the existing development in Zone 1 of the UDO (Hannaford, Kohl's,Tractor Supply) creates an aesthetic that is inconsistent with the inherent beauty and history of Saratoga Springs. While the businesses may generate good tax revenue for the City, they do not provide people-friendly exterior environments. Probably the most obvious and immediate need is to make crossing Weibel Ave from the The Springs apartment complex easy and safe. Even if people successfully cross Weibel, the stores in Zone 1 provide no safe way to walk between buildings. PUD changes should encourage improving these conditions, and any changes should apply to both Zone 1 and Zone 2. As additional development takes place, this will create opportunities for incremental improvement to the entire PUD area,which will benefit the City and the lives of its citizens. The approach and changes the Planning Board is suggesting will require crafting new language for the PUD, consistent with the UDO UN and NC (T4/T5) designations. While the language for these changes is created, the existing PUD should be temporarily extended to avoid any complications arising from a parcel lapsing into non-zoned status.The Planning Board will be happy to work with the City Council to revise the PUD language, so that when site plan reviews within the PUD take place,the Planning Board will be able to implement the direction the City Council has established for the opportunity the Weibel Ave PUD represents. 4 Attachment A Table 8-A:Use Matrix(Unified Development Ordinance) Principal Use Urban Neighborhood(UN)-formerly T4 Neighborhood Center(NC)-formerly T5 Industrial light(IND-L) Warehouse Not Permitted* Not Permitted* Permitted by Right Wholesale Establishment Not Permitted* Not Permitted* Permitted by Right *Requires Use Variance Distribution Plant Not identified in the UDO as an eligible Use UDO Purpose Statements UN Urban Neighborhood (T-4):The UN Urban Neighborhood District is intended to accommodate development of neo-traditional neighborhoods with primarily residential uses incorporating a mix of unit types and small-scale commercial uses where appropriate. NC Neighborhood Center(T-5):The NC Neighborhood District is intended to accommodate a wide variety of residential and nonresidential uses in a moderate intensity mixed-use environment. This district also focuses on providing quality streetscape amenities and civic spaces to enhance pedestrian activity. IND-L Industrial Light:The IND-L Industrial Light District is intended to accommodate light industrial, warehouse, and related business uses in areas where the intensity of the uses will have minimum adverse impacts on neighboring uses. UDO Definitions Warehouse:An enclosed facility for the storage and distribution of manufactured products, supplies, and/or equipment. Wholesale Establishment:A business where goods are sold to either retailers, or to industrial, commercial, institutional, or other professional business users, or to other wholesalers and related subordinated services. Comprehensive Plan Desi�nation Community Mixed Use(CMU):The CMU designation includes areas of moderate density residential and community-supported commercial uses. These areas are characterized by mixed use neighborhoods that are walkable and connected to adjacent residential neighborhoods. Each area includes a variety of neighborhood-scale businesses and services that meets the needs of the surrounding community. 5 �,�� • ' Dillon Moran ,. � A t � �� ' `` �r C�MMISSI�NER �, � = � �, ~�� FFICE �F ��MMISSI�NER �F A�C�LTNTS � � '�-' � ,� �.w�-�" ' �= 474 Broadway �ity Hall �tac Cannors � �. ,,., . 3' `"` �� " . -.. Sarata a S rYn s �Tew Yark 1�86� DEPUTY C�MM�SSI�NER ,� �- � � P � � � _��, c� �- �� ►- t- �� . � . � .��.� �' . '�c� �� Telephone 51 S-5 8 7--�5�o `��RAs�� January 1 a, 2�23 Crty of Saratoga Sprin�s Planning Board C�ty Hall 474 Broadway Saratoga Spr�ngs,NY 12SG6 Dear P�ar�nir�g Board: The �ity Council is ir�receipt of yaur Jurie �,2�22 Advxsor��pinion�n connectxon wit�i the �eibel P1aza PUD amer�dment applicatian. Thar�you for the findings and SU��St1�I15�T�V1C��t�. The Planrii�g Baard's opinion is v�e�l received and understaod. Hav�e�er, I arn askirig the Board to re�visit and clarify one finding in the Adv�sory�pinion as offered in such correspondence. Specifically, I need clarity an the Planning Board's �nding that"the addition�f the new use-- `�Varehouses, Distributian Plants a.r�d'�Vholesale Establishrnents' [is] incansistent v�ith the Cornmunity M�x�d Use�CMU� designatiox�in the Compreher�sive P�ar�." The corifusion stems initially from the Ad�isory�pinian rendered on this matter in August 21, 2�21, seeking the same defined use to be added to the PLTD, where the Plannin� Board"Issued an u.nfav�rabie opinion on the requested text amendment to include "Warehouses, Distributior�Plants and�holesale Establis�rrients"upon Site Plar�Revxew approval v�th�n the PUD use schedule, The Board faund that the current PLJD language does nat camport with the Community Mixed Use(CMU} desi�natxon in th��omprehensive Plan and therefore additional language would�eed to b�included r'n the P�ID�hat reflects the �ransec�--4 �Irba�.�eighborhood{IT--4� or �'ransect—5 Neighborhood Cente� �'I�'-S} design standar�ds vvithi�the Zoni�g�r�dr'r�ance." �Emphas�s added.} It appears from the current appiication materials that the applicant took t�at recommendatian and revised the prapased P�D amendment to specifically include the exact existir�g desig�elements in those transect zones, Ha�ing revised th�e a�nended lar�guage as suggested for compliance in the August 21, 2�21 Advisary�pir�ion, does that render the use cansistent�rith t�ie �ompreher�si�e Plan? The other co�s�ng aspect of this find�ng is that, at the time of the Advisory �pir�ian, it appears t�he City Zoning �rd�nance contained a�are�iouse D�strict which was wholly with�n t�ie Cammu�ity Mixed�Jse area of the Comprehensive Plan. A f nding that a warehouse use is contrary to t.he Comprehensive Plan wau�d have seemingiy meant that the entire 'V�are�iouse Distri.ct wou�d ha�e been cor�trary to the �omprehensive Plan. Even under the current UD�, exter�si�ely e�aluated after the 2�1 S �omprehensxve P�an revisians, warehouses appear ta remain a perm�tted use vvithin the Light Industrial �Ind-L} I)istrict, wh.�ch is still withir�the �ommunity Mixed Use area of the Compre�ensive P1an. A precedent that warehouses are contrary to the �ornprehensi�e Plan�MU district would seem to render e�en the nevv UD� Ind-L challen�eable on the basis of inconsistency with the �omprehens��e Plan, I lastly note that a review of the minutes fram the Jur�e 9�and 23rd Planr�ir�g Board did not shed�ight ar�the basis for this fndirig. In fact, the discussion specifically on the �arehause Use o�the application cammences in the June 9, 2�2� Plar�ing Board�ideo minut� at the 1 hour 31 minute rnark. Whi1e during the course of this discussio�certain concerns were �o�ced by some Planning Baard Members in connection vvith zoning vvhich permits warehouses, the minutes at the 1 haur 51 m�nute mark seern to reflect the Planning Boaxd was preparing a resolut�on�or a positxve recommendation on this use,with sorne accompanying suggestions to rernediate concerns. It appears to be concerns related more closely to Site Plan than the Comprehensive P1an which resulted in this det�rminatian, i.e. size of buxxdin�,traffic generated, street scape and pedestrian�ralkability, In light of the abave, I respectfuily request that the Plar�nin�Board pro�ide further support andlor clarification for this particu�ar find�rig so that the City Cour�cil can more fully evaluate the Weibel P�aza PUD Arnendments before taking action. I thank you for your consideration of this request ar�d continued support a�d assistance in evaluating�he applications for legislative changes�thiri the �ity. Resp�ctfully yours, R �. Di11o�Moran Cornrnissiarier of Aecounts