Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20230861 400 Louden SUP Unitarian Universalist Congregation Public Comment (25)1/11/24, 11:21 AM Zimbra https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=23911&tz=America/New_York 1/2 From :noreply@civicplus.com Subject :Online Form Submittal: Land Use Board Agenda Public Comment To :julia destino <julia.destino@saratoga-springs.org>, susan barden <susan.barden@saratoga-springs.org>, susanna combs <susanna.combs@saratoga-springs.org> Zimbra julia.destino@saratoga-springs.org Online Form Submittal: Land Use Board Agenda Public Comment Tue, Jan 09, 2024 09:19 AM CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City network. Please contact IT Support if you need assistance determining if it's a threat before opening attachments or clicking any links. Land Use Board Agenda Public Comment SUBMIT COMMENTS REGARDING CITY PROJECTS Thank you for submitting your comments. Your feedback will be forwarded to the City's Planning Department and Land Use Board members. NOTE: Comments submitted later than 12:00 noon on the day before the Land Use Board meeting may not be reviewed prior to their meeting. All comments will be added to the project file in the Planning Department. Land Use Board Planning Board Name C. Murray Penney Email Address cmurpen@gmail.com Business Name Field not completed. Address 11 Sundance City Saratoga Springs State NY Zip Code 12866 Phone Number 518-428-5399 Project Name 400 Louden SUP Unitarian Universalist Congregation Project Number 20230861 Project Address 400 Louden 1/11/24, 11:21 AM Zimbra https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=23911&tz=America/New_York 2/2 Comments Public Comment regarding Petition 20230861 400 Louden SUP Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Saratoga Springs The members of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Saratoga Springs (UUCSS) appreciate this opportunity to respond to concerns raised by some of our potential neighbors in the Public Comment 13 regarding SUP 20230861. We will attempt to be very responsive to those concerns. Our comment is organized in order of the criteria for granting a SUP, as is Comment 13, in order to make it easier to compare the two documents. With regard to: Criteria 1 The extent to which the use is in harmony with and promotes the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and this Chapter – Under this heading, in Public Comment 13 it is implied that inclusion of a church in RR zoning is contrary to the objective of the Comprehensive Plan to preserve traditional community character. However, according to https://saratoga- springs.org/DocumentCenter/View/243/20-Base- Zoning-Districts-PDF, religious institutions are one of the allowed uses in RR zoning in Saratoga Springs. Therefore, it appears that the proposed use is within the contemplation of those who established the RR zoning rules for Saratoga Springs. Moreover, Paragraph 1.4 of the Saratoga Springs Zoning Ordinance states that the zoning rules in that ordinance are completely compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore we believe that the proposed church is in harmony with and promotes the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan Criteria 2 – The density and compatibility of the use within the neighborhood and community character - If paved parking lots and driveways of the proposed plan are included with the building footprint as impermeable area, then the permeable fraction based on the buildable portion of the land would be 74%, not the ”very unfavorable” 54.3% value as stated in Public Comment 13. Thus, according to the site plan, the footprint of the proposed church occupies 4500 squ Attach Photo (optional)Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Public Comment regarding Petition 20230861 400 Louden SUP Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Saratoga Springs The members of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Saratoga Springs (UUCSS) appreciate this opportunity to respond to concerns raised by some of our potential neighbors in the Public Comment 13 regarding SUP 20230861. We will attempt to be very responsive to those concerns. Our Comment is organized in order of the criteria for granting a SUP, as is Comment 13, in order to make it easier to compare the two documents. With regard to: Criteria 1 The extent to which the use is in harmony with and promotes the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and this Chapter – Under this heading, in Public Comment 13 it is implied that inclusion of a church in RR zoning is contrary to the objective of the Comprehensive Plan to preserve traditional community character. However, according to https://saratoga- springs.org/DocumentCenter/View/243/20-Base-Zoning-Districts-PDF, religious institutions are one of the allowed uses in RR zoning in Saratoga Springs. Therefore, it appears that the proposed use is within the contemplation of those who established the RR zoning rules for Saratoga Springs. Moreover, Paragraph 1.4 of the Saratoga Springs Zoning Ordinance states that the zoning rules in that ordinance are completely compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore we believe that the proposed church is in harmony with and promotes the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan Criteria 2 – The density and compatibility of the use within the neighborhood and community character - If paved parking lots and driveways of the proposed plan are included with the building footprint as impermeable area, then the permeable fraction based on the buildable portion of the land would be 74%, not the ”very unfavorable” 54.3% value as stated in Public Comment 13. Thus, according to the site plan, the footprint of the proposed church occupies 4500 square feet, the paved parking lot 12,000 square feet and the paved access road, 6000 square feet. This totals 22,500 square feet against a total buildable lot of 86,000 square feet, or just 26% coverage (100% – 74%) of the buildable area, not including the 3 acres of this property set aside by the environmental easement. We are willing to reduce the paved parking lot so as to increase the permeable area to above 80%, if such is deemed necessary, by increasing the area of the hardened earth parking. We note that hardened earth constitutes the 26 car parking lot at our present 624 Broadway site with the same average slope of three degrees. It has performed exceptionally well over the 20+ years we have occupied that site. Regarding actual drainage performance, only the building footprint is truly impermeable. The paved parking lot and road will be covered with permeable paving over a rock bed and the existing sand underlayment which has extremely high permeability. We will be strongly motivated to maintain this permeable pavement because that is much cheaper than expensive repairs later, and because clogging of the pavement would cause extreme runoff, disfiguring the flowers and other plantings planned alongside the paved areas. Of course, those motivations are in addition to the desire to prevent drainage issues for our neighbors. Criteria 3 – Safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular access, circulation and parking - We have never advocated overflow parking roadside on Louden or Bog Meadow, and would encourage no parking signs along those roads to prevent that style of parking. We have planned for onsite overflow parking to handle 60 more cars, in the form of hardened earth (gravel worked at low density into existing soil) among the trees. Since the soil is mostly sand, this hardened earth will retain high permeability. We have agreed to remove the one-way access drive from the plan because of traffic problems anticipated in the previous public comment meeting. The remaining two way exit onto Louden will be adequate because of the long site lines, limited traffic Sunday morning, and the fact that UU’s love to talk, extending both arrival and departure rates so there is no rush of traffic. Criteria 4 Existing and future demand on infrastructure, public facilities and services - The discussion about Criteria 2, 3 and 4 above includes comments about this issue. In particular, we will not use roadside parking. Further, as a result of the Covid era, a significant portion of our parishioners have been attending the services via Zoom, participating in them from their homes. We are steadily getting better at this Zoom presentation, resulting in a steadily growing fraction attending via Zoom. That factor has allowed us to decrease the planned size of our proposed new church and will control future demand for on-site facilities. Finally, in an extreme emergency, such as a large funeral, we will pick up people parked in Wilton Mall (with permission). A previous very large funeral, beyond the capability of our present 624 Broadway site, was held in a much larger church in town. This option remains open to us. Criteria 5 – The environment and natural resources of the site and neighboring lands, including any potential erosion, flooding or excessive light, noise, vibration, and the like - The concerns of our closest neighbors are of great importance to us and we would be happy to arrange meetings between them and our landscape architect, at our expense, to better design lighting, seepage and flood control. We believe that the presence of nighttime lights and parked cars can be minimized by careful design of low level lighting, dense planting and allotment of additional room for that landscaping where our property adjoins. We intend to show these amendments on a modified site plan to which we will adhere. Irritating our neighbors is against the basic tenets of our faith. The water demand for a small church such as the one we plan, with no laundry, showers or bathtubs, will be on the order of 300 gallons a week, as compared to the 3000 gallons per week of a typical home, which is the likely alternative on this site. Thus it would seem that such a church would be preferable to a single family home in a region with water supply concerns. We do have a copy of a hydrology survey of the Bog Meadow Development, entitled Groundwater Resource Characterization; Proposed Bog Meadow Manor, addressed to Mr. Geoff Bornemann, City Planner, City Hall, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866, and dated March 20, 1990. This report states that there are two aquifer systems underlying the Bog Meadow region. The upper one is in fine sand, with the water table lying 10 to 30 feet below grade, depending on surface elevation, and having a thickness between 60 and 100 feet. The second aquifer begins about 50 feet deeper, topped by an impervious clay layer. This report concludes “Pursuant to the general hydrogeologic data available from the surrounding area, it would appear viable for the development of 34 residential wells within the proposed Louden Road subdivision site. Both aquifers have the potential to supply ground water to any potential building lot.” If our neighbors are having a problem with one aquifer, we would certainly attempt to connect with the other one to avoid interfering with that supply. With regard to runoff, there should be little of that from anywhere except the building footprint, because of the very high permeability of the sandy soil. Runoff from the building will be guided naturally downhill toward the South end of the property. With regard to seepage we propose to build into the site plan particular protection for neighboring well sites and hope to talk to our closest neighbors to do a good job of protecting those wells. Also, many of our vehicles are electric, which produce no chemical runoff. Modern well-maintained cars don’t emit significant amounts of pollutants by law. We do not use salt on our present parking lot at 624 N. Broadway and would use it at 400 Louden only sparingly on rare occasions on the walks of the property which are far from our property lines. As proponents of organic gardening, we do not use chemical fertilizers, pesticides or fungicides. Notes. Under Criteria 5 the Public Comment 13 addressed by the present comment claims that the impervious area of the proposed plan is 38,419 SF whereas the present plan shows only 22,500 SF of impervious area, including the building footprint, the access road, and paved parking. (For zoning law purposes, our understanding is that all paved areas are counted as impervious.) While porous pavement does not adequately remove typical pollutants, filtration through sufficient soil does. Thus our plan becomes to ensure adequate soil filtration. Regarding pollutants from automobiles, many of us can remember back to when garage floors were stained by oil, grease and brake fluid leaks, but well maintained modern cars don’t leak. Regarding maintenance of porous pavement, as we discuss previously, such maintenance is strongly in our self interest, helping to ensure that it will be done. Criteria 6 - The long term economic viability of the site - Good neighbors are extremely valuable. We will be a good neighbor, because it is deeply embedded in our beliefs to be so, and because we want good neighbors. The proposed church will be a truly beautiful building, one that will enhance the appeal of the Bog Meadow neighborhood. As such, we will most likely increase the property values of our neighbors. That will be an important goal for us. Summary – We are strongly motivated by our faith and our self interest to be the best neighbors we can be. Therefore, we plan to work closely with our prospective neighbors in order to meet all six criteria for a special use permit from all points of view. Prepared by Murray Penney, PhD, retired scientist and engineer, member of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Saratoga Springs and its New Home Task Force (NHTF) in consultation with the other members of the NHTF including Art Holmberg, President-Elect and Chair of NHTF, Julie Holmberg, Past President of the Congregation, and member of NHTF, Lucy Manning, Past President of the Congregation, and member of NHTF, James Mihuta, member of NHTF, Sue Fisher, Treasurer of the Congregation and member of NHTF, Rev. Joe Cleveland, and Tari Lee Sykes, President of the Congregation