The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20230031 182 Excelsior Zoning Amendment Council Advisory Opinion ��'��`� �" MARK TORPEY, Chair ��k� � �1 � CITY OF SARATOGA SPRI NGS ��- � �J � '� � MARK PINGEL,Vice Chair �:,. � ��:., � TODD FABOZZI `� ��-.:� � ;:,�,. �r��- P LA N N I N G B OA R D � � �� -- KERRY MAYO � , � � � �, ~��r;�f� ..� . ..:�:�.%---.:�:� CHARLES MARSHALL � � �,,� �� City Hall -474 Broadway �� {}` �� R�� WILLIAM MCTYGUE i��.,� � � `�'��` .,�i Sarato a S rin s, New York I 2866 ��.�,��.�� , g p g . PATTY MORRISON Te1. 518-587-3550 fax. 518-580-9480 www.saratoga-spri ngs.org June 27, 2023 To: Ron Kim, Mayor Minita Sanghvi, Commissioner of Finance Dillon Moran, Commissioner of Accounts Jason Golub, Commissioner of DPW James Montagnino, Commissioner of DPS RE: Advisory Opinion to the City Council— I 82 Excelsior Ave. (Henry Lawrence House) Petition for Zoning Text Amendment Dear Mayor and Commissioners, Pursuant to City Council action on February 9, 2023 requesting an advisory opinion from the Planning Board,this board reviewed the Petition for Text Amendment submitted by the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation to designate I 82 Excelsior Ave. (Henry Lawrence House) a City Landmark. Per the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the Planning Board recommendation and the City Council decision on any zoning text amendment must consider the following standards(I 3.I 5 E.2): a. The consistency of the proposed amendment with the Comprehensive Plan and whether the proposed amendment provides a more workable way to achieve the intent and purposes of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. b. The consistency of the proposed amendment with the intent and general regulations of this Ordinance. c. The extent to which the proposed amendment promotes the public health, safety, and welfare of the City. d. Whether the proposed amendment corrects an error or omission, adds clarification to existing requirements, or reflects a change in policy. e. The extent to which the proposed amendment creates nonconformities. The Planning Board discussed the proposed amendment at its February 27, May I I and 25 meetings, and, issued a favorable advisory opinion by motion 4-I-I (ayes: Pingel, Fabozzi, Marshall, McTyge) based on the following: The amendment would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by furthering several of the recommended actions within the guiding principle of Community Character(3.4) including: History and Herita�e�. 3.4-20 Continue efforts to establish creative mechanisms to protect historic properties in all areas of the community. 3.4-3 I Survey historic resources within our community on an ongoing basis to identify which resources are significant and are worthy of preservation. The amendment would be consistent with the intent and�eneral re�ulations of the UDO: I 3.9 Design Review B. Purpose I. H istoric Review It is hereby declared that the protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of landmarks and historic districts are necessary to promote the economic, cultural, educational, and general welfare of the public. The City of Saratoga Springs has many significant historic, landscape, architectural, and cultural resources that constitute its heritage, therefore the historic review process is intended to: a. Protect and enhance the landmarks and historic districts which represent distinctive elements of the City's historic, architectural and cultural heritage. b. Foster civic pride in the accomplishments of the past. c. Protect and enhance the City's attractiveness to visitors thereby providing support and stimulus to the economy. d. Ensure the harmonious, orderly and efficient growth and development of the City. The Design Review Board (DRB) issued a favorable advisory opinion to the City Council on April 5, 2023 in support of the City landmark designation finding (in part): • The designation is not contrary to the intent and objectives of Article I 3, Historic and Architectural Review of the Unified Development Ordinance. • The DRB finds that the unique history of the property would meet at least three of the five criteria for Landmark designation as outlined in Article I 3.9.K.2. This would include: a. Possesses special character or archeological, historic, or aesthetic interest of value as part of the cultural, political, economic, or social history of the locality, region, state, or nation. b. Is identified with historically significant individuals. c. Embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style. While the Planning Board must consider the zoning text amendment under the standards set forth in the UDO, the Board offers the following for City Council consideration: • The Planning Board supports the relocation of the historic structures on a smaller,subdivided portion of the property to provide for a possible future development project on the remaining property. • The Planning Board recommends the text amendment be held in abeyance allowing time for the applicant of the proposed development project (Green Springs Capital Group) to seek approvals from the land use boards on a project that would include preservation of the historic structures. • In addition,after land use board reviews and following the relocation of the historic structures to the smaller, subdivided parcel, the text amendment could then be revised, if needed, to provide local landmark status to the smaller parcel only. • The Planning Board supports a comprehensive review of potential historic properties for possible future expansions of local historic districts or local landmark designations to avoid a piecemeal approach to historic preservation. 2 • The Planning Board supports the addition of clarifying language to the UDO in I 3.3 Notice that would require property owner notification (if petitioner is not also the property owner) of a zoning map or text amendment prior to a determination of inerit for review by the City Council. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact me. Sincerely, � . � Mark Torpey Chair 3