Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20260780 31 & 35 Myrtle St Saratoga Hospital PUD Admendment SEQRA History and TreatmentSERA History and Treatment Consistent with the application requirements of the City of Saratoga Springs Petitions for Zoning Amendments and in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance and the State Enviroinnental Quality Review Act, the applicant submits herewith an executed FEAF for review by the lead agent. As reflected in the Application Narrative, the Saratoga Hospital Medical/Professional PUD ("PUD") was adopted by the Saratoga Springs City Council on September S, 1987 and amended on April 19, 1993; January 21, 1997; October 21, 2003; April 7, 2009; March 1, 2011; March 25, 2013; and December 9, 2024. With each PUD amendment, the City Council - as lead agent - undertook the SEQRA review. By way of example, we provide the history of the last SEQRA .resolutions beginning in 2003. On October 21, 2003, Commissioner Stephen Towne moved. and Commissioner Thomas Curley seconded that the Council (i) established itself as the lead agent for the SEQRA e,zvir-onrnental review because no other involved agencies have challenged this request, (ii) declare that Part 11 of the SEQRA Long ,Environmental Assessment Form has been reviellred and is deeined accurate and complete and (iii) issue a negative declaration of envi, anniental significance because the analysis of the information provided and presented in Part II of the Environmental Assessment Form demonstrates that these amendments will not result in any large and important impacts and, therefore, is one that will not have a significant impact on the environmeni, and (iv) adopt the proposed c mendments in the PUD as presented All five members of the Council voted in the affirmative. On April 7, 2009, Commissioner Franck moved and Commissioner Scirocco seconded to declare a negative declaration under SEQRA for the Saratoga Hospital PUD Amendment. The Council reviewed each of the 20 questions on Part II of the SEQRA form and answered each of those 20 questions in the negative. The Coinxcil then adopted the resolution by unanimous vote. On March 1, 2011, Conunissioner Franck introduced the zoning amendment to the Council describing the proposed action with the Saratoga Golf and Polo Club, then proceed through each of the questions set forth on the SEQRA form in advance of a motion by Commissioner Franck, seconded by Commissioner Ivins to issue a SEQRA negative declaration. The motion was adopted Unanimously by the Council. Un October 1,. 2013, Mayor Johnson introduced the proposed Saratoga Hospital PUD Amendment and proceeded tluough the individual questions set 'Borth on the SEQRA form. At the conclusion of that review by the Council, Mayor Johnson moved, and. Conymissioner Franck seconded, the motion to issue a SEQRA negative declaration. That motion was adopted unanimously. On December 9, 2024, Mayon Safford introduced the proposed Saratoga Hospital PUD Amendment and the Council proceeded through the 18 questions set forth in the SEQRA form. At the conclusion of that review by the Council. Commissioner Moran moved and Commissioner Kuczynski seconded, the motion for a negative declaration. The motion was adopted 4-0. C011sistent with the process undertaken by the City Council for the previous PUD Amendment Applications, The Saratoga Hospital has submitted a project narrative and a Full Environmental Assessment Form for review and analysis by the City Council. The CounciI's history with the review of The Saratoga Hospital PUD and the seven amendments thereto have provided the Council with substantial background and familiarity with the campus as it has expanded over the years. With each amendment to the PUD, the Council - serving as lead agent- has undertaken the environmental review of those aspects of each Project that are new and different from the envirorunental impacts evaluated by the Council during previous applications. Continuing in this format, the Hospital urges the City Cotmcil to again perform all of the functions as lead agent in order that it fully and properly assess the impacts associated with the development of the Center for Successful Aging and the larger area for parking and medical offices. The Hospital looks forward to providing the City Council with all of the information reasonably required by the Council to perform its function fully. 1113125, 11:12 AM nc�crul ? .47CITY OF SARATOGA SPRY special City Council Meeting Monday, Dece nber 9, 2024 — 4.00 PM City Council Room. -,First Floor SEQRA for Saratoga Iospital 1. Public Dearing 2. Call To Order 3. Roll Call 4. Salute To Flag 5. Presentation on Hospital SEQRA 6. Consent Agenda 7. Public Comment Period / 60 Minutes 8. .Executive Session 9. Supervisor - Michele Madigan 10. Supervisor - Matthew Veitch 11. Mayor's Department 11.1 Discussion and Vote: SEQRA Review -Saratoga Hospital PUD Amendment Application https://lf. saratoga-springs.org/WebLink/B rowse. aspx?id=497394&dbi d�0&repo�SaratogaSprings cut and paste the above link to the web browser to see the dacwnents Part 2 SEQRA form.pdf Cty, city and DRB opinions.pdf 11.2 Discussion and Note: Accept Saratoga Hospital PUD amendment application 12. Account's Department 13. Finance Depaament 14. Public Works Department 15. Public Safety Department 16. AdJOurn Deceniber 9, 2024 CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS Special City Council Meeting 4:00 PM City Council Room - First Floor (via Zoom) AT PRESENT: John F Safford, Minita Sanglivi, Ilank Kuczynski, Dillon Moran, Tim Coll I . Public Bearing There were no public hearings. 2. Call To Order Mayor Safford called the meeting to order at 4 p.m. 3. Roll Call 4. Salute To Flag 5. Presentation on Hospital SEQRA Attorney Matt Jones lead the presentation on the Saratoga Hospital SEQRA Attorney Jones stated he has practiced law for 45 years and thirty (30) of those years he has had the privilege of representing Saratoga Hospital. Attorney Jones stated an application for this SEQRA had been worked on since last year and filed with the City on July 5, 2024. Jones stated the team on the project/were: CEO of Saratoga Hospital Jill VanKuren, Kaitlin Tripp, Mark Sargent, Casey Kasis, Justin Grassi, Jeff Casale, Frank Marshall, Mike Ingersoll, and Tom Roohan, Jones stated the subject of the SEQRA is for the Center for Aging at Saratoga Hospital. Jones stated since 1960 the hospital evolved with the City Council starling with the Comprehensive Plan. Jones stated growth is part of the DNA, of Saratoga Hospital with the origins of the city hospital dating back to the 1890's. Jones stated the Saratoga Hospital Church Street location was established in 1915 the same year the City of Saratoga Springs was incorporated as a city_ See presentation. Attorney Matt .tones stated the 2001 Comprehensive Plan supported the viability and growth of the community's unique institutions, which includes Saratoga Hospital. Jones stated each decade the City's Comprehensive Platt supports the growth of Saratoga Hospital_ Jones stated the hospital has been approved for 31,200 sq. ft. of building in Zone B of the hospital campus and the ask is to borrow from Zone A, to accommodate a 60,000 sq. ft. medical office building to include the Center .for, Successful Aging. Jones stated the hospi±al is redo; - k)r) within the existing PUD. hit Van Kuren, President/CEO of Saratoga Hospital stated the Center for Successful Aging address the unique needs of an aging population who experience multiple medical conditions and will 6, VA a enable seniors to receive comprehensive, coordinated care of chronic and complex conditions all in one convenient location. VanKuren stated the hospitals obligation to the City is to evolve. VanKuren stated the project started ten (10) years ago when the hospital looked at acquiring additional land for the hospital to develop and grow into. VanKuren stated the loud outcry froin the community was to build out on the PUD already in place. VanKuren stated the hospital listened to the community and came up with the proposed amendment to the PUD, whirls is an opportunity for the hospital to build out the square footage and would limit the environmental impact on the City. Mark Sargent, Licensed Engineer with Creighton Manning, presented an overview of the traffic study for the SEQRA. Sargent stated the study area is located at the existing 10,000 office building adjacent to Saratoga Hospital. Sargent stated the study looks at the nearby intersections to see how they operate with and without the proposed changes. Sargent stated there is data and findings on the crosswalks, as well. See second presentation, Mark Sargent stated the traffic study reflects peak hours of traffic in the area, which are 7 a.m, to 3 p.m. with a recording of 3,300 cars a day. Sargent stated pedestrian traffic at the cross walks during the peak hours were 193 people a day. Sargent stated the study analysis fotuid 22 total crashes over the last there (3) years, most were at the Church and Myrtle St. intersection. Sargent stated no significant safety concerns were found in the area. Marls Sargent stated the traffic forecast with the addition of the Center for Successful Aging would generate an additional 162- 176 trips in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours respectfully, Sargent stated the Level of Service "LOS" which is a part of a traffic study with the criteria measure of: A (little or no delay), B (short traffic delay); C (average traffic delay); D (long traffic delay); E ( very long traffic delay); F (delay unacceptable to drivers). Sargent stated the LOS at the nearby intersections during peak hours received primarily A,13, and C grading. Sargent stated the largest change in the LOS at the Churcb/Myrtle St intersection rrom a B to C, which increases the traffic delay of :12 seconds per vehicle. Consent Agenda There was no Consent Agenda pur forth. Public Comment Period / 60 Minutes Mayor Safford opened the public conunent period at 4;37 p.m. No one spoke. Mayor Safford closed the public comment period at 4:38 p.m. Executive Session There was no Executive Session. Supervisor - Michele Madigan 10. Supervisor- Matthew Veitch 11. Mayor's Department 11.1 SPQRA, RevicwT—Saratoga Ho'sp;W PUD Amendment Application https:lllf.saratoga-springs.orglWcbLir kIBrowse.aspx?id=497394&dbid=0&repo=SaratogaSprings cut and paste the above link to the well browser to see the documents Mark Scliachner, Special Council to the City's Land Use Board, stated that Part 1 of the EAF has been completed and signed on July 3, 2024, Susan Barden, City of Saratoga Springs Senior Planner was present at the meeting and recording the vote of the SEQRA, on behalf of the Planning Board. Part 2 of EAF: Schachner explained the Council would be reviewing eighteen (18) questions deciding whether each of the eighteen (18) threshold question is a Yes or No. Schachner stated if the Council finds the threshold question is a no, then no further action is required for the question. If the Council states a threshold question answer is Yes, then there lettered sub questions that would be addressed. Schachner stated the lettered questions allows for two (2) choice of magnitude of the impact: no, or small impact may occur or moderate to large impact may occur. Schachner stated further environmental analysis is required if noderate to large impact may occur is found by the Council. Schachner stated Part 3 is a narrative would be irequired by law and done at another meeting. Answers to the questions I - 18 were answered by the City Council in the following planner, See Part 2 EAF. Please view the video of the meetingfor more detail of the decisions to the Outcome of the firm! answer by the ficll Council. 1. Impact on Land Proposed action may involve constriction on, or physical alteration of, the land surface of the proposed site. (See Part 1. D.1) Answer: Yes, All subsections were No, or small impact may occur. Answer: Yes. Subsections a - g, answers were: No, or small impact may occur. 2. Impact on Geological Features The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit access to, any unique or unusual land forms on the site (e.g., cliffs, dunes, minerals, fossils, caves). Answer: No. 3. Impacts on Surface Water The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds or lakes). (See part 1. D.2, E,2.h). Answer: No, 4. Impact on groundwater The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water, or may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer. (See Part 1. D.2,a, D.2.c, D.2,d, D.2.p, D.2,q, D.2.t). Answer: No. 5. Impact on Flooding The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding. (See Part 1. E.2). Answer: No. G. Impacts on Air The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source. (See Part 1. D.2.f., D.2,h, D.2.g), Answer: No, 7. Impact on Plants and Animals The proposed action may result in a loss of floraor fauna. (Sec fart 1. E,2. m.-q.). Answer: No. S. Impact on Agricultural Resources The proposed action may impact agricultural resources. (See Part 1. E.3.a, and b.). Answer: No. 9. ,its-tpitet�'on•Aesthetic'Resources The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from,, or are in sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. (Part 1. E.1.a, E.l.b, E.3.h.). Answer: No. 10. Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological resource. (Part I. E.3_e, f. and g.). Answer; No. 11. Impact on Open Space and Recreation The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted municipal open space plan. (See fart 1. C.2,c, EA,c., E.2.q.). Answer-: No. 12. Impact on Critical Environmental Areas The proposed action may be located within or adjacciit to a critical environmental area (CEA). (See Part 1. E.3.d). Answer. No, 13. Impact on Transportation The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems. (See Part 1. D.2.j). Answer: Yes. Answers to Subsections a - f were: No, or small impact may occur. 14. Impact on Energy The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy. (See Pail 1. D.21). Answer: Yes. Answers to Subsections a - e were: No, or small impact may occur. 15. Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light The proposed action may result in are increase in noise, odors, or outdoor lighting. (See fart 1. D.2.m., n., and o.). Answer. Yes. Answers to Subsections a - f were: No, or small impact may occrir. 16. impact on Human IIealth The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure to new or existing soLwces of contaminants. (See Part LD.2.q., E.1. d. f g. and h.). Answer: No. 17. Consistency with Community Plans The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans. (See mart 1. C. I, C_2_ and C.3.). Answer: No. 18. Consistency with Community Character The prroposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character. (See Part 1. C.2, C.3, D.2, E.3). Answer: No. Attorney Schachner stated since the City Council did not identify any of the questions as moderate to large, that the City may move forward and adopt a resolution. Schachner stated the purpose of this entire exercise is for the Council to determine whether a full blown environmental impact statement is required on the proposed action of the Saratoga Hospital PUD Amendment Application. Schachner stated the Council can move to the Determination of Significance or otherwise known as Negative Declaration, which is a determination there are no potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. Mayor Safford stated there is no ,resolution for this matter. Attorney Schachner advised a motion could be made to approve the SEQRA Negative Declaration. Part 2 SEQRA form.pdf Cty, city and DRB opinions.pdf Moved by Dillon Moan; seconded by Hank KLAczynski to Approve a Negative Declaration on the SEQRA Form the Council just completed. Motion Passed: 4- 0 Voting For: John F $-afford; Honk Kuczynski, Dilion Moran, Tim Coll Voting Against: None l 1.2 Accept Saratoga IIospital PUD amendment application Moved by John F Safford; seconded by Hank Kuczynski to Approve the Saratoga Hospital PUD Amendment Application. Motion Passed: 4- 0 Voting For: John F Safford, Haub Kuczynski, Dillon Moran, `1-im Coil Voting Against: Nave 12.. Account's Department No items put forth. 13. Finance Department No items put forth. 14. Public Works Department No items put forth. 15. Public Safety Department No items put forth. 16. Adjourn John F Safford moved and Hank Kuczynski seconded to Adjorn the Special City Council Meeting at 5:21 p.m.. Motion Passed. 4 - 0 Voting For: John F Safford, Hank Kuczynski, Dillon Moran, Tiny Coll Voting Against: None October 1, 2013 � M1 I CITY OF R-5 A A O VA SPRINGS tll 1 G City Council l f�t�`r�'41?AiF.O ti��e} Meeting 6:00 P,M. — Workshop: NYS ORPS Re, Basic STAR Registration 6.45 P.M. — P.H. — Amend Capital Budget Water Treatment Plant Emergency Generator 6:55 P.M. -- P.H. —Amend Capital Budget — Safe Routes to School 7.00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL, CALL SALUTE TO FLAG PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD 115 MINUTES PRESENTATION(S) 1, 2014 Comprehensive Budget 2. Water Treatment Plant Emergency Generator 3. Vietnam 5016 Commemoration Partnership Program EXECUTIVE SESSION: None. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of 9/16/13 Pre -Agenda Meeting Minutes 2. Approval of 9117/13 City Council Meeting Minutes 3, Approve Budget Amendments (Increases) 4. Approve Budget Transfers - Regular 5. Approve Payroll 09/20/13 $405,253.14 6. Approve Payroll 09/27/13 $432,888.32 7. Approve Warrant; 2013 Mid — 13MWSEP2 $3,192,135.26 8. Approve Warrant: 2013 REG -- 13OCT1 $448,461.30 MAYOR'S DEPARTMENT 1. Discussion and Vote: Authorization for Mayor to Sign Agreement with National Landscaping and Lawn Care for East Side Big Baseball diamond Sod 2. discussion and Vote: Assuming Lead Agency Status on Saratoga Hospital PIJD amendments 3. Discussion and Vote: determination of Significance lender SEQRA for Proposed Saratoga Hospital PU❑ Amendment 4. Discussion and Vote: Approval of Zoning Map and Text Amendments for Saratoga Hospital PUD Amendment 5. Discussion and Vote: Amend the Capital Program and 2013 Capital Budget — Safe Routes to School 6. DISC Ession and Vote: Authorization for Mayor to Sian w[th NYS DOT for Safe Roules to School Grunt city Council 11coig5 tU/l/l3 all times. The project timeline is to complete design, obtain NYSDOH review and approval by end of October, 2013; order and sign contract by and of November, 2013, Commissioner Franck confirmed the generator runs on fuel. Tim advised the generator is a, diesel generator, Commissioner Scirocco read the letter from the DOH from May 17, 2013 into the record as follows: Commissioner Madigall confirmed that he believes the City will 17e.fne with the installation of the generator in 2014 when the letter states the end of 2013. ���hS4[tl'nrr+emor�.#Ive P�rtner,�hip Rraa.r,� This presentation was removed from the agenda as Commissioner Mathiesen was not able to make this meeting. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Johnson moved and Commissioner Scirocco seconded to approve the consent agenda as follows: 1. Approval of 9116/13 Pre -Agenda Meeting Minutes 2_ Approval of 9117113 City Council Meeting Minutes 3. Approve Budget Amendments (Increases) 4. Approve Budget Transfers — Regular 5. Approve Payroll 09/20/13 $405,253.14 6. Approve Payroll 09/27/13 $432,888.32 7. Approve Warrant: 2013 Mid — 13MWSEP2 $3,192,135.26 8. Approve Warrant. 2013 REG — 130CT1 $448,461.30 Ayes — All MAYOR'S DEPARTMENT 10bioussion F 1 • 4 - 4 • = 1 l lonal Le1• i Care fQE U' ■ CS -�. N rn� Mayor Johnson explained this project totals $8,51 6 and includes the removal of existing turf and installation of sod to the infield. The project has been approved by the school hoard as a 2012 capital project. Funds are from line H3B57142152000 / 100$. Mayor Johnson moved and Commissioner Scirocco seconded to authorize the mayor to enter into the agreement as listed and described. Ayes - All scus ' g and a umin pad A c Status Sara os ' QQ A dments (13-328) Mayor ,Johnson stated the Council sent their intent to the other boards regarding that they wish to take lead agency status. Responses have been received from the City Planning Board, County Planning Board, and Design Review Commission that they do not to assume lead agency status. page 10 of 21 City covowif Nluc[inp� W/ 1113 Mayor Johnson moved and Commissioner Madigan seconded for the City to caSsume lead agency status in the SEQRA determination of the Saratoga Hospital PUD amendment. Ayes - All D-jscussinn and V Det Jj1ati0n of Sicnirir. ce U r4 ar Pr osed Sarato a i al UD me izent (13-329) p �t�p� Mayor Johnson advised Part 1 has been completed and is part of the record. The Council agreed to waive the reading of Part 1. Kate Maynard of the Planning Department suggested changes to Part 9 as follows,, page 8, question 2.5 should have architectural review and site plan review added; question C1 should have architectural review added here again. This should be added by the applicant for part 1 and resubmitted by the applicant. Mayor Johnson confirmed it should be added as final submission and acceptance by the Council. Kate advised that is correct. Mayor Johnson read the proposed responses for Part 2 of SEQRA into the record as follows: lrnmWn Land: 1. Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site? Yes o Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. Small to Moderate Impact Can Impact Be Mitigated by project Change? No 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) NQ 3. Will Proposed Action affect any water body designated as protected? (under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Envfronmental Conservation Law, ECL) NO 4. Will Proposed Action affect any non -protected existing or new body of water? NO 5, Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? NO o Other impacts: Full storm water analysis and protection be required. All storm water will be mitigated to DEC and City standards. 6. Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? NO o Other impacts. full storm water analysis and protection be required. All storm water will he mitigated to DEC and City standards. 7. Will Proposed Action affect air quality? NO 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? No 9, Will Proposed Action substantially affect non -threatened or non -endangered species? NO Imps-t- _on Agricultural Land ggsources: 10. Will Proposed Action effect agricultural land resources? NO .lPar esl gtio Rt�ou-_ rces; 1 1. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix f3) NO a Other impacts, Identified as a City gateway location therefore DRC review is required. 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? YES Page I nr�i city Council mealing IOIl/13 o Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility of site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. Small to Moderate Impact Can impact Be Mitigated by Project Change? No a Other impacts: DRC issued at favorable advisory opinion for proposed action and DRC architectural review will be required. 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? No 14. Will Proposed Action impact the exception or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6NYCRR 617.4(g)? NO 15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? NO 16. Will Proposed Action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? NO Noi,50 and QdDr impact: 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? No lIDpact on Pubes_Eigalth, 18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? NO Impact qu Or a ara er of QQMmL1or h ood: 19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? yes o Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility of site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. Small to Moderate impact h Can impact be Mitigated by Project Change? No o Other Impacts: Planning Board issued a favorable advisory opinion for proposed action, Jobs will be created as a result of the action, 20. Is there, or Is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environment impacts? NO Mayor Johnson advised the Council does not need to proceed to Part IIi Mayor Johnson stated it is reasonably determined that the project will not result in any large and Important impact and therefore is one that will not have a significant impact on the environment; therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. Mayor Johnson moved and Commissioner Franck seconded to adopt the Prollosed recommendations, responses, as well as the issuance of a negative declaration under purposes of determination of significance under SEQRA. Ayes -All 1 an Vote: Apprdv 1 of on rig Ma i d . xt Amendment (13-330) n Te AD]en. drnenls t Sarata�a {�o�a!2UC Page 12 of? l City Council Meciing 1011113 Mayor Johnson advised the proposed amendment consists of the following: demolition of the Cramer blouse; construction of a 33,900 square foot surgical suite addition and modification of the PUD boundary to remove the property at 2$$ Church Street front the PiJE). Steps need to be taken to classify the zoning of this parcel. Matt Jones of the Jones Law Firm and attorney for the applicant advised OM130-2 is the preferred zoning for that location. Mayor Johnson stated fie thinks it would be appropriate for that dedication Mayor Johnson moved and Commissioner Madigan seconded for the City Council to adopt the Proposed amendment to the Saratoga Hospital medical/professional PUD of the City of Saratoga Springs Code in a form next Hereto and will direct the local law to be filed with the New York State Secretary of State forthwith. Ayes - All ilascuss)c g aner Vote: Amend the C-Q L '�31) P{ogr an 0 I. 8 C� 'tat d e — ate utes to ,Scflool (13- Mayor Johnson moved and Commissioner Franck seconded to amend the capital program and the 2013 capital budget for the Safe Routes to School item, which is 100% reimbursable grant from New York State in the amount of $246,617 under line item H3015112 / 52021 J 75959. Ayes - All Di,scQssion e: thorinfion a o S e 1V OT afe to 7onl it (13-332) Mayor Johnson stated this grant is 100% reimbursable. The City will put the money out but will receive the full amount back from New York State. The amount is $246,617, This was in collaboration with the school district to allow people in the Geyser Crest community along Geyser Road to get from their homes to Geyser Road Elementary school. Mayor Johnson stated above Is the motion and Commissioner Madigan seconded. Ayes - All an Set I' a Pr sad o f sfPr an h — rfr P Mayor Johnson stated this is to roll this matter out and set a public hearing. The City took up this project in late 2008. They were looking for a way to develop the parcel. They took members from the original committee and added to it. The result was a proposed master plan that was unveiled in 2009. Due to the economy, there wasn't much that could be done back then and was put on hold. Efforts were taken to open the: park and pave the road. The First match grant received was a $200,000 matching grant and a then we received a second matching grant of $325,000, We need to go through a SDC)RA of the site and go through a master plan. New York State wants to know what our vision is for the parcel. Two conceptual drawings have been attached to the agenda. Phase I provides us with what the state needs to move forward. Brad Birge of the Planning Department explained the site is 3 tiered. The master plan is, long terry, multi- year, multi -stage. The top area is envisioned to be a parking lot and scenic overlook; the middle stage is smaller and envisioned to be a passive lawn area and potential amphitheater, and the lower tier is by the lake with short term parking and beach front access for swimming. fvl:'irol' .ir hnsof? set a public hearing for Monday, November 4, 20 0 at 9:51) P.M. flat 13 of 21 March 1, 2011 hE.. ...Ji ��. CITY OP' SA RATOCA SPRINGS H C City O01111c1l _ Meeting 7:00 PM CALL To ORDER ROLL CALL SALUTE TO FLAG PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD 115 MINUTES PRESENTATION(S) 1. WASAD Annual Report EXECUTIVE SESSION: Discussion regarding proposed, pending or current litigation; personal private information of a person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, Promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a person or corporation, collective negotiations. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of 2115/11 City Council Minutes 2- Approval Budget Amendments 3. Approve Budget Transfers 4. Approve Capital fund Budget Transfers 5. Approve Payroll 2118111 $401,533.02 6- Approve Payroll 2125/11 $425,436,10 7. Approve Warrant 2010 Mid 10MWDEC7 314,229.89 8. Approve Warrant 2010 Mid 10DEC8 $1,250.00 9. Approve Warrant 2011 Mid 11MWFES3 $775,606.42 10. Approve Warrant 2011 Regular 11MAR 1 $256,142.33 11. Correction Payroll 214/11 $370,158.90 MAYOR'S DEPARTMENT 1, Presentation: 2011 CDBG Funding Recommendations 2. Set Public Hearing: Citizen Advisory Committee Recommendations for 2Q11 Entitlement Action Plan 3, discussion and Vote: Indoor Recreation Center American Red Cross Agreements 4. Discussion: Closure of Borders Bookstore ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT 1. Discussion: Basic STAR Income Requirements 2. Discussion and Vote, Creation of a Temporary Clerk Position with State Archives Grant Funds 3. Discussion and Vote; SEQRA for Saratoga Golf and P010 Zoning Amendment 4. Discussion and Vote: Approval of Zoning Amendment for Saratoga Golf and polo 5. Discussion and Vote: SEQRA for Saratoga Hospital PUD Zoning Amendment 6. Discussion and Vote: Approval of PUD Zoning Amendment for Saratoga Hospital Cily Council Nje,sIing 311fi I Commissioner Ivins stated the numbers CommiSSloner SCIMCC4 showed have not been audited by his department yet. John Krause of 227 Grand Avenue asked if DPVV has completed the project with the sewer line in the Jefferson Street area. Paul Male, city engfncer advised phases have been completed. They have plans to start on Phase 5 this spring. Mr_ Krause continued to say he can't complain about a 2% increase. The water and sewer budget in total is voted on in November as part of the comprehensive budget. Fle understands it is a timing prablern; however, he sees that problem as the same problem Commissioner Ivins faces when he has to put together an operating budget with information available through September. He wonders if there is a way next October to do trend analysis for the past 5 or 10 years to gain a better idea of the projected water and sewer budget_ Commissioner Ivins closed the public hearing at 6:56 p.m �S2ft!l1 Ct meet for . o f .Q Commissioner Ivins opened the public hearing at 6:57 p.m. Stephanie Ferradino, attorney for the applicant, clarified that items 3 & 4 of the Accounts agenda should have Saratoga Hospital removed as it relates to the golf and polo club only. Commissioner Ivins closed the public hearing at 6,58 p-m. MI) ZonirGg Amendment for ,9r@toga H ital Commissioner Ivins opened this public hearing at 6:58 p.m. No one spoke. Commissioner Ivins closed the public hearing at 7:01 p.m. CAL, TD QRDEg Commissioner Ivins called the meeting to order at 7.01 p.m. PUBLIC DXENT- Commissioner Ivins opened the public comment period at 7:02 p-m. Commissioner Ivins said the public comment period is limited to a total of 15 minutes and individuals are limited to two minutes each according to the rules approved in February of 2004 by the City Council. Rick Thompson of 26 Frederick Drive stated he kinds it unusual our citizens can't vote on a lawful issue. He read a letter to the editor from the February 26, 2t711 Saratogia;n. This letter was written by Barbara Thomas of the League of Women Voters. He stated this is an unbiased gr6up that would like: to see this prorri`Fal Jli the ballot. Page 4 of 13 City C:uuncfl t%-Iceling 311n I sct s' and Vote;_SEQ3 far Sarotgga.Golf & polo .-c n q mg (11-G9) Commissioner Franck advised the zoning amendment proposed is for the exchange of land between Saratoga Hospital and Saratoga Golf & polo Club. The hospital proposes to exchange 1.5 acres of land from the hospital campus on the west side of Myrtle Street, upon which the Saratoga Golf & Polo Club has their driving range, for a .61 acre, "L" shaped portion of land from Saratoga Golf and Polo Club, The City and County Planning Boards reviewed this amendment and both boards approved or issued a fovcrable advisory opinion. The applicant has completed Part 1 of SEQRA Short Form, Now the City Council must complete fart 2 of the SEQRA Short Form. He proposed the following responses to Part 2 of the SEQRA Short Form: A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART til7.4? Na B, WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PAIN 617.6? No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE t;FFECTS ASSOCIATED WiTH THE FOLLOWING: 01. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, nciso levels, existing trafho pattern, sotfdwaste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or Rcoding problems? No Impact anticipated, C2, Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? No impact anticipated. C8. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shallflsh or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? No Impact anticipated, C4. A cornmunfly's existing plans or goals as offlcralfy adopted, or a change in use or Intensity or use of land or alher natural resources? No Impact anticipated, C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? No impact anticipated. CB. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not Identified in C-1-06? No impact anticipated. C7, Other impacts (including changes In use of either quantity or typo of energy? No Impact anticipated. D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSEDThIE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA)7 No E, IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? No Part III Check this boys if you have determined, based on the Information and analysis above and any supporting documenlation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse enviranmantai impacts AND provlda, on attschmenm as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination. Commissioner Franck advised based upon the answers to Part 2 of the SEQRA Short Form, it is the City Council's opinion that the project will not result in any large or important impacts, therefore it is one that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, - Commissioner Franck moved and Commissioner Ivins seconded to issue a SEQRA Negative Declaration for this action. Ayes -All otP- pprov f ni g endure a Goff o (11-70) Commissioner Franck moved and Commissioner Wirth seconded to approve the zoning amendment proposed by Saratoga Goff & Palo Club. Ayes -All Discussion and �Jpte: 5E(F2A For Sara g as pilaf P ld Zoning_Amendma ;t (11-71 Commissioner Franck advised the PUD zoning amendment proposes the following: + Remove a portion of land which is currently located in the PUD and add it to a .6 acre portion of land that is being received from Saratoga Golf and Palo Club-1 ase the sire of title propost. C' z r,ta =:r, .; 1,,�, -'') r,�'�li ,=,rrt:are feet based on Fr arse property proposed for additional parking. pagc 8 or 13 City COU1161 Meeting 3l1/11 b Modify portions of tho legislation which are either no longer applicabie or consolidate sections that have the same purpose and intent. He continued to say the City and County Planning Boards reviewed this amendment anci both boards approved or issued a favorable advisory opinion. The applicant has completed Part 1 of SEQRA Long Form. Now the City Council must complete Part 2 of the SE=QRA Long Form. He proposed the following responses to Part 2 of the SEQRA Long Form: 1. Will the Proposed Action result In a physical change to the project site? NO 2, Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (L0.., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) No 3. Will Proposed Action affect any water body designated as protected? (under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) No 4- Will Proposed Action affect any non protected existing ar hew body of water? NO 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? NO 6- Will Proposed Action after drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? NO 7. Will Proposed Action affect air quality? NO 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? NO 9, Will Proposed Action substantially affect non -threatened or non -endangered species? NO irnp ct on A ri Land R .� s: 10. Will Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? NO lmpaaon Aest�esources: 11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? (if necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix B) NO 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? NO Impact n d._Recreotion: 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? NO 14. Will Proposed Action impact the exception or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (OEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14(g)? NO tMSQL n rransp�rtation: 15, Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? NO JoPact on Ea9m, 16. Will Proposed Action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? NO Oise h dor 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? NO ImPact .13 P 18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? NO Impsi n r f CQmaigpity or 19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? NO 20; Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environment impacts? NO Commissioner Franck advised since there were no potentially large .impacts identified in Part 2, we do not need to proceed to Part 3.: The, City Council has fully considered the environmental impacts of the project and hereby deterrrlines :that. th'a project wil!.not result in any large or important impacts arLd .Mill 'i a significant iinpact Lin the ertvii6iFlrient. Pugs 9 of 13 CityCuuneiI Nlectijl6 ;full Commissiorer Frarnck moved and Commissioner Ivins Seconded to issue a SEQRA Negative ❑eclaration for this action. Ayes - All aisr.ussion_and Vntn : Approval of P! lba en ar S a o. (11-72) Commissioner Franck moved and Commi5sioner Ivins seconded to approve the PUp zoning amendment proposed by Saratoga Hospital. Ayes - All FINANCE DEPARTMENT 1)1scusslon ud Vote: Department of Eubfic Safely Payroll Tra s r. (11-73) Commissioner Ivins moved and Commissioner Wirth seconded to approve the Department of Public Safety Payroll transfers as previously distributed to the Council. Ayes — All scussion. 2010 Salt-.,; Commissioner Ivins stated there is good news to report for 2010. Consumers spent over $45.5 rnillion more in taxable items in 2010 than in 2009. The total safes tax collected for 2010 is $9,045,606"32. We started to see a change in spending trend in November 2009 with the amount of spending being to the positive. We realized an 8.2% growth in 2090 from 2009. He is confident that the sales tax total will be $9.1 million for 2011. ❑I c o U -lie eedin Commissioner Ivins stated tax collection Is governed by NYS Real Property Law and his office is in compliance with the law. They have a 94% collection rate. Delinquent taxes are subject to a 60% fate fee. Liens are held for 2 years before they could be placed In an in -rem proceeding. He started an in -rem proceeding last year. A mailing to each party found to have an interest in a delinquent parcel will be sent with notification of the proceedings. On or about March 15u, they will fulfill the publication and posting requirements. Once the judge gives the City the deeds, the Council can choose to move to auctiala. The total amount owed was $882,697.17 when the proceedings began. The amount stiff outstanding is $655,809.01, ❑iscuss' -n. tuts Finance Commissioner Ivins stated the City received a new debt schedule regarding the refinancing of the Interest on the 1997 bond. The principal payment will remain the same from August 15, 2011 through August 15, 2017. Under the old term, the City would have paid $202,626.25 in interest for that time period. Under the new terms, the City will pay $82,321,37 in interest, a savings of $120,304"88 in Interest over that time period. PUBLIC WORDS DEPARTMENT D1ScuasJon and Vote: Aythorixetisu far Mav to ontract w' Mahoney u�tify Plus (11-74) Commis s1oner ,SciroCco stated as a cost savings measure the Department of Public Works eliminated the _VerizoR-I1'n(5m"at:Jhe 23 sewer pump stations and contracted. with Matticr -;Nlolify. In the event a pump pogo 10 of 13 k:. MY OF SAi} ATOGA SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL M EETHNG CITY COUNCIL ROOM 7adOO fP"nll . PRESENT- Scott ,Johnson, Mayor John Franck, Commissioner of Accounts Ken lvins, Commissioner of Finance Ron Kim, Commissloner of ❑PS Anthony Scirocco, Commissioner of DPW PRESENT: Matthew Veitch, Supervisor Joanne Yepsen, Supervisor STAFF PRESENT: Michele Soxley, Deputy Commissioner, Accounts Eileen Finneran, Deputy Commissioner, OP5 Kate Jarosh, Deputy Commissioner, Finance Shauna Sutton, Deputy Mayor Joe Scala, City Attorney ABSCENT: Patrick Design, Deputy Commissioner, DPW RECORQILIG OF f D _lNG The proceedings of this meeting were taped for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript. .PUBLIC HEA (NGS Citizen AdyjggEy [' R e i-ons for 2009 m n i Mayor Johnson opened the public comment period at 6:51p.m. No one spoke. Mayor Johnson closed the public hearing- Street.Accegtanc�. � ❑avid Lam Mayor Johnson opened the public comment period at 6:52 p.m. No one spoke, Mayor Johnson closets the public hearing. Swatoga Hnapital PUD Amendmant Mayor Johnson opened the public comment period at 6:55 p.m. No one spoke - Mayor Jotinson kept the public,h6'ing open for the public to respond after they hr ar the presentation, Cloy cuuncil rVIuuliug 4/o»nq Rich Straut advised the Geyser Crest Wellfield is a significant asset of the City's drinking water system. There have been some issues in the past year of so that they have been helping the City address, It is a major part of the City's supply source. The weilfield has 7 wells and is capable of pumping 187 million gallons of water per day. Currently 4 wells are not capable of Being used. This past November, the Department of Health inspected the well site and noted several things that needed to be addressed. The biggest issue being that 4 out of the 7 wells are incapable of being used; one of the well pumps has met its lifespan, Three of the smaller wells can't be used because the storage tank they are hooked to has sprung a leak and had to be shut down. A significant part of the mechanicai pumping systems are down and need to be retrofitted. The disinfection of the water has been determined insufficient by the health department. The water is disinfected by liquid chlorine; but what is missing is enough time where the water is in contact with the liquid chlorine before it reaches the residents, The Department of Health has given the City until December 1, 2009 to correct that or all of the people who use the water supply will have to be on a continuous boil water notice, Barton & Loguidice helped tale City earlier this year to secure a grant from NYSERDA to begin the engineering analysis on that. The last upgrade was over 20 years ago. NYSERDA's interest is these wells it to be more energy efficient. The plan Includes fixing the disinfection system; this will have to be a fast track fix to be done by December Vito prevent a boil water situation. The project cost is $770,000 for the upgrade; the City had budget approximately $+ x50,000 prior to the report being done. Commissioner Franck asked what areas the well€fields cover. Rich stated the water covers all of Geyser Crest; they use about 260,000 gallons per day. Another 400,000 gallons per day comes back into the City system. Prn�,- Sar a Hnsoital PUQ Amendment Stephanie Ferradin❑ of ,cones 1=erradino presented. in 2003 the Planned Development Unit (PUD) that was made was significant. They added acreage to the campus to accommodate the radiation oncology center and the emergency room. This amendment is less complex and the changes far fewer than in 2003. The current amendments are intended to add 2 properties to the PtJD. One property at 238 Church Street is currently owned by the hospital. The second property is 35 Myrtle Street, which is currently a doctor's office; they will be using this parcel for parking_ The property at 238 Church Street will be used as a respite for the doctors who are on call. The hospital signage is not intended to change, so they are looking for administrative review for a similar sign. Commissioner Kim asked if there are standards of what will be referred for administrative review. Stephanie advised there approvals that have already been granted_ if the sign doesn't fall within that approval, the sign will have to go through the normal process, where you start at zoning and go through design review. They are asking that the Council take action under SEQRA. Commissioner Ivins asked what has been addressed regarding ground water by taking an existing structure and turning it into more parking_ Stephanie advised they are increasing the pervious surfaces so that the amount of green space located within that lot is increased. I# is sufficient to handle the runoff, Mayor Johnson moved and Commissioner Scirocco seconded to move to executive Session regarding Proposed, pending or current litigation; personal private information of a person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or rerr oval of a person or corporation, Plgc 4 n(n Wily COIs1161 mucling 4M7109 and our own zoning ordinance and City Charter were raised, discussed, and dismissed by the court. Therc were 3 claims being made: declare the City Council approval of the project violated the City Charter and the state finance law because the project was not included in the City's 6 year capital program for 2009, violated city ordinance because the City initially bypassed the Zoning Board of Appeals and did not apply for area variances from that board, and the City violated SEQRA both procedurally and substantively in that such violations mandated the City Council made previously of a negative declaration meaning it had no adverse environmental impact to the chosen site and seeking the forcing of the City to go back a do a 'proper' SEQRA review of the project. The court dismissed them as being without merit. The court also commented that the alienation issue - the building of the indoor recreation center on this land would constitute alienation of park land that wasn't previously approved by the state department with jurisdiction in that matter - the court found there was no alienation on this project in this capacity. The court also found in favor of the City regarding the deed restrictions on this land which states in the event the land was not used as a playground or for recreational purposes, it could possibly revert or go back to the ownership of the school district if the City violated the use of land_ The court found that the deed restriction was not being violated for the proposed use by the City. These are all relevant Findings by the court. This was a complete validation and vindication of the City's position on this project on these issues. He is pleased to report to the community the City was upheld across the board on these issues. The Department of Labor stop bid order is still in effect. We are in negotiations hour by hour. He is hopeful they may have the final determination by tomorrow. Ar'�ounts ❑enartm= Announcement: aratoga�;j�ty_l=conamic Opp_artunity Cauncjf Volunteers Commissioner Franck announced as the elected official for the City of Saratoga Springs on the Board of the Saratoga County Economic Opportunity Council, I wanted to share some information. The Saratoga County EEC is starting a new initiative to assist individuals who live and work at the Saratoga Race Course Backstretch. The EOC will be starting a backstretch community dinner for workers that are on the track grounds at the very beginning and very end of the training season, when no other food service is available on the track. Starting April 151h thru May 151h and then again October 151h thru November 161h, the EOC will be cooking and serving dinner Monday thru Friday from 4:30 -'5:30 pm. The EOC is looking for volunteers to assist with either cooking or serving. This is a great opportunity for all of us to show support of our community and lend a hand. He will be serving. If anyone else is interested, please contact the EOC at 587-3158 ext_ 37. Qg ussion and Vote: SEQH6 for Sara1ggaJJqgpitaI PUU Amendment (09-91) Commissioner Franck moved and Commissioner Scirocco seconded to declare a negative declaration under SEQRA for the Saratoga Hospital PUD Amendment. The City's Planning Board and Design Review Commission as well as Saratoga County's Planning Board reviewed the Saratoga Hospital PUb Amendment. All of these boards approved or issued a favorable advisory opinion for this project. The applicant has completed Part 1 of the SEQRA long form and the City Council must complete Part 2 of the SEQRA long form as they claimed lead agency at the City Council meeting held an February 3, 2009. Although the applicant provided a draft copy of how to complete Part 2 of the SEQRA long form, it Is the Council's final decision. I will read through each question of Part 2 of the SEQRA form and suggest the appropriate answer to the Council. lm y LQn Land: Will Zha Proposed Action: result i;t a psi r Lu V-1e project site? 140 Page 10 8F,23 City Council Mcclitlg 4/U7/09 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusuaf land forms found on the site? (Le., cliffs, dunes, geological €ormations, etc.) NO 3, Will Proposed Action affect any water body designated as protected? (under Articles 15, 24,25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) NO 4. Will Proposed Action affect any non -protected existing or new body of water? NO 5. Will proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? NO 6. Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? NO 7. Will Proposed Action affect air quality? NO 8_ Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? NO 9, Will Proposed Action substantially affect non -threatened or non -endangered species' NO Impact on rictiltttral_Land Res u1trces: 10. Will Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? NO Lmngiqon A hetic Rrxsar: Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix 8) NO 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or pafeontdogical importance? NO 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recrealional Opportunities? NO 14, Will Proposed Action impact the exception or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CFA) established pursuant to subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14(g)? NO 15, Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? NO Im En r 16. Will Proposed Action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? NO Noise and ,Qdor L Win=; 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? NO I.W U on Public Wealth: 18, Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? NO 19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? NO 20, Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environment Impacts? NO Commissioner Franck stated he received a -mails in the past from homeowners on Woodland Court, The e-mails were primarily questions, not comments. Stephanie Ferradino explained the residents of Woodland Court were more involved during the 2003 amendment because it affected the helipad_ Commissioner Franck:'coriiit:ucdl 10 say siliCe there weie no potentially large impacts ldentifiu�d iri we do n„-- „n,,c -..�. r -, r� :.,. City the ¢ l li it ily of veltdt oya 6pr,ngs has reu.et#et� and 4?e+j§ lyzea Page I I of 25 City Council i0cering 41071a) Parts 1 and 2 of the full EAP; has fully considered the environmental impacts of the project and hereby determines that the project will not result in any large or important impacts and therefore is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment_ Therefore, a negative declaration is hereby issued by the City Council for this project which will be maintained in a file readily accessible to the public as well as required from the SEQRA. Mayor Johnson asked if the planned redevelopment of the intersection of Church Street and Myrtle Street was taken into consideration with the draft answers to these questions. Stephanie Ferradino stated that the engineers were well aware of the fact of the proposed construction, however the answers were provided under the present configuration. Ayes -All PJ=ssion and Vote: Approval of Saratog��.j ospital PUD Anpgndment (09-92) Commissioner Franck stated as Just discussed, the City Council approved a negative declaration tender EQRA for the Saratoga Hospital PUD Amendment. Mayor Johnson closed public hearing so a vote can be taken. Commissioner Franck moved and Commissioner Scirocco seconded to approve the zoning amendment request for the Saratoga Hospital PUD as presented to the Council. Ayes - All Djzguasion Arid VoteL_$upport of Now YoElk State Recur ent Program (09-80) Commissioner Franck moved and Commissioner loins seconded to accept the resolution as read. Commissioner Franck advised the Local Government Records Management improvement Fund was established in 1989 to fund grants to local governments for the management of their records and to fund the provision of related advisory services through nine regional record rrlanagement offices across the state. The City has benefited immensely from the program; we have received $425,000 in grants to fund many projects including inventories, record storage improvements, microfilming, e-governrnent initiatives, map scanning, record surveys and Novus Agenda. I urge the Council to please support the following resolution to officially demonstrate our continuing support of this prolific and effective program; Resolution of Support for Local Goverrrmenl Records Management Improvement Fund (LGRMIF) Whereas, the New York Slate Archives and Records Administration's Cultural Education Account and the Local Government Records Management Improvement Fund is primarily supported by fees charged by County Clerks for index numbers of pending Supreme and County Court actions; and Whereas, the Cultural Education Account Funds most of the operations of the State Museum Library and Archives; and Whereas, the Local Government Records Management Improvement Fund (LGRMIF) has been providing technical assistance and grants to establish, improve or enhance records management programs In New York's 4400 local governments since its creation In 1989; and Whereas, the LGRMIF has supported the preservation of over 3 million essential documents throughout Naw York State, ensuring their continued availability to the public including students, teachers, genealogists, and other researchers, through education and the awarding of over$176 million in records management improvement grants to local governments; and Whereas, since 1989, State Archives staff have conducted 20,000 site visits to local governments to provide hands-ori records management guidance and have trained over 10,300 local government officials to manage both paper and electronic records through 130 onsite workshops and wabinam offered annually to local governments at no cost to the taxpayers; and Whereas, the City of Saratoga Springs has benerited from technical assistance, training, publications and has received 22 grants totaling $424,$23from the LGRMIF to Improve and increase access and availability of records and informalion to the public; and Whereas, the City's records management program continues to be a viable and intrinsic liaison belween municipal leadership and the public in strivinct toward the Citys goal of transpartncy.in govornmorrr� and Whereas, the LUII ,IIF tci;.t,'' S ; ,, ;r L,�:o i7.�nr,r��s, c? sfnde its Inception m 1?R9, l�luN' tlterefore L� it;rexaulved tl��s iirr :itj i 'uuliall ;'t ui:. Assembly Bill A.6783 and Se' ale BIIi S,3+iFi0, whrch,prapose increase:: in the roes supporting the Culturai Education Account from $15.00 to $22.50 and the Local Fargo 12 of 2� CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY COUNCIL ROOM TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2000 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Commissioner Thomas Curley, DPS Commissioner Michael Lenz, Finance Kenneth Klotz, Mayor Commissioner Thomas McTygue, DPW Commissioner Stephen E, Towne, Accounts ALSO PRESENT: Anthony Scirocco, Supervisor Phil Klein, Supervisor STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Brown, Deputy Commissioner, DPW Erin Dreyer, Deputy Commissioner, DPS Christine Gill mett-Brown e, Deputy Commissioner, Finance Deborah Harper, Deputy Commissioner, Accounts Hank Kuczynski, Deputy Mayor (arrived 8:00 p.m.) Jeff Wait, City Attorney (arrived 7:15 p.m.) SARAT_OGA HO,52t_TAL PUD,. k UBLIC HEARING Mayor Kenneth Klotz said this was a public hearing an a petition submitted by the Saratoga Hospital to amend the Saratoga Hospital Medical/Professional PUD at 211 Church Street_ He said the required advisory opinion from the City Planning Board was on file. He noted that the Planning Board made a number of revisions to the original proposal and they have Issued a favorable advisory opinion on those revisions. He said on October 14, 2003, the petitioner submitted a set of minor amendments that deleted any reference to a new heliport on the roof of the main hospital building and those amendments have been incorporated in the final draft ordinance that was distributed to the Council yesterday by the City Attorney. He said the required proof of notice to nearby by property owners has been submitted. Appearing before the Council was Matthew Jones & Stephanie Feradino, attorneys, representing the applicant; Steve Everest; John Dawes, CT Male; Ken Wurston, Creighton Manning; and Steve Frenchak, Saratoga Hospital. Matthew Jones showed a power point presentation of this project. He reminded Council members that in July, he appeared before the Council with an overview of the project. He explained that areas B, C. B, & E are the parking lot and area A being the hospital. He said that the focus of tonight-s presentation was Zone A. He said there are two proposed major undertakings in Zone A, the radiation unit and patient care addition to the northwest corner. He said, though, that there had been some minor changes to Zones B, C, D & E. He said those changes include additional parking and a five percent change in building space, Matthew Jones said the project originally proposed in July is different from what was before the Council this evening. He explained that the applicant now proposes the passibility of doubling the size of the radiation therapy center from 9,000 to 19,000 square feet by adding a second floor. He said another change to this proposal was the traffic flow. He said they are now proposing to widen Corey lane from 15 feet to 40 feet and along Medical Arts Lane they will donate some land to the City to correct the traffic flow concerns in that area_ He said there will also be some allowances for Dr. Byrnes parcel. He explained that some of Dr. Byrnes parking is in the public right of way and they will be sure that Dr. Byrne is not disadvantaged in any way through this project. Matthew Jones said if this project is approved this evening, they will return to the Planning Board on November 5, the Design Review Commission on November 0 and then onto the Department of Health on November 20. Matthew Jones said the ,seg9nd part of this proposal was.the patient care addition on the.northwest corner. i-le said originally. tf�r: bp.ilq"1,r4. vdz } •r{,,;, �ng�llar bu:lding; !.i:1.t silpce nifeting rArith the 'fJ''.'CJ11f' i e CiE xs .Rea!$taA Committee, �u Beard 80,- h y, ...s...,,..... t mittee, the sha'pa of the building has been changed to square.at�d is Page 1 of 13 City of Saratoga Springs City Council Meeting Minutes 'ruesday, October 21, 2003 now 80 feet from the northerly boundary line and 10 feet from Myrtle Street. He said they have not yet developed the design of the building. He noted that the ambulance entrance will be located on Myrtle Street and they have also agreed to maintain the mature: vegetation between the hospital and tho neighbors. He said they will also do many other things to minimize the noise, lighting and other negative environmental impacts to the neighbors in this area_ Matthew Jones summarized the changes noting that the parking along the boundary line near the Golf & Polo Club had been removed and more parking for staff has been added, Corey Lane will be widened, Medical Arts Lane pavement will be corrected, Byrne=s needs will be met and they will work with DPW to run a storm drainage system to connect to a manhole in Woodland Court, He said if all goes well, they planned to start the site work in December and they hoped to have the radiation therapy center operating by spring, Matthew Jones said they have also removed the heliport site from the top of the patient care addition, therefore, that was not an item for discussion this evening. He said that the addition of the heliport Mll require farther study, Matthew Jones said the addition of the patient care addition is sorely needed. He said the Emergency Department can comfortably accommodate 22,000 patients per year, but they exceed 30,000, He said this will also allow for the expansion of the iCU and allows for three floors of new patient rooms. Fie said through this expansion, the hospital would be able to meet the needs of the community. Mayor Kenneth Klotz asked about the timetable for this addition. Matthew Jones said it would be between one and two years before site plan review took place. He said, though, that as the demand for beds end emergency services increases, the timetable will continue to move up. Mayor Kenneth Klotz clarified that the radiation therapy center and the patient care addition were Independent of one another. Matthew Jones said yes, He said they both need separate approvals from the Department of Health. Mayor Kenneth Klotz opened the public hearing, }Cathleen Harrill, Vice President & Chief Nurse, said she oversees patient care on a day to day basis, She said because of the growth on patient population, they have had to hold patients in waiting rooms and postpone elective surgeries. She said this is a very important project (fiat will add more beds and also provides for more privacy for patients. She also noted that the radiation therapy center will also assist patients so that they d❑ not have to travel 45 minutes for treatment. Dr. Timothy Brooks, Emergency Room director, said he has been in this community for more than 16 years, He said when he first arrived at the Emergency Department staff saw about 24,000 patients each year, but that number has now increased to about 34,400. He said the hospital has only 16 spots available in the Emergency Department for patients, therefore, although it was unfortunate, the hallway is often used to accommodate patients. He said they are hindered by the physical plant and the additional space will allow for privacy and also allows for different options for patients. He said the radiation therapy center is also needed so that patients do not need to travel so far for treatment. Cynthia Giordano, Myrtle Street & Woodland Court, said while she supported this application there are impacts to the value of their homes_ She sail drainage is difficult in this area and it needed to be addressed in detail, Sal Ferlazzo, attorney. representing the neighbors, said he had been working with City staff and the applicants= attorneys on this matter. He said the neighbors were glad to see that the heliport had been removed from this proposal. He said the neighbors are not opposed to this proposal, but wanted to be sure that it went through the proper SEQR process. He said they.werd concerned that the SEAR process had not been followed. Sal Ferfazzo explained that under this zoning, this was a type one action which presumes that an EIS is required, He said there are significant impacts to the neighbors. He said if the SEAR standards are reduced for this project, the Council would need to follow suit on other projects. He pointed out that this is a five -story building rind; il( impacts the neighbor:. He said the impacts include,. frafiic, no 'P, property Va�ues and dmhlaryc and air 3fI i r i, _ id there hve;beon no t� �,' •t v dies'visa ,f =�r�d;, ., K.r r: r�� " b,Iraffic. He said they were Page 2 of 13 City of Saratoga Springs City Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 21, 2003 also concerned with hazardous materials. He said they were also very concerned that there was some segmentation and that the hospital will bring back the heliport. He then quoted from previous case law on segmentation findings. Sal Ferlazzo said the Council should be going through the environmental ptacess and encouraged the Council to do so. Lew Benton, Planning Board Chair, said the Planning Board worked with all interested parties and crafted changes to the proposal to accommodate the concerns. He said the only change to the proposal since the Planning Board forwarded their, favorable advisory opinion was the removal of the heliport. He said one of the more important recommendations of the Planning Board was the establishment of a capital reserve fund that would be used for traffic mitigation. He said they encouraged the Council to channel any fees thatthe hospital might incur under future applications to be used for traffic related issues. He reminded Council members that at every phase of this project there will be review by the Planning Board and in some cases the Design Review Commission as well. He said the Planning Board has the authority to halt subsequent phases if adequate infrastructure is not in place. He said at each phase of the project there will be negotiation. He noled that the Planning Board had the foot print of the patient care addition reconfigured to accommodate neighbors concerns. Lew Benton said that while the Planning Board is an involved agency, it is the Council is the lead agency on this project. He reminded Council members that the Planning Board recently dealt with the segmentation matter on another project and the case was dismissed. He said a Type i SEQR does not compel a DE15. He said that what is required is that the applicant complete part one the Council make a determination under part two and the impact and mitigation are identified under part three, if necessary. He said the {Tanning Board was comfortable that the process had been adhered to- He said the City Council has not violated any SEQR procedures because the Council has not taken any action on this application. Deane Pfeil, 340 Broadway, member of the Saratoga Care Foundation Board, said the hospital adds to the community. She said it was especially nice that residents do not need to travel 45 minutes to get to an -emergency room. She said many of the physicians are board certified and they contribute to the health of the community through their excellent medical services provides- She also noted that the hospital is one of the largest employers in the area- She too agreed that the Emergency Department is seeing more pallents each year. She said the outpatient services for 2002 were at 188,000 and the hospital is now constructing an ambulatory surgery center in Wilton to assist them in that area. She said they operate close to capacity nearly every day- She urged the Council to approve this application. Joanne Avella, Seward Street, said she supported this application and noted that she was a former hospital board member. She said though that she was concerned with the widening of Corey Lane and the impact it would have on her neighborhood- She said Seward Street already has a lot of traffic and this would only increase that amount. She said she supported the project but hoped the Council would consider the impact to the surrounding neighbors. Anna Alpern, 14 Woodland Court, said she was concerned about the traffic in this area. She said she was also concerned that the heliport proposal would be brought back sooner rather than later. She said the hospital should agree to the neighbors request that it not be brought back for at least five years. Wayne Harrision, 8 Medial Arts Lane, said Medical Arts lane should remain a City street, He said they need to have access for postal services, plowing. etc. Alice Smith, Woodland Court, said while the hospital expansion is needed, it should be studied carefully. She said she was concerned about the details of the project such as the drainage and traffic. She said she did not believe enough study had been done in those areas. Doug Dockendorf, 48 Myrtle Street, agreed there area lot of issues that have not yet been addressed. He said the neighbors should be made to feel Comfortable wanted to swith the project. He said he Supported the proJec#, but ee studies completed. Page 3 of 13 City of Saratoga Springs City Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 21, 2003 ACCOLINI iDEPARTMEN - Saratog_a_Flonital Pt_Q (03-165) Commissioner Stephen Towne asked Jeff Walt, City Attorney, to respond to some of the issues raised by the neighbors= attorney. Jeff Wait said he had not heard all of tine comments because of his late arrival, therefore, it was not appropriate for him to respond. He said he did hear Lew Benton=s remarks and spoke to Geoff Bornernann, City Planner, and it was their opinion that the requirements which trigger a DEIS were not sufficient and he concurred. Geoff Bornemann clarified that this is not a Type I action because it is 25 acres but because it is adjacent to the historic district. He also noted that a negative SEQR determination has previously been issued by the Council. He said the negative SEQR was issued with an environmental process and not a DEIS. He further explained that the Council must first establish the load agency and then that will allow the Council to evaluate the environmental assessment work included in the Council=s packet. He said it was the Council=s choice, however, tie did not believe that there was anything in the application that was so large that It could not be mitigated. He said if the Council chooses to require a DEIS, the document must be modified because those factors had not been listed. He said just because it is a Type I process does not automatically mean that it needs to go to a Dr=IS. He said there has been some visual and traffic analysis and those documents exist as part of the record for this project. Commissioner Michael Lenz asked if Council action tonight would violate the SEAR process, Geoff Bornemann said it was up to the Council to determine if the packet was complete. Commissioner Stephen Towne said that pursuant to the Council=s request of July 16, the City Planning Board reviewed the proposed zoning amendments to the Saratoga Hospital Medical/Professional Planned Unit Development District. He said. the Planning Board reviewed the proposal at their July 23, September 10 and September 17 meetings and as a result of that process they have revised the text and map of the proposed amendments. Those meetings produced several changes to the NUR ordinance as follows: a) several amendments were designed and intended to reduce negative sensory and physical impact on Woodland Court and encourages a more urban design of the patient care addition; b)the changes also recognize potential traffic generating characteristics of several of the improvements to be made and suggested a strategy for advancing traffic improvements. He said these changes include the establishment of a capital reserve fund to be used exclusively to finance necessary traffic improvements on the Church Street corridor. He said at the Planning Board=s September 10 meeting they voted 7-0 to defer lead agency status for this project to the City Council. He said at the Planning Board=s September 17 meeting they voted 7-0 to issue a favorable advisory opinion on the revised proposed amendment for the following reasons: 1 The proposal meets the intent and objective of the DUD as expressed in Article 240-3.5. a) It meets all the general requirements of Article 240-3.5 b) The proposal is conceptually sound in that it meets a community need and it conforms to acceptable design principles in the proposed functional roadway system, land use configuration, open space system, drainage system and scale of the elements, both absolutely and to one another. 2. Where are adequate services and utilities available or proposed to be made available in the construction of the development. Therefore, Commissioner Stephen Towne moved and Commissioner Thomas Curley seconded that the Council. 1. Establish itself as the lead agent for the SEAR environmental review because no other involved agencies have challenged this request; 2. - Declare that Part II of the SEQR long environmental assessment form has been reviewed and is deemed accurate and complete; 3. issue a .ner�ative declaration of environmental signifirahce becailse the' analysis' of the informatir)n provirjpd ?nd prr �;r-ted in P,0 .:I ass4Esrnellt fGl'l11 Page 5 of 13 City of Saratoga Springs City Council Meoting Minulos Tuesday, October 21, 2003 denionstra;tos that these amendments will not result in any large and important impacts and, therefore, is one that will not have a significant impact on the environment, and Adopt the proposed amendments to tfle PUD as presented. Mayor Kenneth Klotz said that clearly the hospital had made a [great effort to work with the neighbors and a number of those issue$ have been resolved. He said for further explanation though on the heliport issue. Matt Jones said there had been some discussion that the hospital not bring this matter back before the Council for five years from the time the building is completed_ He said the applicant views this matter differently, though, in that the heliport may never Game to fruition. He said there is also the matter that approach to the heliport from the southeast could be better. He said the applicant was willing to work with the neighbors on this time frame, Sal Ferf s said on behalf el the neighbors looking farorsthey were willing to compromise at four years. He said they were some comfort level. Matthew Janes said it would be good if the applicant could say that this matter had been resolved and that the neighbors were content, but that was not the case. Sal Ferlaizo said he reserves the right on behalf of the nefghbors to Took at their legal options on this matter. Ho said they were comfortable with many of the other issues such as traffic and drainage and they wanted the some comfort level for the heliport. Commissioner Michael Lenz clarified that if the Council adopts this proposal this evening, the applicant would return to the Planning Board for further review of such details. Matthew Jones agreed and further noted that they would also appear before the Design Review Commission. Commissioner Stephen Towne said that it was important to note that there is a public benefit to this project. He urged a continued dialogue among all interested parties_ He agreed that all of these details need to be looked at under the site plan review process. Mayor Kenneth Klotz asked Jeff Wait if a Type I action requires a full DEI6_ Jeff Walt said it does not require a full DEIS. Mayor Kenneth Klotz said the Council could determine that there are environmental impacts but they could be mitigated in ways that do not require a full study. Jeff Walt agreed. Mayor Kenneth Klotz said the planning Board has recommended that the Council issue a negative SEQR. Jeff Wait said that approval of the motion would be appropriate and he was comfortable with the Council proceeding in this matter. Ayes all. 1iAYQR=S Ft LanO Air Iuisition Cori l " Mayor Kenneth Klotz said this item appeared on his agenda two weeks ago and he withdrew it for further review. He asked Jeff Olson to comment. Jeff Olson explained that he had met with Commissioner Stephen Towne to address his concerns, He said they have since reviewed the package and are now ready to proceed, He said he understood that there were two other interested firms wishing an opportunity to review this proposal. He said he talked to bath of those firms today and asked them to give him a proposal with a fee structure but he did not receive anything. Therefore, they are ready to proceed. He said there is some concern that if the committee does not take action soon, these parcels may no longer be available. He said there was already one parcel that was undercontract. Mayor Kenneth Klotz moved and Commissioner Thomas McTygue seconded to accept the recommendations of the !_and ,acquisition Committee for the hiring John Behan Associates as consultants on this matter under the terms and conditions as presented Page 6 of 13