CITY CENTER PARKING  STRUCTURE                   12-21-‘15

                                                FACT  SHEET

What is the “parking structure”?

The City Center Authority is proposing to build a 480 space parking facility on a portion of the High Rock Parking lot-directly east of the City Center; net gain of 292 parking spots.  Balance of High Rock lot left for future development.

Who will construct and pay for the structures maintenance?

The City Center Parking structure will be paid for and maintained by the City Center. There will be no expense to the City.

Why is additional parking needed?

The success of the City Center and the vibrancy of downtown businesses have created the need for several hundred more parking spaces, year round.

Who will be able to use the parking?

The newly created parking inventory will be available to everyone (shoppers, guests and downtown employees) not just attendees at the City Center.

Will the new parking be paid parking?

Yes. The rate is 1^st hour free, 2^nd hour $1.00, all day (8 hr.) $5.00 and overnight rate $10.00

Is this leased property and if so what will the City receive?

The City Center parking facility will use only the northerly portion of the High Rock Lot,  leaving 93  free surface spaces.  The lease is proposed as a 25 year agreement.  The City would receive $50,000. annual lease payment, + 50% of the net revenues; after operating costs, debt service and reserves.

What will this provide besides basic parking?

Direct, covered connection to the City Center and Broadway. It includes an accommodation for the  downtown “shared path” for the Green Belt and a civic area (AGORA) which may be the  home of the Farmer’s Market and host venue for other community events.

How will this parking facility work with High Rock Park?

It will create a gate-way into the park area, adding more light, life and activity. Plus more parking.

How much will this cost the City Center?  

$10.5  million dollars

How long will it take to build?

8 to 10 months. Phasing will be used to eliminate as much disruption as possible.

Unfortunately, I doubt Commissioner Mathiesen can even get  a second, but Commissioner Mathiesen continues in his role  representing the “little people.”

Article From The Saratogian

Mathiesen calls for a Comprehensive Plan change

By Jennie Grey, The Saratogian

Posted: 02/17/16, 6:00 PM EST | Updated: 2 hrs ago

SARATOGA SPRINGS >> At the Feb. 16 city council meeting, Public Safety Commissioner Christian Mathiesen set a date for a public hearing that could affect Saratoga Hospital’s plan to construct a medical office building on Morgan Street. He is calling for a reversion of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan map “institutional” designation on Myrtle Street north of Church Street and on Morgan Street to the prior designation of “residential.”

Mathiesen has said he sides with the residents there who are opposed to the project.

“I don’t think this parcel should be used for anything other than residential use,” he said.

Last year, the council adopted a new comprehensive plan, which made provisions for the proposed hospital expansion. Mathiesen now says the plan should be amended to eliminate that expansion.

“At the time, the council had a lot of other matters before it and didn’t give the attention it should have to this parcel,” he said. “Plus, I don’t think neighbors were aware of the hospital’s plan then.”

The hospital’s $14 million expansion project was proposed to help consolidate physicians and patients in one space in close proximity to the hospital, and to provide better patient care and efficiency. Saratoga Hospital has therefore planned to construct a new medical office building on Morgan Street solely for its physician employees and their staffs. The proposed building would be constructed roughly 200 yards north of the hospital’s main location at 211 Church St.

Specialties to be housed in the new building may include oncology, general surgery, bariatric surgery, urology, pulmonology, nephrology, cardiology and general family practice.

For the hospital to construct this Morgan Street building, the city council would need to vote to amend the now-residential zoning and make the 8.5 acres part of the existing Saratoga Hospital planned unit development (PUD) in that area. The city planning board has already returned a favorable advisory opinion on the PUD to the city council.

Since filing its application in August 2015, the hospital has been working cooperatively with area neighbors to address concerns over such issues as building height, lighting, stormwater management and traffic.

The city council has been hearing from the hospital, its development team and the residents. The neighbors have been very clear in stating they don’t want their residential neighborhood rezoned to take in so much business and traffic as they say the hospital offices will create.

Saratoga Hospital President and Chief Executive Officer Angelo Calbone said, “Saratoga Hospital has been in this neighborhood for 100 years. So I understand the concern residents have. We are being very sensitive in how we plan to place this medical office building. We are first and foremost a hospital, dedicated to our patients; but next, we want to be a good neighbor.”

Matters became more complicated when Mayor Joanne Yepsen and Accounts Commissioner John Franck recused themselves from any discussion or vote on the hospital PUD, citing a conflict of interest. Yepsen may do work for the Hospital Foundation in future, and Franck does the taxes of two homeowners’ associations near the proposed medical facility site.

When the neighbors sent a petition, that resulted in the council needing a super-majority to vote, which it lacks because of the recusals.

“So if the PUD expansion application is dead in the water for the hospital, I didn’t want the zoning of that Morgan Street property left in limbo,” Mathiesen said. “It’s a beautiful, historic piece of land. I want to change it back to residential.”

He also said he’s suggested to the hospital that it seek an alternative parcel of land to build on, rather than pour more resources into getting the rezoning.

Assistant City Attorney Tony Izzo said a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan required a certain amount of notice before holding a public hearing. The date was set for March 15 at 6:45 p.m.

ZBA Meets On Murphy Lane “Renovation”

On Monday night the ZBA will be dealing with the “renovation” at 39 Murphy Lane.  The neighbors of this alleged “renovation” would appreciate support.  The Meeting will be at 7:00 pm on Monday night and will be the first item on the agenda (Hooray!).

City Council Meets With High Rock RFP Committee 

The City Council will be holding a special meeting at 5:30PM on Thursday, February 25, in the City Council chambers to receive a report from the committee which has been assessing the High Rock RFP responses.

Film On Health Care System Crisis 

There will be an interesting film on how to fix the health care crisis:

 League of Women Voters of Saratoga County

“FIX IT”

HEALTHCARE AT THE TIPPING POINT

Saratoga Springs Public Library

49 Henry Street

Saratoga Springs, New York

Monday, February 29

Two showings

3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.*

This new 55-minute film is made from a business perspective.  It

looks in depth at how our dysfunctional and inefficient healthcare

system damages our economy, suffocates our businesses,

discourages physicians and negatively affects the nation’s health

while it remains unaffordable for a third of our citizens.

The LWV of New York State advocates for New York Health and Medicare for All.

Discussion of the film will be facilitated by

Dr. David Ray and his medical-school students.

*If the library is closed on account of weather, it will be shown on Tuesday, March 1.

I spent the day at the Unified Development Ordinance workshops a few weeks ago.  I have to say that it was quite fun.  John Behan was the facilitator of most of the individual groups I sat in on and he kept the discussion lively and interesting.

I did not attend the evening general session but the most interesting things to me were who did not attend the day’s events and how little of the discussions focused on specific changes to the city ordinances.  Todd Shimkus, the head of the Chamber of Commerce did not attend.  David Carr and Mike Ingersoll of the LA Group attended.  Samantha Bossart, the executive director of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation was quite active.  The city’s planning staff was heavily represented all day.

The initial session in the morning filled three large tables with about fifty people.  The rest of the day, aside from staff there were about thirty participants.  Again, I did not attend the evening general session.

Here are some brief observations:

1. Charlie Brown, chairperson of the Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee, shared his prepared statement which I posted several days ago. The statement questioned why the advisory committee called for in the contract with the city had not been established.  John Behan did not respond directly but offered that the drafts, as they evolved, would be posted on the UDO website.
2. Matt Jones, noting with good humor how uncomfortable he was agreeing with me, noted the need for the land use boards to operate more efficiently.  We both agreed that there was a critical need to expand the staff of the planning office including building inspection and code enforcement.
3. Bob McTague expressed a concern I heard a number of times, that the greenbelt needed to be rigorously protected.
4. Samantha Bossart noted it would be helpful if the materials for land use meetings included a check list of the documents and issues to be discussed.  She argued that if all the required information is not submitted for a particular project/application, that the board should postpone consideration pending receiving all required documents.   She also argued that preservation should be seen as a key element in sustainability.
5.  There was a very interesting discussion that involved David Carr from the LA Group and an engineer from Glens Falls about the issue of public lighting.  This involved not only the issue of light “pollution” but what could be done to conserve energy by rethinking what should be lit and how bright that lighting should be.
6. A couple who had recently moved here from Chicago talked about the program in Chicago that involved compost.  Apparently Chicago has special receptacles that are provided to the community for composting as a way of minimizing what goes into the waste stream.
7. There were some interesting discussions about how the city should address the growing short term rental market given the growing popularity of  Airbnb and VRBO.  As it turns out and as was noted in a recent post, the city has launched an enforcement campaign while simultaneously rewriting the ordinances for this.
8. The issue of enforcement came up repeatedly but not about rental issues.  People were quite upset at the apparent violations of city ordinances for things like setbacks, sidewalks, height, etc. that draw no penalty from the city.  Tony Izzo, the city attorney, argued that proper enforcement would require additional staff for licensing, administration, and prosecution.

Given the generality of many of the suggestions, I asked John Behan how this would translate into ordinance language.  He said it would be the responsibility of his firm to craft the language.  His firm would be publishing an “ordinance diagnostic” report which I was a little unclear about but which I think will lay out the issues that need to be addressed in crafting the ordinances.

Mr. Behan said the site would post all the comments they receive and identify who submitted them.  At some point a draft representing 50% of the final document would be posted on their site.  He said they might have another workshop.

From the Saratogian February 15

City moves to dismiss Mouzon House lawsuit

Link To Story The Post Star Newspaper ran an incredible story about Siemens Building Technologies contracts with Warren County for their heating and cooling projects.  Some industrious critic did some serious research and analysis documenting the fiasco.  He shows that the county, over fifteen years, spent approximately $4,000,000.00 with Siemens which saved them $1,000,000.00 in energy bills.   In other words, they lost $3,000,000.00 

Through some tricky wording about the way the cost of energy would be determined, Siemens inflated the savings the county realized.

I wrote earlier on Saratoga County’s agreement with Siemens for similar energy devices that turned out to be wasteful.  In the case of our county, the magnitude of the loss was never disclosed.   The energy plant was part of the nursing home that was sold.  The buyer of the nursing home, recognizing that the energy plant was a loser, required the county to separate the plant from the deal and to decommission it.

As documented in my posts, I contacted both the Saratoga Springs Supervisors, Matt Veitch and Peter Martin, regarding the fiasco.  I urged them to initiate a full investigation of the history of the plant to determine who was culpable for the fiasco and to what extent Siemens could be liable for the losses.  Veitch made clear that for him the case was closed and nothing further would be done about it.  Martin responded by telling me that he was passing my charge on to the County Administer and county attorney.  As far as the public record goes, nothing was done.

Both Peter Martin’s and Matt Veitch’s failure to pursue this is an indictment of both men.  It appears that protecting the ineptitude of the Saratoga County supervisors is more important than investigating the waste of huge sums of public money. The story in the Post Star does a great job showing how Siemens operates and how, at least in Warren County, the issue is still very much alive.

ZBA board member referenced as James Paterson should have been James Helicke.

There is an interesting story in this week’s Saratoga Today about code enforcement for illegal rentals in Saratoga Springs.  Link To Article

In the age of Airbnb and VRBO.COM homeowners are increasingly renting out their houses.  As someone who has used VRBO I can testify that many of us prefer the advantages of staying in a nice apartment or home where there is a kitchen when we travel.  In effect you usually get a lot more for your money in terms of space and amenities.

Recently, as documented in the linked article, the city has sent out cease and desist notices to people illegally lodging guests in the city.  I made some inquiries about what is going on.

Apparently, this was precipitated by complaints about full house rentals in residential districts.  The complaints apparently have not been so much about someone who rents out individual rooms of their primary residence or their whole house when they are away.   The complaints have more often been instead about non- owner occupied houses being illegally rented out in residential districts.

In response the city has set up a task force made up of city attorneys Vince DeLeonardis and Tony Izzo along with representatives from the city code enforcement to work on refining the existing ordinance. In the meantime the cease and desist orders have been sent out. Supposedly these notices were not targeting short term rentals of owner occupied dwellings. I know of at least one person, though, who rents out rooms through Airbnb on occasion who was the recipient of a cease and desist notice.  So there appears to be some confusion here.

The process remains in flux.

What follows is the statement released by Charley Brown, chairman of the Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee, at the Unified Development Ordinance meeting.

What is most interesting is the objection to the failure to establish an advisory committee to oversee the UDO process.  This is a concern that I share as stated in earlier posts.  What makes this particularly interesting is that it is the first time that the Committee has implicitly put pressure on a Democratic incumbent.  The Behan contract with the city included the advisory committee.  Mayor Yepsen, who is identified as the project manager for the city, has so far been unwilling to take any action to see that this part of the contract is carried out. Michele Madigan was the only vote against the contract with Behan Associates.  She has expressed similar concerns about the need for an advisory committee.

I do not view this as an attack by the Democratic Committee on Mayor Yepsen.  I do not see this as the Committee supporting Madigan against Yepsen. What I see, and I am encouraged by it, is the Committee taking an important policy stand in the interest of the city.  I also see this as the Democratic Committee expressing a concern shared by many about the potential for mischief as the city’s ordinances are rewritten.

It should be possible for the Democratic Committee to advocate for a position on an important issue that may differ from a member of its party who holds an office.

Disagreement over a particular issue does not necessarily constitute a lack of overall support.  I applaud the Committee for eschewing the idea that people of good will who share a common purpose cannot disagree with one another about an important issue.

The Statement

Statement re: Saratoga Springs UDO project

 By: Charles Brown, Chair, Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee

To: Saratoga Springs UDO public meeting, Feb. 4, 2016

My name is Charles Brown and I am representing the Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee. We have been actively involved in the Comprehensive Plan discussions from the outset. Our main points are as follows:

1. Continue to protect the City’s Greenbelt.

2. Incorporate the terms of policies officially adopted by the City in areas such as Complete Streets, the Urban Forest and similar documents into your work product.

3. Translate the 2015 Comprehensive Plan’s principles regarding smart growth and sustainability; the City’s downtown character and its infrastructure into practical guidance within the UDO document.

Regarding the Unified Development Ordinance process, we are glad the community is being given this chance to participate. However, we remain concerned about the opportunities for continued involvement by the community and by our elected officials. The original UDO plan included the role of an advisory committee. We believe that it is not too late—indeed, this might be the optimum time—to form such a committee, to which our officials could appoint individuals to represent and advise them. The ideal make-up would be of people who are already familiar with City land-use code and the Comprehensive Plan discussion.

Your contract stipulates that an “advisory committee” made up of representatives of the City’s Departments along with representatives from City Boards was to be established. The contract further states that the consultants “will provide ‘check points,’ such as copies of any diagnostic reviews, recommended changes, draft outlines and copies of the draft code, over the course of the work to provide the city staff and public regular opportunities to review the progress and ensure a totally open and transparent project. These materials will be hosted online and made available to the public.”

The Saratoga Spring Democratic Committee believes that these provisions of your contract are essential in ensuring public trust, and an outcome that retains the integrity of the new Comprehensive Plan and the current Zoning Ordinances.

In particular we request that any, and all, proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinances be posted on your web page, and sent to the Stakeholders, before they are presented to the City Council for a vote. We also request that the public, and Stakeholders, have an opportunity to address the changes before they are presented to the City Council for a vote.  We understand that this will entail a great deal of work and time. However, the decisions made from this process will have lasting effects on our City’s future.

It is evident that this final project is the point at which all the work of many, many people can lead to a valuable document that informs proposals and decisions about future development in our City. Given the tensions that exist between development and preservation, it also is the point at which we must remain vigilant about crucial choices of language for the UDO document and for amendments to City code. We encourage the UDO team to remain entirely transparent by exposing each draft to provide the maximum opportunity for ongoing pubic scrutiny and input.

Charles Brown, Chair,

Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee

For those of you following the Murphy Lane “barn conversion”, we left off on Friday with William Moore saying in an email that he would check into whether the public would be allowed to address the Zoning Board of Appeals at its workshop on this issue on Monday, February 8.

Having not heard from him, I arrived early for the workshop.  As it happened I ran into him in the hall.  He explained to me that because the agenda had gone out late, the board would not be hearing from Steve Shaw, the building inspector.  Instead, Susan Barden, the city planner would be giving the board an update on the application.

I presume that Mr. Shaw would have been reporting on his stop work order for 39 Murphy Lane.  Why he would not be reporting but Ms. Barden would be because the agenda was sent out late is a mystery I did not have time to explore.

I was too polite to ask Mr. Moore why he had not emailed me to advise me that the agenda had been changed and that the public would not be allowed to address the board.

As it was still ten minutes before the meeting was to begin when I entered the meeting room, I engaged the Board in a conversation about a number of issues that were of concern.

These concerns had to do with the lack of fairness and balance provided to the public by the land use boards in general and the ZBA in particular.  I will be writing soon about my experience at last Thursday’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) workshop.  One of the most interesting things about the workshop was the number of times that people expressed frustration and even anger over how the land use boards deal with the public.  Even members of the planning staff expressed cautious sympathy over the issue.

So I expressed to the members of the ZBA the effect on the public of attending meetings and being relegated to sitting in the gallery while the applicant and his or her attorney and other staff sat at the table with the Board.  Aside from the fact that the public sits behind a wooden rail, the participants at the table sit elevated above the gallery.  I was not prepared for Board member Susan Steer’s response.  Her explanation involved the convenience of having the applicant sitting with them.  She noted that it was rare to have the public even at the meetings opposing applications for waivers.  She also shared that this was the way the Board had always carried out business.  What impressed me most though was her tone.  There was not the slightest acknowledgement that this might be a valid issue nor any sign of empathy for what it might be like to sit out in the gallery when a project seems to threaten your home or neighborhood and you have come to oppose it.

I then brought up the rule that the public was only allowed two minutes each to address the ZBA while the applicant was afforded unlimited time for their presentation.    I noted the incident at which Chairman William Moore had attempted to limit the attorney representing the neighbors of Moore Hall to two minutes during that controversy.  Ms. Steer replied that in spite of Mr. Moore’s initial ruling the attorney was allowed to finish his remarks.  Keith Kaplan went even further.  He asserted that the public was always provided ample opportunity to address the Board.  Unlike, Ms. Steer, he had no recollection of Mr. Moore attempting to limit the attorney.  I attempted to direct the discussion to the need to find some way for a spokesperson for a group in opposition to select someone to do a full presentation to the Board.  I noted the need for some sort of procedures.  I was truly not prepared for Ms. Steer’s dismissal of this issue.  The only person on the Board who appeared to acknowledge that there was a real issue that needed to be addressed was James Helicke.  It was clear that trying to argue the issue further would be counterproductive.

Shorty after, it appears that the workshop began.  I say “appears” as explained below.  I waited until the meeting was available on line to complete this post.  I wanted to be as accurate and fair as possible about what occurred.  The difference between the experience of sitting in the gallery area and listening to the meeting on line is instructive.  The volume of the speaker system was quite low so sitting in the meeting one could hear very little in contrast to the video.

The video begins with Susan Barden, the city planner in mid sentence saying, “so we’ll have that for you next time.”  Video Of Meeting

For people sitting in the gallery, it was impossible to tell when the meeting actually began or even that it had begun.  As noted the video begins with Ms. Barden in mid-sentence.  It does not show what happened prior.

Mr. Moore never actually convened the session.  Instead there is some low level chatter as the members take their seats.  Ms. Barden approaches the table engaging in the general chatter as she hands out ipads.  In hindsight, there was probably relevant information on the ipads about the meeting which was unavailable to the public who had come to observe.  This went on for a few minutes and then Ms. Barden seated herself before them.  The public could catch fragments of the discussion referencing some change in some plans.  If the speaker system was working it was set extremely low.  At one point you could hear Ms. Barden reference a set of plans in front of the Board members.  There was never any effort to inform the public what the plans were about. 39 Murphy Lane was never referenced (even in the video it is never referenced).  People sat patiently waiting for the meeting to begin.

Subsequently, Ms. Barden gets up and city attorney Tony Izzo then takes the chair and he could be heard fairly clearly as he projects quite well.  He was advising the Board about a legal opinion that appeared to be relevant to the variance being sought by Chairman Moore.  I then noticed that chairman Moore had removed himself from the room.  This discussion was not listed as part of the “workshop” on the posted public agenda.  No explanation was offered as to why it was added.  The board probably knew why but felt no need to inform the public.

Mr. Moore then returned and called the meeting to order.  A number of neighbors of the Murphy Lane project had come out in the snow to listen to the workshop.  There was an exchange of looks between them.  One of them offered that it appeared that the workshop was over.  We all got up to leave.

As it turns out, Mr. Moore’s application for a variance was the first thing on the agenda and he went out into the hall while it was being discussed.  Both the neighbors and Mr. Moore ended up in the hall together.  I asked what happened with Ms. Barden’s report. I did not point out to him that he never bothered to share with the Board or the public that Mr. Shaw had originally been supposed to speak regarding the stop work order and that Ms. Barden would be speaking instead.  He replied that she gave her report.  One of the neighbors, in a courteous tone, told him that none of us heard her report.  He did not bother to reply.

I find a number of things interesting about this.

Not only did Mr. Moore not tell the audience that the meeting had been changed and that Ms. Barden would be giving a report rather than Steven Shaw, as far as I can tell, he never said anything to the board.  I would hazard a guess that he emailed them about the change prior to the meeting or it was communicated in some other way.  The idea that the public should be advised of the change probably never crossed his mind.  The idea that for clarity he might have formally recognized Ms. Barden and asked her to report probably never crossed his mind.  The idea that the report should be done in a way that was accessible to the public probably never crossed his mind.  In fact, the idea that the public might be interested and might deserve to be updated on the project probably never crossed the mind of anyone on the Board.

What is indisputable is that the neighbors who had come to this meeting had no idea what transpired up there nor was it possible for them to even ask what had happened.

What I learned that night was how much I had underestimated the marginal role the public plays in the eyes of the members of this Board (with the exception of Mr. Helicke).   For these people the universe is made up of the sophisticated applicants who come before them often with attorneys and architects along with the Zoning Board members themselves.   The public is a kind of noise that can occasionally become quite loud but that is ancillary to the process.

I will humbly admit to the readers of this blog that I truly underestimated just how pervasive and deep this problem is.  Mr. Moore, who is not an evil man, is truly representative of this mentality.  The fact that Mayor Yepsen appointed him for another seven years is just another indication of the problem.