Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES ( FINAL) THURSDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2021 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER : Mark Torpey, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT : Mark Torpey, Chair; Ruth Horton; Kerry Mayo; Justin Doty; Al Dal Pos; Chris Pipia, Alternate ABSENT: Todd Fabozzi STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Vince DeLeonardis, City Attorney ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: The proceedings of this meeting are being recorded 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 of the recording. A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the end of the meeting. B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: NOTE: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any application that appear to be “approvable” without need for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wished to further discuss any proposed consent agenda item, then that item would be pulled from the “consent agenda” and dealt with individually. C. APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. #20210062 STEWARTS MARION AVENUE MAPLE DELL PUD, 34 Marion Avenue, Consideration of deferral of Lead Agency status for coordinated SEQRA Review for establishment of a PUD. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated the City Council initiated coordinated SEQRA review and requested Lead Agency Status on November 16, 2021. Revised proposed PUD legislation including a concept plan. The zoning map amendment is before the City Council for their discussion and approval. The Planning Board issued an unfavorable advisory opinion on May 27, 2021. There was additional revised language which was provided to the council for review. The only action for this Board this evening is to defer Lead Agency Status for SEQRA to the City Council. Al DalPos questioned if this application will come before the Board for further review. Susan Barden, Principal Planner noted the application should the City Council approve it will then move through The normal review process through the Boards. Jason Doty made a motion in the matter of the Stewarts Marion Avenue Maple Dell PUD; the Planning Board defers Lead Agency Status for SEQRA to the City Council. Kerry Mayo seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Mark Torpey, Chair, in favor; Ruth Horton, in favor; Kerry Mayo, in favor; Jason Doty, in favor; Al DalPos, in favor; Chris Pipia, Alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES : 6-0 2. #20200177 BUENOS HILL AUTO SPECIAL USE PERMIT, 254 Washington Street, Special Use Permit for motor vehicle repair; auto sales and office use in Transect-5 (T-5) District. 3. #20210224 BUENOS HILL AUTO SITE PLAN, 254 Washington Street, Site Plan review for Motor vehicle repair, auto sales and office use and associated site work in the Transect-5 (T-5) District. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated the Planning Board last reviewed this project on November 28, 2021. The public hearing was closed at that time. No additional information has been provided since that date. The Planning Board has 62 days of the close of the public hearing to issue a written decision. We have been collaborating with the applicant to establish a design which reflects the T-5 design standards and pedestrian accommodations along Washington Street. The Board is in receipt of the Saratoga County Planning Board Referral which also voiced concerns regarding further discussion of the pedestrian characteristics of the surrounding area. Since our last meeting we have created a draft Notice of Decision and we will present and discuss this amongst the Board. Ruth Horton presented the following Notice of Decision in the matter of the application #20200177 Buenos Hill Inc., 254 Washington Street, Saratoga Springs. Upon evaluation of the criteria for Special Use Permits set forth in 7.1.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that the proposed additional us (automotive sales) would not adversely affect surrounding properties and community character the Board finds the following: 1. The extent to which the use is in harmony with and promotes the general purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and this Chapter. The district intent of T-5 states ‘To accommodate a wide variety of residential and non- residential uses, building and frontage types. This district also focuses on providing quality streetscape amenities and civic City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board December 9, 2021 - Page 2 of 12  spaces to enhance pedestrian activity.’ The Board finds that the proposed auto sales is consistent with the intent of T-5; however, the corresponding site drawing lacks streetscape amenities to enhance pedestrian activity and is inconsistent with T-5. The Board recognizes that the building and site predate the requirements of T- 5, but because of the need for a Special Use Permit and site plan review for the additional use, the Board finds that the site should be improved to be more conforming with the T-zone streetscape design standards; specifically, the installation of pedestrian accommodations. This area of the city has seen increased new and infill development including further residential development to the west of the subject property. Connecting these residential neighborhoods to each other and to non-residential development on West Avenue and to downtown by providing multi-modal accommodations is an essential component of T-5. 3. Safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular access, circulation, and parking. The site plan that was submitted along with the Special Use Permit application does not include provision for safe and efficient pedestrian access. The City’s Complete Streets Plan recommends a side path or trail in this location. The Plan states that County Roads and State Highways can be improved to become Complete Streets, “These roadways currently have limited facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists, but generally, have paved shoulders or potential right-of-way for improved conditions.” The Board notes a recently approved housing project across Washington Street that was, through Special Use Permit and site plan review considerations, required to incorporate a side path along their frontage. The Board requested an Advisory Opinion from Complete Streets Advisory Board (CSAB) their recommendation was that a sidewalk instead of a side path be installed in this location to better differentiate between the two Existing driveways and a walkway. The applicant failed to incorporate a side path on a revised site plan. And, upon evaluation of the application based on the City’s enumerated criteria to ensure that the proposed use(s) will not adversely affect surrounding properties and community character; And, in accordance with requirements set forth in the City’s Zoning Ordinance, chapter 240, article 7.1 “Special Use Permit,” the Planning Board issues the following decision on December 9, 2021. Mark Torpey, Chair, discussed the items as listed in the Notice of Decision with the Board. Al DalPos spoke regarding the properties adjacent to the east of the site the topography of the site and the railroad tracks in this location. No one can traverse this area. This should be an exception. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board December 9, 2021 - Page 3 of 12 Mark Torpey, Chair, stated that is your opinion which he does not share. If you look at that area now whether its 9N or Washington Street there is a great deal of traffic, and people walking up and down, taking their bikes into the city. It is becoming much more of a thoroughfare for pedestrians over the bridge and there needs to be planning on our part to accommodate this into the future. We have projects all over the city where we ask applicants to put in sidewalks, even though sidewalks to the right and left do not exist. They eventually stitch together. We have made progress there. Especially the emphasis on pedestrian connectivity in the T-5 zone. Susan Barden, Principal Planner, stated as noted previously there are residential developments to the west. People are walking and biking in that area. It is not a comfortable environment to use. A sidewalk in this area will at least make that stretch more comfortable for pedestrians. We try to infill sidewalks where there are not any. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated the Complete Streets report studied this area of the city quite extensively and identified the need for pedestrian connectivity and access there. Whether it be side trail, bike path, sidewalks, and provided graphics as to what was envisioned in the short term and the long term to make that connection over the bridge. The Complete Streets also feels differently about how to make that connection even though it needs to be coordinated with DOT and is part of a larger discussion. Susan Barden, Principal Planner, stated we know it will be difficult to get that connection across the bridge, but it is something we need to do. We will plan for that and there will be a time when there will be connections further west. Jason Doty stated he agrees with the County Planning Board and their assessment regarding connectivity, the Complete Streets Committee, we have discussed this project extensively and agrees with the Notice of Decision as proposed. Kerry Mayo stated he agrees with the Draft NOD as well. We have discussed this ad nauseum and he feels comfortable with proceeding with the motion. Chris Pipia, Alternate agrees with the Draft NOD. Ruth Horton made a motion in the matter of Buenos Hill Auto Special Use Permit, 254 Washington Street, that the application be denied. Jason Doty seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Mark Torpey, Chair, in favor; Ruth Horton, in favor; Kerry Mayo, in favor; Jason Doty, in favor; Al DalPos, opposed; Chris Pipia, Alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES : 5-1 4. #20211144 172 CAROLINE SUBDIVISION, 172 Caroline Street, Sketch plan review of a proposed two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. DISCLOSURE: City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board December 9, 2021 - Page 4 of 12 Mark Torpey, Chair disclosed that he does live within 250 ft. of this property. He has no financial interest in this application and can remain fair and objective in reviewing the application. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated this is a sketch plan review of a proposed two-lot subdivision. The Board has had access to the drawings and information provided in the plans. There will be no action taken on a sketch plan review. We are only providing feedback for the applicant currently. Applicant: James Stockwell Mr. Stockwell stated he is under contract to purchase this property. Part of the transaction is whether he can subdivide the parcel into two single family lots. A visual drawing of the site was provided for the Board. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated one of the things the applicant will need is a separate approval from the ZBA for minimum lot width at 60 ft., or a modification to the layout which would change the requirement for consideration. Also, the Chair noted the future house on the new lot would need to front on Caroline Street to be consistent with the neighborhood and access from Talford Place would be the preference. Susan Barden, Principal Planner, provided information to the applicant regarding setbacks and lot width requirements. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding the house and a garage currently existing on the site. No curb cuts on Caroline Street which will entail access from Talford Place. The current home accesses the driveway and garage off Nelson Avenue. Mark Torpey, Chair, noted there appears to be mature trees on the site. A tree survey is suggested to identify any species to be preserved and retained. Buffering for the adjacent neighboring property. A residential unit appears to exist over the garage. This would need to be removed if there is a new residence on the new lot since only one principal structure/one single family residence would be permitted on each of the two lots. Discussion also ensued regarding a shared driveway, which would require an easement. The Chair reviewed the subdivision regulations for the applicant. Sidewalks and curbing, streetlight if required, recreational fee for the additional unit. There does not appear to be any real indications why this cannot be accomplished. The lot is large enough to accommodate the applicant’s request. The applicant is allowed another sketch plan discussion. The applicant thanked the Board for their time and information. 5. #20210757 MYRTLE STREET SITE PLAN, Corner of Myrtle Street and Morgan Street, 1 Morgan Street, and 55 Myrtle Street. Coordinated SEQRA review for a phased project totaling 105,000 sq. ft. medical office use and associated site work in the Office Medical Business-2 (OMB-2) and Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) Districts. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated the applicant will provide background information for the Board and there will be a formal presentation. We will talk through stormwater management, blasting and traffic. Mr. Jones will join us to provide high level activities relative to the project. At the workshop we did note the key issues here are traffic, community character, and stormwater management. This is a Type I SEQRA action. Even though the project has two phases, the Planning Board is required to look at the project in total. The entire 105,000 square foot build-out and the full build out of the project. Applicant: Saratoga Hospital City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board December 9, 2021 - Page 5 of 12 Agent: Matthew Jones, Attorney; Mike Ingersoll, LA Group; Doug Heller, LA Group; Kevin Ronayne, Vice President Operations & Facilities – Saratoga Hospital; Jon Primeau, Architect, Architectural Collaborative Mr. Ingersoll provided information regarding how the placement of the project and parking on the site was determined. Parking will be built out only as the need requires. There are also on-site and offsite pedestrian connectivity components. Internal walkways and the installation of sidewalks and curbing, streetlights, and safer pedestrian accommodations. Curbing and sidewalks along Myrtle Street, the widening of Morgan Street to accommodate sidewalks, curbing, street lighting. A three way stop (signed) intersection is proposed. Signal changes at the intersection of Church and Myrtle. Chazen comments suggesting enhanced walkability of the site. We are amenable to their suggestions and anything we can do to improve the walkability of the site and reduce pavement is considered. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated what he proposes for this evening is have the applicant go through the key issues. We will talk about stormwater, and traffic. We have had correspondence from Chazen, who is the city’s designated engineer, and they have also comments today. The engineer from Chazen will join the meeting via phone to provide feedback and comments. Mr. Jones will also provide additional information regarding the project and then we will have additional public comments. The order of business today is SEQRA, and this is how we would like to proceed. Mr. Heller stated the project is over an acre which requires a SWWPP and conform to NYS-DEC guidelines which is treatment and attenuation. Offsite runoff rate cannot be increased both 10 year and 100-year storm event. We have received three comment letters from Chazen, the latest referring to storm water regarding construction phasing. We have addressed all their comments. Mark Torpey, Chair confirmed with staff that the city is in receipt of the comment letters from Chazen and responses from the LA Group in this regard. Mr. Heller stated they are proposing five types of stormwater management for this project. First is the green roof on the building. Overflow from the roof will be connected into the new stormwater drain system which connects into the city’s system. We are proposing underground infiltration systems under the parking lot and that is managing a section of the parking lot. Along the northern end of the site there are lower depressed areas which allow runoff, and our intent is not to create a deeper basin. This will be taking runoff from the norther portion of the parking lot. In the center of the site a bioretention basin is proposed which provides the treatment for the water. Once it filters through this area there is an underdrain that connects to a wet pond which restricts the outlet of water and slows the release of water. This lowers the outflow rates. We are almost providing a 50% decrease during the 10-year storm event. With the second phase additional areas of stormwater management can be expanded to treat and retain the runoff from the second phase. Ruth Horton questioned the benefits of a green roof. Mr. Heller explained the function of a green roof which acts like grass and provides a volume reduction. When it rains with the green roof it filters through the media and slows down the water mimicking the existing conditions. Jason Doty questioned for clarification the applicant is decreasing stormwater on Morgan by 50%. Mr. Heller stated that is correct. We are not discharging any impervious area, the only runoff will be is from the grass areas. All the pavement areas are being captured and is being put through infiltration chambers and ponds and being piped out to the city’s stormwater connection. We are extending the closed storm drainage system, by providing a 15-inch pipe that will run along Myrtle City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board December 9, 2021 - Page 6 of 12 and connects into the pond and the roof drains and the underground infiltration chambers. Along that stretch we are installing curbing and catch basins. Currently, storm water is not well controlled in this area. This will also improve drainage in this area. Regarding the Woodlawn Court, on the hospital side of the property there is a French drain, stone with a perforated pipe and a couple of catch basins behind the property that connect into the hospital drainage system and brings it all down towards Church Street. There are old plans which show a culvert on the low point, we are unsure if it was every filed but there are potential surface drainage easements that the city was looking at years ago. Jessica Brown, Engineer from Chazen joined the meeting via audio. Ms. Brown did the independent analysis for the city on traffic. Al DalPos reviewed the stormwater management plan with the representatives from the LA Group, noting this goes from Morgan Street the gradient goes up to the north. The high point is the north end of the building, the first phase property. The drainage plans show it is consistent with that, draining down into the Myrtle Street collector and up. The front phase is draining into a detention basin which overflows to the city. Further north it goes to the infiltration area to be absorbed and released into the soil. Mr. Heller provided a visual of the site noting all the areas where the infiltration tests were performed throughout the site. The soils are very sandy soils. Everything to the south is going into the bioretention areas then to the retention basin. The proposed conditions were shown, and the areas were graded minimizing the effect to the north. We are not increasing any runoff. This project is not adding any additional water to the city system Discussion ensued regarding what exists currently and what is being proposed. Mr. Heller provided more technical information on how the stormwater works through the systems being put in place. Ruth Horton questioned if there was an issue with water in this area. Mr. Ingersoll provided information to the Board on what existed, what currently exists and what the applicant is proposing. Mr. Heller stated there is a yearly maintenance program for these systems which is strictly adhered to. Results are forwarded to the City This ensures the system is operating at the peak performance level. Mark Torpey, Chair stated we will now hear from the blasting experts. Tony Bonacio, Bonacio Construction, General Contractor for the project, stated his business has worked and blasted around the city for years. We are working with Maine Drilling and Blasting. Joe Happy, Division Manager for New York and Vermont with Maine Drilling and Blasting which has been in business for over 55 years. A visual presentation and project overview was provided stating they will be drilling and blasting a foundation and trench for the project. The blast design was provided noting that each project has a pre blast design analysis to scale the blast geometry and charge based on the proximity to structures and safe vibration levels. Blast location, depth and distances are established using engineering plans and geotechnical reports. A pre-blast drawing is creating using a satellite image to identify the structures within a 250 ft. radius which will require a pre-blast survey in conjunction with the City of Saratoga Springs ordinance. Mr. Happy reviewed the pre-blast plans. Blasts are designed specifically for each job based on vibration limitations and estimate calculations. Compliance with Chapter 81 Blasting in the City of Saratoga Springs as well as New York State and federal rules and regulations must be adhered to. All required City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board December 9, 2021 - Page 7 of 12 documentation will be submitted for a blasting permit. Blasting will commence once a permit has been approved. Certified mailing with detailed instructions will be sent to all property owners within 250 ft. of all blast zones. These will be distributed no fewer to ten calendar days prior to blasting activity. The Blasting notice must contain the description of blasting activities, signals utilized during operations and addresses and telephone numbers to request additional information. A sample of the certified mailings was provided which are time and date stamped and the blast horn sequences, as well as the protocol for a pre-blast survey of their home. Three certified mailings are made to each address unless a response is received. Also provided are contact numbers for the safety officer and the safety manager. Mr. Happy provided a review of the blasting operation which is coordinated with local office and job site personnel. All homes within the 250 ft. pre-blast radius will be offered an automated call 1 hour prior to each blast noting the project name, location, and time of the blast. A site security plan is developed prior to blasting. People, equipment, and traffic on adjacent roadways are monitored and controlled at the time of the blast to ensure safety of all. Mr. Happy provided information on the measurement of ground and air response which is legally required a part of the blast plan to ensure all blasting is within standards. Mr. Happy also reviewed the claim form which is available to all homeowners within the blasting radius. Ruth Horton questioned what is entailed in the pre-blast survey of a home. Mr. Happy stated they offer a pre-blast survey of the interior and exterior of the home. We video the pre-existing condition of their property, their structures, and edges and this will identify previous cracks and/or deformities in their structures prior to blasting. Jason Doty questioned what occurs if there is no response to the three certified mailings. Also, what is the period for a homeowner to submit a claim. Mr. Happy stated if no response is received following the receipt of three certified mailings, they would be eligible to start blasting. Mr. Happy stated they receive claims 10 years following a blast. It is critical we document everything and maintain blasting records for a period of 15-20 years. Mark Torpey, Chair, questioned how long the blasting would occur for this project. Mr. Tony Bonacio stated approximately 4 weeks. It would be two blast per day during the 8:00 am – 4:00 pm – Monday through Friday. Mark Torpey, Chair, questioned if the blasting is coordinated with DPW. Mr. Tony Bonacio stated they will coordinate with DPW. Mr. Jones provided a history of the project from its initial request for a PUD in 2015 along with site visuals, adjoin neighborhood properties as well as revisions to the PUD map. A visual of the proposed medical office building was provided which has gone through iterations due to concern over the building height and the Planning Board request was made to lower the building. By taking three stories on the west elevation and using the topography of the site, which goes from low to high, from north to south on the rear of the building two stories above level and one story completely below ground we were able to reduce the building height above grade while keeping three stories, from 60ft. to 54ft. SEQRA analysis was performed by the Planning Board who then issued a SEQRA Negative Declaration for the project. Mr. Jones stated the Planning Board is not bound by the previous Boards determination, but the Negative Declaration should be given consideration since the circumstances in the neighborhood have remained the same. The objective is to build a building to meet the zoning requirements for this area. In 2019 the Planning Board provided an Advisory Opinion to the City Council for the rezoning of this area to achieve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The Board recommended OMBD-1 for the Markey Estate and Collins’s parcel. The City Council rezoned the area to OMBD-2 and retained a two City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board December 9, 2021 - Page 8 of 12 acres parcel UR-1. In February 2021, a sketch plan was presented to the Board with a medical office building and an additional 30,000 sq. ft. for a total of 105,000 sq. ft. Following the Board’s recommendations, we returned in May of 2021 following meeting with neighbors and described those discussions and spoke regarding issues. Two options were presented at that time for full build out. The applicant returned on November 18, 2021, returning with information gleaned from the DRC in their discussion and provided an Advisory Opinion. SEQRA and Site Plan is where we this evening. Mr. Naldony stated we have studied three existing intersections. One at Seward and Morgan Streets, one at Myrtle and Church and one at Seward and Church. We also reviewed the 90 degrees turn at Morgan and Myrtle. Traffic was counted at the AM and PM peak hours at these intersections. 8:02 PM The Board recessed. 8:09 PM The Board reconvened. Mr. Naldony continued, they applied a factor to account for covid conditions, and factored into the account for June conditions consistent with what the city does. We corresponded with the Planning Department to determine if there were any other conditions in the area, we should be aware of. Also, we looked at historical traffic to get a future base condition that would occur without the proposed development. We appeared before the Board in 2015 for a similar smaller building consisting of 88,500 sq. ft. and at that time, we anticipated 261 PM peak hour trips based on the ITE 9th Edition Trip Generation Manual. We then updated in September of 2021 for the proposed site which is approximately 105,000 sq. ft. and that was based on the ITE 10th Edition Trip Generation Manual and at that anticipated 360 PM peak hour trips. Right after we submitted this report ITE updated their Trip General Manual for the Land Use Code for Medical Office. They determined that stand alone medical buildings and medical buildings located adjacent to hospitals and to other medical offices generate differently. If we had performed the study a couple of weeks later it would have noted the anticipated peak hour trips would have been 305 generated at PM peak hours, per the ITE 11th Edition Trip Generation Manual, due to its proximity and location to the hospital and other medical campus. Seward and Morgan Streets intersection 25-35% of the traffic would head towards Morgan Street. In terms of operations how will this intersection operate in the future. There is no change in the level of service operations at Morgan and Seward St. It will continue to operate at an A&B level of service. We also reviewed Church and Seward Street. That intersection will operate at a level of service D at full build out of the site. This is an unsignalized intersection. There is an increase in delay at the site. The next intersection is the signalized intersection of Church and Myrtle Street. This is where the traffic will head to and from the site. We anticipate from 75-65% of the traffic would travel through that intersection. There will be degradation in levels of service from Phase I to Phase II development. We are recommending signal timing adjustments to mitigate the delays. The last intersection is Morgan and Myrtle where the main site driveway is proposed. We recommend that this intersection operate as an all ways stop intersection. There are site limitations in this area. We also recommend pedestrian accommodations on the north side of Morgan Street along the entire frontage along with the relocation of utility poles. The construction of a 625 ft. sidewalk on the west side of Myrtle Street to connect the site to the existing sidewalk network. We were provided with comments from Chazen months ago which focused on potential geometric improvements at Church and Myrtle Street intersection and appropriate existing mid-block pedestrian accommodations on Myrtle Street. As noted by Mr. Ingersoll correspondence was received today from Chazen which we have not had an opportunity to respond to. We will discuss with Chazen later. One of the Boards questions was a secondary access to the park. This will provide additional access to the medical park and does provide internal access to the medical park without leaving the site which will not impact other study area intersections. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board December 9, 2021 - Page 9 of 12 Mark Torpey, Chair, questioned if Mr. Naldony can briefly review the data on the impact to pedestrians. We did count the pedestrians crossing Myrtle Street at the two pedestrian crosswalks during the AM and PM Peak Hours. One is controlled by a Rapid Rectangular Beacon and another on Myrtle Street which is just a pedestrian crosswalk signage. This was performed in January at the height of the covid testing. We asked the hospital for the covid testing numbers and January was their highest testing numbers. They may have been more pedestrians crossing than normal. Based on existing available information the current pedestrian accommodations will be appropriate for the future. Chazen has asked for additional backup for that determination and we will be providing that data. Mark Torpey, Chair, questioned the total number of parking available at total build-out which will trigger a SEQRA Type I action. Mr. Ingersoll stated approximately 525 parking spaces. Discussion ensued regarding the traffic regarding back-up, queuing on Myrtle, accessibility to the emergency entrance, increase in pedestrian traffic. Jessica Brown, engineer from Chazen stated their two comments focused on the intersection at Church and Myrtle Street and the queuing impacts there. There was no information on any geometric improvements. There should be evaluation impacts. It was noted that geometric improvements would significantly impact the Saratoga Spine business we would like to see what the impacts would be and if there are any improvements in that area, coupled with the increase in the pedestrian activities in that area there should be more data on what improvements could be done there. Also, we had a question regarding the reference material noted the city is older and how that related to Saratoga Springs. Mr. Naldony stated there are no federal or state guidelines for RRB’s and when they should be installed. The only information available is from the City of Boulder who is pro-active with their pedestrian accommodations and have developed their own guidelines for installation. We have used those in the past and DOT has accepted those guidelines. Regarding you questions and comments we will provide and work with you to provide all the information you request and/or require. Ms. Brown stated consideration should be given to reducing the size of the internal intersection where there are three smaller intersections form a T intersection. Mr. Naldony stated Mr. Ingersoll did provide earlier a very rudimentary sketch of the internal intersection and is something the site team will review and try to provide more direct pedestrian connection to minimize exposure in that area. We will address that as well. Ms. Brown stated their final concern was the sidewalk and the parking lot is an incomplete sidewalk in that it does not seem to connect to anything. We are unsure what was envisioned there for pedestrians to cross at that location. Mr. Naldony that was another point Mr. Ingersoll made earlier and will be addressed and information provided back to Chazen. Mr. DalPos questioned the trip generation numbers. Mr. Naldony provided information and how the level of service is determined. Mr. DalPos also questioned the three hundred doctors to be accommodated in the 105,000 sq. ft. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board December 9, 2021 - Page 10 of 12 Mr. Ronayne, Facilities Manager, Saratoga Hospital stated that is not true. The first building will accommodate 35 doctors and 23 mid-level providers which is a total of 58 providers. They will assume 85-90% of that space. At full build out we will be lucky to get to 100 doctors at that site. This office is meant for physicians who see patients both in the field and at the hospital, general surgeons, pulmonologists, cardiologists. Three hundred doctors in this building are just not true. Putting the doctors close to where they work is not a new concept for the hospital. It is what we already do. At full build out there maybe 100 doctors on this site. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding traffic during the day to the physician’s office, versus peak PM hours, alternate routes to access the hospital from various parts of the city. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated it would helpful if Creighton Manning could provide information to see the background level of information and what the project adds to the traffic as a percentage for the Board to review. Al DalPos stated the intersection of Morgan and Myrtle Street is a pinch point for this whole project. It seems like with this amount of flow a traffic control device is warranted in this area for control of people and traffic. Mark Torpey, Chair questioned Chazen if the use of the three stop signs in this area address the concerns you voiced. Ms. Brown stated yes it does. Mr. Jones continued with providing information on communicating with the neighbors and City Council staff in September 2019. In October 2019, the Board entertained public comments at that time. We were in communication with neighbors and representatives from the HOA and discussed the concerns voiced by the neighbors. The Planning Board issued a Negative Declaration and referral on. City Council held deliberations and neighbors appeared and commented. The city currently was performing map amendments. Mr. Ronayne stated on February 27, 2019, correspondence was sent to every homeowner in the neighborhood outlining what the hospital was doing and why. The letter included an email address. Five written responses were received. We are open to speak with the neighbors. Mr. Primeau stated the building has gone through a variety of iterations. He reviewed the previous versions of what was proposed. We have provided options of a design with the DRC. The community character was discussed, and the DRC stated they preferred it looked more like a medical office building and less residential. We took those comments and provided a new concept, a third option. The intention was to go more medical office type appearance. Mark Torpey, Chair, in discussing this project, and why the Board reached out to the DRC was to get a sense if the design did fit in with the neighborhood and appropriate for the neighborhood. Has the DRC provided information to the applicant looking at a more hardline commercial look? Al DalPos stated he mentioned this at the last meeting. It was his thought as an architect, the magnitude of the project it could stand alone in creating an arrival point to what you are there for, and not look like the apartments that are down the street and build something that has character to it. Rather than residential it should be more like the hospital and have its own identity. Mr. Primeau stated we are happy with the designs we have presented. We are presenting this tonight which looks more like the hospital and less residential. We have listened to those comments and wish to respond to this. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board December 9, 2021 - Page 11 of 12 Mark Torpey, Chair, stated this does not need to be reviewed by the DRC. We asked for an Advisory Opinion to provide input on the project and DRC has no official authority. Mr. Primeau stated this is a total deviation from what has been previously presented and made this tie in more with the hospital itself. The height is the same as previously discussed. We have brought in the materials previously discussed, residential siding, residentially scaled sized windows and the use of brick to bring down the mass and scale of the building using those materials. These two buildings are based on the exact items shown in the site plan. The building to the west being a 10,000 sq. ft. footprint two stories tall, and the building to the east a 10,000 sq. ft. building footprint one story tall. This is a concept of what could be there. Mr. Primeau provided elevation heights for the Board significantly shorter and significantly smaller in size. This is just a concept of what could be there, trying to address the issue of community character and our response to the comments of the Board. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated he will open public comment period at this time. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ina Harney, 40 Seward Street. She has been before the Board on previously. In 2015 the hospital stated they would have 100 doctors in this building because it was vital to have them there so in an emergency they could get to the hospital. Traffic is horrible in this area, especially at peak time. Part of this problem is the pedestrians coming and going to work. If you add an additional 300 cars at peak time it will be backed up even further. It is impossible to get out of her driveway. Adding more traffic to this area will exacerbate this condition. Blasting is another issue especially following the construction of Birch Run and the blasting. This will be even closer. Water is an issue and hope it will be as easily resolved as proposed. The parking lot will also increase the number of vehicles entering and exiting the site. The newly proposed design looks like a prison. Ben Botello, Attorney with Braymer Law, represents Alice Smith and other neighbors. Initially this Board should not be taking any action on this application this evening. The re-zoning of this area which occurred in 2019 is currently being challenged in court and is before the Appellate Division. Oral arguments are scheduled for January of 2022. If the appeal is successful, this project cannot move forward. The other issue is the city engineer is still reviewing the application today and it is unclear how this can be considered a complete application. If the Board does move forward and review SEQRA we request a positive declaration under SEQRA. As stated under the review SEQRA a positive declaration is required if there may be the potential for a significant environmental impact. We have heard comments regarding traffic and feel there may be a significant environmental impact in that area, along with wastewater, lack of open space, inconsistencies with community character. A positive declaration will allow this Board to analyze all the potential impacts, review mitigation for those impacts and allow the project to go forward if it feels it is appropriate at that time. Mark Torpey, Chair, stated regarding the outcome of the lawsuit, if this Board were to wait for every project to have bank financing in place, to have the public funding in place all lined up nothing would get done. So, the philosophy the Chair has taken is we review on the merits independent of the other external circumstances that could change significantly. In general, if an application is before the Board to look at it, and then if things play out, they do. How does the Board feel? Jason Doty stated he agrees with the Chair. It is up to the Board to take these applications, work through the issues and impacts and work through them so that the project can be approved. We have taken an ample amount of time discussing this project to review SEQRA. Ruth Horton stated she agrees. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board December 9, 2021 - Page 12 of 12 Kerry Mayo stated we still have further reviews to be completed on this project. Alice Smith, Woodland Court. The hospital has never reached out to the neighbors, we would like to see names. I am very affected as well as the neighbors. For six years the hospital has stated the need to centralize all the doctors in one place. They need to consolidate the doctors and the high rents they are paying. This is not the neighbor’s problem. They are changing their approach to get the project approved. There are letters from neighbors which I have submitted. The flooding is an issue. We have a high-water table in this area. Elizabeth Winnie, 2 Pearl St. Hospitals must build out when the cities get larger. It is wrong to put those buildings in this area. The water is worse on our street because we are lower than Seward Street. She has five sump pumps in her basement now. This hospital building should not be a neighborhood problem. Since there are so many streets and neighbors being affected by the traffic this should be re-evaluated. Brett Levy, 21 Van Dorn Street. He appreciates the project and all the work that has gone into this project to provide good health care for the city. This will have a long-term impact on the city. He moved here three years ago with his family. This project has a negative impact on the traffic. Water is an issue now and it is likely to get worse with this project. There should be an independent investigation of the water issue. Is there another option here? Mark Torpey, Chair, stated Chazen did review the water and traffic issues. We have been provided with a great deal of information. There are still loose ends relative to transportation and would like to have further information. I would like to take time to analyze and digest this. The Chair stated the underlying comprehensive Plan designation for this area is CRN-2. What could be built there as a residential project should this commercial project not be proposed for this area. CRN-2 designation allows for 15 units per acre on the combined area we have here. We have a little over 19 acres and that would allow up to 290 residential units to be built on that property. If you assume homeowners would have two cars each that would be 580 vehicles. The allowable height for this designation would be 70 ft, with setbacks of 25 ft. or 40 ft. The Chair feels this would be challenging to accommodate and would in have more of an impact to the neighborhood. What has been proposed is less impactful than what could be built there. I note this so that we can review this in the appropriate context. We will defer SEQRA Review, gather the last bit of traffic information and consider additional data we have received. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Jason Doty made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 18th, 2021, Planning Board Meeting. Mark Torpey, Chair seconded the motion. VOTE: Mark Torpey, Chair, in favor; Ruth Horton, in favor; Kerry Mayo, in favor; Jason Doty, in favor; Al DalPos, in favor; Chris Pipia, Alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES : 6-0 UPCOMING MEETINGS: Planning Board Workshop, Thursday, January 6, 2022, at 5:00 P.M. Planning Board Meeting, Thursday, January 13, 2022, at 6:00 PM. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Mark Torpey, Chair adjourned the meeting at 9:50 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board December 9, 2021 - Page 13 of 12  Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: February 9, 2022 City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board December 9, 2021 - Page 14 of 12