Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT THURSDAY, JANUARY 11, 2024 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Mark Pingel, Chair called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mark Pingel, Chair, Charles (Chuck) Marshall, Bill McTygue, Patty Morrison, Michael King ABSENT: Kerry Mayo STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, Leah Everhart, PB Legal Counsel A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: There were no minutes to approve. VOTE: MOTION PASSES: B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: 1. #20230905 35 Newton Final Subdivision. Final plat review of a two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential - 2 (UR-2) District. NOTE: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any application that is “approvable” without need for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wishes to further discuss any proposed consent agenda item, then that item would be pulled from the “consent agenda” and dealt with individually. Mark Pingel, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 6:02 p.m. There were no public comments. Mark Pingel closed the Public Hearing at 6:02 p.m. Chuck Marshall noted that SEQRA was performed on this application in April when the planning board made their advisory opinion. Mark Pingel, Chair said the ZBA has also issued a favorable opinion on the project and asked if the board if there was any other discussion on the project. There was none. A motion was made by Patty Morrison to approve the subdivision. The motion was seconded by Chuck Marshall. Vote: 5-0 in favor. Motion carried. C. PLANNING BOARD APPLICTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 2. #20230308 Beekman Arts District Expansion, 103 Beekman request for additional time and consideration of advisory opinion to the City Council for a Zoning Map Amendment from Urban Residential - 3 (UR-3) to Arts & Culture (AC) District for three parcels on Beekman St. 3. #20230906 67 West Special Use Permit for a vehicle dealership - enclosed only in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. 4. #20230861 400 Louden Rd. Unitarian Universalist Congregation, Special Use Permit for a place of worship in the Rural Residential (RR) district. 5. #20230929 53 Putnam Mixed Use Site Plan 53 Putnam St. Site plan review of a proposed mixed-use building including 4,423 sq. ft. commercial space, 32 residential units, and associated site work in the Urban Core (T-6) District. 6. #20230996 395 Broadway Site Plan review of a two-story building addition to an existing non-residential building and associated site work in the Urban Core (T-6) District. 2. #20230308 Beekman Arts District Expansion, 103 Beekman request for additional time and consideration of advisory opinion to the City Council for a Zoning Map Amendment from Urban Residential - 3 (UR-3) to Arts & Culture (AC) District for three parcels on Beekman St. Mark Pingel, Chair said all the members have seen this project. The owner would like to move the boundary so the Arts district can encompass her business. Chuck Marshall noted that it would include the whole street. Patty Morrison said it now ends at Beekman and Grand. It would shift it to cross Grand, move it up Beekman to Washington St. It encompasses 3 houses. It would also remove the need for a variance at 143 Grand for their business. Mark Pingel said it seems like a straight forward request that would benefit a few of our citizens. Leah Everhart, PB Legal Counsel said the board could adopt a motion that is supportive of the proposed zoning change. Michael King asked if it was just on the west side. Patty said yes, and on the east side there are only two houses. Patty said she would be in support of the zoning change. Patty Morrison made a motion for a favorable recommendation to the City Council to move three parcels on Beekman St. from Urban Residential – 3 to Arts & Culture District. The motion was seconded by Michael King. Vote 5-0 in favor, Motion Carried. 3. #20230906 67 West Special Use Permit for a vehicle dealership - enclosed only in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. Mark Pingel, Chair said that the applicant is looking to use the warehouse at 67 West to house and sell antique cars. This permit will require SEQRA review. Mark asked the applicant to give a brief background on what is being requested. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 11, 2024 - Page 2 of 17 Alexi LaRue, Saratoga Integrity Auto said he and his father will be selling five to ten cars per month, two to three customers per week, from the warehouse. Their end goal is to tap into a niche market – classic cars and trucks. They would be storing 5 or 6 cars inside. No cars will be stored outside. The building will have an office and a bathroom. They will modify the same signage that was used for the appliance store that was previously in that space. The vehicles will be delivered by flatbed – 1 or 2 cars. Mark Pingel, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 6:34 p.m. There were no comments on this application. Mark closed the Public Hearing at 6:34 p.m. There was a discussion between the Chair and Staff regarding SEQRA review and if it was determined that it is a Type II action it would not require SEQRA. Leah Everhart said the board can adopt a motion finding that it’s a Type II action and no further SEQRA review is warranted. Chuck Marshall made a motion that the action be classified Type II based on the fact that it’s repurposing of an existing structure. The motion was seconded by Patty Morrison. Vote 5- 0 in favor, Motion Carried. Chuck Marshall made a motion to grant the applicant a Special Use Permit for the operation of inside automobile sales per the application. The motion was seconded by Michael King. Discussion: Michael King said for the record, this is a small business now, but if it were to expand to a full-blown car dealership with cars outside and a larger building it would not fit in this neighborhood. Patty Morrison said the applicant would need to submit a new application. Vote 5-0 in favor, Motion Carried. Mark Pingel, Chair noted that the applicant needs to submit a Site Plan Review application and it will be reviewed administratively by Chair and Staff. 4. #20230861 400 Louden Rd. Unitarian Universalist Congregation, Special Use Permit for a place of worship in the Rural Residential (RR) district. Mark Pingel, Chair asked the applicant to give an update on 400 Louden Rd. He said the board will see where we are now relative to its content and then move on to public comment based on the updated information. Public comment and SEQRA remain open. Sue Davis SD Atelier Architecture. Sue said she was not at the official last meeting due to a family health issue. She said she attended the workshop and the sketch plan review in October 2023. Sue presented a quick power point with renderings to the Board. Notes:  Deeded conservation area with a significant buffer that cannot be touched. Sue said the identity of the church is to preserve and respect nature and integrate in with the site as much as possible.  Sue talked about the surrounding community – residential subdivision, Louden Rd. back of BJ’s, Jewish Temple, woods, hospice building with a residential feel to it on the corner of Louden Rd. On the other side is a stop sign and trees.  The access to Bog Meadow Road has been eliminated.  The footprint of the church has been reduced by about 15% (600 sq. ft.) City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 11, 2024 - Page 3 of 17   The building is intended to nestle into the context of the site, using materials that are natural in nature and residential in scale.  The entire footprint is 3,600 sq. ft.  The overall height will be +/- 32’.  The intent with the materials and colors is to respect the integrity of the church and blend into the surroundings. Their mission and philosophy are to be mindful of nature. Sue pointed out the following key points:  5 acres of land – 1.9 developable.  Significant buffer (250 ft. permanent conservation easement) between church and development.  Structure meant to blend into nature.  Precedent of other churches in a neighborhood context. Jeff Anthony, Studio A addressed the site issues:  After hearing complaints from neighbors, the applicant removed Bog Meadow from the site plan.  Two neighborhoods – Louden Road Corridor, 45 mph posted speed limit with commercial uses on the north side and mostly vacant on the south side with a few residential buildings. Jeff said this is the neighborhood the church is in. The second community is once you turn onto Bog Meadow Run and into the subdivision. There is significant buffering between the church and the subdivision. The church purchased 5 acres, 3 are in a conservation easement and 1.9 are for the church.  Traffic/speed on Louden Road; turning distance off of Louden Road; traffic generated from the church. Jeff said they measured sight distance on Louden Rd. and there is 1,556 ft. of sight distance looking east from the church’s entrance driveway and 1,666 looking west. Jeff consulted ITT traffic manual guidelines; at 45 mph you need 376 ft. to stop a car. At 50 mph you need 453 ft. to stop a car. Jeff said even at 5 mph over the speed limit there is three times the stopping distance required according to ITT traffic manual. Jeff said even at 55 or 60 mph there is still more than two times the stopping distance.  Activity level of the church; 125 +/- parishioners. Weekly average attendance is about 80 people. Divide 80 by 2 people per car = 40 cars coming to the church. They arrive on Sunday morning at 9:00 a.m. and leave at 12 noon. That’s the only service scheduled weekly. The only other activity might be a club that meets on an evening for about 10 people. The pastor and a part-time assistant work daily. Chuck Marshall noted that the planning board does not have jurisdiction over the driveway. The Town of Wilton will regulate the driveway placement.  Water usage – when the Newman subdivision was reviewed by the planning board a hydrogeological study was done and shown to the Department of Health and concluded: there are 2 aquifers on the site, upper and lower. “Both aquifers have the potential to supply ground water to any individual lot in this subdivision.” Jeff said according to ENCON a church is a place of worship and the seating capacity requires 3 gallons of water a day per person. If classified as general assembly, it’s 5 gallons per day per person. Five gallons per day x 80 people = 400 gallons per day of water usage from 9:00 to noon on Sunday because there’s no other use on the property. Homes in the subdivision require 110 gallons of water per day, per bedroom (4 BR=440 gallons per day). The church uses less than one household of water in 3 hours on a Sunday morning, and hardly any water the rest of the week. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 11, 2024 - Page 4 of 17   Visibility of the church from the development – Sue Davis said there’s a large buffer of trees around the building and a walkout basement. The chapel at Skidmore college was the inspiration for the church. Kerry Mayo joined the meeting at approximately 6:45 p.m. Mark Pingel, Chair opened the floor for public comment. Bill Matthews, 36 Bog Meadow Run Rd. Bill said the church will be right behind him and he will likely be impacted the most. Bill said he’s concerned about his privacy and his well water being affected. The overflow parking is on dirt and close by his well. He’s worried that cars could leak oil, etc. Bill said the applicant said it won’t affect the re-sale value of his home but he said he wouldn’t have bought there if he knew there would be a church on the property nearby. Bill said all the activities going on at the church will negatively impact him. The cars speeding on Louden Rd. are a problem and the church will add to that. Rob Jess, 7 Bog Meadow Run. Rob said since the last public hearing on November 30, 2023 they submitted a petition signed by 34 of the neighbors on December 30th in opposition of the project. They also submitted an alternative review of the six criteria deciding whether to issue the special use permit. In Rob’s opinion he doesn’t believe that this project meets any of the 6 criteria, therefore the board should not approve this project. Rob said they also submitted a response to the applicant’s response to public comments from November 30th on January 10, 2024. Rob said they are saying the church is not part of the Bog Meadow Run neighborhood and at the same time they’re saying churches are ok in residential areas. Rob displayed a map of the 5-lot subdivision that was approved as a single-family residential subdivision, which was consistent with the Bog Meadows subdivision, where the applicant wants to locate their church. For the church to separate it from the rest of the subdivision is self-serving. Patty Morrison asked Bill Matthews if he had any trees on his property. He said he does not. Patty commented that Bill would see whatever was built in the subdivision. Julie Holmberg, 21 Summerfield Lane. Julie said she is a member of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation. She said the church really wants to be good neighbors. Julie said this property was on the market for over 500 days and it appeared that was because it was across from BJ’s and the mall and is on the corridor. There’s property on the other side of Bog Meadow that is meant to be the Methodist Church conference center. Julie said she’s a little dismayed because churches and schools are an important part of a community. The proposed church building is beautiful, and trees will be planted all around. Julie said she lives on a 2-acre lot within Knolls Spring Park and sees neighbors and other people’s houses. She said the proposed church is on the corridor on a very busy road and not in the Bog Meadow development. Art Holmberg, church member, 21 Summerfield Lane. Art said at the last public hearing some of the Bog Meadows residents implied that the church was secretly or quietly trying to do this without their knowledge. He said 18 letters were sent out to all the people within 250 ft. of the proposed project as required by the City Ordinance. Art said they also did a walkaround in the neighborhood. Art noted that there are two neighborhoods here – the City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 11, 2024 - Page 5 of 17 Louden Rd. corridor (BJ’s at 406 Louden, proposed church at 400 Louden & 396 Louden with a special use permit in place), and Bog Meadows. Art said many of the 31 people who signed the petition don’t live even within a half mile of the church’s site. Art said when they first did their walkaround and talked to the immediate neighbors, four of the six were very positive about them being there. Art said their church is willing to sit with the neighbors and discuss any issues in a less formal way and try to resolve them. Rev. Joe Cleveland, Minister of the Universalist Unitarian Congregation of Saratoga Springs. Joe said he is very conscience of the cares and concerns that have been expressed by those who we hope will be our neighbors. He believes these concerns are rooted in how much we value nature and neighborliness. Joe said he and his congregation share these values. He said the church they are proposing for 400 Louden are to be in service of those values. They will foster and encourage peace and beauty in the neighborhood and in the community. Murray Penney, 11 Sundance is a church member. Murray presented a copy of a hydrology survey from 1990 that was done for a planner at City Hall. There are two aquifers under Bog Meadow – one at 50 ft. depth, a layer of clay and silt, and then another layer at 100 ft. down. Murray said he isn’t sure which aquifer the neighbors are tapped into, but the church would be willing to find out and do what’s necessary to avoid any problems with the water. Mark Bergbom, 15 Bog Meadow. Mark said he noticed the scope of the project had been reduced and wanted to know if that could be expanded after they were approved. Mark wanted to know if some of the future parking area could be moved closer to the existing home on the property instead of close to Louden Road. Could it not be built in Wilton, separate application, etc.? Regarding other churches being built in residential areas in the city, Bog Meadows is 100% residential without anything else being built there. The church is non-conforming to the neighborhood. Susan Barden, Planner said that the applicant can specify the square footage in their special use permit as proposed now or it can be based on a conceptual plan showing the square footage. Site plan will also look at the square footage of the building. The special use permit could have a condition that would require the applicant to return for an amendment to the permit. If it’s not conditioned, then they would have to return for a site plan amendment to expand the building. The revised use permit would require another public hearing. Paul Moberg, 9 Bog Meadow Run. Paul said the biggest concern the neighborhood has is that the corner is dangerous. Paul said you can’t plan parking for funerals, weddings, etc. There will be overflow parking and there will be no place to park alongside the road. Paul said he can’t count 18 letters that went out and the ones that were sent were not sent certified as required. Rev. Joe Cleveland said they don’t want any parking on Louden Road. He said Christmas Eve service is like a Sunday worship service. Joe said if they predict a funeral is going to be larger than their church can handle, they will schedule it elsewhere and have done that in the past. Joe said they would actively work to prevent any parking on the road. Joe said anyone who rents their space for a wedding would have to know the confines of that space. He said he does one or two weddings per year. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 11, 2024 - Page 6 of 17 Eric Lawson, 11 Whitney Pl. said he is a mediator and arbitrator. Eric emphasized what Art Holmberg said about talking with the neighbors, discussing the issues and how they can be accommodated. He said in his experience, when neighbors sit down and have a good faith discussion, they can work things through. Mark Pingel, Chair closed the public comment at approximately 7:30 p.m., and asked the planning board members for their comments prior to continuing with the SEQRA review. Bill McTygue reminded everyone of the possible impact on the three potable wells that the city draws from to supplement the city’s water supply during dry spells. They are located within the Bog Meadow neighborhood adjacent to the Bog Meadow Brook and not far from the proposed church site. Patty Morrison had no comment. Kerry Mayo said he sees a suburban neighborhood and a mall, and he thinks a church fits just fine in that setting. Chuck Marshall asked if they proposed to connect to sewer. Yes, they propose to connect to the County sewer on the north side of Louden Rd. Other than that, he agreed with Kerry Mayo. Michael King said he’s not sure how you preserve and protect nature by cutting down a lot of trees and building a church and a lot of parking so that you can use it on Sunday. “That’s not my idea of preserving and respecting nature.” Michael suggested that the applicant build the required parking (13 spaces) and use valet parking for all their events. He said he would like to see more creative thinking about lessening the impact of our footprint in this world. Mark Pingel, Chair said he still has some concerns about traffic, but because the highest use of the church is on a Sunday, that tends to help mitigate some of the impact. The other concern the public has is about the visual impact of the church and is something that the applicant should take into consideration if this is approved, especially where Mr. Matthews is concerned. Mark Pingel, Chair said the board is ready to do the SEQRA review. He said as the board goes through the review, if there are any items that a board member says they should find for a positive declaration, it will be discussed. If there is not a unanimous opinion from the board, then each item where there is not unanimity the board will vote. Leah added that the way the form is set up each question will direct the board’s attention to a particular category of potential impact; 1. No, or small impact may occur, or 2. Moderate to large impact. Once the list of questions is concluded and all are answered No, or small impact, you skip Part 3 and go right to a negative declaration. If any one of those questions is answered moderate to large, you don’t skip Part 3 and there’s another effort SEQRA requires of the board. Leah said whenever that occurs, counsel typically recommends that the board have a discussion that evening but not attempt to put together a Part 3 at that time, and take more time to allow staff to assist in the background and draft something for the board’s review and discussion at the next public meeting. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 11, 2024 - Page 7 of 17 SEQRA, Part 2: 1. Material conflict with adopted land use plan…- No, or small impact. 2. Change of use or intensity of use of land… - No, or small impact. 3. Impair character or quality…. – No, or small impact. 4. Impact on environmental qualities…. – No, or small impact. 5. Adverse change in existing level of traffic… - No, or small impact. 6. Can increase use of energy – No, or small impact. 7. Public/private water supplies… - No, or small impact. 8. Impair Character or quality of historic… - No, or small impact. 9. Adverse change to natural resources… - No, or small impact. 10. Increase in potential for erosion, flooding… - No, or small impact. 11. Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. Chuck Marshall made a motion for a negative SEQRA declaration based upon the environmental assessment form provided by the applicant and assessment of Part 2 by the board. The motion was seconded by Patty Morrison. Vote 6-0 in favor. Motion Carried. Leah said the reason churches and schools were mentioned as being typically in harmony with residential is because in the 1950’s the highest court in the state said it’s not lawful for a community to prohibit places of worship/churches in residential areas. They can be regulated but not prohibited. There’s similar language regarding schools. Leah said places of worship and schools are considered an integral part of the fabric of a community and it is not unusual to see them in residential areas. The City of Saratoga Springs has not prevented churches from being in residential areas and is complying with the law. The city has said that this particular use is subject to a special use permit. Leah said it would not be legally appropriate for the board to take the position that because this is a place of worship this location in a residential area is inappropriate. It would be appropriate based on the scope or location of a particular project or shape of a lot – site specific issues. Mark Pingel, Chair said there are two distinctly different set of analysis – one from the neighbors and one from the applicant – both very thoroughly done. He said they come to diametrically different conclusions about the decision the planning board should come to. Mark asked the board to give their comments on the special use permit in the context of whether there are any objections or exceptions they would take against the 6 criteria for the record. Bill McTygue said the discussions have been valuable between the neighbors and the applicant. He said he believes the project can work and the church can be a good neighbor and be compatible with the neighborhood and natural setting. Bill said he thinks a good healthy relationship can exist between those people who are in the vicinity of this project and the applicant. He liked what he heard from people from the congregation and their desire to work with the people from the subdivision and be compatible. Bill said he finds no reason to deny the project. Patty Morrison said she agrees with what Bill said. Patty said she took notes and appreciates the conversation on both sides. She said she drove past the property and feels the church has taken consideration in how the structure will be built and reducing the footprint. Patty said she feels the traffic impacts have been addressed. She feels there should be conversation at site plan about a buffer between the church and Bill Matthews. Conversation/mediation between City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 11, 2024 - Page 8 of 17 Bill Matthews and the applicant could be very helpful. Patty said the project fits with the character and that the project should move forward. Kerry Mayo said he agrees with what’s been said. He also agreed with Michael about parking and said it should be addressed at site plan review. Chuck Marshall said this is a use that’s allowed in the Comprehensive Plan with a special permit. The SEQRA analysis was thorough with only one issue being extensively reviewed. There are many instances in the city where churches are included in residential zones. The project fits the overall character of the neighborhood, especially with the preservation of the 3 acres and tie into public sewer. During site plan review there should be an extensive buffer established with 36 Bog Meadow and downlit LED fixtures would mitigate any light impact. Chuck said he feels it’s appropriate to move forward with the special use permit. Mark Pingel, Chair listed the following items for the applicant to note:  Special buffering next to the Matthew’s property at 36 Bog Meadow Run.  There are 2 aquifers, and the applicant will make sure the use will not affect the neighbors.  Overflow parking needs to be considered on the property and any alternative plans.  Mr. Matthews’ well needs to be considered during the construction phase to ensure there is no contamination.  There needs to be a tree plan – how many substantial trees are coming down and what the compensation will be for that.  A condition of the special use permit – any change to the approved plan will come back to the PB under special use to ensure that there’s public comment. Mark recommended that if this project is approved there be serious conversation between the neighbors and the applicant. Leah asked for clarification regarding the size restriction and requiring the applicant to return for an amendment to the special use permit if there were a change. Mark said if there is any substantial deviation from what was approved there is an opportunity for another public hearing. Leah suggested that if the special use permit imposes a condition about size that it be limited to an objective square footage. Mark agreed and proposed that they limit the building size to 4,000 square feet for the footprint. Leah clarified that the applicant would be locked into the square footage decided at site plan review. Kerry Mayo made a motion to approve the special use permit with the condition of a 4,000 square foot footprint limitation. The motion was seconded by Chuck Marshall. Vote 6-0 in favor. Motion Carried. 5. #20230929 53 Putnam Mixed Use. Site Plan review of a proposed mixed-use building including 4,423 sq. ft. commercial space, 32 residential units, and associated site work in the Urban Core (T-6) District. Jason Letts, owner 53 Putnam. Jason said they have been working with DEC for the last 6 years to remediate the property and are hoping to have a certificate of completion very soon. Jason said last year they had sketch plan review with the planning board and met with the City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 11, 2024 - Page 9 of 17 DRB. At that point they were proposing a 6-story building, with commercial on the first floor. They received quite a bit of feedback and are now proposing 5 stories with 32 residential units and ground floor commercial units. Previously they offered 30% affordable housing units and are now proposing 100% affordable housing to help enrich the community. Jason said after meeting with local real estate experts, they decided that with grants and incentives there would be no monetary loss to the applicant. Jason said they are looking to be a leader and set a trend in affordable housing – an example that others follow. Jason said along with the environmental benefit of the brownfield remediation and the 100% affordable housing, they are proposing to rent space as the owner/occupant within their building for a coffee shop/bookstore, bringing great jobs to the table. Jason said he’s been in business for nine years and all his employees make at least $20 per hour. He would be bringing his existing business into the commercial space of the building and creating new jobs while supporting the local arts and community by running community programs. Adam Feldman, Affordable Housing Rep. representing the workforce of Saratoga Springs. Adam said he’s been before the planning board many times and worked for Habitat for Humanity for 8 years trying to solve the challenges of the hardworking individuals in the city who still want to live, play, and learn here. Adam said one of the reasons he left Habitat was for the opportunity to work with developers like Jason who care more about the community than the bottom line. Adam said at Habitat they were building 2 or 3 homes a year and they were presented with the opportunity to build 32 affordable units. Adam said he’s here tonight to answer questions about the economic viability of the proposed affordable housing. Adam said they will be calling it mixed income housing, defined for families or individuals making between 60 and 120% Area Median Income (AMI). Adam said the board should consider people making between $75,000 and $125,000 (waitress, classroom teacher, local nurse). Adam said the price point will be about $300,000. Mark Pingel asked to speak with Adam after the meeting to find out more about affordable housing incentives. Brian Osterhout, Environmental Design Partnership, Engineer for applicant gave a brief project history:  2013 Putnam Resources became involved. The building was deteriorated and was demolished. Brownfield remediation has been occurring on the site.  2018 – proposal to the city for a 6-story building, 40 condos, mixed use. Retail on the first floor with a mix of affordability. The Planning Board wanted on-site parking which was not affordable, so the project was shelved.  2020 proposed use as a park, Covid hit, the project was shelved.  2023 Spring Application. Change of team members. Proposed 6-story building, agreement for parking at parking garage, mix of affordable units. Presentation at a joint meeting with the PB and DRB. DRB split on height of proposed 6-story building.  Current proposal – based on comments from joint meeting. The five-story building (lower height) was presented to DRB in October and was well received. They defined construction cost for viability and affordability. Now 32 for sale units with 100% affordability. Brian showed photos of the building that was demolished (dry cleaner) and the site as it is today. Project statistics:  53 Putnam is across from the library.  Within Historical Overlay District  Lot size – 13,500 sq. ft. (0.310 acre), frontage – 74.85 ft. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 11, 2024 - Page 10 of 17   Zoning – Transect 6 (Urban Core), Ht. – 2-story min. – 70’ Max. Frontage build-out 80% min. = 59.88’. Setbacks 0” min. all sides.  Brownfield site (DEC permit)  Building Footprint – 9,179 sq. ft. – one-story building demolished. Proposed Project Statistics:  Zoning – Transect 6. Buildout at 74.85’ Front – 62.7’ (83.8%). Setbacks – Front (E) 0’; South 5-6’; Rear (>1) North 13’.  Five-Story Building. Lot coverage – 9,631 sq. ft. Commercial space (coffee shop/restaurant) on first floor approximately 4,423 sq. ft. Second through fifth floors – 32 Residential units (1 BR & 2 BR)  Utilities – water, sewer, sanitary storm, gas exist on Putnam St. They have pressure tested the hydrants – no issues. Electric is currently overhead.  Access & Parking – No parking requirements for on-site in T-6. Secured parking in parking garage.  Civic Space – Covered arcade/patio area and interior public meeting space room. Brian displayed a sketch of the site plan. It includes sidewalks, street trees, covered arcade/patio area, building footprint, property line boundaries and location of reciprocal easements for access and utilities. Jim Trip, Architect, Senior Project Manager with MRB Group. Jim displayed a first-floor plan:  Civic Space – conference room with tenant storage and buffet space = 715 sq. ft. the use by the public could be signed out through the coffee shop. Library space managed by the management of the coffee shop. Covered arcade. Residential entry through the library.  Upper Floor Plan – 8 residential units, most are 2-BR, 1-bath (850 sq. ft.). 2 larger units on the front north side are about 1,000 sq. ft. There’s a 1-BR unit on each floor (683 sq. ft.). A few of the units have extra den/office space. Jim showed slides of elevations and renderings of the building. Brian Osterhout said that the project needs to be constructed by March 2026 in order to participate in some of the affordability programs. Mark Pingel, Chair asked Brian when they will be returning to the DRB. Brian said the DRB is waiting for the PB to initiate SEQRA so they can return to DRB to discuss mass and scale and materials. Chuck Marshall made a motion that the application be declared an unlisted action and coordinated review with any other involved agency and declare the Planning Board Lead Agency. The motion was seconded by Kerry Mayo. Vote 6-0 in favor, Motion Carried. Michael King talked about the easement for the alley and connectivity to the downtown. He said he would like it to be open and inviting, not privatized. It should be permeable to take advantage of stormwater. Brian said it is already paved. Michael suggested they make it look better and Brian said it could be repaved and noted there are 5 parties to the easement. Brian said the remedial plan for the brownfield site is that it’s capped. Michael King noted that when the applicant replaces the sidewalk DPW said it will have to be to city standards. Michael said this might be a good time for DPW to consider whether Putnam St. really needs to be 30 ft. wide. Could there be on-street parking, curb extensions, City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 11, 2024 - Page 11 of 17 etc. while the street is already dug up. Michael said he would like their driveway to look like a driveway and not a little street. Chuck Marshall said the library has expressed concern about parking. Brian said the parking lot is available to everyone. The parking limit is 3 hours. Bill McTygue noted that the city gave the parking lot to the library when it was built for everyone to use. 6. #20230996 395 Broadway Site Plan review of a two-story building addition to an existing non-residential building and associated site work in the Urban Core (T-6) District. Scott Lansing, Lansing Engineering, Brett Balzer, Balzer Tuck Architecture & John Cannie, Legal Counsel represented the applicant. Scott said they are seeking the Board’s approval for the application. Scott said the applicant was last before the board on October 26, 2023. They are proposing renovation and adaptive reuse of the two-story building with an additional two-story addition. Scott listed some of the site improvements:  Heated sidewalks in the front.  13 bicycle parking spaces (10 exterior, 3 interior)  Everything is ADA accessible.  Landscaping & utilities. Utilities will be underground along Division St.  Existing parking lot will be maintained and secured.  Amenities & civic space – civic space where Division St. & Woodlawn come together. Paver area & bench with plantings. Sidewalk that goes along the private alley for pedestrian access.  Plantings along Division St. & additional trees.  The two planting areas on Broadway are being reconfigured and steps are being added that will line up with the center of the building to the main entrance. Adding benches to each planting area.  Spot grading plan – frontage on Broadway slopes down – working planters in with that area and ADA access to each of the entranceways on the front of the building. Scott said there have been some slight adjustments to the width and configuration of the islands. Mark Pingel asked why there was an adjustment to the width. Scott said the DRB had some concerns with the width of the sidewalk. Scott addressed some of the comments made by the planning board at the last meeting: A. Coordinate with DPW for the improvements in the city right-of-way, including the awnings. Scott said the coordination has been done and submitted a letter dated 1/4/24 from Jason Golub stating that he is in acceptance of all the improvements that are being proposed. Jason reviewed them from a layout configuration and engineering standpoint and agrees with the drawings. B. Obtain DRB approval and come back with preliminary & final engineering drawings. DRB approval was granted on 12/6/23 for the building excluding the sidewalk on Broadway in the front of the building. Mark Pingel asked why they didn’t approve of the sidewalks. Brett Balzer said that the DRB looked at the new sidewalk plan the previous evening (1/10/24). The DRB made suggestions and comments at the 12/6/23 meeting regarding the sidewalk design including widening the sidewalk as suggested by the Preservation Foundation. Brett said after the meeting last night with the DRB they made some additional modifications to the front entry steps. Mark asked if the DRB will be making a decision with regard to the sidewalk. Brett said the DRB City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 11, 2024 - Page 12 of 17  believes they have purview over the sidewalk and the applicant believes it is within the planning board and DPW’s purview. C. They submitted preliminary final engineering drawings which DPW has reviewed and signed off on. Scott showed a photo of the sidewalk in front of the building as it currently exists and a rendering of what they are proposing. Scott said the steps were added, and the planted islands were reduced to accommodate a wider walking area. Scott showed a sketch of additional plantings and trees that will be added along Division St. Scott said there was discussion about the planter in front of their neighbors (Rhea’s). The applicant has agreed to enhance that planter as well. Rhea has outdoor seating in the summer so they’re not sure how DPW would want the planter lined up with the applicant’s planters. Scott said with the addition of the Rhea planter they will exceed the 5% civic space requirement at 5.57%. Brett said the current sidewalk is 16’9”. Measuring from the face of the building their proposal would be 6’ of elevated sidewalk, 2’ of step, 13’ of sidewalk to the planter. Brett said the 6’ of sidewalk up against the building is public sidewalk. Brett said the rails project one foot past the nosing of the step as required by the NYS Building Code. The steps are each 12”. Patty Morrison asked if the walkway from the corner of Division St. and Broadway headed south toward the Adelphi was the same width. Brett said the width of the sidewalk across Division St. headed north on Broadway, in front of the Bluebird Motel is 11’9” and stays that width past the Wine Bar where it then expands to 12’9”. Brett said for 135’ the average is about 12’3” in width. Brett said there are varying widths of sidewalk as you head south from Division on Broadway. Board members had discussion without their mics on so it’s inaudible (Michael King, Chuck Marshall). There will be areas where the sidewalks narrow down. Mark Pingel, Chair opened the floor for public comment. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said she feels that the stairs need to be approved as part of the building because without them you can’t get into the building. She said the Foundation’s position is that their accessibility be addressed within the footprint of their own building. Alternatively, could the grade of the sidewalk be adjusted as it was at 385 Broadway all the way out front so there aren’t stairs against the building. The Foundation doesn’t think the applicant is keeping in line with the wide sidewalk and that the style of the stairs is not in keeping with the downtown. Samantha noted that some of the larger entry stairs on Broadway have historic precedent. Samantha said the stairs in front of 395 Broadway will be permanently in the public right-of-way. The Preservation Foundation has a concern with the blended design and sees potential tripping hazards. They also have concerns about skateboarding and loitering and how that will be handled if it becomes a problem, what will discourage those types of activities. Samantha said it’s her understanding that this sidewalk proposal will need to go before the real estate committee and then the City Council to allow for the use of this land and that it is not just a DPW action. Mark Pingel asked Susan Barden about the process mentioned by Samantha about the involvement of the real estate committee and city council. Susan said the real estate committee will have to review the permanent awnings, stairs, and ramp – the encroachments into the right-of-way. The real estate committee will then make a recommendation to the city council. Granting an easement or a license is an action of the city council. Susan said the DRB reviewed and approved the plan with the exception of the awnings, stairs and ramp. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 11, 2024 - Page 13 of 17 Mark asked if they go through SEQRA and site plan would it matter what they decide on the sidewalk because there are other entities in play. Leah said it matters because the applicant requires several different approvals to get to their goal. Michael King touched on what Samantha said about putting the ramp inside their building instead of using public space. Mark asked Brett why they don’t do it inside their building. Brett said in October of 2023 they brought a design before the DRB that had the main building entrance on the corner. They were going to infill the corner bringing the doors out to the corner. It was the main building entrance and they proposed retail at the south end of the building. The DRB and the Preservation Foundation felt that corner retail along Broadway and Division would be better for the building and community, so the applicant moved the retail to that corner. As you start from Division St. and work your way down south towards Rhea, the change in grade is 1’9”. There’s a slab that exists within the building. There’s infrastructure beyond plumbing under that slab such as structural steel with columns that are capped with a structural steel slab. If they were to remove that structural slab and lower it, all the footings are then exposed – steel, base plates & footings. The building was bought to do an adaptive reuse and they would like to use all the square footage of the building. Brett said by moving the main building entrance to the center of the building, as suggested by the DRB, they’re losing grade. He said they are now introducing a level sidewalk in front of the building to get to the main entrance. Further to the south of the building is a second retail space which could be eliminated but Brett said they don’t believe that’s better for the city. Brett clarified that the DRB approved the awnings & entrances, and that the discussion is limited to the sidewalks, steps & railings. Brett addressed the tripping hazard that was mentioned by the DRB on January 10th (the night before this meeting). He said the steps previously blended into the concrete, like at the City Center – which was blended because there’s a change of grade as you head downhill like this project. Brett said they added a sight wall that is legal by Code, doesn’t need a railing and must be 4” above the sidewalk for ADA walking device detection. This eliminates some of the concerns from the DRB regarding trip hazards. Their other concerns - skateboarding, loitering - can’t be controlled by any building owner but the sight wall will help to deter some of those activities. They also added railings that are Code compliant and will help deter skateboarders. Bill McTygue said he feels it’s most appropriate for the building entrance to face Broadway. He said he wants the building to address and speak to Broadway. There are handicap accessibility constraints that need to be considered that were not in place when the building was built 40 years ago. Bill said it’s a good effort to get the building where it needs to be and have it look nice. Chuck Marshall added that if all those other people say “no” then they’ll need to figure out how to do it better. Brett pointed out that there’s an existing exit door that’s recessed back about 6’ with a pitch on the front of the building that can no longer be done by today’s Code – it’s not compliant. He said that tells you what a significant grade change there is just to that door. It goes down even further where the fire stair is on the south end of the front of the building, which they will be retaining and using. Mark Pingel, Chair said the board has two choices tonight: The board can approve the stairs and let DPW deal with DRB if they are opposed, or the board can approve the site plan and pass the sidewalk issue to the DRB and DPW. Leah added that the applicant is saying that they disagree with the DRB and this may become controversial. Leah said if the applicant is required to get DRB, PB, DPW, City Council approval of the stairs (after Real City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 11, 2024 - Page 14 of 17 Estate committee recommendation), then those are the approvals that are needed. The failure to obtain any one of them would prohibit them from getting a building permit. The planning board needs to approve of this plan as one of the steps in the applicant receiving a building permit. Leah said the PB needs to decide if they want to review SEQRA tonight and then do they want to move forward with site plan or not. Mark Pingel, Chair suggested that the PB move on to SEQRA review. The board members agreed. John Cannie said he wanted to briefly discuss the DRB’s jurisdiction over the stairs. John said the authorizing legislation which is in the UDO, Section 13.9 talks about mass and scale, and standards of approval are based on the façade, directional expression, architectural rhythm, materials, colors, and major building elements. John said none of that discusses anything that exists inside of the right-of-way. He said the closest they get is from the front lot line and going inward. John said technically he has only ever understood that the DRB deals with the building. John said there is legislation for the Planning Board, Section 13.5 subpart G that deals with landscape. John said there’s a landscape plan that is required to be submitted as part of the site plan that shows walkways, structures, pedestrian convenience, improvements in right-of-way, stairs – all PB jurisdiction and nothing to do with the DRB. John said he appreciates the PB’s willingness to move this forward and not wait on a DRB approval that they don’t have the authority to make. Samantha said they want to make sure that a design may not change because of a problem that might happen (skateboarders, loiterers). Samantha said when they encouraged retail on the corner through the DRB, they didn’t think it would result in the taking of the public right-of-way. She said the DRB looks at stairs and site details of other projects in the historic district because they are a major character defining feature of a building, and if you can’t get into a building without your stairs, it lends itself to DRB approval. The DRB does look at site details on a property. SEQRA, Part 2: 1. Material conflict with adopted land use plan…- No, or small impact. 2. Change of use or intensity of use of land… - No, or small impact. 3. Impair character or quality…. – No, or small impact. 4. Impact on environmental qualities…. – No, or small impact. 5. Adverse change in existing level of traffic… - No, or small impact. 6. Can increase use of energy – No, or small impact. 7. Public/private water supplies… - No, or small impact. 8. Impair Character or quality of historic… - No, or small impact. 9. Adverse change to natural resources… - No, or small impact. 10. Increase in potential for erosion, flooding… - No, or small impact. 11. Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. Chuck Marshall made a motion to approve the application based on the environmental assessment form provided by the applicant and this Board’s review of Part 2 of the Short Environmental Assessment Form I recommend a Negative declaration be issued. The motion was seconded by Michael King. Vote 6-0 in favor. Motion Carried. Mark Pingel, Chair asked if the board could do the site plan review and leave the stairs out of it until the DRB comes back with what they have an issue with. Leah recommended that the PB not do that. She said the PB can wait to do site plan review until they get more information, but if they do the review, it should be on the project as a whole. Michael King said it seems as if this is an issue that the DRB is knee deep in and suggested that the Planning Board talk City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 11, 2024 - Page 15 of 17 with them. Mark said considering the way things have continued to transpire he would like the DRB to go first. Chuck Marshall said if the PB voted tonight it would likely be a tie and there would be no action anyway. He said he doesn’t think the UDO is clear enough as to who has jurisdiction. Chuck said he thinks it’s clear that the PB has jurisdiction over the sidewalk and the ability to approve the stairs. The materials of the stairs would be a DRB decision. Chuck Marshall made a motion to approve the site plan. The motion was seconded by Bill McTygue. Vote: C. Marshall – yes, B. McTygue – yes, M. Pingel – yes, P. Morrison – No, M. King – No, K. Mayo – No. Tied Vote 3-3. No action. John Cannie said there were people who didn’t want to vote tonight because they’re not ready. The applicant would like clarification as to what additional information they can provide other than what has already been provided. Is the hesitation that the DRB has not acted yet? Michael King said that his hesitation is that the DRB seems to have some issues and that on this type of issue the two boards should collaborate. The applicant needs a clear answer. John said they have a clear answer from DRB. Chuck Marshall said the reality is that they don’t have a clear answer on the steps. Leah said it appears the PB members would like a better understanding of what the DRB’s specific concerns are and to seek an opinion or recommendation. Leah said her concern with the planning board not acting until the DRB acts is that we don’t know if DRB ever will act. Leah said it doesn’t matter whether they approve or disapprove of the stairs, it’s still going to be up to the PB to make a decision. Leah said the PB’s role is not to defer to the DRB. For example, if the DRB reaches a conclusion that the PB doesn’t agree with it doesn’t mean that has to be the PB’s conclusion. Coordinating with other boards makes sense but the planning board is not to defer to them in areas where you have expertise. Leah said the most efficient path forward would be to seek the information from the DRB, and not wait for them to act. Mark Pingel, Chair said there are a few PB members who would like more information. There is a question about who has jurisdiction. He asked Leah to give an opinion on what the UDO says about jurisdiction. There’s a consensus among the board that Susan should reach out to the DRB to find out what their concerns are and find out what their plan is to take action. Chuck threw out a scenario – what if the DRB says we don’t like 13’ sidewalks, we want 16’ sidewalks? Leah said it’s possible to have two boards who reach inconsistent results on the same basic application. There was further discussion about the previous motion and vote. Leah said it was a real motion and the board voted to take no action. Chuck said his point for the motion was to show that there was no consensus or a real majority. Mark said he does believe that there are four votes at the table for approving the site plan. Chuck said he would make another motion. Patty indicated that they were undoing their vote and asked Leah if that was normal procedure. Leah said there’s nothing wrong with voting again, there was no action taken on the previous motion – no approval, no denial because it was a 3-3 vote. Bill said the board shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that this project is an important economic development project for Broadway. The building has been sitting there vacant for a long time. The applicant is bringing a really viable project back to Broadway. There will be retail on the first floor and they’re going to employ 75 people who will be in the building. It’s not an historic building. Michael said his understanding was that the first vote was a straw poll. Leah said there was a motion, a second and a vote, it was not a straw poll. Mike said subsequent to that vote there was some relevant discussion which enlightened him further. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 11, 2024 - Page 16 of 17 Chuck Marshall made a motion that the site plan be approved based on the discussion that happened this evening following the initial vote. The motion was seconded by Michael King. Vote: 5 in favor, 1 abstain – Patty Morrison. Motion carried. Chuck Marshall made a motion to amend his motion that the site plan be approved to include the modifications to the planters along Broadway, the staircase in the right-of-way and the civic space along Division St. along with the applicant’s modification to the planter in front of the adjoining property, and street trees and lighting compliant with the City Code. Mark Pingel seconded the motion. Vote: 5 in favor, 1 abstain – Patty Morrison. Motion carried. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Mark Pingel, Chair, adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 11, 2024 - Page 17 of 17