Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT THURSDAY, JANUARY 25, 2024 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Charles (Chuck) Marshall, Chair called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Charles (Chuck) Marshall, Chair, Mark Pingel, Vice Chair, Bill McTygue, Patty Morrison, Michael King, Kerry Mayo, Anthony (Tony) Stellato ABSENT: 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: Note: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any applications that appear to be ‘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. 1. #20230877 NYS Rt 29 MixedUse NYS Route 29 Consideration of Lead Agency status for the SEQRA review for a mixed-use project including multi-family residences and a hotel in the Neighborhood Commercial (T-5) District. C. PLANNING BOARD APPLICTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 2. #20230808 86 Ludlow Subdivision Area Variance. Consideration of SEQRA Review and Advisory Opinion to the ZBA for an Area Variance for a two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential -3 (UR-3) District. SEQRA, Part 2, 86 Ludlow: 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. Cause increase in 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 recommend a negative SEQRA Determination based on the Short Environmental Assessment Form provided by the applicant and the part to review thereof by this board. The motion was seconded by Michael King. Vote: 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. Chuck Marshall made a motion for a favorable recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the subdivision that was provided via the application. The motion was seconded by Michael King. Vote: Tony-N, M. Pingel-N, M. King -Y, C. Marshall-Y, K. Mayo-Y, P. Morrison-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 5-2 in favor. Motion carried. 3. #20230942 52 Marion Ave Special Use Permit 52 Marion Ave. Special Use Permit amendment to increase the number of residential units for a mixed-use development project in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. Chuck Marshall, Chair said the applicant is proposing to convert space formerly known as a gym to be used as a residential unit. Mike Tuck, Balzer Tuck Architecture presented for the applicant. Mike said there’s an existing 4 story building on the corner of Marian and Excelsior Ave. containing 55 units ranging from 710 sq. ft. for a 1-bedroom to 2,000 sq. ft. for a 3-bedroom. There’s currently a gym on the 4th floor that is not used, and the owners are proposing to change it to a 385 sq. ft. studio apartment, which would require an amendment to their existing Special Use Permit to add one unit. Mike said there’s no expansion space. Parking requirements previously were 288 spaces, and they would now need 289 spaces and the site has 296 spaces. Chuck Marshall, Chair said this is a type 2 action pursuant to SEQRA so there’s no SEQRA review but there is a scheduled Public Hearing. Chuck opened the Public Hearing for comments. There being no public comments, Chuck closed the Public Hearing. Patty Morrison made a motion to grant the Special Use Permit. The motion was seconded by Bill McTygue. Vote: 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 25, 2024 - Page 2 of 12 4. #20230267 78 Church Site Plan Review of a mixed-use building including nonresidential space and 23 residential units in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. Libby Clark, Counsel, Matt Brobston, LA Group, Larry Novick, Bonacio Development & Sonny Bonacio, Bonacio Construction. Libby displayed the most recent design of the project that was shown to the DRB the previous night. Their comments were forwarded to Susan Barden, Planner from Amanda Tucker, Planner. Matt talked about the existing conditions of the site plan:  Parcel previously used as Carpet Land & other retail establishments that were attached.  The second parcel is off Clinton St. and has access to the rear of the 78 Church St. parcel.  There is no on-street parking in the area of 78 Church because of a wide-open curb cut that has existed for many years. Libby talked about the process for the height bonus: 1. Establishing the eligibility of the height for the building – complete. 2. DRB to determine the amount of appropriateness of a height extension – done. 3. Back to PB for the awarding of the height bonus based upon the factors contained in Table 4D – community space, heat pumps in the building, SEQRA Analysis – complete. Libby said they submitted final proposed drawings to the DRB last night which are under review. Their Determination of Significance was done and declared not of significance and demolition was approved. Libby said they remain in full architectural review due to the planning board’s look at the civic space. They are seeking final site plan approval from the planning board with the need to return to the DRB once finalized. Matt displayed the previous and revised site plan. Matt said the additional dimensions were submitted to the planning dept. The main access to the building comes off Church St. There are 4 stops in the rear of the site – the main entrance to the garage, with tandem parking for most of the interior, some single space parking, an area for indoor bike parking, civic space. Matt said the stormwater goes out the front on Church St. They will get water from Clinton St. and sewer will go into an existing line in the alley behind the building. Matt showed on the revised layout plan that they added bicycle parking spot in the front near the lobby along Church St. Matt said they have added 5.5 parking spaces along Church St. where there were none previously. Matt said the Code allows you to take credit for the parking spaces if they are incorporated into your design and there were none there previously. In this case, he said with alternate street parking it seems fair to only take credit for half of those spaces in their calculations. That will be where the commercial space parking will come from. All the internal parking spaces, plus 4 uncovered spaces handle the units above. Matt said the sidewalk is 5 ft. wide with a 6 ft. green area between the curb and the sidewalk, which is consistent with the adjacent areas. There will be two street trees and a single light between them on Church St. There’s a tree buffer planting along the entrance drive from Clinton St. and foundation plantings along the front of the building on Church St. On the north side of the building there will be shade tolerant species, several plantings, and a statue in the civic space with stamped concrete with access to the community room. Matt talked about the civic space. The design incorporates a statue in the center online with the entrance to the civic space. Matt said they can’t show the lighting – DRB review but you would get downlighting in this space. There would be grasses and pavers leading into the community space entrance. The public coming into the community space could walk through the small civic courtyard City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 25, 2024 - Page 3 of 12 instead of entering through the lobby. Chuck Marshall asked Susan if she could give the notes from the City Staff meeting where the civic space was discussed and the DRB’s recommendation regarding offsite mitigation/improvements. Chuck said one of the things the PB has discussed is the use of the community space. They don’t think that it’s the best use, even though it’s permissible in the Code. The public wouldn’t know to go and solicit the use of the boardroom at that location. The same regarding civic space. Susan read the DRB’s comments regarding the civic space. The DRB would encourage the planning board to allow the applicant to look at off-site locations for civic space because they feel that the current void weakens the building, and that as it’s presented now negatively affects the character of the new design. The space is dark and ominous. Civic space would be better off site even if it extends beyond one block radius as defined in the UDO. Once the planning board decides whether the civic space should be here or not, the applicant will still need to return to the DRB to approve the design. Libby noted in the UDO 9.3D (8) it says, “off site is to be considered if Planning Board determined there is a more usable space on the same block”. Libby showed an aerial slide of available off-site civic space within a one block radius and the closest civic installation is a block and a half – Franklin Square Park. Libby said the applicant has no objection to exploring this option if the city has a favorable determination that this would satisfy the UDO given its proximity to the project. Susan said yes, the city would be in favor of that. Libby said because of the way the UDO is written at this time, this is public space in the public right-of-way the applicant would need to enter into an agreement with the city as to how the funds would be allocated. Some ideas are that the funds could be earmarked for Franklin Square improvements which was done with other projects in the city, contribute to a master plan for Franklin Square or modify the UDO to permit payment in lieu of for civic space. Libby said the applicant would like to seek site plan approval based on two conditions; 1. Under the strict terms of the Code they have demonstrated a compliant civic space. 2. They would agree to pursue the other opportunities previously mentioned for the civic space. Chuck Marshall, Chair asked the board to comment on the civic space. Chuck noted that the proposed civic space is in the T-5 District, and the other parcel involved with the project is UR-4, so it isn’t eligible for the civic space component because it must be accessible from the street. This is the only spot where the civic space can be located on the site. Libby said the community space will be managed by the condo association pursuant to a management plan. Libby said they have interviewed the property management company about ways that they could manage the space and used the Saratoga Springs Library as an example – a specialized website, how to obtain insurance, etc. to make the space readily available to the community. Libby said the idea was to have the civic and community space near each other so the public could gather and enjoy the courtyard. Bill McTygue said he has no problem with the civic space being incorporated into the project and with the functions of that space with the community room. Bill said he also likes the idea of giving Franklin Square a facelift. Patty Morrison said she’s fine with the civic space in the building. She asked if there would be any benches in the courtyard. Libby said no, because the UDO asks for circulation, a walkway area. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 25, 2024 - Page 4 of 12 Chuck Marshall said the city takes maintenance ownership over the space, which he feels is a bit of a liability for the city to be on private land maintaining other people’s property. He said the city already owns Franklin Square and it could use some improvements. Patty asked what it would be if not civic space. Libby said the DRB would like it closed in to match the other side of the building and maybe house small retail or storage. Patty asked about the timeline for offsite. Chuck said the applicant has said it would be contingent on their certificate of occupancy. Bill McTygue asked Libby what their preference is for civic space. Libby said they would prefer to enclose it and make it look like the other side of the building, because that’s what the DRB wants, and to have the civic space offsite. Kerry Mayo clarified that the fee in lieu of is not something that exists within the UDO. How would the fee be calculated? Libby said when they post a Letter of Credit it would contain the elements of the civic space = $$, the planning board would ask the city council to convert that to a dollar value and reallocate it to the Franklin Square improvement. Mark Pingel noted that the City Council is currently considering a revision to the UDO to allow the planning board to accept a fee in lieu of instead of civic space. Susan Barden, Planner said for this project, because the fee in lieu of is not currently an option for the planning board to decide, that the applicant submit a proposal to the city for improvements that they would make to that location, rather than a fee in lieu of to the city to make those improvements. Tony said he’s good with the Franklin Square proposal if that’s good for the applicant. Michael King said he’s totally in favor of the Franklin Square proposal. He asked about the gate and fence in the civic space. Matt said they have both been removed as the DRB requested. Michael said he does not see it as a good civic space. It would just be a sculpture garden for the apartments. Chuck added that it just checks the box for civic space in the code. Michael suggested enclosed bike parking in that space and to make it accessible from the street. Mark Pingel said he agrees with the DRB that the civic space in that small spot is not a good place to have it. He’s in favor of the Franklin Square idea. Chuck Marshall said it appears that much of the board is supportive of the off-site modification to Franklin Square and enclosing the northeast corner of the building and removal of the garden/civic space. Chuck asked Susan and Leah about modifying the site plan to match the northwest corner of the building and if it could be done administratively between Susan and Amanda. Yes, it can be, and the applicant will have to return to the DRB for design approval of that space. Patty asked if the applicant had any ideas about what the improvement plan for Franklin Square might look like. Kerry Mayo said the fee in lieu of should incorporate some of the value of the property, otherwise why wouldn’t the applicant do it every time. Kerry’s point was that the space would now be generating income but would not as civic space therefore it would have more value. Sonny Bonacio noted that he, Bill McTygue and a few others worked together to get the Franklin Square Park built 25 years ago. He said he met with City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 25, 2024 - Page 5 of 12 Jason Golub at DPW regarding the Franklin Square improvements and the numbers they discussed were 3 times the cost of the civic space they proposed in the building. He said Jason was very comfortable with the idea of seeing revenue to help other locations within the UDO distance. Sonny said he’s comfortable that he worked with DPW to get a range which is about 3 to 1. Sonny said it needs to start with a master plan. If the board wants him and his consultants to do a rendering and a master plan out of the monies they are contributing, then that could be step one. He said he’s confident that Jason would appreciate having that done. Leah said typically, when a bond is required and the amount is unknown, the board conditioning the approval can identify what it’s for. In this case there’s no way to know what the improvements will be. Chuck said he would word it that it’s conditioned on the CO, a plan suitable to DPW and the City and the applicant a bond or letter of the credit for the improvement. Sonny said Jason is agreeable and timing wise as long as it’s tied to the certificate of occupancy, he doesn’t see an issue. Leah said everyone’s in agreement with the timing but there’s no way to quantify that number tonight. Chuck said he’s going with the improvement being made by the time a CO is issued. The condition would be the improvement of Franklin Square suitable to DPW and City Staff at the time of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Chuck said section 18.1 of the UDO deals with who controls the public realm and in the instance of Franklin Square it is solely the discretion of DPW, not the planning board. Mark suggested as part of the condition that there be a way to put a timeline on the plan itself. Libby said she was going to suggest that. Chuck suggested 4 months for returning with a plan for the overall improvement of Franklin Square. Libby said it would be a 4-month negotiation with DPW and they would present a unified proposal, if possible or not, for the space, recognizing that the planning board can’t approve or not approve, but they would at least know that it was complete. Tony said that he thinks the board is complicating the issue and putting the future of Franklin Square too much in the hands of this applicant. The board should just determine the cash value of the civic space that they were going to build under their plan. The applicant could prepare an estimate and pay that amount to DPW to do a study on Franklin Square Park to determine the improvements. Whatever monies are left over after the study is prepared would go toward improvements. Bill McTygue said he’s not looking to complicate the issue. He said the applicant should work out a design with the city and come back and show the board what’s going to be done. Chuck Marshall, Chair said the condition will be that within four months the applicant will return to the planning board with a plan that was reviewed and approved by DPW for Franklin Square and its environs. Chuck said he sent a link and printed details for the city sidewalk standard width. Chuck said he doesn’t support varying with sidewalks. He said he would like confirmation of the sidewalk width by DPW and would like the applicant to match the sidewalk the length of the street. Michael noted that within the one block there are at least 5 sidewalk widths. The complete streets plan calls for sidewalks wider than 5 ft. in the commercial core. The applicant’s site plan shows 5 ft. and 2.5 ft. between the sidewalk and the property line. Michael said they could easily pave 6 ft. and have another 4.5 ft. from the property line back to the building and City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 25, 2024 - Page 6 of 12 it would match the sidewalk to the west (the scoring) and eventually match the sidewalk to the east. Matt said the applicant is willing to match the sidewalk from the eastern property line to the western property line. Chuck Marshall, Chair said he would like to move on to SEQRA review. Leah said this is a site plan application and no public hearing is required but the board has historically opened the floor to comments because the notice of this meeting has been posted. Chuck asked if there were any public comments and there were none. Chuck read the Part 2 based on the applicant’s site plan and supplied environmental assessment form. SEQRA, Part 2, 78 Church St.: 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. Cause increase in 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 recommend a negative declaration be issued based on the site plan as proposed by the applicant and the short environmental assessment form, and the Part 2 review thereof by this board. The motion was seconded by Michael King. Vote: 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. Chuck Marshall made a motion for site plan approval contingent upon the following conditions: 1. The off-site improvement of Franklin Square and its environs for a phased approach that will bring the applicant back to this board within four months after its review by DPW and the completion of such improvements by the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 2. There will be a 6 ft. sidewalk installed along the project frontage and the tree belt will remain intact. 3. Management plan for the community space and a third-party verification for the high-performance construction. 4.Technical review comments to the satisfaction of DE and DPW. Enclose the building on the northeast corner to match the remaining frontage subject to DRB’s approval and a site plan administratively reviewed by staff. The motion was seconded by Michael King. Vote: 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 5. #20230773 182 Excelsior Site Plan. OLD BUSINESS: PROJECT OVERVIEW/BACKGROUND Site Plan Review application to relocate the existing residence and carriage house on the property and construct four 9-unit multi-family residences (totaling 36 new units) and associated site work in the Urban Residential - 4 (UR-4) District. Chuck Marshall, Chair said this would be no action on this project tonight. It will be an update for two new board members and the applicant has met with city staff since the last City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 25, 2024 - Page 7 of 12 time they appeared before the board. The applicant will be back with subdivision and site plan at the next meeting. Mike Tuck, Balzer Tuck Architecture presented for the applicant. Project timeline:  1-12-23 PB Sketch plan meeting 1  4-19-23 Joint DRB/PB presentation  6-29-23 PB meeting 2  7-10-23 ZBA meeting 2  7-24-23 ZBA meeting 3  8-2-23 DRB favorable advisory opinion to ZBA  8-28-23 ZBA meeting 4 (lot size variance approval)  12-14-23 Planning Board meeting 3  1-25-24 Planning Board meeting 4 Mike showed an aerial view of the project area and zoning. Mike said they rotated the existing site plan 90 degrees from what the PB had previously seen. It shows the existing carriage house and main house which they will be relocating on the site after their historic significance was determined by the State Historic Preservation office and Saratoga Springs Historic Preservation Foundation. The initial sketch plan showed three 12-unit buildings behind the two relocated historic buildings. Comments received from the sketch plan expressed concern about the proximity of the ingress and egress from the site relative to Veteran’s Way. There were concerns about one of the new buildings being too close to the historic buildings, the separation between the condo and rental parcel, and the location of one of the new buildings adjacent to Excelsior Spring – the back was fronting the street. Mike presented the current revised plan:  Went from three 12-unit buildings to four 9-unit buildings to lessen the crowding of the historic buildings. There’s now a greater distance between the historic buildings that will be relocated up against the street and the new buildings. There are more buildings, but the scale of each building has been reduced – more in keeping with the mass and scale of the historic buildings. DRB was favorable regarding mass and scale of the new buildings, and listed items for the applicant to consider regarding the restoration of the historic buildings.  Planting plan shows increased buffer between the two historic buildings. A large portion of the stormwater is being handled in that area.  Project reviewed by an outside consulting/engineering firm and applicant has satisfied their comments related to the practical aspects of the site plan.  Last PB meeting on 12-14-23 – two open items: 1. Locating both ingress and egress components off Excelsior Springs – two curb cuts. The PB recommended that the applicant contact the neighbor about sharing ingress and egress and their board stated that they weren’t interested because of liability concerns. Chuck asked that the applicant provide a letter from the neighbor stating their position to satisfy the city staff comments. Susan said they have it. There was discussion about the location of the driveway. Bill McTygue said it was discussed at the last workshop that they were trying to avoid putting all that traffic out onto Excelsior Springs Dr. They’re trying to avoid making it a thoroughfare to Lake Ave. Bill said it’s a problem having two major parking lots emptying onto that street. Michael King suggested an inbound only driveway from Veteran’s Way that might encourage and simplify ingress because it goes directly to Route 50. 2. Recommendations from the DRB – that a slate roof equivalent be on the historic buildings. They have found a natural slate product that City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 25, 2024 - Page 8 of 12  works with the budget. He said it won’t satisfy completely what the DRB is looking for, but they are hoping for a compromise.  Mike showed elevations of the main house. The north elevation (front of the house) faces the street. The applicant is proposing to preserve all the windows on that side. Mike said while they are relocating the buildings the chimneys will come down and are not intended to be replaced. They have described that to the DRB. The wood siding and windows will remain. The porch will be reconstructed in kind with a standard slate roof.  The south elevation (back of main house) will have a one-story addition on the left side of the drawing and a two-story addition on the back right. Mike said conversation with DRB and Historic Preservation has concluded that the back of the main house has been manipulated over the years so replacing it with new materials is acceptable.  The top left image – East elevation of the main house will face Excelsior Springs and has the historic bay window in the center. All the windows on this side will be preserved. Exterior materials will be restored and re-painted.  West elevation will face the carriage house.  Carriage house – will be maintaining the cupola. The roof is in bad shape and HP and DRB are okay with replacing it with an asphalt roof. The applicant decided because they were doing slate on the main house, they would also replace the carriage house roof with slate. All the windows will be replaced, and the exterior porches will be removed. Matt said the applicant is fully adopting the recommendations that were made for the carriage house.  Matt showed elevations of the 9-unit buildings. They will have asphalt shingle roofs, painted lap siding (two tones), large one-story porch with a standing seam roof supported by 8” square columns similar to what’s on the old buildings. Mike said by pulling the historic homes to the corner establishes them as the front of the development and the primary structures on the site. Public Comment: Laura Rappaport, 22 Excelsior Spring Ave. Said she appreciates the work that the PB and applicant has put into the project. She said after looking at all the drawings maybe we’re trying to do something at this property that doesn’t belong at this property, with the “whacky” intersection, signs, etc. She said the driveway off Excelsior seems to be a good solution but there seems to be a problem with that tonight. Laura said it wouldn’t be safe making turns in and out off of Excelsior Spring. She mentioned the major gas trunk line that runs under Excelsior and all the way up Excelsior Spring Ave. The pipe begins at the corner of Veteran’s Way and how it will be impacted by construction. Laura said there were DPW on the bridge over the Spring Run trail this past week and wondered if there’s an issue with the bridge and if it could handle construction vehicles. Laura said they continue to have concerns about the traffic and the traffic study. There needs to be mitigation measures on Excelsior Spring and Excelsior – bump outs, stop signs, speed bumps, etc. Something to make drivers more aware of the safety on that road. Laura said she looked at the complete streets form that was posted on the city’s website and it doesn’t appear to be complete. If it is, it’s not adequate. There are no bike or pedestrian amenities on the street and no accommodation for public transit or school buses on or around this site. She said it would be great if they would consider reorienting the project more toward Excelsior Ave. and make a nice streetscape on the avenue like all the other housing developments that are being built and face the street. Think about moving the historic buildings to the back of the project. Will there be a buffer on Spring Run Trail? Will they remove the hillside that’s there, and if so, what kind of plantings City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 25, 2024 - Page 9 of 12 will be there? Would like to see downlit lighting. Laura said she would like to see them incorporate solar panels and other green features for energy efficiency. Would like to see some of the old growth trees remain. Laura said she’s voicing the opinions of neighbors who were unable to come out for the meeting tonight. The water bottling plant across from this project was just purchased by a new family and they’re uncertain about what that will become. Laura said there’s a lot of comprehensive planning that should be looked at not just in a vacuum because it’s a complicated corner. She said she appreciates the huge amount of work that the applicant has done but it could be even better. Teri Debrule 4 Victoria Lane, at the top of Excelsior Spring. Teri said she goes up and down Excelsior Spring a countless number of times per day as a pedestrian and a driver and feels like she risks her life when she’s doing that. She said it’s a precarious hill and can’t imagine adding two more driveways at that location and how they will navigate in and out. Teri said it’s important to her that they’re not just looking at macadam – need trees and green, but her primary issue is safety. Tony said Michael’s comments on the inbound driveway made sense to him as an engineer, but he doesn’t necessarily have a problem with what’s being shown on the plan. The two driveways on Excelsior Spring look a little close together and close to the intersection, but the city should do the engineering on that and the traffic safety. He said there might be an opportunity to cross pedestrians now that there’s a sidewalk that runs down Excelsior Ave. into town. Tony said there’s not really a way to get pedestrians coming from town across Excelsior into the trailhead at the Spring Run Trail. There might be an opportunity for a crosswalk at Excelsior Spring to make that connection for pedestrians coming from the city to cross and use the sidewalk along the improved development and get to the trail head. Tony said beyond that he doesn’t know that this applicant can do much else to improve conditions going toward Lake Ave. Tony said the orientation of the buildings looks good and he supports it. Chuck Marshall asked the applicant if you can get from Excelsior Spring Ave. down to the trail. Mike said, yes near the bridge there’s a trail. Bill McTygue asked the number of feet public safety requires for clearance to get west of the intersection to put a driveway in. Answer – 100 ft. Bill said if we can strike a compromise then we’ve done all we can do. Bill said it’s a matter of shuffling things around on the site to accommodate a driveway that goes out to Excelsior Ave. and services at least one of the parking lots. Mike said they would need to get clarification from public works and public safety about a one-way curb cut. Bill said there is a driveway already there that’s closer to the intersection (in his opinion, doesn’t line up with Veteran’s Way) but is closer. Bill said if the applicant could move their design with a new driveway further west equal to or greater than 100 ft. of the intersection that might be a solution. It could be ingress and egress and service one of the two parking lots. Mike said there are two problems that have been discussed; the number of trips going on Excelsior Spring, and the site line and proximity of the two points of ingress/egress to each other and to the corner. Mike said they’ll need to look at the traffic analysis again. He said the curb cut either on Spring Run or Excelsior will not impact the traffic on Excelsior Spring. Mike said that’s going to happen based on the number of units that have been approved for this site – if the project moves forward, that traffic happens. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 25, 2024 - Page 10 of 12 Kerry Mayo said they have to rely on the engineers to decide what’s safest. He said he agrees with Tony on the crosswalk idea. If they could do the ingress with the VFW lot they could shift the building over to front on Excelsior. Kerry said he thought that would benefit the aesthetics of the project in general. Mike said the applicant will be putting money in escrow to be used to benefit the city to make improvements to the area when the building threshold is met. It could be used toward the pedestrian crosswalk. Mark Pingel said the traffic study shows over 1,000 trips per day on Excelsior Spring. The analysis showed that these apartments would be in the teens for additional trips. Mark said from a trips point of view, it’s okay. He is concerned about safety and speed, especially on Excelsior Spring. Mark said maybe the radius of the intersection should be squared off so drivers can’t just speed around and run into whoever’s coming out of the first driveway. Mark agreed with the public comment from Laura that speed bumps or bump-outs could be helpful in slowing down the traffic on Excelsior Spring. If the traffic is slower, the curb cuts will be safer. Mark said once the project is built, there will be even more pedestrians walking up the Excelsior Spring hill going toward Lake Ave. and that should be something that should be considered. Mark said we have all this discussion and he’s not sure how to communicate these concerns to the city. This is going to create issues for a set of citizens. Mark said there are real things that the city can do to help and he’s not sure how to push that forward. Mike said the portion of the street from Spring Run Trail up to Lake Ave. is a problem right now, but the number of trips (in the teens) will not greatly impact that. Mark said he’s talking about pedestrians, which could potentially double. Mark asked that the applicant consider the hill going down the Spring Run Trail when they come back for site plan review. They should make sure the topology is still intact during and after construction. Bill noted that there is a sidewalk along Excelsior Ave. so it’s not necessary to take the Spring Run Trail. Chuck Marshall asked if the applicant could consider flipping the building…not audible. Mike said the front of the building has doors and windows giving it a residential feel – it addresses the parking lot and the sidewalk in front of it for proper access. The back of the building that faces Spring Run are windows and balconies. Mike said they have to control and pre-treat all of the water on site and eventually it will get its way to the creek. Mark Pingel asked the applicant to think about what they could do without the city’s participation to address all the traffic and safety issues that were discussed tonight and bring those ideas back to the board. Chuck noted that the board is the mechanism from the applicant to the city. Chuck said without an application before the planning board, there would be no consideration of the development and its potential impacts. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 25, 2024 - Page 11 of 12