Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 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 (Mike) King, Kerry Mayo, Anthony (Tony) Stellato ABSENT: STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, Leah Everhart, PB Legal Counsel, James Salaway, Principal Engineering Tech. 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. #20240019 125 High Rock Subdivision Extension 125 High Rock Ave Approval extension for a previously approved subdivision in the Neighborhood Commercial (T5) District. 2. #20240007 126 West SUP Extension 126 West Ave. Approval extension for a previously issued Special Use Permit for a mixed-use project in the Urban Neighborhood (UN) District. Chuck Marshall, Chair made a motion to approve the consent agenda. The motion was seconded by Mike King. Discussion: Patty Morrison said that 125 High Rock expired on 1/25/24. Susan said the application was submitted prior to the expiration. If the application and request for an extension are submitted before it expires, that’s all that is required. Vote: 7-0, all in favor. Motion Carried. C. PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 3. #20231022 146 Adams St. Special Use Permit Modification to expand an existing horse barn in the Institutional Horse Track Related (INST-HTR) District. Mike Ingersoll, LA Group represented the applicant Michael Dubb (B&D Properties, LLC). Mike showed slides of the existing horse barns (since 2005). In 2005 there was a temporary tent barn on the property. Mike said during the track season they walk horses to the back gate using Gridley St. Gridley Street is closed to just one-way traffic. The owner occupies about ¾ acre bordered by Adam St. to the west, Gridley to the south, and Jackson to the east. Mike said there were 28 stalls approved in 2005, and the applicant is asking for an amendment to add 6 to 8 stalls. Mike said the stalls themselves would be 1100- 1200 sq. ft. with roof area of 2200 to 2300 sq. ft. with overhangs. This would require a site plan amendment and a special use permit. Mike said they are under the SEQRA Type 2 so no SEQRA action is required. He said the parking criteria has changed since 2005 from 1 parking spot per 10 stalls and now it’s 1 spot for 2 stalls. Mike said they will not be adding employees or staff and have shown on the site plan that they can comply for the additional stalls. He said they are requesting that B&D be able to build on demand for cost savings. Mike said because all the work will be done on site and under the required $10,000, they are asking that the Letter of credit be waived. Mike said they’re not sure the stalls could be constructed before the Belmont race but should be before the racing season begins. Mike said they would add a breezeway between the existing stalls and a wing for the new stalls (within setback, no variances required). He said everything else will stay the same. They are still able to walk the horses around and stay within the fence. Mike said there are no stormwater triggers, and they added a drywell. Mike showed a slide of what the building looks like now and what it will look like with the added stalls. The architecture is the same, but they won’t be adding attic space over the new stalls. Mike said PB member Tony Stellato asked at the workshop if the applicant could discuss the sewer with James Salaway. Mike said that the wash stations are not currently hooked up to the sewer, and they won’t be adding any, so there is no impact to the pump station. Mike said the horses get cleaned on a concrete pad that goes into a drywell underneath. James said there were some issues prior to the pump station upgrades that have been fixed. Mike said they don’t believe there’s any impact from the back flow preventer for the water, but they will have the designer of the barns put it in the building department package to verify that. Bill McTygue questioned the wash stations not being required to be connected to the sewer system. Mike said because of the size of the pads, and that they’re not full time or open all year, it’s not required. Kerry Mayo asked if they come up during the training season and not just for the meet. Mike I. said they may come up earlier this year because of the Belmont, but they primarily come late May or early June until September. Mike King said he would like to see a sidewalk built there. Mike I. said the horses walk on a stone dust path because concrete sidewalks are not horse friendly. It would be a hinderance and a hazard. Mike I. said Mr. Bond and other barn owners have a maintenance plan in place for a gravel strip that they cone off and walk the horses along the side of the street. Tony Stellato said he’s done work on improvements at the harness track and concluded that sidewalks are not friendly to the horses and that Gridley Street gives preference to the horses because that’s their main route to the track. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 8, 2024 - Page 2 of 16 Chuck Marshall, Chair opened the Public Hearing at approximately 6:20 p.m. There were no public comments. The Public Hearing was closed at 6:20 p.m. Chuck said because it’s Type 2 SEQRA there would be no SEQRA review. Chuck asked for a motion in consideration of the Special Use Permit. Mark Pingel made a motion to approve the Special Use Permit modification to 146 Adams Street, Saratoga Springs. The motion was seconded by Bill McTygue. Vote: 7-0, all in favor. Motion Carried. 4. #20231023 146 Adams St. Site Plan. Site Plan Review to expand an existing horse barn with an 8-stall addition (+/- 1,200 sq. ft.) and associated site work in the Institutional Horse Track Related (INST-HTR) District. Tony Stellato made a motion to approve the site plan without modification. Kerry Mayo seconded the motion. Vote: 7-0, all in favor. Motion Carried. 5. #20230919 3376 S. Broadway Treehouse Brewing. Special use permit for outdoor dining associated with micro production of alcohol and an eating and drinking establishment in the Gateway Commercial - Rural (GC-R) District. John Cannie, Attorney represented the applicant, Tree House Brewing Company (also Bohler Engineering & Bergmeyer Architects). John showed slides of various angles of the open field site on Route 9 across from SPAC. Saratoga Honda borders their property on the north, Homewood suites on the south and Four Winds hospital on the east. John said there have been some site plan modifications: The square footage of the building has been reduced, and at the request of Four Winds they have removed the pavilion in the back portion of the property. John showed a rendering of the updated site plan and new renderings showing the landscaping they have planned to shade the front parking area with the 46 to-go parking spots. The porte-cochère has been removed. John said the DRB and some of the PB members didn’t really like it out front. John stated that the main entrance is at the rear of the building and showed renderings of the proposed outdoor dining and seating, both open air and under the pergola and pavilion. John addressed the Code as it pertains to outdoor dining and its approval as a separate use. John listed the applicant’s response to comments made by the board regarding the operation of outdoor dining:  All dining at the site, indoor and outdoor, will be self-seated and self-bussed tables.  All ordering will occur at the bar and/or the food ordering windows inside.  Patrons will receive a text message to pick up their food when ready and bring it back to their seat.  Staff will clean tables after use and remove any leftover un-bussed items.  Hours of operation will be 9:00 a.m.to 11 p.m. Sunday – Thursday and 9:00 a.m. – 12 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Food service for the outdoor dining portion will start at 11:00 a.m. daily.  Outdoor music will consist of taproom series of music, predominately acoustic (80%) with some electrical music acts – usually two-to-three-piece sets (20%). Goal is to provide background type entertainment that will still allow for conversation.  Seating capacity inside (tasting room area) is 534. Per Code allowed 50% of interior capacity as outdoor dining = 267. Total seating capacity 801. The plumbing facilities give a total occupancy of 900. John said that at the last meeting Four Winds made a public comment asking about how the noise would affect the neighbors. A noise study was performed modeling at the highest sound – the 2-to-3- City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 8, 2024 - Page 3 of 16 piece electric set under the pavilion fronting on the lawn and projecting to the rear of the site with 2 speakers at 5 ft.:  Sound levels at the Four Winds buildings will be under 65dBA which is equivalent to a conversation volume of two people 3 feet apart.  The model does not take into consideration any of the current trees and vegetation on sight, or any future vegetation.  In a non-residential district, Code requires limits of sound to less than 85 dBA from 8 am to midnight, and no “clearly and distinctly heard sound” at night. The limits for residential are 60 dBA from the hours of 11 pm to 7 am. Mark Pingel clarified that the analysis did not take vegetation into account. John said it was taken in a wide-open field with no barriers in between. Mark asked about the vegetation. John showed the landscape plan showing vegetation that will remain and what’s being added. John said DOT has signed off on the plans and confirmed no off-site traffic mitigation is needed. They requested a single lane going out at the northern curb cut. John said Four Winds reviewed the revised site plan and noise study and sent a letter of support for the project as proposed. Both Saratoga Honda and Homewood Suites have no objections to the project. John presented the applicant’s response to Board comments on pedestrian and bicycle access:  Tree House is proposing a 5 ft. wide sidewalk that would link to Homewood Suites and Saratoga Honda. The sidewalk will be completely on their site. Patty said it would be great if the neighbor to the north would widen their walkway in addition to the sidewalk with stone dust or gravel and asked if that conversation has taken place. She said it would be very beneficial, especially with the connection to the park to have it be more of a pedestrian/bicycle destination. John said they have not had that discussion and added that it’s difficult to ask people to spend their own money on an improvement that they’re not required to make. He added that it would require a site plan amendment for Saratoga Honda. Patty said it’s her understanding that they are proponents of bicycling. Patty noted that both Saratoga Honda and Homewood Suites would not be approved today for a 5 ft. sidewalk. Mark Pingel agreed with Patty that multi-use connectivity is something that’s important and he will advocate that the subject remain open tonight. Mark said he doesn’t think it all falls on Tree House and that it’s as much of a political problem as it is a land use problem. Chuck Marshall noted that the board only has the application that’s in front of them and will proceed with the special use consideration, give feedback on the pedestrian connectivity, and when they return for site plan, they will have to have addressed that to the board’s satisfaction. Mark said he also thinks it’s appropriate to give feedback to the city and ask for their help to push the total solution forward. Leah Everhart reminded the board that they have authority over the parcel that’s before them and they can require a connection up to the property line but not beyond. Tony Stellato said he does see the rationale in putting the trail in pieces even if it ends at the property line – it’s good planning. Mike King asked if the sidewalk is in the right-of-way. John said it isn’t, it’s on their property. They wanted to make sure it lined up with the sidewalk on the neighboring properties where the sidewalk is on their private property. Susan said that a 5 ft. sidewalk is the minimum, but the board could request a wider sidewalk. Chuck said a wider sidewalk would require the approval of the Department of Public Works. Mike said there is plenty of language in the Complete Streets plan and the UDO about wider sidewalks in certain areas. Applicants will continue to build the minimum sidewalk if the board doesn’t ask for more. John said they would put a deed City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 8, 2024 - Page 4 of 16  restriction on their land that says if Saratoga Honda or Homewood Suites is required to put in a multi-use path that they would immediately do the same. John said another option would be to contribute funds toward building a multi-use path in the DOT right- of-way. Bill McTygue said he’d like to see some cost comparisons between an 8’ wide multi-use, asphalt path with compacted gravel underneath like what’s being constructed on High Rock Ave. and a 5’ concrete sidewalk. John said it’s not a money issue. The problem is that they would be installing an 8’ wide path that connects to 5’ wide sidewalks, they don’t meet and could be a tripping hazard. Chuck said the sidewalk issue will be revisited during the site plan review. Bill said he promotes live entertainment and the acoustic sounds good, but he doesn’t want to hear down the road that they’re going over decibel levels. Patty asked about the lighting in the back and how much it would be lit up. John said it will be night sky lighting. Chuck Marshall asked if there were any comments for the Public Hearing. Cherie Grey, Saratoga Springs resident said that she’s concerned about the parking on this site. She has been to Tree House many times. She started going to the farm in Munsen and has been to Charlton and picked up cases and waited in line during the pandemic. She said Charlton started with a very large parking lot and ended up adding a second level and have a driveway that goes down to an even bigger lot where they have shuttles that take people back and forth. People can’t park on Route 9, so they probably don’t have enough parking. These are ideas to keep in mind for the site plan. Cherie asked if the applicant could come back with comps to the Charlton location. Mike King acknowledged a letter the City received from Sustainable Saratoga and asked that the applicant respond appropriately to their concerns. Chuck Marshall, Chair closed at public hearing 6:55 p.m. and proceeded with the Type 1 Long Form review for SEQRA. There was a discussion between the Chair and Leah regarding the procedure for evaluating the level of impact of the project. Chuck said he would go through and make recommendations and if any board member disagrees, they will discuss further:  Impact on land – based on size there may be a moderate to large impact. Yes.  Proposed action may involve construction of land water tables less than 3 ft. No.  Slopes are not greater than 15%. No.  Bedrock or exposed within 5 ft. of existing ground surface. No.  Removal of fill – No.  Construction more than 1 year. No.  Increased erosion. No. (Chuck’s reasoning is the stormwater currently is uncontrolled but will be going to a controlled path). Discussion: Mark clarified with Leah that if a moderate to large impact were to be identified it doesn’t automatically lead to an EIS but would require identification of mitigation. Leah agreed and said it would require you to go to Part 3 – DEC guidance on how to analyze the impact and its significance – positive declaration versus negative declaration. Kerry asked for the applicant’s rationale for saying yes to this question. John said they provided a SEQRA narrative that explains the yes answers.  Located within a coastal erosion hazard area. No.  Impact on geological features. No. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 8, 2024 - Page 5 of 16  Impact on surface water. No.  Impact on ground water. No.  Impact on flooding. No.  Impact on air. No.  Impact on plants and animals. No. Discussion: No regular animal activity. EAF map report showed environmental impact on endangered or threatened species – Karner blue butterfly and Frosted Elfin in the vicinity of the site. Biologists confirmed they are not present on site.  Impact on agricultural resources. No.  Impact on aesthetic resources. No. Discussion: Mark asked if this is where parking, shielding visibility from the neighbors and streets would fall. Chuck said he thinks that will be in site plan review. He said as an element of an aesthetic resource, he doesn’t see it as an impact. The scale is 0 to 5 miles. It is immediately visible but considering the city and its “environs”, it’s city wide.  Impact on historic and archeological resources. No (SHPO sign off letter).  Impact on open space and recreation. No  Impact on critical environmental areas. No. (E3D of EAF says no).  Impact on transportation. Yes.  Projected traffic increase may exceed capacity. No.  Construction may result in paved parking areas for 500 vehicles or more. No. (314) Discussion: Chuck said DOT has given conceptual agreement to the access configuration and no mitigation was identified. Tony asked if the trip generation was vetted. Steve said it wasn’t based totally on the traffic study. They compared it based on other facilities and prorated it for the size of this project. Chuck noted a letter from Barton & Loguidice 1/16/24 indicates that “the traffic assessment was completed in accordance with industry accepted practices and methodology”.  Degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations. No. Discussion: Chuck said they are filling in a gap that currently exists.  May alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods. Yes. Discussion: Chuck clarified with Leah that this was the only moderate to large identified in this section. Leah said the applicant suggested that moderate to large might be the response to A. “Traffic increase may exceed capacity of existing road network”, but the board said no. Chuck said because of where it’s located on Route 9, with four lanes of traffic and 22,000 cars per day, he doesn’t see it as an impact from a traffic perspective. Patty disagreed and said that’s where traffic reduces from 55 to 40 mph, approaches an intersection, and becomes more restrictive as you cross over Crescent. In the nicer weather there will be large crowds, concerts, the track, etc. Chuck said in his review he considered the impact on the capacity of the existing roadway network. He felt if there was a moderate to large impact that DOT would have asked for some type of mitigation. He noted that DOT lessened the turn lanes because they were left and right and they’ve gone to a single access point. Patty questioned whether DOT understood the popularity of the product (Tree House Brew). This will not be a typical use as it has been in the past. Kerry asked how the signal to the south of the project is controlled. Mike King said it’s triggered when a driver comes from east/west – there is no button for a person walking or cycling. Mark said if he understands the SEQRA process, the board is not bound by this form exclusively. There is a line item for “other” considerations. Mark said just because DOT said it’s safe right now, it doesn’t mean it is. In his opinion, they’re wrong. Chuck said his “No” answer was based on the response the board received from DOT and that the City’s consultant also said that it was acceptable by industry standards. Chuck said he’s fine with 13a being a “yes” or being revisited in Part 3. Leah clarified that the question being asked is “projected traffic increase may exceed capacity of the existing road network”, not whether there will be a lot of traffic, or the traffic impacts will be small to moderate to large. The board was polled and agreed on the answer “No, to small” impact. Bill added that as this section of the city continues to grow, the city may have to petition DOT for City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 8, 2024 - Page 6 of 16  modifications in this area. Chuck said there’s a section regarding other impacts and asked the board members to state what they may want to add. Mike said So. Broadway should not be 55 mph. While it shouldn’t be the responsibility of the applicant to mitigate that, the project should spur conversation about the speed limit issue between the City and DOT. Tony said this is an area that has drawn a lot of people all at once and Tree House will just add to that. He and Chuck agreed that it’s probably one of the only areas of the city that could handle that kind of traffic. Mark said he agrees with Mike. He said he's not sure that the traffic study addressed the three sigma points. Kerry said he doesn’t think they should design for extreme cases that happen one, two or three times per year. Patty agreed with Mike and Kerry. Chuck and Leah discussed whether the part 2 had to be revisited when a large or moderate impact was identified and settled. Leah said if a moderate to large impact is identified on part 2 of the short or long form, then you would advance to part 3 of the EAF. She further recommended that if a moderate to large impact is identified, that the board not move on this evening. She suggested that some time be given to talk more about it tonight and to draft a proposed Part 3 for the board to review and analyze prior to the next meeting.  Impact on energy. No.  Impact on noise, odor, and light. No.  Impact on human health. No.  Consistency with community plans. No. (appropriately zoned with the consideration of the SUP).  Consistency with community character. No. (other elements of the city have similar draws and won’t be a drain on first responders or existing similar infrastructure). Chuck Marshall, Chair said the only moderate to large impact identified was regarding transportation, “May alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods”. Chuck said from vacant to use is impossible not to alter. Most of the board (except Mark P.) agreed that it should be changed to No, to small impact. Based on the application provided by the applicant and the full environmental assessment form deferral of lead agency status to this board, and this board’s consideration of the Part 2 Full Environmental Assessment Form, Chuck Marshall made a motion that a negative Declaration be issued pursuant to SEQRA. The motion was seconded by Mike King. Vote: C. Marshall-Y, B. McTygue-Y, P. Morrison-Y, M.King-Y, K. Mayo-Y, T. Stellato-Y, M. Pingel- N. Vote: 6-1. Motion carried. Kerry Mayo made a motion that a special use permit be approved for outdoor dining only with the following conditions: The number of outdoor dining seats shall not exceed 267, adherence to the acoustic study that was provided by the applicant (85 Db maximum), hours of operation provided by the applicant be the hours of operation for the facility and any live music will cease by 11:00 p.m. The motion was seconded by Bill McTygue. Discussion: Susan Barden asked the board if they wanted to include any of the conditions that were previously talked about, such as hours of operation, noise decibels and impacts, and the maximum number of outdoor seats. Tony said if the EAF has that information in it is it automatically incorporated by default? Susan said not unless they are specifically identified as conditions of approval that are enforceable. Leah said as a practical matter it makes sense to incorporate the conditions of approval if you want them to be more easily identified and enforceable. Kerry asked if that is identified in the UDO, such as the outdoor seating capacity being half of the indoor dining capacity. Susan said outdoor dining as a principal use is not specific in the UDO regarding outdoor maximum seating. Leah said it’s based on a percentage. The indoor seating capacity could increase which would allow the outdoor max to increase. The proposed indoor seating is 534, outdoor 267 for a total of 801. Vote: 7-0, all in favor. Motion Carried. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 8, 2024 - Page 7 of 16 Chuck Marshall, Chair asked the board members to share their thoughts with the applicant regarding site plan review:  Mike said he’s disappointed with the applicant’s approach and accommodations regarding pedestrian issues. Specifically, their unwillingness to provide a wider sidewalk/shared use path, especially considering the project’s proximity to the State Park. He would like a 12’ wide asphalt path. Chuck & Susan noted that typically DOT would want a sidewalk/path in the right of way. In this instance and for Homewood Suites and Saratoga Honda, the sidewalk was put on private property because of the ditch line. The parking required is 262 and the applicant has 314. A path/stub to the Hemlock Trail. Consider shared parking with the Honda dealer and Hotel. ***Crosswalk on the southern leg of Broadway and Crescent Ave. A covered area for bike parking. Mike asked why this isn’t considered a drive through. John said because it’s not service through a window.  Tony said he’s not crazy about the site plan. “It presents like Howard Johnson’s from the 1970’s”. It’s just a building surrounded on three sides by parking and all the good stuff is in the back. Doesn’t like the parking lot out front facing the street. Concerned with truck circulation throughout the parking lot and to the loading dock. Doesn’t like the location of the dumpster to the street. He suggested that the applicant make the area between the front of the building and the street more engaging.  Mark said they need more connectivity for pedestrians. He said Tree House has a lot of influence and leverage and can talk to the politicians to get some of the changes made that are necessary. He said he’s very concerned about safety regardless of the traffic study. There needs to be modifications that come from New York State. Mark said he is also concerned about parking. There should be no parking on the grass or on Route 9 and it needs to be addressed.  Kerry agreed with what was said. Doesn’t like parking right in front of the building. He said he’s not sure how they would enforce that the parking is for pick-up and go and not for patrons staying to visit.  Patty said this is the Gateway to the City and there’s certain things they need to align with – the rural character, mimic SPA Park, etc. The parking in front doesn’t work for any of the board. Patty asked how the pickup and go is different than someone just staying. Customers order online, park in a spot, ring a buzzer to say they’re there, announce what spot they’re in and staff brings them their order. Agrees with a wider sidewalk. Patty said she doesn’t see why it must go in a straight line from property to property.  Bill suggested that the planning board provide an advisory to the city council to petition the DOT to see if they can get a reduced speed limit on this section of Route 9/So. Broadway. Bill addressed the sidewalk issue and the ditch along the property. He said the site needs to accommodate a drainage ditch along the entire frontage and the board should keep that in mind. Bill noted that there is considerable vegetation provided between the road and the parking lot out front that will soften the look of the parking area. Patty - How will this look in the winter? He noted that the Honda dealer next door likely has 500 cars parked on their property without any vegetation or screening. Bill said he’s not sure how the applicant could shuffle the parking around from a site plan point of view. Bill said City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 8, 2024 - Page 8 of 16  overall the applicant has made a good attempt at the screening in front to give it some rural character.  Chuck thanked the applicant for choosing Saratoga for its first NY location. Chuck said both Honda and Homewood were approved under a different zoning ordinance, regarding parking. He said he supports the speed limit reduction request from the Council. He supports the extension of the southern crosswalk at Crescent Ave. and Route 9. Regarding the public comment made about parking; Chuck said he would like to see the area between the applicant’s internal driveway and Four Winds as a potential for a banked parking location. If they needed additional parking, what would fit there? Chuck said the southernmost row of parking aligned around the eastern property boundary might be more appropriate. Chuck said he would like to see them create an incentive (signage) for people to use Crescent Ave. to access the Northway south bound via the lane across the street from the track. This would decrease the number of lefthand turns out of the site. He said most of the land along Crescent Ave. is owned by the State so there wouldn’t be any immediate impact with sending cars in that direction. From Crescent Ave. south to Old Post Road, east west traffic is limited. Chuck said at their internal meeting last week they decided that the appropriate process after the applicant is granted their special use permit is to go to the Design Review Board and satisfy their considerations before coming back before the planning board for site plan review. Susan noted from a previous comment about the drive-through vs pick-up and go that the operation didn’t meet the definition for a drive-through facility and didn’t need to meet those standards. She said the planning board can consider in their site plan evaluation the most appropriate location for the pick-up and go service. 6. #20240011 182 Excelsior Preliminary Subdivision. Preliminary Plat Review of a two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential - 4 (UR-4) District. Chuck Marshall, Chair asked the applicant to go through the subdivision plans first. SEQRA has already been decided on the site plan. Chuck said he will open the floor to public comments only relative to the subdivision plan. The Site plan does not require a public hearing but previous boards have allowed comments and this board will do the same. After a brief discussion on the board, it was decided that the site plan and subdivision would all be discussed. Walt Lippmann, MJ Engineering represented the applicant. Walt showed an aerial view of the proposed parcel and existing conditions. Lot one (blue) four 9-unit apt. buildings – required zoning variance. Lot two (red) relocated residence and carriage barn – met zoning requirements. Walt showed the site plan/subdivision rendering. Ingress and egress to each parcel will be on Excelsior Springs -110 feet from the intersection with Excelsior Ave. and 125’ from center to center between ingress and egress for lot 1 and lot 2. There are sidewalks going to Excelsior – Green belt sidewalk, crosswalks across Excelsior Springs and go down Excelsior, and a crosswalk to get to the multi-use trail on the north side of Excelsior. There’s a crosswalk going across Excelsior Ave. going to Veteran’s Way and across Veteran’s Way. There’s a public transit stop at Veteran’s Way and Excelsior for CDTA. Going out to Excelsior Spring there are connections to a sidewalk that can take you down to the Spring Run Trail. Walt said that the applicant is willing to pay into an escrow account for future traffic mitigation that may be needed along the corridor or to extend sidewalks related City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 8, 2024 - Page 9 of 16 to the traffic mitigation. Walt displayed the landscape plan. They propose a tree line and low-lying shrubs along Excelsior Spring and Excelsior Ave. to block the parking from the road. The center area is stormwater bioretention – fills with a storm, vegetation at the bottom. They are proposing a double row of trees to separate the condo lot from the apartment lot. There is also vegetative screening from Excelsior Ave. to block the view of the development. Matt showed a new rendering of the view from Excelsior Ave. based on comments from the last meeting. It shows the relocated residence with the carriage barn in the back. Mike Albrecht, Balzer & Tuck. Mike said they are taking measures to maintain and repair the wood siding on the main house and the north, west and east and gabled windows on the house. It has been agreed that the applicant can replace the siding and windows on the carriage house since the materials are not original. The roof will be a Vermont natural slate product and they brought a sample for the board to look at. The slate was only requested for the main house, but they will also put it on the carriage house because of the proximity to the main house. The slate is grey and not the original red slate that is on the main house. The existing slate is at the end of its life and the red is cost prohibitive and difficult to get. Chuck Marshall, Chair opened the Public Hearing for comments on the subdivision and site plan. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said she was appreciative of the applicant’s efforts with replacing the slate roof with slate and putting slate on the carriage house instead of asphalt shingles. Samantha asked if the board could require the applicant to document the pattern and color of the existing roof (detailed photos) on the main house in case someone in the future is looking to replicate the roof. Samantha asked that the slate roof remain on the main house while it’s being moved so that it’s protected from the elements until the new roof is installed. Samantha asked if the certificate of occupancy could be tied to the third building versus the fourth building in case the applicant is unable to build the fourth building for any reason. If the CO is tied to the fourth building, Samantha asked if there could be a bond in place to protect the building if needed if the project were unable to be moved forward. Samantha said the Foundation is very happy that the two buildings are being relocated and thanked the applicant for doing that. Laura Rappaport, 22 Excelsior Spring. Laura said she’s been in conversation with DPW and they are looking at the safety on Excelsior Spring Ave. She said they were holding a meeting to discuss and will be getting back to the neighbors in that regard. Laura said her and her neighbors are concerned about the ingress and egress on Excelsior Spring and suggested that before the board moves forward, they should talk with DPW. Laura noted that the rendering of the view from Excelsior Ave. doesn’t show the actual topography. There is a hill, and the rendering shows it flat. She said she would like to see a correct topography in the next rendering. Laura said it seems premature to approve the subdivision before the site plan is complete. She said if the property is subdivided it could be sold as a lot with nothing being built. There should be a guarantee that both projects will be done. Laura said there were things lacking in the EAF short form: 1. (6) The proposed action is not consistent with the predominant character of the natural landscape – all around the project is woodland and wetland. 2. There is no longer a CDTA bus stop at the corner – need to communicate with CDTA to see if there will be public transport there. 3. Spring Run Brook was remediated years ago. Laura questioned why the same plan has been in place for months and the neighbors and board don’t seem to like it. Why does the same plan keep getting proposed City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 8, 2024 - Page 10 of 16 and the applicant doesn’t acknowledge the recommended changes by the board and public commenters? Andy Brick, Brick Law Firm representing the applicant. Andy said he was happy to hear Samantha’s comments on behalf of the Foundation. Andy talked about the letter they received from the Foundation:  The roof was the major stumbling block – it has been agreed that there will be a slate roof replacement on the main house and the carriage house. He noted that they have no problem documenting the roof extensively as requested by the Foundation.  They will provide a post move protection plan for the main house. It won’t be vacant for long because they need to sell the condo units to make the financing work for the project.  There will be two separate general contractors – one for the condos and one for the apartments. They will be completed as two separate projects, and the condos will be completed before the apartments.  Tying the 4th building to the CO works for them. The entire project is being financed for the 42 units (36 apts. + 6 condos) so they would be in default with the bank if the 4th building was not completed. They would also be in default if they didn’t finish the condos. They anticipate that the condos will have a CO prior to the construction of the 4th building.  Andy will include any conditions from the planning board, materials to be used, and the Foundation’s conditions in the offering plan. Anyone who purchases a condo unit will be bound by the restrictions in the agreement reached with the planning board and the Preservation Foundation. The offering plan will be given to every condo owner prior to the closing along with their purchase contract. Andy will give the offering plan to the city staff in draft form prior to it being submitted to the state. Andy said they have been to the city 16 times and thinks they are in a place for approval. He said the project meets the zoning code, they received a density variance and are in compliance with the UDO, complete streets, comprehensive plan, and meet all the requirements of site plan review standards and on-site design standards in the UDO. Andy said they have gotten approvals from the zoning board of appeals who approved this design when they granted their variances. The department of public safety has no concerns about their access points. They have received a SEQRA negative declaration. Cherie Grey Saratoga Springs resident and former zoning board member. Cherie said she was on the ZBA when the applicant’s zoning variances were approved. Cherie said early in the process the ZBA knew that the Design Review Board would not be looking at this project, but it was important for the ZBA to know how important the building was (main house), so they asked for an advisory opinion from the DRB. It was important for the ZBA to know that the building was going to be preserved. Cherie said they took time on their variance for Lot 2 to make sure that Lot 1 was going to be taken care of and is pleased that that is happening. Madison Squires, member of the Preservation Foundation. Madison said he’s happy that the buildings are being saved and the compromises made. The siding for the carriage house should be wood siding and not cement fiber board. Anthony Lattrulio, 182 Excelsior Ave. said there have been quite a few comments tonight and in the past about the intentions of the applicants (Brian & brother) who are doing this City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 8, 2024 - Page 11 of 16 project. Anthony said they went under contract in June of 2022 and several agreements and concessions have been made – save the buildings, siding on the buildings, the windows, re- doing the front porch, putting on the slate roof. Anthony said in addition to that they have been before several boards for landmark designation and approvals – the city council once, ZBA four times, DRB five times, and between landmark discussions, workshops, and planning board meetings sixteen times. Anthony said Brian has given no indication that he’s not true to his word, yet Green Springs seems to be being held to standards of other builders who have not held up their end of the bargain. He’s done nothing but try to move this project forward and meet other’s requests. Janet Altamari, Victoria Lane. Janet asked about the traffic study that was done concerning the two driveways going down the hill from where Excelsior is. Her big concern is traffic. Laura Rappaport returned to the mic and asked that the board not approve the project tonight until they hear back from DPW about the safety and danger on Excelsior Spring and how they might address that issue. Walt Lippmann, MJ Engineering noted that on January 3rd they met with Public Safety and the planning staff, and after looking over the plan and discussing it for about an hour it was determined that this was the best situation for this parcel. There were several discussions with public safety to get to today’s conclusion. Chuck Marshall, Chair closed the Public Hearing at approximately 9:00 p.m. Chuck Marshall, Chair said he feels there’s been a disconnect between what the applicant took away from the workshop and what the planning board members were hoping for regarding the two driveways on Excelsior Spring. Chuck said it’s his understanding that there was a discussion that the two driveways on Excelsior Spring would be reduced, and the applicant indicated that they preferred not to do that. The department of public safety have indicated that the driveways are permittable. Chuck said this sometimes happens when two departments, DPS and DPW, overlap over a similar realm. Chuck asked the board members to give their opinion on the two driveways on Excelsior Spring Ave.:  Mike said it’s his understanding that having a drive on Excelsior Ave. is acceptable so he would suggest having one driveway on Excelsior Ave. and one on Excelsior Spring. Chuck said that DPS said they would not support that level of intensity unless it was an ingress only and provided it was 100 ft. from either intersection.  Tony said he would prefer to keep the southerly driveway on Excelsior Spring and flip the internal driveway, currently the fire access driveway, and make that the access into the house and barn site and make the northerly Excelsior Spring driveway emergency access only.  Mark said he would like to vote on both resolutions tonight. He said it’s taken a long time and there’s been a lot of cooperation with the Preservation Foundation. Mark agreed with Mike that there hasn’t been a lot of movement by the applicant regarding the issues of traffic on Excelsior Spring and the two curb cuts, which he finds to be problematic. Mark said that DPS staff said at the workshop that ingress from Excelsior Ave. would be permitted. Mark said that seemed to solve the problem of firetrucks being able to turn, which was a major rationale for having two curb cuts on Excelsior Spring. There would have to be a cross easement, but the applicant owns both lots. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 8, 2024 - Page 12 of 16  Mark noted that they won’t be adding a lot of traffic overall according to the traffic study. He said Excelsior Spring is a problematic road and DPW is looking at it very generally and with connectivity to the sidewalk. Mark said that process will take time and he feels the applicant deserves an answer from the planning board. He said he believes there should be one curb cut on Excelsior Spring, which will require the drawings to be revised. The applicant has proven that they’re trustworthy and Mark proposed that the application be approved with conditions to a single curb cut on Excelsior Spring and one ingress on Excelsior Ave. and for the applicant to work out the cross easement between the two properties. He suggested that the board allow the changes/drawings to be reviewed administratively by staff so that the applicant can move forward. Mark said he would approve the site plan and subdivision with those conditions.  Kerry said he feels the curb cut serving the apartments is the more problematic one. The other curb cut on Excelsior Spring is closer to the stop sign making it safer. Kerry said it’s the job of public safety and DPW to make the street safe not the planning board and not the applicant. Kerry said an egress next to the VFW’s driveway because it would have solved the problem. Kerry said he hoped that it had been specifically addressed. Kerry said the current state of this property is not great. What happens if this project never goes through, and the historic building never gets restored. Kerry said a lot of the issues with the site are the city’s shortcomings and not the applicant’s.  Bill asked about Chuck’s discussion with DPS about an ingress on Excelsior Ave. Chuck said it was discussed and would have to be 100 ft. from the intersection. The carriage barn would have to be moved to comply with that ingress driveway. Bill said the last discussion between the applicant and the board worked hard on a compromise to put a driveway on Excelsior and Excelsior Spring Dr. Bill said there’s a driveway almost immediately across the intersection of Veteran’s Way that lines up to be a 4- way intersection, but that can’t be done because of the proximity of the property line of the VFW and their unwillingness to be a part of the idea of a four-way intersection. He said the applicant has shown a great deal of cooperation.  Chuck said when the applicant was asked to have a full access driveway on Excelsior Ave., it showed the condo parcel having its own access and parking lot, and the rented parcel having its own access and parking lot. Chuck feels that was the best alternative for this location. Chuck said he doesn’t support one driveway only. He said he’s fine with the proposed access configuration because the overall trips aren’t substantial according to DPS. Andy Brick said the reason they can’t have ingress only and a shared full access on the southerly side – marketability. Andy said moving, saving, and restoring the building according to the conditions agreed to will be very expensive. When they restore the buildings and convert them to six condo units, they will sell them at a specific price point. They can meet that price point with the condos having their own access. Andy said they can’t effectively market and sell the condos if the owners’ access is through an apartment complex. Tony asked the applicant if they could tighten up the radius on the two driveways on Excelsior Spring, make it more in conformance with the city commercial driveway. Walt said they could look at reducing them. He said the only one that they don’t have much control over is where you would take a right out of the condo because there’s an existing catch basin City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 8, 2024 - Page 13 of 16 there. He said they could probably reduce it to 20/25 and still get vehicles out, he doesn’t see that as being an issue. Mike said that the city has details about how to install driveways and sidewalks in their Complete Streets and questioned why the applicant is following DOT guidelines instead. He said they don’t need a radius, just a flared driveway. Walt said they are following DOT standards for minor commercial driveways. Mike suggested they use the NACTO standards. Chuck asked what the parking requirement was for the 6 units (condos). Answer: 1.5 to 2. The applicant has 1.75. Chuck suggested that they eliminate one parking spot by the entrance. Andy said then one condo owner will only have one parking space and that will hurt marketability. Mark asked if the applicant would be willing to design the driveway to the NACTO and they agreed that they would. Chuck asked each board member if they agreed to leaving the 12 parking spaces for the condo units. Five board members agreed that 12 parking spaces were appropriate. Mike King disagreed and said it should be one and a half per the UDO. Chuck said the Code says 1.5 to 2 per unit. Mike said he has a problem with anything over the minimum. He believes the minimum should be the maximum, so we stop building more parking. Chuck asked the board members to weigh in on the parking for the apartments which requires 1.5 minimum to 2 maximum parking spaces. The Code requires parking for EV and the applicant is installing Epads. Brian, Green Springs said on the initial infrastructure they’re building out electrical capacity and putting in eight pads, which exceeds the minimum for EV charging and makes it Code compliant. Chuck said with 36 units the minimum number of parking spaces required is 54 and the maximum allowed is 72. The applicant t is proposing 64 spaces. Mike agreed to 54 for the apartments and 12 for the condos. The remaining board members agreed. Andy asked if they could bank the remaining spaces so the applicant could return if they find they need them. Chuck said they wouldn’t be banked; it would be a site plan modification. Brian noted that he owns apartment buildings in town and any of the apartments with 2 bedrooms struggle to find parking. They end up on the street or they don’t rent. Brian said the apartments are all going to be 1,200 sq. ft., 2 bedrooms, 2.5 bath townhouse style apartments. Most of the people will have two cars. Brian said they have bike racks, EV chargers, solar covered parking. Brian said the limitation on parking limits the marketability of the project. Mark and Bill said they would change their minds on the number of parking spaces based on the information Brian presented, especially regarding marketability. After a discussion on sustainability versus marketability the board agreed to 60 parking spaces, reduced from 64. Chuck said he would like to see the four spaces along Excelsior Spring removed. Chuck Marshall, Chair moved on to discussing other elements of the application. He said there is a traffic mitigation contribution by the applicant that has been reviewed and agreed to by DPW and asked the board if there were any other specific site plan elements to be discussed. Tony asked for details on the dumpster enclosure. The applicant said it’s surrounded by landscaping – Japanese Holly. Chuck said he would like to see a row of boxwood and something higher behind it closer to the dumpster enclosure. Mark said some applicants have used vine type plantings that grow into the fencing and fill in the spaces between the bushes. Brian said they could put a small dumpster in for the HOA to start but once the HOA is taken over it would be up to them to decide what they want to keep. Chuck said he thinks the dumpster should be a requirement. Brian said for a 6-unit rental they would usually do roll City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 8, 2024 - Page 14 of 16 aways. Brian said they can map out a spot for a small dumpster for trash and recycling. Mark said it could be added to the conditions for the HOA. Tony asked about the location of the transformers. Walt said they would have to get into the details with National Grid, but likely they would be toward the rear of the building, and it would be one transformer for two buildings. Mike noted that staff wanted the driveway reduced from 26’ to 22’ and asked if that had been done. Walt said it needs to be 26’ to meet fire code for the apartments, due to the height of the buildings and the need for aerial apparatus from the fire department. Mike asked what the material of the parking pavement would be. Walt said it is impervious. Mike asked if it could be permeable. Walt said they don’t they don’t have the soils to accommodate permeable pavement. Mike asked how they were going to keep the pavement cool and if there was some way to mitigate the heat of the asphalt. Chuck said he appreciates the intent but he’s not sure what could be done there. Mike suggested permeable pavers or other materials that are not asphalt. Mike asked how many bicycle parking spaces there would be. Walt said they have covered bike parking. Mike said they should be located next to the buildings. It was decided that the 4 parking spaces would remain by Excelsior Spring and each apartment building will have a parking spot out front with covered bicycle parking. Mike said he would like to see a path built on the applicant’s property (lower left corner of the site plan) for a future connection to a city path to Spring Run. Brian said they will add it to the map and if the city builds a path they will connect to it. It would say future path connector on the map. Chuck Marshall, Chair listed the conditions for approval:  A trash/recycling dumpster will be added to Lot 1, and it will be screened and will be included in the HOA conditions.  The trash dumpster enclosure for Lot 2 will have a row of horizontal plantings to the north and vertical plantings behind it – 2 rows of plantings with vines.  Lot 1 driveway will be reduced from 24’ to 22’ and the radius of any applicable driveway will be reduced per NACTO design standards.  A reduction to 60 spaces of vehicle parking with 4 covered bike parking areas.  A map amendment showing a connection to the city’s future connection to the Spring Run Trail. It will be triggered by the City’s installation of such improvement. Chuck Marshall, Chair listed what was agreed to regarding the house:  Wood siding and trim of the north primary façade east and west elevations of the main structure will be repaired and replaced in kind as needed.  The original wood windows of the main house will be restored on the north, east, and west elevations as well as the gable window on the south elevation.  The original front door of the main structure will be preserved and reinstalled.  The rear addition decks and chimneys will be removed.  The porch of the main house will be reconstructed in the existing style or in a style that is in keeping with Gothic revival style.  The carriage house and the southern elevation of the main structure will be clad in wood or fiber cement siding. All windows would be agreed upon (Preservation Foundation) materials and included in the offering plan. There will be language restricting any window replacement to the same series and style subject to approval by the condo association.  The wood cupola of the carriage house will be restored. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 8, 2024 - Page 15 of 16   The slate roof of the carriage house will be replaced with Ready Slate Grey.  The roof pattern of the main house will be documented to include photographs detailing the original colors and tile placement and sent to Historic Preservation and the City of Saratoga Springs. Chuck Marshall, Chair read the conditions: 1. The slate roof is to remain intact or removed as included in the protection plan which will include a roof schedule and sequencing of the relocation. 2. The Certificate of Occupancy will be tied to building 4. Leah recommended that the board approve a conditioned subdivision that the applicant would have 180 days from approval to file the map, and that period could be extended by 90- day increments by the board. Leah suggested that the main house and carriage house be moved prior to the subdivision plat being filed. Leah said that the subdivision resolution should read that the houses be moved fully on to Lot 1 prior to filing of the plat and for submission of the mylar for signing. Mike King made a motion to approve the subdivision at 182 Excelsior Ave., Saratoga Springs. The motion was seconded by Kerry Mayo. The motion was seconded by Mike King. Vote: C. Marshall-Y, B. McTygue-Y, M.King-Y, K. Mayo-Y, T. Stellato-Y, M. Pingel-Y. Vote: 6-0. Motion carried. 7. #20230773 182 Excelsior Site Plan 182 Excelsior Ave. 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. Mike King made a motion to approve the site plan for 182 Excelsior Ave. as previously discussed and described. The motion was seconded by Kerry Mayo. Vote: C. Marshall-Y, B. McTygue-Y, M.King-Y, K. Mayo-Y, T. Stellato-Y, M. Pingel-Y. Vote: 6-0. Motion carried. MOTION TO ADJOURN: The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 8, 2024 - Page 16 of 16