Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 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, Joe Ferrante ABSENT: Anthony (Tony) Stellato 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. C. PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. Chuck Marshall, Chair said that both items on the agenda have been before the planning board previously and he asked that they each give high level updates only. 1. #20230929, 53 Putnam St. Site plan review of a proposed mixed-use building including 4,423 sq. ft. commercial space, 32 residential units, and associated site work in the Urban Core (T-6) District. Chuck asked that 53 Putnam give updated information that was discussed at the workshop – easement language and placement, curb cut & asphalt surface treatment. Brian Osterhout, Environmental Design Partnership represented the applicant, Putnam Resources. Also, present – MRB Group, architects, Yepsen & Pakulski, LLC & Young/Sommer, LLC. Brian gave some of the project history:  Planning Board, January 11, 2024 – favorable response from PB.  Some outstanding DPW comments remained – all have been addressed.  Discussion on asphalt surface treatment for existing easement north of the proposed building.  Discussion about eliminating radii of curb cut to make it look less like a street.  Initiated coordinated review of SEQR – underway.  Sterling Environmental completed remediation work in January 2024. Notices of completion are with DEC currently.  Updated site plans submitted to the city to address all outstanding DPW comments in interim. Easement Discussion – Brian showed a map of the easement and discussed the language. The easement is dedicated as a right-of-way in perpetuity to be used by the owners (5 common parties) with the right to always pass on foot, by vehicle, or otherwise. Brian said the reason they’ve shown the easement as pavement is that it has been pavement right along and needs to be passable by vehicle using crushed or un-crushed stone, concrete or asphalt. It’s currently asphalt, and the applicant intends to keep it the same. Brian said it is being used by pick-up trucks, etc. as a drive-thru pass. Chuck mentioned that there is no differentiation between crushed stone and asphalt. Brian agreed and said they are all considered impervious. Curb Cut – Brian showed drawings of the curb cut and wheel turns for the radius and that they are following the city standard of 5ft. to facilitate turning movements. They will continue the level concrete sidewalk. It will look like a driveway. Bike Rack – Brian said they added a bike rack at the north end of the arcade. He said the residents will have their own internal storage for bicycles so the outdoor racks would be mostly for patrons visiting that location. Updated floor plan – Brian said the floor plan is very similar to what they had before and would go over it further if the board requested. Brian showed a rendering of what the columns in the arcade area would look like. Patty Morrison asked where this project was with the Design Review Board. James Tripp, MRB Group said they have been before the DRB once and have submitted for SEQRA with DRB. Patty asked how many people could be seated in the outdoor area. Brian said there will be 4 tables that will seat a total of 8 to 10 people. James said the DRB looked favorably upon the outdoor seating. Mark Pingel asked Susan if there were any open DRB items that would interfere with the planning board acting on the site plan. Susan said she didn’t think so, and she provided a DRB summary to the PB from October 4, 2023, where they were unable to act because there hasn’t been a SEQRA determination by the planning board yet. Susan said they are generally satisfied with the mass, scale, and height of the building and the overall design. Bill McTygue asked about the overhead power lines and the pole in front of the applicant’s property and whether National Grid had talked to them about their intentions in the future. He said some areas near the power lines (Henry St.) are being put underground. Brian said City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 29, 2024 - Page 2 of 10 when they started the project 6 years ago there was discussion with National Grid about relocating the poles but nothing further. Bill said it would be great if they could put those lines underground on Putnam St. Patty said that the city commented that the applicant should consider a delineation, separation, physical barrier, or pavement striping for cars and pedestrians. Susan said because there will be cars and pedestrians in the same area, the applicant may want to separate the two uses in some way. Brian said they can do that. Mike King suggested that the applicant use stamped asphalt or concrete for the easement road. There was a discussion about that idea and the board decided it may be a tool for the future, but they would not ask this applicant to provide that. Leah said there is one owner of the alleyway and they have provided easements to the others. Mark Pingel clarified that 63 Putnam St. (parking lot) is black macadam and bounds the easement for 53 Putnam. Joe Ferrante mentioned that the 5-foot sidewalk and the large columns tend to create a dead zone because the café’s (tables) are not that visible from the street. Joe said he has seen this happen in several cities he’s visited. They tend to become “de facto homeless shelters”. Joe asked if this has been brought up with the DRB, especially since this is directly across from the library. James Tripp said the colonnade is about 8 feet deep. The width between the columns is about 10’ and there are very large windows on the building. There was a discussion about the location of the trees and whether they could be put off-site. Susan said the trees are a requirement, but they could be put off-site if they are in that same area. Kerry added that the library already has trees. Mike said the sidewalks to the north and south of this project are wider than 5’. Mike said there are no other trees planted on the west side of Putnam St., they’re all on the east side. He said he would like to see the sidewalk wider and eliminate the trees that are proposed and plant them somewhere else. Bill McTygue said it’s a legitimate question as to whether trees and grass would even grow in such a small strip, especially with the salt in the wintertime. Bill said it might be a better solution to have the cement go to the street. He suggested the applicant could introduce a few trees using tree grates (steel casting in a cutout in the sidewalk). Patty said she doesn’t see where 3’ more of concrete is going to make that much of a difference. She said there will be a HOA and they will maintain the grass and tree area. She said she will advocate keeping the plan as presented with the 5’ sidewalk and 3 trees with grass. Kerry said he doesn’t think the trees would fare well and agrees with no trees. Mark said he advocated for trees in the joint meeting, and he still does. He said Bill’s idea about tree grates was a good one and would address the problem with the grass strip. Mark noted that the rendering shows planters in front of the columns that take up sidewalk space. He said he would agree with trees but no planters. Chuck agreed with Bill and Mark about the trees in tree grates and no grass strip. Joe agreed that the tree grates were the middle ground to take. Mike agreed with the tree grates. Brian said he doesn’t see a problem with that, and he asked that they make that a condition of the updated site plan they submitted. Chuck asked if the applicant could do a concrete pad instead of asphalt by the delivery door to indicate a color change. The applicant agreed. Chuck Marshall, Chair said they would go through the SEQRA process, Part 2 of the Short Environmental Assessment form. SEQRA, Part 2, 53 Putnam 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. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 29, 2024 - Page 3 of 10  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 said based on the review of the Part 2 Short Form Environmental Assessment form provided by the applicant and the review thereof by this board recommended that a Negative SEQRA Declaration be issued and made a motion in accordance. The motion was seconded by Mike King. Vote: All in favor, motion carried. Chuck Marshall recommended that the site plan be approved with the following conditions: 1. Three tree grates be installed, and the concrete sidewalk be brought up to the curb. 2. That a concrete pad be installed by the delivery door on the north side of the building where shown. A motion was made by Kerry Mayo and seconded by Bill McTygue. Vote: All in favor, motion carried. Chuck noted that the applicant remediated an eyesore, and it is significant. Bill agreed and said the board shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the site was an environmental hazard, and that the applicant went to great lengths at their own expense to clean the site up to a standard that allowed this project to go forward. 2. #20230316 118 Woodlawn Ave. Special Use Permit for a private/social club in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Chuck Marshall, Chair said this project is a Type 2 action under SEQRA so there will not be any SEQRA review. The Board is considering just a Special Use Permit and not the site plan for parking. Chuck said the public hearing was closed on November 30, 2023, and action is supposed to take place within 62 days. The applicant and the board mutually agreed to extend the 62-day period to today, February 29, 2024. Chuck said on November 14, 2023, there was a vote that did not pass because any vote would require action by 4 people. Chuck said pursuant to the workshop it was agreed that a motion for approval and a motion for denial would be read into the record based on the resolutions that were modified at the November 14th meeting. Chuck said there have been some additional modifications to the motion for denial and that will be read first. Chuck read the resolution in opposition and listed the conditions for denial: 1. Use of the property as a private social club and associated parking area is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Re-use of the church structure furthers the City’s goal of reuse of structures over new construction especially where the structure at issue has historic and or cultural value. The City’s comprehensive plan contains a map showing future use areas. The map categorizes certain general areas and in between those areas it leaves land uncategorized. 118 Woodlawn is not categorized by the map while 121 and 125 falls into an area defined as CRN-2. Therefore, while the proposed use is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan this does not automatically mean that it is compatible with the neighborhood. Discussion – regarding Item one to be modified that 118 Woodlawn is an eating and drinking establishment and not a social City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 29, 2024 - Page 4 of 10  club. The Code Enforcement Officer has indicated that this should be viewed as a private social club. Leah reminded the board that there are several listed criteria for special use permits and that they are looking at number 1 which is stated above. Leah said they are just looking at whether the proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plan, associated land use plans, and zoning. 2. In general, the use of 118 Woodlawn Ave. as a private social club and use of 121 and 125 Woodlawn Ave. as a parking area will not endanger the public health, welfare, or safety. The planning board has retained the services of an independent engineer to review the traffic analysis provided by the applicant’s traffic engineer and there will be an increase in traffic resulting from the proposed use, but the principal concerns voiced by the public relate to current traffic conditions. Conversely, the board is focused on whether and to what extent those current conditions may be exacerbated by the proposed use. While there will necessarily be an increase in traffic generated by the use of the site, the degree of increase along Woodlawn Ave. is not sufficient to constitute a danger to public health, safety or welfare. The board notes that the applicant has proposed instituting a maximum occupancy and to prohibit events that would draw an influx of members’ guests at any one time. This helps to minimize the overall traffic trips the use may generate. However, the board notes that the use of VanDam St. to access the site is problematic, not because of the number of trips that may be generated on the roadway, but because of the increased likelihood of traffic accidents that occur at the corner of VanDam St. and Woodlawn Ave. Additional vehicles turning onto Woodlawn Ave. from VanDam St., whether turning right or left will increase the likelihood of accidents. In addition, the increased likelihood of generating pedestrian crossings in this area is likewise problematic and will serve to endanger the public health, safety, and welfare. The applicant proposed that 34 daily trips and potentially 75 persons will be added to the neighborhood and intersection. The board observes that other permitted uses not requiring a special use permit such as two-family dwellings would add significantly fewer vehicular and pedestrian traffic to the area. Thus, it questions whether it is responsible to approve adding the level of additional traffic to an already difficult and potentially dangerous situation. Discussion: Mike asked if this was for approval or denial. Chuck said this is the resolution for denial. It was agreed that both would be read into the record. He said Patty offered a series of additions/conditions to be considered. Mark said because Patty’s suggestions are not specific to a particular section that is being read and are more general, that it might be more productive to discuss her additions one by one and decide whether the board supports them being added or not, then decide where they would go. The Board decided to discuss Patty’s proposed modifications before proceeding with the resolution:  Eating and drinking establishment, not social club – already discussed.  Neighborhood concerns about parking spaces along Woodlawn Ave. and members parking on City streets. The influx of members along Woodlawn Ave. has a real potential to impact and create a loss of parking along Woodlawn Ave. Discussion: City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 29, 2024 - Page 5 of 10  Chuck noted that all publicly accessible parking is open to the public and the board can’t say that they don’t have the same rights as anyone else to that parking. Patty said this parcel does not have on-site parking and they’re swaying them to park in a residential area. Chuck said section 10.2 of the UDO indicates that any use that does not have on-site parking must have parking within 600 ft. and this application satisfies that requirement because they own 121 and 125 Woodlawn Ave. Mike said that he owns property in the city and does not have rights to parking – no one does. Mark said he feels the on-street parking has been mitigated with the Long Alley and valet parking. Kerry agreed. Bill said he feels this issue falls under the umbrella of compatibility. He said if the club is successful, they will use all the parking spaces along Woodlawn Ave. that would otherwise be used by the homeowners that live on Woodlawn Ave. Is it compatible with the neighborhood? He feels it creates an incompatibility. Bill said the auxiliary/overflow parking at the corner of Broadway and VanDam St., a small parking lot of 12 or 13 spaces, is used exclusively by the dance club. John Cannie said his client has purchased that property – the sale is completed, and any prior leases or agreements are gone. Chuck said the applicant satisfied the requirements in the code and went over and above. The modification won’t be added to the resolution.  The applicant’s proposal to make 10 additional parking spaces available off-site for overflow parking at the Long Alley parking lot creates an adverse impact on the neighborhood, specifically the homes along both sides of Long Alley. An alley is a small-scale street that typically carries low numbers of vehicles intermittently as is the case today for Long Alley. On Friday and Saturday evenings especially the parking lot of cars exiting during closing hours of 10 p.m. can avoid trying to exit onto VanDam where the intersection of No. Broadway and VanDam meet and the traffic backs up at the light and instead cars can drive north along Long Alley, which is the length of two city blocks to Wiswall Lane, turning left onto Wiswall Lane and exiting onto Woodlawn, thus avoiding backup but sending cars down an alley through the neighborhood creating a noise, light and vehicle disturbance to the neighbors. Mark clarified with John that the auxiliary parking along Long Alley (10 spaces) would be used by staff (maximum of 6) first. Mark noted that at 10 pm the traffic on VanDam is not that high. Mark doesn’t think this modification should go into the resolution. Bill said he’s concerned about the parking issue in general, so he would put it in. Patty said they’re supposed to be looking at how it impacts the neighborhood and it’s not compatible with the neighborhood. Mike said in general in cities you should try to keep alleys and driveways away from signalized intersections. Mike pointed out that if VanDam and Broadway are re-worked in the future, Long Alley would likely be disconnected. Chuck said the applicant satisfies the Code which is the standard they are held to. Mike said he feels this item should be included in the resolution for the denial because it potentially is an issue using the rest of Long Alley. Both Joe and Chuck agreed that it should be put in the resolution for denial because it is an element of why there is support for denial. Chuck suggested adding it to the end of number 3 – “the clubs’ hours at this time put it further at odds”.  On page 3, item 3, the last sentence does not correctly define the conditions with the reference that currently reads “the proposed hours of operation are likewise at odds with the neighborhood’s residential character. 118 Woodlawn Ave. is nestled in a residential neighborhood with no other businesses having operating hours ending at 9:00 or 10:00 p.m.” A more accurate statement is for the sentence to read “the City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 29, 2024 - Page 6 of 10  proposed hours of operation of 9:00 p.m. weeknights and 10:00 p.m. weekends are at odds with the neighborhood’s residential character and the quiet and peaceful atmosphere typically associated with such a neighborhood.” Joe, Mike, Chuck, Mark, Kerry, Patty, and Bill agreed that the sentence that Patty provided should replace the original sentence in the denial resolution. Exiting traffic would further impact the neighborhood.  The use of the north porch and entrance at 118 Woodlawn Ave. is mere steps from the driveway and porch entrance of the residential one-family home located at 122 Woodlawn Ave. which is north and adjacent to 118 Woodlawn Ave. The impact of members entering/exiting the social club will have direct impact on the homeowner’s quality of life, especially during the late hours when members leave at 10:00 p.m. Bill, Patty, Kerry, Mike, and Joe said yes it should be included in the denial resolution. Chuck said he does not think it should be included because it’s the board’s obligation to look at it as the city and as a whole and not one individual impacted owner. He said he feels it sets a poor precedent for this board. Mark agreed with Chuck. It was decided by the majority to be included in the denial resolution under page 4 section 6, “additionally the impacts to 122 Woodlawn Ave. would be measurable”.  The applicant’s suggestion to offer full valet parking half a mile away at 395 Broadway on Friday and Saturday evenings from 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. appears impractical due to the distance from the primary location. Managing the transportation of vehicles back and forth efficiently within this time frame would create logistical challenges that may not be practical. It was decided by the majority that this will not be included in the denial resolution. Chuck said he could continue to read the resolutions or poll the board to see if it would be accepted or denied and work off that resolution. Leah suggested that a board member could make a motion to approve or deny, get a second and either move forward with the vote and act or have discussion and read through the resolution before voting. Mike King made a motion to approve the special use permit. The motion was seconded by Kerry Mayo. Discussion: Chuck paraphrased the resolution in support of the special use permit: 1. The building will remain intact, which is imperative to its historic nature. 2. The danger to the health, welfare, and safety of the public is not present. It was evaluated by the city’s privately consulted engineer and the department of public service staff who indicated they have no concerns over the impact of traffic levels. 3. There would be increased density, but it would be compatible with the neighborhood. While more intense than a single-family or two-family home, the gathering of professionals or prospective businesses surrounding this is compatible. 4. Regarding the parking lot at 121-125 Woodlawn, the applicant has revised the original plan so that access will only be through Woodlawn Ave. and Bolster Lane will only be used for refuse pick-up. Chuck said in his opinion, it’s important to note that it’s unique in that 10.2 of the UDO requires property be within 600 ft. if it has off-site or auxiliary parking, and any other use would have required partial demolition of the building. Patty noted that there are other uses that would not require demolition under a special use permit, such as a daycare. 5. There’s no increase on public infrastructure. 6. The special use permit extends to 121-125 Woodlawn Ave. and the impacts are mitigated by components of the site plan. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 29, 2024 - Page 7 of 10 Therefore, be it resolved that the planning board approves the special use permit with the following conditions: 1. Hours of operation are hereby limited to prevent use prior to 8:00 a.m. on any day and no deliveries prior to 7:00 a.m. Hours of operation are limited to prevent use after 9:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and after 10:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. 2. The club operator must be a not-for-profit and the applicant will provide proof of this prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. The applicant’s proposal to limit the club membership to 200 at any given time is hereby incorporated as a condition of approval. 4. The applicant’s proposal to limit the maximum occupancy of the structure to 75 members and guests at any given time. This is to be monitored each shift by a staff person and is hereby incorporated as a condition of approval. 5. The applicant’s proposal to restrict use of 118 Woodlawn Ave. for food service to members having a reservation, prohibiting walk-in dining time is hereby incorporated as a condition of approval. 6. The applicant’s proposal that there be no external stand-alone signage for the social club is hereby incorporated as a condition of approval. 7. The applicant’s proposal that there be no outdoor activities whatsoever is hereby incorporated as a condition of approval. 8. The applicant’s proposal to prohibit amplified live music and allow acoustic music only is hereby incorporated as a condition of approval. 9. The applicant’s proposal to prohibit weddings, receptions, fundraisers and the like to limit the risk of noise and traffic impacts on the neighborhood is hereby incorporated as a condition of approval. 10. The applicant’s proposal to limit vehicular entry/exit using Bolster Lane is hereby incorporated as a condition of approval. Bolster Lane may be used for refuse removal as shown on the applicant’s final plans. 11. The applicant’s proposal that the kitchen exhaust be carbon filtered to mitigate odors and exited through the roof is hereby incorporated as a condition of approval. 12. The applicant’s proposal to infill with brick all first-floor window openings along the north side of the structure at 118 Woodlawn Ave. is hereby incorporated as a condition of approval. 13. The applicant’s proposal to require that all deliveries to 118 Woodlawn Ave. must be made by personal vehicles, cars, and vans but no trucks class 4 and above is hereby incorporated as a condition of approval. 14. The applicant’s proposal that all delivery vans unload in the parking area at 121-125 Woodlawn Ave. and not Woodlawn Ave. itself is hereby incorporated as a condition of approval. 15. The applicant’s proposal to install at its cost rectangular rapid flashing beacons or RFB’s to the existing pedestrian signs at the VanDam crosswalk at the intersection of Woodlawn Ave. is hereby incorporated as a condition of approval. 16. The applicant’s proposal to make available an additional ten parking spaces off-site for overflow parking is hereby incorporated as a condition of approval. 17. The conditions for the lease for the Long Alley parking lot shall be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit. 18. The applicant’s proposal that it provide valet parking as the only parking option on Friday and Saturday nights from 5:00 p.m. to 10 p.m. and 395 Broadway be considered overflow parking only is hereby incorporated as a condition of approval. 19. Leah said there are 19 written conditions but one wasn’t read aloud. It reads as follows “Prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for this project the applicant shall provide the City Planning Department its rules of club membership which contain: 1. Prohibitions for club members and their guests from congregating in the parking areas and/or building entryway steps for the purpose of smoking. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 29, 2024 - Page 8 of 10  2. Notice to club members that while acoustic music may be provided, no amplified live music will be provided on the premises. 3. Club members are prohibited from using the premises for weddings, receptions, fundraisers and the like. 4. Club members that use the parking lot along Long Alley must access it via VanDam St. rather than using Long Alley. Mark made a point about the stained glass on the building being restored. Brett Balzar said as part of the DRB conversation all stained glass will be restored. It will be removed from its opening and taken off site, restored and brought back and put into the opening. That way there will be no risk of damage during construction. Mark supports the restriction on using Long Alley. Mike suggested removing “on the property” from item #9. The board agreed. Mike also said because #17 speaks to employee parking and/or valet parking that the condition be added that they can only access that parking from VanDam St. John Cannie said their concern with that suggestion is that it creates some liability for his client. John noted that the parking lot is currently used. Chuck said he does not support the restriction on using Long Alley. Patty said the board is charged with how this impacts the neighborhood, and it does impact the neighborhood. She has concerns with enforcement of the conditions. Mark said there are 17 conditions because of public comment and board analysis and concern for the neighborhood. He said if this project is approved it will be with a lot of energy put in to minimize impacts within the constraints of the permitted use. Bill noted that all these rules are being established but who’s going to enforce them? He said it has to do with compatibility of this project in this neighborhood on this site and cited #3 in the approval standards under special use, “the density, intensity and compatibility of the use with the neighborhood and community character”. Bill said that describes his feeling about the project. Bill said part of the problem is that this club is unknown and just being established. Bill said the UDO allows a social club in the UR-3 zone, but it’s up to the planning board to determine intensity and compatibility and set the rules accordingly. He said he just doesn’t feel this project works here. Bill does not support restricting Long Alley. Kerry supports the restriction on Long Alley. John Cannie said they are proposing the Long Alley parking because the board was concerned with parking. He said there is code compliant parking at 121 and 125 Woodlawn Ave. He said the Long Alley parking exceeded what was required and they don’t have to have it at all. Chuck said the parking requirement has been satisfied by the applicant, so Long Alley is not required. Chuck polled the board as to whether to remove number 17 of the conditions. Mark – NO. Mark said there were concerns about parking on Woodlawn and Long Alley. The applicant proposed valet parking at the Long Alley parking lot to help alleviate those concerns. Now we’re trying to condition how the parking lot is accessed. He noted that the only way not to have any impact whatsoever is to say no to the project after a lot of work has been done by the board and the applicant. The board decided to have number 17 of the conditions left in with the following added “the applicant is to advise employees and members to exit and enter the Long Alley parking area via VanDam St. rather than Long Alley. Chuck polled the board on the motion on the table – to approve the special use permit for 118 Woodlawn Ave. and the associated 121-125 Wood Lawn Ave. Joe – in favor City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 29, 2024 - Page 9 of 10 Mike – in favor Chuck – in favor Mark – in favor Kerry – in favor Patty – not in favor Bill – not in favor Vote: 5- YES, 2-NO. Motion carried. Mike addressed the neighbors in the audience saying that one of the things about this project that spoke to him was that the building was going to be reused and not demolished. Patty and Mark said it can’t be demolished but it could be neglected. Mike said he read a lot of the public comments, but this is so close to downtown Saratoga he thought they had to go with it. Chuck said he circulated a memo that he would like the board members to send to the City Council regarding the deliberation from February 8th and the SEQRA negative declaration for Tree House. He said in that discussion the board enumerated 3 points that they wanted the City Council to seek DOT’s guidance and input on and asked the board to weigh in on those items tonight. 1. Reduction in speed limit - Mike said he would like number 1 to be 30 mph. Chuck said he doesn’t support 30 because he thinks 55 mph to 30 would be severe. Mike said it could transition from 55 to 40 to 30. Chuck proposed 40 mph at east/west and the board agreed. 2. The installation of a second pedestrian crosswalk on the southern leg of Crescent Ave. This improvement may be outside the realm of the site plan. 3. Chuck said he doesn’t see a scenario where Homewood Suites or Saratoga Honda would voluntarily give land to install additional sidewalk on their property and DOT has made it clear that the right-of-way is off limits for these improvements. Chuck said he would like a notation that if DOT makes the right-of-way accessible then the applicant will make the improvement. Susan said that’s not completely accurate. She said that DOT only reviewed the plan with the sidewalk on the private property. They haven’t looked at any other plan. DOT said that Honda and Homewood Suites both have their sidewalks on private property because of the ditch line there. They did not say they wouldn’t allow anything in their right-of-way. They said that they were accepting of the plan that they reviewed with the sidewalk continuous on private property. Chuck said going forward he would like to see any width extension of the 5- foot path to be within the right-of-way and not on private property. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Mike King made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Patty Morrison. All in Favor. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 29, 2024 - Page 10 of 10