Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 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, Anthony (Tony) Stellato, Mike King, Joe Ferrante-Alternate ABSENT: Kerry Mayo STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, Leah Everhart, PB Legal Counsel, James Sallaway, Principal Engineer Tech. A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Chuck Marshall made a motion to accept the minutes of March 14, 2024. The motion was seconded by Mark Pingel. VOTE: B. McTygue-Y, P. Morrison-Y, M. Pingel-Y, C. Marshall-Y, T. Stellato-Y., M. King-Y. J. Ferrante-Abstain MOTION PASSES: 6-0 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. 1. #20240128 9 Gridley Horseshoe Inn SUP Ext. 9 Gridley St. Renewable Special Use Permit for outdoor entertainment in the Gateway Commercial - Urban District. Chuck Marshall, Chair said the focus of discussion at the workshop pertained mostly to the conditions of the previously issued special use permit and some improvements that have been made. Chuck asked the applicant to walk the board through those changes, and stressed that it is not the board’s intention to jeopardize their special use permit for the May activities. There’s a continuation of business function here and the board understands the element involved. Chuck said the board will work with the applicant to see that that continues and will make sure that the improvements that are needed to see that forward also occur. Matt Brobston, LA Group presented for the applicant. Matt displayed the sketch plan for the special use permit that was shown at the last meeting and presented changes based on comments from the board at that meeting:  They defined tent sizes, locations of the bars and their sizes.  Resolved issue with handicap parking that wasn’t compliant.  Added 3 trees along Nelson Ave. & and one on the corner by Bowman St.  Clarified some of the concerns the Fire Chief had expressed after reviewing the tent permit (bar sizes, temporary protections behind the elevated band stage).  Identified the 3 gates along the fences - 10ft. wide (aluminum fence) gate on Nelson Ave., 8ft. wide (aluminum fence) double swinging gate that opens on Gridley, 12ft. gate in the back that opens out on Bowman. The Bowman gate (chain link fence) is larger because this is where equipment is brought in and out. When the business is open the gates are tied open to the fence for emergency exits.  Removed double curb cuts on Nelson Ave. The curb cut closest to Gridley was filled in with greenspace and a tree. The curb cut on Nelson was widened to 22ft. Matt displayed the proposed conditions for the Special Use Permit for discussion. Mike King not using mic something about a subsequent site plan. Chuck said the applicant requested waiver of the site plan. Chuck asked Susan if they wanted to make them conditions of the special use permit or handle them separately or the rest of this is inaudible, no mic. Matt said the special use permit currently has a sketch plan that goes along with it. What the board has is a revised sketch plan for the special use permit they are seeking. A site plan is different in that a lot of it is an existing condition. Matt said it has been done in the past for this application, the sketch plan followed with the special use permit, and he’s not sure there’s ever been a site plan application for this site pertaining to the special use permit. Chuck asked Mike if he has a preference for sketch plan adherence for site plan. Mike said it seems like the board should approve the special use permit tonight and have a site plan review later because there are issues with the site that need to be reviewed. Tony Stellato said he’s willing to bend over backwards to make sure that the Horseshoe Inn is able to continue business and that nothing done by the planning board impacts that. He said he’s in favor of a temporary type SUP pending correction of things that need to be corrected. He said mainly the paving and taking of former greenspace that he doesn’t think there was a site plan for. Tony said it also happened at 20 Bowman St. Aerial photos show that that lot formerly was just a little parking lot out front that was graveled and paved somewhere between 2019 and 2022. He said trees were taken down and it’s completely paved now and appears to be part of the parking for the Horseshoe Inn. He’s in favor of a temporary SUP to keep the business going and work with the applicant to resolve the site plan concerns. Mark Pingel said he thinks a full SUP can be granted tonight with all of these conditions. Then a site plan review later. Joe Ferrante said he agrees with Mark to approve with conditions in order to keep the business going. Joe said he went to the property yesterday and saw significant improvements. Joe questioned whether the adjacent property (20 Bowman) mentioned in the aerial photo belongs to Horseshoe. He said what the applicant showed tonight looks like they took care of everything that was requested by the board. Joe said the lighting still needs to be discussed. Patty Morrison said she agrees with what other board members have said and she thinks they should lean on Leah and Susan as to the best path forward. Patty asked the difference between a temporary SUP with conditions and a regular SUP. Patty asked the applicant why they are asking to waive the site plan. Applicant (no City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – April 11, 2024 - Page 2 of 8 name) said from speaking with his attorneys they said what they’re showing (with survey) would not be much different than a site plan. Patty agreed with either SUP and a site plan to follow. Bill McTygue said he can go either way with the SUP. Bill said with what has been presented by the applicant there’s an opportunity to shape up a pretty good plan. He said the board should move forward with the SUP and get working on the site plan. Matt said usually a site plan is not required if the uses are not being expanded or changed so he’s not sure why that would be a requirement here. Chuck said he understands why the applicant would take that position, but there are improvements that have been made without approval. There were also some conditions that were not met. Tony said that he thinks there was an expansion of the use in the expansion of the parking that goes with the Horseshoe. In his mind that’s the trigger for seeing a site plan. Chuck asked the board if they have a preference for renewing for a 6-year period or a shorter period of time. Mike no preference. Tony his opinion is that they only renew to get them through the site plan. He said he would agree with 6 years with the attached conditions and an assurance that they will be completed in a reasonable amount of time. Chuck Marshall, Chair opened the Public Hearing for the Special Use Permit at approximately 6:20 p.m. There were no public comments and the Public Hearing was closed Chat approximately 6:20 p.m. Chuck noted the previous conditions were the trees and the lighting. He said there were several comments that came in from DPW and City Staff about the encroachment on the public right of way, particularly on the Bowman side, for parking. Chuck said there needs to be discussion by the board about the lighting. He said there’s no pedestrian level lighting on the street, it’s all corba lighting. Bill McTygue said there is residential development planned to the north and there will be a lot of activity at the Horseshoe at night. He said any lighting from decorative street lights would enhance the functionality of the intersection. Patty asked how many lights were planned. There are none on the plan, but Chuck sketched in two to show that they are within the property line. Chuck said he was hoping to make a series of recommendations, but most of the site is in the right of way. Chuck suggested that the applicant talk with DPW before formal site plan to find out what improvements would be permitted. Anything that’s in the City’s right of way is at the discretion of the commissioner. Leah clarified what Chuck is requesting; that the applicant detail what they want on a proposed final site plan and submit it for review and approval by the PB. She said it makes sense as part of the special use permit approval to include what needs to be on the site plan and when it needs to be submitted. She said the details, like lighting, and comments will take place during site plan review. Chuck agreed and said he would like DPW to weigh in because so much of it is in their right of way, and so to limit back and forth for the applicant. The board agreed on the lights. Tony asked if there was a plan to re-delineate the walkway from the corner of Nelson and Gridley along the building to Bowman St., will it be on the site plan, and should there be lighting there as well. Matt said there was no sidewalk on Gridley because it’s a horse street. Tony said there was a walkway on the north side of Gridley between the building and the parallel parking, and there was a split rail fence that was taken out when they paved. There was a clear pedestrian path from the corner of Nelson and Gridley all the way to Bowman St. Tony said the horses aren’t walking next to the Horseshoe, they’re walking on the other side of the street. He said there’s a need for a walkway there to get pedestrians into the building and it should be discussed during site plan. The owner said it was a paved area into a broken paved area and he removed the damaged split rail fence. He said for the outdoor entertainment he has cones separating that area into City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – April 11, 2024 - Page 3 of 8 a taxi stand pull off on the right side that public safety requested, a paved area where customers can line up to the gate (8 to 10 ft.), crowd control barriers, cones and then the road. Mark said he would like the applicant to consider tree grates instead of grass because of the foot traffic in that area. The grass would only be a small amount and would likely become mud after being continuously trampled. Mark suggested that a member of the planning board be present with staff and DPW to discuss the right of way items. Joe suggested striping to address the concerns that Tony mentioned. Chuck said the applicant should put what they get from the planning board on the plan and go with it to DPW. Bruce Steves, attorney for the applicant asked about the interruption of business issue with the fire chief not approving a tent permit. Events are coming up soon and there needs to be action taken with regard to the tents and bars. Chuck said he emailed the Fire Chief with a copy to Susan. There were 5 questions Chief Dyer asked of the applicant. One question Chuck didn’t see an answer to was about the width of each of the gates. Answer from Matt in the bullets above. Chuck Marshall made a motion to extend the special use permit for 9 Gridley, Saratoga Springs, which operates as the Horseshoe Inn, for a 6-year period with the associated Sketch Plan and in adherence to the conditions that are offered by the applicant: 1. The outdoor entertainment with 44 seats be limited to 6 days in addition to the days of the thoroughbred racing meet, with the total capacity of patrons governed by the New York State Fire Code. 2. The hours of operation for the outdoor entertainment shall be limited to between the hours 4 PM and 10 PM Sunday through Thursday and between the hours of 4 PM and 11 PM Friday and Saturday. 3. The Applicant shall continue to work with all adjacent residential properties to control and reduce any adverse impacts from the outdoor entertainment. 4. The Applicant shall comply with all provisions of the City’s noise ordinance. 5. The site shall be used in general conformance with the sketch plan attached hereto and dated 4/5/2024 of the “Sketch Plan”. 6. When outdoor entertainment is offered, the curb cut on Gridley Street at the Nelson Avenue intersection shall remain closed or barricaded as shown on the Sketch Plan. 7. The applicant shall submit the site plan by June 1, 2024 with improvements constructed by May 31, 2025 Joe Ferrante seconded the motion. Discussion: Tony asked if they want the site plan to address the improvements at 20 Bowman as well. The owner said 20 Bowman is employee parking only. Mark said it is part of the whole aesthetic. Susan said there’s a vacant building there and they’re using the parking for employees. Leah said unless the board thinks that the parking is tied to any of the criteria for the special use permit, then it should be addressed later on. She said when they review the site plan for this location the board can’t force anyone to bring an application to them unless something’s going on that constitutes a violation with the city. Mark said the board can make suggestions about the Bowman site for the applicant to consider. Chuck said for now the Bowman site is not included in the site plan. Vote: B. McTygue-Y, P. Morrison-Y, M. Pingel-Y, C. Marshall- Y, J. Ferrante-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y. 7-0 motion carried. 2. #20240159 17 Park Place Final Subdivision. Final plat review of a two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential - 4 District. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – April 11, 2024 - Page 4 of 8 Chuck Marshall, Chair said that the applicant was directed at the workshop to provide tree protection details about 3 significant trees, note from DRB about house placement, sidewalk ramping slope compliant with the city standard and details from James. Chuck asked Leah to describe the difference between a preliminary plat and final plat. Leah said if you approve a preliminary plat it locks in certain things such as location of infrastructure, size of lots, roadways, sidewalks, etc. She said sometimes you can deviate from those things during final approval but sometimes you can’t – it could be deemed irrational or unreasonable to deviate from those things. Chuck said at the workshop the board started down the path of requesting preliminary plat which indicated that the brick sidewalk would be repaired, and then instead switched to concrete, which he now understands they can’t do. Leah agreed but said she can look into it further if the board would like. She said during final subdivision approval it's likely that the board would have the authority to change the material. Leah said the previous approval said the brick sidewalk would be “repaired” not “replaced”, which is significant. She said she’s focusing on the requirement and not the material which is a big difference in the requirement. Leah said there are other issues with the potential replacement of the sidewalk, such as who would be responsible for doing what because now there are different owners at 21 Regent and 17 Park. Mark said he’d like to see the brick repaired in compliance with city standards and not belabor this issue. Patty brought up that the city is not following up on their letters of credit in many instances and repairs are not being made. Leah said a letter of credit is one way to do it but another is to tie the repairs to the CO. There is a letter of credit for the 2020 subdivision and it’s stayed open because no improvements have been made to 17 yet. Patty said the board recognizes an improvement that’s needed, repairs to the sidewalk, that could just hang out there for years until something is constructed in the subdivision. Chris LaPointe (applicant) said it’s their money but they’re paying for the entire thing. He said they’ve been in front of various boards for the past 3 years trying to get things approved and that’s why nothing has happened. He said hopefully within the next year the sidewalk will be repaired. Tony asked if there was an engineered plan for the new sidewalk and curb on Park. Chris said he doesn’t think it’s a requirement outside of using city specs and building it to code. Tony said there needs to be an engineering drawing before the sidewalk and curb are built that establishes the line and grade of the curb and sidewalk that are to be built. Susan said that would be part of the street opening permit. James said he discussed the drainage issue with the city engineer before the meeting. He said there is a 1% slope from the far side of the property line on Park Place to the catch basins across the intersection of Park and Regent. He said they will need an engineered plan that shows the drainage will be successful prior to the curb and sidewalk being installed. Chris said they will submit that as part of their building permit. Mike asked James if DPW had any intention of rebuilding the curb and sidewalk using the escrow money. Susan said the applicant has submitted a letter of credit to do the work. Nothing has been constructed. James said the city doesn’t want them to build the sidewalk until it’s laid out and the curb cuts have been made. Chuck talked about the removal of the significant trees. He said it’s his understanding that the applicant would like to remove the significant trees (2 are 24” and 1 is 36” in diameter) on the property to site the houses and is requesting in kind diameter replacements at breast height (DBH). Patty asked if that could be spelled out – the diameter of the trees will be no less than… Chris said their hope was that they not have to come back if they need to take the trees down. Bill said the city standard detail are a 2” to 2.5” caliper tree, nursery stock bald tree. He said that’s what you will see going up along city streets and in new projects. Bill said the applicant would have the ability to order bigger sized trees from a nursery. After City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – April 11, 2024 - Page 5 of 8 discussion it was decided that the replacement trees would not be smaller than 3” in diameter, and that does not exclude the street tree requirement. Susan gave the new conditions but was not audible, no mic. Chuck asked James to explain why the curb was concrete and not granite and why the ramps are concrete and not another material. James said there was existing blue stone on the curb and when DPW tries to apply the same it will crumble. They prefer to use whatever it says on the plan instead. James said the handicap ramps at the corner of Park Place and Regent St. has to follow ADA standard which is to use concrete to get all of the slopes appropriately placed. Chuck Marshall made a motion for approval of the two lot subdivision at 17 Park Place with the conditions that were identified and the applicant understanding what they are. Patty Morrison seconded the motion. Vote: B. McTygue-Y, P. Morrison-Y, M. Pingel-Y, C. Marshall-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y. 7-0 motion carried. 3. #20231004 3376 Broadway Site plan review of a proposed eating and drinking establishment including micro-production of alcohol and outdoor dining and associated site work in the Gateway Commercial - Rural (GC-R) District. Chuck said that the applicant has been here before. He said at the workshop they were given changes and modifications to come back with for tonight’s meeting. John Cannie, Attorney Snyder, Kiley, Toohey, Corbett & Cox, Stan Kubinski & Joe Vecchione (Bergmeyer), Steve Wilson, Landscape Architect (Bohler) presented for the applicant Tree House Brewing. John listed a summary of changes per 3/27/24 Submission to the City: 1. The entrance driveway has been reconfigured to support increased stacking. 2. The storm water retention pond was moved to the southwestern corner of the site. 3. The interior pedestrian path from the sidewalk that leads into the site will be increased by 8 ft. in width. 4. A wood post and beam style fence will be used to surround the stormwater pond. 5. Increased landscaping & vegetation has been placed in the area of the loading dock on the north side of the building to increase the screening in this area. 6. Markings of the pavement indicating “SLOW” have been added in the main parking lot as a traffic calming device. 7. The proposed privacy fence in the rear of the property shall be brown and/or wooden, which has been consented to by the neighbor Four Winds Hospital. 8. A photometric plan has been provided. 9. A full landscaping plan has been submitted as part of the site plan. 10. The SWPPP has been updated and modified based upon the above changes. 11. Responses to Third Party Engineering Review Comments, dated March 22, 2024. 12. A Geotechnical Plan 13. A detail for the road sign, which was approved by the Design Review Board on March 20, 2024. John said the only change from the above list is the “SLOW” indications on the pavement did not receive a favorable review at the Agenda Session so they’ve been changed and removed and will be replaced with speed bumps. They are also going to extend that sidewalk to 8 ft. width from the bike parking corral to the patio area entrance. He said this will keep it consistent with the right of way for pedestrian and bike access. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – April 11, 2024 - Page 6 of 8 Patty reviewed the landscape plan and asked to clarify the plan. She said there are 75 evergreen trees, 11 trees by the loading dock, 23 (11 evergreen, 8 deciduous) in the front for the total expanse. Patty said there are no leaves on the trees for a good part of the year in this climate, so it seems like it’s light in the front regarding evergreens. Steve Wilson said they tried to provide a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees to give it some character. He said their landscaping seems more aggressive than anything else in the corridor. Chuck said those other projects were approved under a different zoning ordinance. Steve noted that it’s not just the landscaping that should be considered but also the rural nature of the building itself and the public space with the sidewalks and seating areas. Patty asked the caliper of the trees. Steve said 2” to 3” because you would have trouble getting anything bigger to grow. Mark said the building deserves to be seen. He suggested that some vertical plantings in the grass area would help to shield the cars from the road. Joe asked if the board thought there should be more speed bumps, after which a discussion ensued. Chuck didn’t think it would be appropriate to have them behind angled parking. Mike said typically they’re put in every 200 to 300 ft. The applicant will add 3 speed bumps, near the employee and angled parking. Joe said the applicant has done a great job of coming up with everything that’s been requested. Tony said the applicant has done a good job and he’s happy with how far they’ve come. Tony asked what the vegetation would be between the road and the detention area. He’s concerned it might look overgrown and out of place with all the other beautiful vegetation around it. Sarah said all their properties are very well maintained. Tony said the 5 ft. sidewalk that goes the length of the parking lot has the potential to be blocked by overhanging parked cars. Tony asked if they could move the sidewalk away from the curb and add a grass strip between the curb and the sidewalk. John noted that people walking on that sidewalk will only be people who parked there. John said they’re trying to avoid adding pavement to the site that might not be necessary and keep as much greenspace as possible. Mike said he would eliminate the sidewalk entirely and let people walk within the parking lot. John said they would rather keep the sidewalk. Chuck said there was a public comment concerning the number of parking spaces and that this project is “under parked”. Chuck said the current configuration proposes 314 parking spaces, the maximum allowed by the code. He said there’s a staff comment about the angled parking behind. Chuck polled the board to make sure they’re ok with the number of parking spaces. Bill-yes, Patty-Yes, Joe-Yes, Mark-Yes, Tony-Yes, Mike-No, he wants 262. Chuck polled the board regarding the material to be used for the fence that borders Four Winds. Patty, Mike, Tony, Mark, and Chuck would like wood. Bill reminded everyone that it’s not the board’s job to design the project for the applicant. He said the applicant knows their business and the board should not be telling them how many parking spaces they need. Chuck Marshall, Chair listed the potential conditions:  An additional 3 speed bumps will be placed.  Add a crosswalk on the southern leg at Crescent and So. Broadway. (John said because it’s an off-site improvement they don’t have any control over it but they’re willing to support it. (if permitted by DOT). Won’t be a condition of approval. The applicant won’t support it financially.  The fence will be wood. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – April 11, 2024 - Page 7 of 8 Tony Stellato made a motion to approve the site plan for Tree House Brewing at 3376 So. Broadway, Saratoga Springs with the following conditions: 1. Three additional speed bumps will be added. 2. The fence bordering Four Winds will be wood material. The motion was seconded by Mark Pingel. Discussion: Mike King read excerpts of various public comments made throughout the approval process: “…site plan is…based on a car-centric suburban model.” “…lacking soul or reflective of the Saratoga' s intended character.” “…parking lot and curbside pickup in front of the building…is a bad look for this gateway entrance to the city.” “This site plan needs to better serve people arriving by bike or foot.” “There should be an entrance in the front of the building (the Broadway side) for cyclists and pedestrians.” “…more of the attractive, fun part of the design, namely the entrance, the outdoor seating, fire pits…towards the front, where people will be able to see them. “It's great to see bike racks, but it would be better if they were under cover.” “I support having Treehouse in Saratoga…. Please make the facade along South Broadway a “front porch” that we can all enjoy.” “…more people interested in walking or biking around and spending more money at more fun businesses like Treehouse, rather than just driving past.” Mike followed with his own comments: “The Broadway face of the building is a large beer cooler. In a better site plan, this would be the front door, not unlike the Lincoln Baths across Broadway. It would be celebrated. Instead it is being hidden by trees and shrubs. Access for those arriving on foot or bike is lacking at best. We can discourage drunk driving by encouraging walking to the brewery. SPAC is a seven-minute bike ride away. The racetrack is 10 minutes. Downtown is a ½ hour walk. I want to be able to walk or cycle to the brewery safely and conveniently. It is a shame this site plan does not do more to promote walking and cycling. Our city requires drive-thrus to be at the side or rear. Placing the beer pick-up parking in the front is contrary to the spirit of this requirement. Our city needs to hold the line on excess parking. Our city requires 262 spaces and I consider anything over that excess.” Vote: B. McTygue-Y, P. Morrison-Y, M. Pingel-Y, C. Marshall-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, T. Stellato-Y., M. King-N. 6-1 motion carried. Chuck Marshall made a motion to accept the minutes of March 14, 2024. The motion was seconded by Mark Pingel. Vote: B. McTygue-Y, P. Morrison-Y, M. Pingel-Y, C. Marshall-Y, J. Ferrante-Abstain, T. Stellato-Y., M. King-Y. 6-0 motion carried. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Chuck Marshall made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Patty Morrison. All in Favor. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – April 11, 2024 - Page 8 of 8