Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT THURSDAY, JULY 18, 2024 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Charles (Chuck) Marshall, Chair called the meeting to order at 6:05 P.M. PRESENT: Chuck Marshall, Chair, M. Pingel, Vice-Chair, Bill McTygue, Anthony (Tony) Stellato, Joe Ferrante-Alternate, Patty Morrison ABSENT: Mike King, Kerry Mayo STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, Leah Everhart, PB Legal Counsel, James Salaway A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: VOTE: 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. #20240489 3368 S. Broadway Site Plan Extension. Site plan approval for an extension for an addition to an existing hotel in the Gateway Commercial – Rural (GC-R) District. 2. #20240456 182 Excelsior Final Subdivision. Final plat review for a two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. A motion was made by Bill McTygue and seconded by Joe Ferrante to approve consent agenda items 3368 S. Broadway and 182 Excelsior Ave. Vote: B. McTygue-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, C. Marshall-Y, T. Stellato-Y, P. Morrison-Y., M. Pingel-Y. 6-0 motion carried. 3. #20240386 3320 Rt. 9 Pet Lodge. Consideration of advisory opinion to the ZBA for an Area Variance for a 760 sq. ft. addition to Pet Lodge in the Gateway Commercial – Rural (GC-R) District. Patty is concerned that the variance went from 20 ft. to 7 ft. and why wasn’t that anticipated? Chuck said they would still have to make that case at the ZBA. He said from the planning board perspective the concern is whether the variance creates a site plan problem. Chuck said because it was already built and they’re just now anticipating it being covered, he did not envision it as a site plan problem. That’s why he placed it on the agenda for a favorable recommendation. The footprint won’t change. A motion was made by Bill McTygue and seconded by C. Marshall to approve a favorable recommendation for variances at 2230 Route 9. Vote: B. McTygue-Y, C. Marshall-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, T. Stellato-Y, P. Morrison-Y., M. Pingel-Y. 6-0 motion carried. C. PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 4. #20240465 1 Driscoll Rd. SUP Modification. Modification to a special use permit for a mixed-use project to replace commercial space with dwelling units in the Gateway Commercial – Rural (GC-R) District. 5. 20240382 225 Clinton St. Subdivision. Consideration of coordinated SEQRA review and advisory opinion to the ZBA for an area variance for a two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential -1 (UR-1) District. 6. 20220202 31-33 Marion Area Variance. Consideration of coordinated SEQRA review and advisory opinion for demolition of existing Mobile station and car wash and construction of a new convenience store, gas canopy, and commercial tenant space in the Tourist Related Business (TRB) District. Chuck Marshall recused himself from this project. 4. #20240465 1 Driscoll Rd. (Just Cats) SUP Modification. Modification to a special use permit for a mixed-use project to replace commercial space with dwelling units in the Gateway Commercial – Rural (GC-R) District. Chuck Marshall, Chair said that there were three items that the board requested for clarification of the application at the workshop: 1. Septic expansion when the units are converted from commercial to residential. 2. The change in traffic generation from commercial to residential. 3. Clarification of the contingency in the Notice of Determination – improve Driscoll Road. Chuck said the board discussed that the most appropriate path for this project is that the PB look at the information that they’ve asked for from the previous application to the current application to see the delta and sewer flows, traffic, parking, etc. so they can understand the implications from a SEQRA perspective. He said they do have an approved site plan and they received a Negative Declaration. Luigi, represented the applicant. Dr. Susan Sikule, owner was present. Luigi said the footprint will stay the same. They are proposing 7 apartment units on the second floor and 4 units on the first floor in addition to Just Cats. The square footage is 3,879. He said they looked at the traffic summary from the previous approval and provided it to the board. He said there will be a reduction of 6 to 7 trips in the new proposal versus what was previously approved. Luigi said the traffic summary utilized the ITE, 11th edition for the Institute of Transportation. He said there would be no increase in traffic for what they’re proposing now. Regarding the septic system, Luigi said he compared what was previously City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 18, 2024 - Page 2 of 10 approved for a traditional style septic system with infiltrators, and the sanitary flow will increase some with the additional bedroom count to 2,730 gallons per day. They are proposing an Elgin System design (aka mattress systems) which is NYSDOH approved. This system helps to reduce the footprint and enables them to accommodate the increase in flow within the same footprint as the original approval. Site Plan – Luigi said the number of parking spaces has been reduced from 66 to 51 spaces required. They removed 7 parking spaces at the rear of the building thereby reducing the impervious surfaces by about 6,000 sq. ft. which reduces the stormwater runoff. Luigi said they still meet the minimum requirement for apartments at 2 spaces per dwelling unit plus the veterinarian office at 1 space per 200 and the employees for that business. Luigi said in discussions with the veterinarian, she has said that she doesn’t need all those parking spaces and is asking if they could bank them. Dr. Sikule said 44 parking spaces would be adequate. Luigi said that will reduce the imperviousness even further. Joe F. asked about the footprint for the sewer system and how it is staying the same. Luigi said the type of system they are proposing provides more treatment per surface area and they’re able to obtain that amount of volume treated in a smaller footprint. Patty asked for clarification of the number of parking spaces. After some discussion and not everyone speaking into the mic, they decided 46 parking spaces are required. Luigi said they are showing 57 spaces on the plan right now. Most of the parking is to the side of the building. The original plan had parking in the rear and on the side. Susan said looking at the building it faces Driscoll as opposed to Broadway, so the parking that’s in front of the building is on the side. Patty asked if the parking meets the new UDO. Chuck noted that this is a special use permit modification and not a site plan, so the applicant has rights to the site plan. The board is looking at what goes into the building, not the building itself. Susan said it’s still considered parking on the side because it’s not in front of the building facing Broadway. Bill M. asked about the utilities and if they had talked to DEC about the sewer system they are proposing. Luigi said they had not. They will have to go through that review. Bill said his concern is about the big picture in that area and future growth. The city lacks sanitary sewers in that area and it’s a problem in long term planning. He said they’re proposing a design that will accommodate the change, over and above a typical septic service. Bill said the city is encouraging growth in the area and he will continue to talk about the city needing to provide environmental protection for the area. Bill asked if they planned to tap into the water main on the east side of Route 9. Luigi said the water design hasn’t changed from the previous approval. They will be bringing a new water line under Route 9 over to their parcel. Luigi said the fire department is satisfied with the design for fire safety and their building will be sprinklered. Chuck Marshall, Chair asked if anyone in the audience had any comments. There were none. Chuck Marshall said he would like to review the Part 2 of SEQRA and look at the delta between what was previously approved and the negative declaration issued, and what the application is before the board now. SEQRA, Part 2: 1. Material conflict with adopted land use plan…- No, or small impact. 2. Change of use or intensity of use of land… - No, or small impact. 3. Impair character or quality…. – No, or small impact. 4. Impact on environmental qualities…. – No, or small impact. 5. Adverse change in existing level of traffic… - No, or small impact. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 18, 2024 - Page 3 of 10  6. Cause increase in use of energy… – No, or small impact. 7. Public/private water supplies… - No, or small impact. 8. Impair Character or quality of historic… - No, or small impact. 9. Adverse change to natural resources… - No, or small impact. 10. Increase in potential for erosion, flooding… - No, or small impact. 11. Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. Chuck Marshall made a motion to approve a Negative SEQRA Declaration for 1 Driscoll Road, Saratoga Springs. The motion was seconded by Tony Stellato. Vote: C. Marshall-Y, T. Stellato-Y, B. McTygue-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, P. Morrison-Y., M. Pingel-Y. 6-0 motion carried. Chuck Marshall, Chair listed the Special Use Approval Standards: 1. The special use proposed in this location is consistent with the comprehensive plan and associated land use policies and the purpose and intent of this ordinance. Yes, uses are allowed and consistent with adopted policies. 2. Will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare. Applicant received a previous negative declaration for a site plan where there was more intensity regarding traffic. The septic system does increase wastewater flows, it will be accommodated within the existing footprint. 3. The density, intensity and compatibility of the use in the neighborhood and the community character. Allowed 11 residential units and that’s what is being proposed and the minimum parking requirement has been achieved. There is the ability to have additional banked parking spaces if needed. 4. Safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian access circulation and parking. Accessing off one road that is tied into Route 9 and there’s a two-way turn lane, which is consistent with the standard. 5. Existing and future demand for infrastructure on public facilities and services. The water is public water regulated through the city, and DPW determines eligibility for a water extension. 6. The environmental and natural resources of the site neighboring public lands including any potential erosion, flooding or excessive white noise, vibration and the like. The original site plan and SUP permit standards are similar, and they are achieving the necessary standard. Chuck Marshall made a motion to issue a special use permit for 1 Driscoll Road commonly known as Just Cats with the condition that a revised site plan be submitted for administrative review indicating 46 parking spaces. The motion was seconded by Tony Stellato. Vote: C. Marshall-Y, T. Stellato-Y, B. McTygue-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, P. Morrison-Y., M. Pingel-Y. 6-0 motion carried. 5. 20240382 225 Clinton St. Subdivision. Consideration of coordinated SEQRA review and advisory opinion to the ZBA for an area variance for a two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential -1 (UR-1) District. John Cannie, Attorney represented the applicants, Karen and John Harvey. The property is in the Woodlawn Oval created in 1924. It was split into smaller lots 53-60, unimproved and vacant. In 1954 lots 53-57 were purchased by the Carroll’s and a home was constructed and is the current home on the property. In 1960 the Carroll’s purchased lots 58-60. In 1979 the property was conveyed to Mary Jane Ellis via a single deed with two separate descriptions. The applicants purchased the property in 2023 from the Ellis estate. John said they are City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 18, 2024 - Page 4 of 10 seeking two area variances to create a new lot. One lot is completely conforming. The second lot requires two variances. Lot 1, 9,780 sq. ft. and conforming will contain the house as currently placed, and is in the approximate area of lots 53-57 Woodlawn Oval; Lot 2, lot width required 100 ft., applicant is requesting a variance for 75 ft. It will be in the area of lots 58-59 Woodlawn Oval and is currently vacant with the exception of a gazebo and plantings. John said there’s a history of this being two separate parcels. John showed site photos of the proposed new lot at the corner of Embury St., a private street owned by Wesley. Chuck asked if Wesley had easement rights for the placement of the sign. John said not to his knowledge, but they are in discussion with Wesley about the sign and potential for an access driveway off Embury. Lot 2 will front Clinton St. because Embury is a private street. John listed the criteria for an area variance. Can it be achieved by any other means? Lot size, no. There’s nothing for sale and they can’t buy Embury St. John said the same thing goes for the lot width. They have 190 ft. and need 200 ft. Splitting it down the middle would require additional variances for what is Lot 1. Detriment to character or nearby properties? No, not encroaching on anyone, no non-conforming lot next to another house except one owned by the applicant. John said it is in conformance with the neighborhood. They sampled 16 lots and 6 of the 16 are nonconforming lot sizes, 5 of 16 have nonconforming lot width. In the same UR-1 zone 7 are nonconforming on Granite St. John showed a neighborhood map of the non-conforming properties. Will the proposed variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental condition on the neighborhood district? John said the variance requested will not produce permeable space below UDO requirements. There are no significant environmental resources present on the property or in the surrounding area. Wetlands noted on the EAF mapper are on the Wesley property, far enough that 225 Clinton is not subject to runoff. There will be no impact on archaeological or historical resources and a letter has been submitted to that effect. Bill M. said he grew up a few doors away from this property and knew that one day it would be developed. Driveway access off Embury drive makes sense and he hopes Wesley can work out an arrangement with the applicant to make that happen. Bill said he’s fine with supporting a recommendation to the ZBA. Patty confirmed that they will be building a single- family home. She said it seems to be consistent with the neighborhood. It would be ideal if they could have the driveway on Embury. Mark P. said the comprehensive plan says that infill is desired for the community, and this seems to be a good example of that. It’s a good thing for the city. Chuck agreed with Mark and said it also matches the density identified in the plan. Tony S. said there are conforming lots in the neighborhood, and he can see those people saying they don’t think this is in harmony with the character of the neighborhood. He said it also sets a precedence for the neighbors to say that they can take their conforming lot and make it a non-conforming lot. Tony asked Leah how it became one lot from two lots. Leah said she had no information about that. Tony said he feels that there’s potential that there was an error made by the County Clerk’s office. It could be that the lots were unintentionally consolidated. He said based on that, he can go along with the project. Joe F. asked what the original division of the lots was. John said the lots were divided so that you would buy several lots to construct a single-family home. He said the vision was that 58-60 was one lot and 57-53 was another lot. There’s a slight adjustment from the historic lot line. Chuck said the precedent is when the ZBA contemplates the balancing test and if it adheres to the rhythm of the street. Chuck Marshall, Chair said the board will contemplate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 2 having identified this as an unlisted action: City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 18, 2024 - Page 5 of 10 SEQRA, Part 2: 1. Material conflict with adopted land use plan…- No, or small impact. 2. Change of use or intensity of use of land… - No, or small impact. 3. Impair character or quality…. – No, or small impact. 4. Impact on environmental qualities…. – No, or small impact. 5. Adverse change in existing level of traffic… - No, or small impact. 6. 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. The applicants provided a letter from the State Historic Preservation Office. 9. Adverse change to natural resources… - No, or small impact. The applicants provided excerpts from the EAF mapper. 10. Increase in potential for erosion, flooding… - No, or small impact. 11. Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. Chuck Marshall made a motion to approve a Negative Declaration under SEQRA for 225 Clinton St., Saratoga Springs. The motion was seconded by Mark Pingel. Vote: C. Marshall- Y, M. Pingel-Y, T. Stellato-Y, B. McTygue-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, P. Morrison-Y. 6-0 motion carried. Chuck Marshall made a motion that a positive recommendation be sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the subdivision and necessary variances associated therewith for 225 Clinton St., Saratoga Springs. The motion was seconded by Mark Pingel. Vote: C. Marshall-Y, M. Pingel-Y, T. Stellato-Y, B. McTygue-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, P. Morrison-Y. 6-0 motion carried. 6. 20220202 31-33 Marion Area Variance. Consideration of coordinated SEQRA review and advisory opinion for demolition of existing Mobile station and car wash and construction of a new convenience store, gas canopy, and commercial tenant space in the Tourist Related Business (TRB) District. Chuck Marshall recused himself from this project. Mark Pingel, Vice Chair said the Zoning Board has asked for a recommendation from the Planning Board. Mark said because of the proximity to Loughberry Lake and the number of variances that are being requested they should do the long form SEQRA. Ryan Robideau represented Stewart’s as the designer and project coordinator. Ryan said in 2021 Stewart’s went before the City Council for a PUD and displayed the plan for the planning board. Ryan said the PUD was given a negative declaration by the City Council but the vote failed for the PUD. Ryan showed their newest proposal and said he’s met with neighbors on Maple Dell who stated that the car wash was the “greater of all evils” on this project. Ryan said they’ve talked to their tenant and are trying to work out a new location for the car wash. The car wash has been removed from the site plan. Ryan said they are now looking at a 4,500 sq. ft. store (standard size) and a 3,000 sq. ft. rental space. He said the fuel canopy has not changed from the PUD; it will have less dispensers than there are today. Ryan said they went through with the 100 ft. offset because Stewart’s owns parcels on both sides. He said now they own the whole parcel, so they combined all of them and are able to use the 100 ft. offset from the TRB into the residential area. Ryan pointed out a section of property owned by National Grid and said that Stewart’s has a license agreement that allows hard surfaces (parking, truck turnaround), but no structures. He also pointed out a section of City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 18, 2024 - Page 6 of 10 land owned by the city. Ryan said the plan now does not use any of the property to the north. It is slated to remain forever wild because that’s what was preferred by people in the residential district. Joe F. said the easement and forever wild were brought up last week so he’s glad that’s been answered. Joe asked if this 4,500 sq. ft. building was like the Stewart’s at Exit 13. Ryan said that that building is 3,975 sq. ft. He said in the last year they’ve been trying to get more of their external mechanicals inside a mechanical room. To do that they’ve added 7 ft. to the back side of the building. Joe said he was trying to picture a Stewart’s that’s as big as what is being proposed. Ryan said there is one in Indian Lake and Port Henry. They started building them that size and calling them grocery stores because there were no local grocery stores. They carry produce, frozen foods, etc. Ryan said this will be the first Stewart’s of its size in the area. The goal is to keep the mechanicals inside the building. Bill M. asked if U-Haul would remain. Ryan said no, that’s going away. Patty asked how many votes the PUD failed by with the city council in 2021. Ryan didn’t know what the vote was, but it wasn’t unanimous. Patty asked what the dimensions were for the forever wild area and how it’s defined as an area that can never be built in. Susan said the project will come back for site plan review and they can talk about that at that time. The forever wild area is roughly 280 ft. Mark asked what the purpose of the rental building was. Ryan said they have a rental (liquor store) over by their existing shop and they are looking to expand. Ryan said the other Stewart’s building on Maple Dell will be sold to a physical therapist who is currently on the corner. They are proposing to subdivide the lot and sell the building, rental and parcel to the physical therapist. The physical therapist wants to move his practice closer to the residential area. Ryan said that will improve the traffic situation. There was a discussion about the setback being close to the street (zoning & UDO conflict for the Gateway) and the neighbor’s comments against it. Ryan said as a compromise they separated the buildings to take away some of the roof mass at the street. Mark said he still has a problem with the setback. He would like to see a setback there like the UDO suggests. That would allow for a nice-looking streetscape. Mark asked if the parking could be pushed into the easement with National Grid. Ryan said they could slightly but then they have a rear setback to deal with. Ryan said he could potentially shorten up the porch and keep a row of plantings and buffer in front of the building. Mark said he’d much prefer to see a variance in the rear of the building. Joe asked if it was necessary to have a porch and if so, could it be in the back. Ryan said it’s necessary for refuge for the customers. Mark said he thinks the solution is to take a small amount of the forever wild space and get a variance for the back. Ryan said he can’t go into the forever wild space because it’s the offset for the TRB and it would push the commercial activity into the area. Mark suggested they could get a use variance. Ryan said he isn’t sure that would be okay with the neighbors. Tony noted that there will be architectural review by the DRB. He clarified that the forever wild would be deed restricted. Tony said the connection to the bank kiosk will be cut off, so he’s concerned with the ability for cars to be able to turn around in the parking lot with all the parking spaces that are there. Ryan said it won’t be any different than it is right now. Tony asked James S. if there is anything in the stormwater regulations that talks about what to do with the Loughberry Lake CEA. James said there’s certain footage away from a lake that you cannot build anything, and he believes that’s 50 ft. Ryan said they have not done a stormwater report for this project yet, but when they do it will be in accordance with the 2015 DEC Stormwater Design Manual, which is very stringent. Both Susan and Leah agreed that there were no specifics regarding the critical environmental area. It’s about the identification of where the critical area is and why. Leah said the fact that a critical environmental area is in the vicinity should be taken into consideration during SEQRA review to determine if there are any impacts on that water body. Tony asked if there was a spill plan for tanker trucks loading City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 18, 2024 - Page 7 of 10 and unloading. Ryan said there’s mitigation in line to prevent spills. Tony asked about stormwater. Ryan said all the stormwater collection would be on their property. They can’t put any structures in the easement or license agreement area, so it will have to be graded in such a way that water would come back and be collected on their property. Tony asked what measures they have in place if a tanker truck has an incident and there’s a spill. Ryan said they have measures in place according to the DEC stormwater design manual. He said this is a hot spot where there’s the potential for getting hydrocarbons in the stormwater. Ryan said they use hydrodynamic units, oil separators, etc. He said for a large incident that might occur they make a knife valve/shut off valve that would stop all flow of stormwater. It requires someone to do it manually. Tony said he would like to see a contingency plan should something happen while a tanker truck is unloading its contents at that location. The concern is that it’s close to a drinking water source (Loughberry Lake). Ryan said he can get a firm answer on that. Mark said the board is being asked to give an opinion on a variance to the ZBA and that depends on where the buildings are located which could entail some site plan questions. The PB also needs enough information for SEQRA review, and a lot of that information comes from the materials that are prepared for site plan. Joe said he thinks it’s going to be a fantastic improvement to the neighborhood if they can get it sorted out. He asked about the sidewalk to nowhere that shows on the plan and asked if it was necessary. Ryan said it came from the PUD as a public benefit. He said the sidewalk went much further into the parcel. Joe said they’re looking to create a green barrier and asked what would keep from flipping the building’s patio to the back side like Mark mentioned. Susan said there’s a residential neighborhood across the street as well as to the north on the other side, so this is a destination that people walk to. Patty added that it will be larger with more items being sold. The goal is to connect, not disconnect. Mark Pingel, Co-chair said the board needs to focus on what they need to be able to do the SEQRA review. After that they will put together their opinion for the ZBA. Tony asked what action they were doing SEQRA for. He said the opinion to the ZBA doesn’t need a SEQRA determination. Leah said the action will encompass the need for variances and site plan review but is basically what are the impacts to the environment if the proposed plan is constructed. Leah said the ZBA and DRB asked to have the PB serve as lead agency in a coordinated review of SEQRA. The ZBA can’t move forward until a SEQRA determination is made. She said assuming it’s a negative declaration, the applicant can return to the ZBA for a variance and eventually back to the planning board for site plan. Leah said just because they approve a negative declaration it doesn’t mean they approve the site plan. Mark said there were a lot of things the board can’t do once they issue a negative declaration. Leah said they can’t mitigate environmental impacts if you don’t find any impacts there to mitigate. Mark argued that if they issue a neg dec they’re basically saying there are no traffic impacts, pollution impacts for Loughberry Lake, etc. He said if additional information comes later on, they can’t revisit those impacts. Leah said the approach would be to review part 1 of the EAF that the applicant has provided and understand all the answers that are there. If the board has any questions, you can ask the applicant to clarify and then move through part 2. She said the goal is to determine if there are any moderate to large impacts. If there are, then you go on to part 3 and evaluate them further. She said if at the end of the review process tonight the board determines there are likely to be moderate to large impacts, then Leah will recommend that you not go any further with SEQRA and allow counsel and staff to work with the board to draft a part 3 to be considered in two weeks. She said the goal is not to find impacts and mitigate them, it’s to determine if there are any impacts. Leah said there could be issues that come up during site plan that can still be addressed at that time. Mark City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 18, 2024 - Page 8 of 10 said he does not believe the board has enough information to go through the SEQRA process tonight based on four things. 1. Some of the questions Tony had about impacts to Loughberry Lake were not answered. 2. The traffic study was done in February of 2021 at the start of COVID and is obsolete. 3. The issue about the setback and community character and neighbor’s comments is not resolved yet. 4. The chairs and vice chairs get together between DRB, ZBA & PB regularly to discuss things which will give the PB insight into building orientation, etc. Mark said everything needs to be on the table before they can go through part 2 of SEQRA. Mark went on the record to thank the applicant and added that there’s still a lot of homework to do. Tony asked if it would be appropriate to go through part 2 and pare it down, stopping short of part 3. Leah said yes, because the board can identify what impacts they’re concerned about and it would help in their discussion with the applicant to help clarify. Leah explained that the difference between a full environmental assessment form part 2 and a short EAF part 2 is that you’re asked an initial threshold question and if you answer no, you skip the rest of the sub questions. It’s only if you answer yes that you go down and consider further yes or no, or moderate to large. SEQRA, Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 2: 1. The proposed action may involve construction on or physical alteration of the land surface of the proposed site. Yes. 1a. no, 1b. no, 1c. no, 1d. no, 1e. no, 1f. no, 1g. no. 1h. other – no comments. 2. Impact on geological features. No, or small impact. 3. Impacts on surface water. Yes. 3a. no, 3b. no, 3c. no, 3d. no, 3e. no, 3f. no, 3g. no, 3h. no, 3i. no, 3j. no, 3k. no, 3l. Other impacts – potential petroleum spill from off- loading a tanker truck. Leah said the board might want more information from the applicant about any fail safes the tanker truck has when fueling in addition to whatever plans Stewart’s might have in place. 4. Impact on groundwater – No, or small impact. 5. Impact on flooding - No, or small impact. 6. Impacts on air – No, or small impact. 7. Impact on plants and animals - No, or small impact. 8. Impact on agricultural resources - No, or small impact. 9. Impact on aesthetic resources - No, or small impact. 10. Impact on historic and archeological resources - No, or small impact. 11. Impact on open space and recreation - No, or small impact. 12. Impact on critical environmental areas – Yes. 12a. no, 12b. not resolved, 12c. Other impacts – Tony said there just needs to be a plan in place and followed in operations. Bill said the applicant addressed some of the operational protocols in November of 2021 in a document provided to the City Council. Ryan said he read through it, and it doesn’t address tanker spills. 13. Impact on transportation – Yes. 13a., 13b. no, 13c. no, 13d. no, 13e. , 13f. other – unknown until updated traffic study. Leah said her understanding for a further traffic analysis was because the original study was done during Covid. Mark said they would like the trip generation study updated with current numbers. There was a discussion about Maple Dell and the car wash not being included in the trip generation and that that may reduce the number of trips. Another thought is that trips will increase with the new Stewart’s because it will have more to offer its customers. Stewart’s cannot be expected to do a trip analysis that includes Maple Dell because it is an unknown and they won’t own the property. 14. Impact on energy – No, or small impact. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 18, 2024 - Page 9 of 10  15. Impact on noise, odor and light – No, or small impact. 16. Impact on human health – No, or small impact. 17. Consistency with community plans – No. 18. Impact on Community Character – Yes. 18a. no, 18b. no, 18c. no, 18d. no, 18e. yes (public comment, streetscape & setback. Ryan said in his discussion with the neighbor it was about mass and scale and the roofline of the structure. They have now separated the buildings. Mark suggested a joint meeting with the DRB to discuss further.),18f. no,18g. other. Mark Pingel, Co-chair summarized the outstanding items – 3l and 12b are about spill mitigation, 13 update trip assessment for better data, 18e – streetscape. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Mark Pingel adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 18, 2024 - Page 10 of 10