Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FINAL THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 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, Mike King, Patty Morrison & Kerry Mayo. ABSENT: STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, Leah Everhart, City Counsel, James Sallaway, City Engineer A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: 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. #20240585 86 Ludlow Final Subdivision. Final plat review of a two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. 2. #20240551 453-457 Broadway Site Plan. Site plan review of an addition to existing mixed-use buildings to include 15 new residential units in the Urban Core (T-6) District. 3. #20240250 274 Kaydeross East. Preliminary plat review of a three-lot conservation subdivision in the Rural Residential (RR) District. 4. #20240535 59 Myrtle Saratoga Hospital Zoning Amendment. Consideration of advisory opinion to the City Council for a zoning text amendment to transfer a portion of the remaining development area in Zone A to Zone B to provide for a new 60,000 sq. ft. medical office building in the Saratoga Hospital PUD. __________________________________________________________________________ 1. #20240585 86 Ludlow Final Subdivision. Final plat review of a two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Chuck Marshall, Chair said this application received its SEQRA Negative Declaration and a positive referral from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals in January of 2024 and is seeking final subdivision approval. Cara Tedford, LA Group represented the application. Also present is the owner, Dave Norton. Cara said several variances were granted by the zoning board in March of 2024 to make 86 Ludlow a legal subdivision. She said the intent of the subdivision is for estate organization; 1 parcel will be left to his daughter and the other parcel will be sold. Cara showed the existing conditions on site. The applicant lives in the house on the right which is slightly set back. There’s a garage at the rear of the parcel where the owner pulls through and parks. The house closer to Ludlow St. is rented out and the occupants park on a section of pavement just south of that. The utilities are currently shared between the two parcels. There’s one water and one sanitary lateral. Both branch off to the residence on the north side of the parcel and continue to the owner’s residence. Cara said they are proposing some minor improvements such as pavement work and splitting the utilities so each residence has its own laterals. In describing the boundary for lot 1, there will be a minor shift in the driveway location to meet code for driveway length along the frontage. For that reason and the utility split, they are proposing a cross-lot easement for access/utilities. Lot 1 is .074 and Lot 2 is .176 acres. Lot 2 will continue with 2 single-family dwellings. Any demolition of sidewalk or pavement will be restored once the laterals are installed. Bill M. said it appears the applicant has met the criteria set forth in the staff comments. Mark P. said the project description in the engineering report says that once lot 1 is subdivided the intent is to have a 6-bedroom residence, and lot 2 will have a 1-bedroom residence. He asked if lot 2 was going to be rebuilt. Cara said no, that’s the current configuration. Tony S. asked if the brick sidewalk would be affected by the driveway being widened to the south. Cara said the widening of the driveway is meant to maintain the 18’ width of the driveway and there will be no impacts to the sidewalk in that area. Chuck asked James if the laterals achieve separation, and they do as they are proposed. Chuck said an accessory dwelling structure is 65% of the overall square footage of the primary dwelling, or 22 ft. (section 9.5) and asked if the applicant would be willing to put a note on the plans that indicates that any rebuilt structures will adhere to a similar height. Chuck said he’s concerned about a house being built in the back that dwarfs the house in the front. Dave Norton said the house now is a 2- story house with a peaked roof and he would imagine it would stay the same. After discussion, it was decided that it will be noted on the final subdivision plan that any new structure built on Lot 2 will not exceed two stories plus an attic. Chuck Marshall, Chair opened a Public Hearing at 6:17 p.m. Hearing no comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 6:17 p.m. Mike King made a motion to approve a two-lot subdivision at 86 Ludlow St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following condition: a note will be added to the final subdivision plan indicating that Lot 2 shall not be constructed larger than two stories and an attic. The motion was seconded by Tony Stellato. Vote: M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, C. Marshall-Y, M. Pingel-Y, K. Mayo-Y, P. Morrison-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 7-0, motion carried. 2. #20240551 453-457 Broadway Site Plan. Site plan review of an addition to existing mixed-use buildings to include 15 new residential units in the Urban Core (T-6) District. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 12, 2024 - Page 2 of 10 Chuck Marshall, Chair said the applicant has received DRB approval for the project and asked if the DRB materials could be incorporated into the record for this application, since they were approached prior to the PB’s site plan review. Chuck said the planning board hasn’t really seen the project and it appears some of the plans and labeling will need to be amended before final approval can be considered. He said there are elements of the application that already exceed the Urban Core building code requirements such as parking and building boundaries/setbacks, etc. Chuck said 453 Broadway is commonly known as “The Cooperstown” and 457 is Compton’s and asked the applicant to walk the board through the sequencing for the additions of apartments. It’s his understanding that Compton’s will remain a three-story structure with apartments being backfilled to the west, and three stories are being added to The Cooperstown. Rudy Zona, Engineering represented the applicant. Rudy said Bob, the applicant’s contractor, could discuss the apartments further. He can discuss utilities and site plan. There is parking underneath (8 spaces) and some behind the building. He said he needs an answer from the city on how they’re going to service water and sewer and have been trying to get their water test results. James Sallaway said he can help with a hydrant flow test. Bill McTygue said there’s more than one service line going on at that location and engineering is going to have to sort out what can continue to be used and what needs to be abandoned. Patty Morrison asked if civic space was required and what they would be doing. Mark Pingel said the project on Church St. moved the money for civic space to help create a better civic space at another location. Rudy said the owner is willing to contribute financially to a civic space somewhere else. Susan clarified that it would not be contributing financially, it would be a plan that could be implemented like Franklin Square. Susan said they’ve asked DPW if they had any ideas because the civic space needs to be within that block. She said they will get back to the board and applicant on that. Patty clarified that the parking under the building will be at grade level. Kerry Mayo said there’s not much to look at right now, so it's a good idea to merge those files from the DRB meeting. Chuck asked if there were any utilities in Long Alley. Rudy said there’s storm sewer, electric and gas but no water or sewer. Chuck said the Urban Core allows building line to building line construction so from a site plan perspective there’s not a lot of moving pieces. Mark P. asked about trash collection (should be hidden), curb cuts, pedestrians. Chuck said C2 shows the dumpsters in the northwest corner. Rudy said there will be one curb cut to get into the garage and parking. The parking lot is open air on the grade level and above it is the building. Chuck said they need a trash enclosure detail. Tony S. said the board needs to know that there’s no grease traps where they intend to build. Someone’s inaudible from the audience. Not speaking at the mic. That person’s input is not included in these minutes. Tony said trash bin accessibility for the residents and restaurant use needs to be thought through. Susan speaking – inaudible, not speaking into the mic. Tony said he’s okay with parking being less for the 15 tenants, but he would be curious to know where people will park. Person from the audience said they will be all electric. The transformer will go in the parking garage. Tony said the applicant should have a conversation with National Grid on the transformer location, typically they like them exposed to the sky. He asked if there were any changes to the Broadway streetscape. Rudy said mostly for restoration after accessing utilities. Mike said the UDO would like to see zero parking so anything that leans toward that would be helpful. He said bicycle parking should be conveniently located. Patty asked if the back portion was higher than the lower building and if you could see it from the street. Mike said yes, and you can see it. Bill M. complimented the applicant on the major contribution this City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 12, 2024 - Page 3 of 10 project will add to the visual on Broadway and Long Alley. Bill asked if Compton’s would be renovated. Person from the audience (I’m assuming the aforementioned “Bob”) is not always audible. DRB wants the building to remain historical. The interior will be upgraded to a residential standard that’s up to code. Chuck said when the applicant has their remaining water tests, etc. in place they can return before the board. Susan gave a recap of what the board needs from the applicant when they return:  Plan for public civic space.  Trash enclosure detail. How trash will be managed (trash generation calculation) and deliveries.  Transformer location.  Narrative for parking for residents.  Show location of bike parking.  Pedestrian safety issues on Long Alley. Any delineation of the driveways.  Show existing condition plan for trees, benches, etc. 3. #20240250 274 Kaydeross East. Preliminary plat review of a three-lot conservation subdivision in the Rural Residential (RR) District. Chuck Marshall, Chair said they can’t take final action on this project because the County Planning Board has not reviewed it. The board will go through SEQRA and make any recommendations and await county approval before acting on the project approval. Katie Loffman, Studio A Landscape Architecture & Engineering. Also present, Kirsten Cattalier, Principal for Studio A, and the applicant, Frank? Katie said the site is currently developed with a single-family residence, and driveway access is off Kaydeross Ave. To the north side of the property are steep slopes that exceed 25% and there is a US Army Corps jurisdictional wetland. To the south of the property is an agricultural field. They are proposing to subdivide the lot into three lots. Two of the lots will be less than an acre and are proposed to be developed with single-family residences and pools. The third lot will contain the existing development, driveway, driveway extension and four conservation easement areas. For site access, the existing driveway will be extended to connect into the individual driveways proposed for the new lots. They will extend the driveway easement to the adjacent development so there is an opportunity for a connection in the future. The new lots will be serviced by a municipal water connection to an existing water main along Crescent Ave. This has been coordinated with DPW. There will be an easement cutting through the conservation areas to accommodate those pipes. There will be onsite absorption trenches for wastewater for the sites and the existing residence will continue with what it’s currently using. Three of the four conservation areas will continue to be forested and wooded. The 4th area will remain agricultural so it can be farmed in the future. Katie said they received engineering signoff from the city today with the following comments from the city staff:  They will update the plan to show slopes greater than 15%.  Clarify conservation area restrictions.  Land management plan.  Clarify on the cover sheet the site statistics for the newly proposed lots. Bill M. said this is a real contribution to the area. It’s in keeping with what was previously discussed a few years ago when the PB did a site visit. He said it’s in conformance with what City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 12, 2024 - Page 4 of 10 was initially explained, and he likes it. Patty M. said it’s a great project. She asked if the driveway would connect to the neighborhood. Cara said not necessarily, they’re proposing it in case there’s the opportunity or the owner wants to connect in the future. Once the subdivision is built, the driveway will be connected. It will be a private driveway. Kerry M. asked why they’re putting the pools and patios right on the property lines. Cara said the wastewater fields took up a good portion of the space on the property. She said the soil isn’t great, so the fields ended up becoming large. Kerry said from a SEQRA perspective it doesn’t have adverse impacts. Mark P. said the plan makes a lot of sense and he likes it that they’ll continue to farm the property. Chuck Marshall, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:07 p.m. Chuck Marshall, Chair said he would read through Part 2 of the SEQRA analysis but won’t take action on the final. They will craft a recommendation for a consent agenda item upon the County Planning Board review. 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. 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 that a Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA be issued for 274 Kaydeross East, Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Mark Pingel. Vote: C. Marshall-Y, M. Pingel-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, K. Mayo-Y, P. Morrison-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 7-0, motion carried. Chuck Marshall said they will put preliminary plat on the next agenda as a consent item after the County Planning Board. Hearing no public comments, Chuck Marshall, Chair closed the Public Hearing at 7:10 p.m. Chuck Marshall made a motion to readopt the SEQRA findings contingent on the closing of the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Patty Morrison. Vote: C. Marshall-Y, M. Pingel-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, K. Mayo-Y, P. Morrison-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 7-0, motion carried. 4. #20240535 59 Myrtle Saratoga Hospital Zoning Amendment. Consideration of advisory opinion to the City Council for a zoning text amendment to transfer a portion of the remaining development area in Zone A to Zone B to provide for a new 60,000 sq. ft. medical office building in the Saratoga Hospital PUD. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 12, 2024 - Page 5 of 10 Chuck Marshall, Chair said there are three main objectives for tonight for this project:  Lead Agency status – the City Council has declared Lead Agency status. Chuck Marshall made a motion to defer Lead Agency status to the City Council after having received their declaration. The motion was seconded by Tony Stellato. Vote: C. Marshall-Y, M. Pingel-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, K. Mayo-Y, P. Morrison-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 7-0, motion carried.  Recommendation to City Council.  As an involved agency – SEQRA component the City should take into account as they review SEQRA & the recommendation. Present to represent the application: Matthew Jones, Attorney, Hospital staff – Jill VanKuren, President & CEO, Frank Marshall & Jeffrey Casale. Matt said one item for discussion is threshold. When they met with the PB on August 8th they hadn’t yet received the resolution from the City Counsel and didn’t act on the referral. Matt asked that the entire dialog and meeting from August 8, 2024, be incorporated into any resolution adopted at tonight’s meeting to ensure that if the matter is reviewed later on, they will know that what was considered tonight considered what was considered on August 8th even though the PB had not received the referral. Jill VanKuren said she was unable to make the last meeting and would like the board to hear her vision for the project and ask questions. She said The Center for Successful Aging is what they are asking to have endorsed. There’s a long history of the hospital asking for support for an additional building on the campus, and they were not successful. They studied the history and the reasons they didn’t succeed and decided they didn’t do a great job at listening to the concerns of the community. One concern was why the hospital had not used up the space within the PUD. It was questioned why the hospital would buy more land and not use what they already had. Jill said in order for the hospital to build a building they desperately need to meet the needs of the community; the proposed structure is what will be required. It’s a smaller building on the hospital’s existing land that uses existing parking. Jill agreed that there are concerns about running out of parking in the future, which is why they are asking for the potential to build a parking garage if they need it without having to return for a PUD amendment. They are also asking to use one of their existing buildings for daycare. Jill said it’s a constraint for staff and the community and if they’re able to provide that resource to staff it will satisfy their needs, it’s a great recruiting tool and meets the need locally. They would like the use to be in the PUD so they can add it in the future. Jill said The Center for Successful Aging is not just a medical office building, it’s a more integrated, flexible way of providing care to the community. This will be a more universal practice similar to the Provision of Cancer Care. They will be able to consolidate appointments, less come and go, more time in the building, and bring families together to provide resources, especially for people who need more collaborative care. Jill said Saratoga is an aging community and many people who come here are retiring. She said when associates join the Hospital staff and are asked what brought them to Saratoga, the number one answer is to take care of their parents. Matt Jones talked about the other provisions:  Site Plan review by the Planning Board required for the CSA building and parking structures. This is the preliminary step. If the City Council adopts the PUD amendment, then the PB would have the opportunity for site plan review and architectural review by the DRB. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 12, 2024 - Page 6 of 10  Child daycare permitted as an accessory use.  Expiration of zoning approval for all uncompleted projects expires on January 1, 2039. Matt said there’s no plausible legal argument that the PUD has expired. Susan said on page 8 under projects IX, PUD Site Plan Applications, refers to any project that had site plan approval would expire if they had not been constructed by 2024. Susan said that’s with regard to individual site plans and not the PUD itself. Matt said the site plan expired but not the PUD. There was discussion about whether the provision should be eliminated altogether and just use the UDO, which has its own provision for adoption and extensions. Matt said they put the date January 1, 2039, so they don’t have to come back again for an extension until then. Patty said that expiration date seems excessive since they are planning to do the work now. Chuck said Patty’s concern can be added to the list that the planning board will give to the city council advising what they should take into consideration. Chuck said if you look at the PUD in context to the UDO, the UDO doesn’t have an expiration date. After discussion, the board made the following motions: Mike King made a motion that the Planning Board recommend to the City Council that the expiration date and all of the associated language related to it be deleted. The motion was seconded by Chuck Marshall. Vote: C. Marshall-Y, M. Pingel-N, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-N, K. Mayo-Y, P. Morrison-N, B. McTygue-N. 4-3, motion denied. Patty Morrison made a motion to recommend to the City Council that they accept the applicant’s expiration date of January 1, 2039. The motion was seconded by Bill McTygue. Vote: C. Marshall-N, M. Pingel-Y, M. King-N, T. Stellato-Y, K. Mayo-N, P. Morrison-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 4-3, motion carried. Chuck Marshall, Chair suggested that the board discuss the substantive elements of the PUD before getting into SEQRA review. Child daycare as a permitted use. It’s Chuck’s opinion that daycare as a permitted use should be included in the language. Jill said they will not be a separate building for daycare, it would be within the current hospital structure. It would be first and foremost for staff and they expect they would be able to fill it. Chuck said there needs to be a way to provide an analysis for the number of cars that will service the daycare. It needs to be limited to a square footage or a population. Susan said there’s a definition for daycare that is accessory use and support service limited to use by employees of the Saratoga Hospital only. Matt said he provided that language a few weeks ago, and it doesn’t address the idea that the daycare will be run by an outside source, and they may not be able to fill all the available spots with hospital employees’ children. Mark P. said that if the daycare is open to the public, there will need to be an EIS on traffic. Tony S. asked if daycare could be permitted as a special use instead of an accessory use, which would require the applicant to come before the planning board with the specific application. Leah said when the City Council considers whether a daycare should be allowed, they will have to consider the environmental impacts and if it falls within previous SEQRA review. Chuck said all of the PB members agree with there being a daycare on the campus. He suggested the recommendation to the City Council be that they contemplate whether daycare use is to be open to the public, and whether the SEQRA analysis allows that to be the case. Leah asked if the goal was to say the PB recommends favorably the use but that if there’s any subsequent change to the proposed footnote that’s currently part of the text amendment being proposed, then the City Council should consider if the environmental impacts fall within the current SEQRA analysis in the PUD. Bill M. said he fully supports the project and feels that trip generation and parking are the two main issues that need to be addressed for a successful project within the community. Kerry suggested if they do go the public route with the daycare that preference should be given to the people in City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 12, 2024 - Page 7 of 10 the neighborhood. It would be a benefit to the neighborhood, and perhaps some people could walk to the daycare. Chuck said there’s a staff recommendation that daycare be defined the same as it is in 8.4x of the UDO. Chuck read the standards. Chuck said the recommendation to the City Council is that daycare be added as an accessory use, with the understanding that any footnote (#1 on page 2) change would trigger subsequent analysis by the City Council, and that the definition of daycare will match 8.4x of the UDO. Parking Structure Discussion: Matt said there are thresholds, and they’ve identified areas in “E” where parking structures could be located. They won’t have a plan until the City Council adopts the amendments and they go to site plan and architectural review. Matt said in his opinion, parking structures are likely to occur as the hospital continues its growth. Chuck recommended the following item for discussion by the board: Zones E-1, 2, 3, 5, & 6 would allow parking structures. E-4 is excluded for a helipad. The total square footage of all parking structures within Zone E shall not exceed 150,000 sq. ft. exclusive of parking at grade within a structure. No structure shall exceed more than 3 decks (levels) above grade. Mark P. disagreed with limiting the square footage for the parking structures because they aren’t sure what will be needed in the future. Chuck said the board acknowledges the need for parking structures and agrees with the location of the structures. The Planning Board recommends the following to the City Council: The PB will recommend removing the square footage and height requirements and allowing parking structures in E1, E2, E3, E5, & E6. The parking structures will be subject to subsequent review by the PB and the DRB. Reallocation of square footage from Zone A to Zone B for the Center for Successful Aging Discussion: Chuck said his position is that if you take the overall existing PUD, the analysis that was previously conducted allows for a certain amount of square footage. The reallocation of 30,000 sq. ft. from Zone A to Zone B is effectively net zero to the overall PUD. Patty asked if the idea of the hospital having a master plan was going to be discussed. Chuck noted Tony’s earlier comment that the master plan was really the language in the PUD. The hospital would have to come back to the City Council and PB for any changes to the PUD. Tony said a more comprehensive project list would be needed. Chuck said the recommendation would be that the board agrees with the reallocation of square footage. The board suggested that a synopsis of the Hospital’s anticipated growth for the next 15 years would be helpful for the various land use boards in making recommendations (not to be included in the PUD language). Bill M. noted that he was on the planning board in 2000 when the hospital was building their emergency wing. The board advised at that time and Bill is suggesting now that the hospital layout an idea for the highest and best use of the current footprint of the property owned by the hospital, especially the areas along Church St. and on the east side where the driveway and Radiation Center are located. It would be a work in progress and would change with the needs of the hospital. Jill outlined the vision for the hospital:  Why give up 30,000 sq. ft. & move it across the street? The additional floors were originally planned for in-patient beds but the trend is for outpatient services. The additional square footage within the hospital is above the ICU and not appropriate for outpatient services. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 12, 2024 - Page 8 of 10  Load balance – their affiliation with Albany Med has required load balancing volume and sharing resources between all of the hospitals – Saratoga, Albany, Glens Falls & Columbia.  Need for outpatient services close to the hospital.  Responsibility is to the entire county and beyond. Tony asked Jill if the vacant privately owned medical offices near the hospital were within their plan for something in the future. Jill said they are but are not for sale right now. Section X Parking in Zone B discussion: “one space for 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area for medical use office buildings with 75% of the spaces within Zone B and 25% of the remaining spaces to be within the remainder of the campus”. Chuck said it would have to be on the eastern side of the access road, north of the proposed building, and a small amount of parking available to the west of the new building. Patty said the 25% parking is a problem that needs to be discussed. Jill said the reason they did it that way is that the new building will share a lot of common staff that will already be parked across the street in Zone A by the hospital. The staff is assigned one parking spot each. The Planning Board recommended that the language in Section Xd, Zone B parking requirement be approved as worded. In response to Patty and traffic concerns, Susan said the following is in the PUD legislation now and is proposed to be removed: “the hospital shall undertake and/or update appropriate studies relating to 1. Stormwater management for the area of the PUD site west of Myrtle St. 2. Sanitary sewer condition and capacity for lines which serve the site. 3. A traffic study relating to vehicle access to the PUD site with focus on the capacity of the Church St./Myrtle St. intersection and as part of the planned unit development’s site plan approval for project B-2 (construction of new the medical office building).” After reviewing the results of these studies, the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board has the right to restrict further development of the PUD until the necessary offsite improvements, if any, are made. The means of payment for any improvement identified as needed by any of these studies shall be negotiated between the Hospital and the City Council of the City of Saratoga Springs. The Hospital may be required to contribute an appropriate share toward said improvements. Matt said the planning board has that power now under site plan. Chuck said the City Council has the power under the SEQRA provisions (for traffic). Patty asked if the City Council is going to do a long form SEQRA and will it be looked at in the detail that it needs to be looked at? Mark said the SEQRA was already done, and approval was given for the 100,000 sq. ft. Patty argued that the flow is different. Tony said when the city does a SEQRA review it’s specific to that action. He said because the PUD had a SEQRA review it shouldn’t exempt projects being built under that zoning from further SEQRA review. Leah said when the City Council is considering adopting a zoning change, the action is not just on paper or on what words are being stricken. She said the whole action is the development which has been previously reviewed and approved. Their inquiry will be when these amended changes are brought to fruition, will they be within the context of the previous thresholds or will they exceed what was previously reviewed, will there be any new environmental impacts that were not previously considered. She said it’s a great debate for this board, but not a decision this board can make. Ultimately, the decision is made by the City Council. How they address SEQRA review will be within their discretion. Leah added that the PB can certainly consider traffic and access points during site plan review. Mark suggested that the PB alert the City City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 12, 2024 - Page 9 of 10 Council that there is a potential for traffic issues. After a lengthy discussion, it was decided that the recommendation to the City Council would be to allow the proposed deletion and recommend affirmatively that the City Council require submission of a traffic analysis before it considers environmental impacts. Mark reiterated that if the PB determines that offsite mitigation is needed during site plan review and the applicant doesn’t agree, they won’t approve the site plan. Leah summarized the recommendation as follows: The Planning Board recommends that prior to the City Council taking any SEQRA action that it takes into consideration the changes along this corridor that have occurred since the last SEQRA review effort and adequately consider the traffic impacts that may result from these amendments. Chuck Marshall made a motion that the Planning Board is in support of a favorable recommendation for the PUD Amendment with the following conditions: 1. The expiration date of 2039 remains. 2. Daycare will be defined as Section 8.4x of the UDO and will be an acceptable accessory use with a subsequent analysis triggered by any footnote changes. 3. Parking structures will be allowed as accessory use in the identified zones within zones E-1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 and subject to the planning board and design review board approval. Remove square footage and height limitations. 4. The reallocation of square footage from Zone A to Zone B to allow the construction of the 60,000 sq. ft. Center for Successful Aging should be approved. 5. The parking in Zone B as outlined as one space for 300 square feet with 75% of the parking for that building being achieved in Zone B be approved as recommended. 6. Section 13, project B2 deletion as proposed. 7. Traffic considerations for the City Council prior to SEQRA. 8. Term extensions for site plan approval shall match the UDO. The motion was seconded by Mark Pingel. Vote: C. Marshall-Y, M. Pingel-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, K. Mayo-Y, P. Morrison-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 7-0, motion carried. Leah added that any prior discussion of the Planning Board of this application before the formal referral from the City Council was part and parcel of this review effort. Chuck Marshall made a motion to approve the minutes of August 8, 2024. The motion was seconded by Tony Stellato. Vote: C. Marshall-Y, M. Pingel-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, K. Mayo-Abstain, P. Morrison-Abstain, B. McTygue-Y. 5-0, 2-Abstain. Motion carried. Chuck Marshall amended his motion for a positive recommendation subsequent to the August 8, 2024, meeting minutes being attached subject to tonight’s discussion. The motion was seconded by Patty Marshall. Vote: C. Marshall-Y, M. Pingel-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato- Y, K. Mayo-Y, P. Morrison-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 7-0, motion carried. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Mike King made a motion to adjourn the meeting at approximately 9:45 p.m. The motion was seconded by Chuck Marshall. All in favor, motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary MINUTES APPROVED OCTOBER 24, 2024. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 12, 2024 - Page 10 of 10