Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 2025 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Chuck Marshall, Chair called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Charles (Chuck) Marshall, Chair, Mark Pingel, Vice-Chair, Bill McTygue, Kerry Mayo, Mike King & Alex White, Alternate ABSENT: Anthony (Tony) Stellato 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. #20240932 16 Marion Ave. Final Subdivision. Final Plat review of a proposed two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District 2. #20230378 239 Washington St. and West Ave. Land Disturbance Activity Permit for site work including filing and grading approximately 2-5 acres to provide for future development in the Neighborhood Commercial (T-5) District. 3. #20230233 Station Lane Site Plan. Consideration of SEQRA review and site plan review for a proposed mixed-use project including 9,500 sq. ft. non-residential space and 68 multi- family residential units in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. 4. #202402 Zoning Text Amendment Short Term Rentals. Consideration of advisory opinion to the city Council for proposed UDO text amendment pertaining to short term rentals __________________________________________________________________________ 1. #20240932 16 Marion Ave. Final Subdivision. Final Plat review of a proposed two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America represented the applicants, the Tanner’s. Tonya accidentally turned the mic off, inaudible. Chuck clarified that a portion of Lot 2 was removed and will become a single-family residence. Tonya inaudible. Chuck - They can’t do the demolition without DRB approval. Lot 1 will remain a two-family and is non-conforming, pre-existing and a subdivision doesn’t trigger alteration of that status. Chuck said on Marion/Maple there are two trees labeled as existing trees that he thinks are supposed to be labeled as proposed. The subdivision requires a street tree every 40 ft. They should be interior to the lot on the western side of the easement area. Chuck disclosed that his employer owns property in the notification area but that does not affect his objectivity on this application. Bill asked if the site plan includes a decorative streetlight. Yes, along Avenue A. Bill suggested a note be put on the site plan to consult with the city electrician. He would like to see this done more routinely so there’s oversight for the connection to the City’s grid and their electric bill. Chuck Marshall, Chair opened the Public Hearing. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing was closed. Part 2 Short Environmental Assessment form: 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 to issue a Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA. The motion was seconded by Kerry Mayo. Vote: K. Mayo-Y, C. Marshall–Y, M. Pingel–Y, B. McTygue-Y, M. King-Y, A. White-Y. 6-0, motion carried. Chuck Marshall made a motion to approve the subdivision at 16 Marion Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: 1. That the trees be placed on the interior of the lot to the west of the easement area. 2. That the demolition of the structure on lot 2 occurs so the lot is in compliance. The motion was seconded by Bill McTygue. Vote: K. Mayo-Y, C. Marshall–Y, M. Pingel–Y, B. McTygue-Y, M. King-Y, A. White-Y. 6-0, motion carried. 3. #20230378 239 Washington St. and West Ave. Land Disturbance Activity Permit for site work including filing and grading approximately 2-5 acres to provide for future development in the Neighborhood Commercial (T-5) District. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 16, 2025 - Page 2 of 10 Stephanie Ferradino represented the applicants, David and Greg Mohr. The LaBella Team, Barbara Beall, Senior Wetlands Specialist, and Sean Farrell, Civil Engineer/Land Development were also present for the applicants. Stephanie said since they were before the board the last time the wetlands regulations changed, and they are now before DEC for the fourth time for a jurisdictional determination for wetlands for this property. There was a question about the veracity of the survey at the last meeting and the applicant has now obtained a stamped survey. The surveyor looked at 4 filed maps, 14 property monuments (highlighted in red on the map), 6 surveyors involved and 20 deeds that proved that the line that was located previously was accurate. The stakes placed on the property are noted in purple. James reviewed the information and issued a memo to the Board confirming that there are no discrepancies. Stephanie displayed 3 landscaping plans that have been reviewed by Patrick Cogan and Susan Barden and are code compliant: 1. Required to plant 22 mature trees. They provided 25, 16 of which have to be deciduous and 151 shrubs. The space between the trees is 22 ft. apart. Showed what it would look like in year one and year 5. 2. Two alternatives under the code for landscaping: Alternative #1 – Required 22 trees, they provided 31 with 18 ft. spacing. Showed what it would look like in year one and year 5. 3. Alternative #2 - Required 22 trees, provided 34 trees with 15 ft. spacing. Showed what it would look like in year one and year 5. Stephanie said the applicant was approached by a neighbor who has an allergy to birch trees and had concerns about trees that were toxic to dogs. Stephanie said they swapped those out and they will not be located on their tree plan. Chuck Marshall, Chair addressed the outstanding issues from the last meeting:  SEQRA segmentation concerns because a SEQRA determination is being made and then there will be a subsequent action. Based on advice from Counsel, segmentation doesn’t occur because of the subsequent SEQRA determination that is needed for an action to proceed. The action the board would be determining now is based on this action. Leah clarified that the concern about SEQRA segmentation is because of the future potential development. That is not the action that’s being considered by this board in the context of this SEQRA review. The reason behind that is that there is no future plan for development. The board is not required by SEQRA to consider the potential future impacts of purely hypothetical development.  SEQRA analysis with wetland change – involvement by DEC with respect to SEQRA analysis. Chuck’s opinion is that this is an unlisted action, and the board should undertake uncoordinated review. He doesn’t think DEC would challenge the board on a LEAD agency determination, but they can still make their own SEQRA determination. Leah said it’s unknown whether DEC is regulating this area without having a jurisdictional determination. If DEC is regulating the area, before an approval can be issued, they would be subject to the same rules as the city for SEQRA review. It's not segmentation because there are different agencies reviewing the same action at the same time. If DEC concludes it’s a positive declaration, then the applicant can’t pursue anything until they address that determination by submitting a draft environmental impact statement. Leah said the board knows what the environmental City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 16, 2025 - Page 3 of 10  impacts to the site will be regardless of an approval from DEC so they could move forward with a SEQRA determination without the jurisdictional determination. Chuck asked the board if they wanted to have the applicant provide a subsequent jurisdictional determination before proceeding with an evaluation, or proceed with the application as if that is not a component of their review. Mark said he attended a webinar that New York State hosted the previous day and it’s his understanding that buffer zones and the size of the wetlands may change because they’re no longer using old maps. Those changes may cause changes in the applicant’s land disturbance plan. He said with that level of uncertainty he’s not sure the board can proceed. Stephanie asked if they could get approval with the condition that they would have to submit a new jurisdictional determination from DEC, make any changes necessary to the plan if any, and return before the board for a final determination. Chuck asked the board if they want to proceed with a SEQRA determination before getting the jurisdictional determination from DEC. Leah said she believes Stephanie is suggesting that the board could act on the application subject to a condition for a jurisdictional determination, not that the board take action on SEQRA. Chuck asked the board members if they wish to proceed. Mike said yes because he feels the board owes it to applicants to keep things moving. Kerry said there’s no plan for the property, so there’s no rush. Mark and Alex agreed with Kerry. Mike agreed with the others because in this case nothing is proposed for the site. Three voted that the applicant should receive their jurisdictional determination from DEC before proceeding. Bill added that he’s not sure if a vote by the board tonight would help or hurt the applicant. Stephanie asked Susan if they’re at risk of the application expiring while waiting for DEC’s decision. Susan said it would remain active pending additional materials. Elizabeth Reardon, 11 Outlook Ave. said she is the person who reached out to Stephanie about the severe allergy to the birch trees. She said she appreciated that they were removed from the plan as they were going to impact her life and livelihood. Laura Benton, 42 Outlook Ave. asked what corporation was going to be responsible for this project because it flips between 4 different companies that she believes are owned by the same family. She would like deep research done about the pollution in the water at the site because of things that have been dumped there. 3. #20230233 Station Lane Site Plan. Consideration of SEQRA review and site plan review for a proposed mixed-use project including 9,500 sq. ft. non-residential space and 68 multi- family residential units in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. Chuck noted that this applicant, like the previous applicant, has a regulated wetland on site and a DEC jurisdictional determination will be required to pursue any activity. Scott Lansing, Lansing Engineering represented the applicant Russ Faden, West Faden, LLC. Alanna Moran, Traffic Engineer from Lansing Engineering was also present. Scott said their ultimate goal is to receive a SEQRA determination and site plan approval from the board tonight: Scott gave a brief history of the project:  2017 presented a sketch plan of the project and there were several renditions with design, curb cuts, etc. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 16, 2025 - Page 4 of 10   2020 they were close to approval, but Covid hit, and the project was tabled by the applicant for a couple of years.  Resumed application in 2022 and have been working steadily on the project since then. Scott gave an overview of the project:  Existing conditions: Vacant parcel of approximately 1.99 acres located at West Ave. and Station Lane. Medical building to the north, further to the north of that is One West Medical Plaza, vacant land to the south, toward the west is a multi-family complex built by Bob Marini, and there are commercial structures on the east side of West Ave.  Zoning: was T-5 and is now Neighborhood Center District (NC).  Proposal: In accordance with NC zoning. Received 2 variances – 1. a small wall in front of the building, 2. Build-to zone along Station Lane. They meet the 70% along West Ave. They had difficulty meeting that on Station Lane because of the wetland on the edge of the parcel near the 100 ft. buffer that they are avoiding. Regarding the wetland, they have a previous jurisdictional determination and currently have a wetland permit in front of DEC regarding improvements along Station Lane.  The 4-story building, 23,000 sq. ft. footprint, includes: mixed use – restaurant, retail and apartments. Parking on the underground level under the structure, 60 parking spaces (57 standard, 3 handicap accessible) and 12 covered bike parking spaces. Also 3 bike parking spaces on the exterior northwest corner of the building.  First floor: 2,100 sq. ft. restaurant, 8,330 sq. ft. of retail and 10 apartment units. The retail and restaurant are at the front of the building facing West Ave. The 10 apartments are a wing on the first floor.  2nd to 4th floors: 61 apartment units.  Access: from Station Lane. Previous renditions had other access points (West Ave.) Planning Board and DPW recommended that the curb cut be as far away from West Ave. as possible.  Parking: they are proposing 140 spaces (per UDO), including shared parking between the various uses - 60 spaces underground, 73 on the surface in the rear and 7 parallel on-street parking spaces on Station Lane.  Dumpsters, streetlights & street trees: per city requirements along Station Lane and West Ave. Chuck asked if there was any garbage handling interior to the building. No, everything is taken to the dumpster outside.  Sidewalk: will continue from the project that was built to the west.  Recreational contributions & civic space: The applicant is prepared to pay the recreation fee. Civic space – trail system on the site plan that was encouraged by the planning board. There was discussion with the city about contributing to a park to the south as opposed to doing the trail system.  Water, storm, sewer: Public water and sewer. The stormwater is managed on site with a water quality and quantity system located underneath the parking lot that discharges to the natural drainage course. Comments from City Staff: 1. 64 ft. of on-site encroachment on the 100 ft. buffer with a NYSDEC wetland: the sidewalk and improvements around this area are in the 100 ft. buffer and are part of an existing improved right-of-way for Station Lane and require a permit. As the driveway comes in there’s a small amount of grading off the west edge that is also included in City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 16, 2025 - Page 5 of 10  the permit. The city engineer encouraged an application to DEC and the applicant is awaiting the permit from them. 2. Traffic: VHP? provided responses to Creighton Manning engineers’ comments and the applicant received a response from Creighton Manning that all of their comments have been addressed. 3. Parking Spaces: question about banking parking spaces and the applicant is amenable to that either in the north or the west. 4. EV ready charging spaces or installing 3 EV spaces: The applicant would like to prepare 7 EV spaces to be ready (conduit in place) for construction in the future. Kerry asked if they had considered connecting the parking lot with the other medical office building parking. Scott said they tried but it didn’t work out. Mike asked if the applicant could delineate space to connect the parking lots should there be a possibility in the future. Scott said they can do that. 5. Open space and/or paying a fee in lieu of the recreational land: the applicant is willing to pay the fee, especially since there are plans for recreational improvements to the south. 6. Public access to proposed nature trail: trail system in 100 ft. buffer area and access could be discussed. Or money could be allocated for the recreational improvements to the south. Scott showed 3-D renderings of different views of the proposed structure, colors and materials compatible with the area. With regard to the DEC, Scott said they did have a jurisdictional determination and provided the 100 ft. buffer. The updates to the environmental resource mapper show the previous wetland mappings and the new informational lines which are actually further away from their site than on the previous map. Chuck asked if there was a ramp needed for ADA compliance on the corner of Station Lane and West Ave. Scott said there are stairs on the corner with an accessibility ramp that goes along the front of the building toward the north and loops around. Bill asked about on-site drainage. Scott said they couldn’t infiltrate because of the soil so there’s an on-site retention system (pre-treatment retention and tertiary treatment at the end). They will not be relying on the city’s storm drainage system. Alex asked if they were looking for SEQRA approval. Scott said SEQRA and site plan if possible. Mark asked if they would be going before the DRB. Scott said yes and they’d been before them previously for the project and were given guidance. Mark said the proposed building will be “shocking” compared to the two neighboring medical buildings that are set back further. He understands that they are meeting the required 5 ft. to 12 ft. setback in the UDO for the NC district and asked if they could provide more landscaping since they’re closer to the road. Mark said he won’t approve the site plan without DRB input. Mark talked about the traffic study and how the area is moving from a C rating to a D rating, which is already bad. Using the 100-trip guideline for trips for a project is only a guideline. There are 14,000 vehicles on West Ave. every day and this project will produce more. Each development in the area says that their impact will be minimal, but the sum of all the projects will create a significant increase in traffic. Mark said he would like to see some incremental contribution to the ultimate mitigation that will be required on West Ave. Chuck said he agreed in theory with Mark, but they can’t put that responsibility on this applicant. What’s needed for the area is a generic environmental impact statement that could then form a district where development would pay an assessment. Alanna said (in response to something Mike said without his mic City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 16, 2025 - Page 6 of 10 on) a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) is about $50,000 up to $100,000 that was requested of the applicant by the city. Mike said the applicant has already agreed to contribute $75,000 and maybe that should go toward future traffic mitigation. Leah said there were jurisdictional wetlands on this property prior to the new DEC regulations and that it will likely continue. She said if the board wants to be consistent with their decisions they will not advance SEQRA and not move forward on the underlying site plan application until there is a jurisdictional determination from DEC. She said she can provide the board with legal guidance with regard to traffic issues and mitigation measures. Chuck asked if there was still a need for a jurisdictional determination if the trail is removed and the applicant pays a recreation fee instead. Leah said there are questions as to whether the 100 ft. buffer will be different with the new regulations. Chuck said it’s his understanding that the city has made an application to the Capital District Transportation Council for funding to ascertain the traffic impacts along West Ave. and have already undertaken a study for truck traffic along VanDam and Church St. Bill mentioned the Prime Development project nearby (he recused himself from that application) and asked if it was going to impact traffic near Station Lane. Alanna said it’s her understanding that that particular project has access to Station Lane and Washington Ave. She said the Prime Development project was significantly reduced from the original proposal in 2017 and she believes a traffic study was submitted to the city, but she has not seen comments on it yet. She said the evaluation for that study included this project in the background and its impacts. Alanna said the study for this project was submitted to the city and includes projects that were built and/or proposed and how they impact the area. Bill agreed with Mark and Chuck that the whole corridor needs a GEIS because the roads are operating at over capacity. He clarified with Alanna that the traffic study numbers show that a traffic light is not needed at Station Lane at this time. Leah said the mechanism to evaluate cumulative impacts for a specific area would be a GEIS, but the city has not taken that sort of review at this time. Therefore, the board needs to evaluate this project using a site specific SEQRA review process, and the impact this one development will have on a number of different features, including traffic. Mark agreed that the board couldn’t take action tonight because of DEC’s new regulations regarding wetlands and buffers. Scott said regarding the DEC wetlands; they’re confident that what they have submitted is appropriate for the site. He said the difference between their application and the previous application is that they do have a previous jurisdictional determination for the parcel with the lines that are outlined on the environmental resource map – they’re further away from the parcel than they were before. Scott addressed the idea of removing the trails and how that would affect the DEC permit; he said they still have impacts along Station Lane to extend the sidewalk. He feels that DEC will approve that because there’s a public benefit in that it provides pedestrian connectivity. Kerry disagreed with Mark about the design of the building. He said what this applicant is doing is what is supposed to be there. The buildings next door are not historic, they were envisioned as a suburban office park, so he wouldn’t be concerned about the context with those buildings. Mike asked the applicant to give some thought to using Warrant 8 (roadway network) because this is a major road going to major new development and the train station. Alanna said they typically review 1, 2 + 3 but they can take a look at that. Mike said the sidewalk seems to bend in at the on-street parking, then bend out, then there’s the crosswalk. He said he doesn’t think the crosswalk is as per city drawings because it should be ramped up and flared and the driveway shouldn’t have a crosswalk. It should look like a driveway, not a road. The sidewalk should go straight through and connect across the driveway. Mike said City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 16, 2025 - Page 7 of 10 there’s nothing shown for crossing Station Lane where the path comes out on the western end of the property. It should be considered for connectivity. Mike asked if the applicant was trying to minimize the number of parking spaces they would provide by having shared parking and using the shared parking benefit. Scott said yes, they used the formula in the UDO. Mike said the trapezoid shape of the parking lot is somewhat inefficient on the left side because of the blank area where the triangle is. Maybe rethink that to reduce the impermeable surface. Scott listed his takeaway from the meeting:  The board’s request to have DRB input – they had a meeting and the DRB was “very glowing” about the project and the architecture they provided in the renderings. Scott recalled their biggest comment was that they wanted them to use swinging doors as opposed to sliders.  City staff comments – they have a comment response letter and will submit it to the planning staff.  Concrete apron on the access way – they will look at that and make sure they are in compliance with the crosswalk and the apron at the entrance.  Connection to the property to the north.  Trail considerations/connections.  Consider using Warrant 8 for a possible traffic signal.  Trapezoid in parking lot, banking parking spaces. Once the applicant has received their jurisdictional determination from DEC they will return before the planning board. Susan asked the applicant to submit the elevation drawings that were presented tonight. 4. #202402 Zoning Text Amendment Short Term Rentals. Consideration of advisory opinion to the city Council for proposed UDO text amendment pertaining to short term rentals. Chuck Marshall, Chair said the proposed text amendment is to create a short-term rental use to the UDO. As discussed at the workshop, the primary components of the amendment deal with primary and non-primary residences and the length of time an owner of each can rent out via short-term rental. Short-term rental is defined as a rental that is rented through an on-line platform. Chuck asked an audience member who had been waiting a while to give her comments regarding short-term rentals prior to board discussion. Molly Garnier, Vichy Dr. said she moved to Geyser Crest in the mid-1970’s and it is her understanding that the neighborhood was built as affordable housing. She said it still is an affordable part of the city and houses 20% of the population. It has been a single family residential neighborhood with no businesses since she has lived there. Molly said their neighborhood is now burdened with businesses (on-line short-term rentals) that make it impossible for young people to buy houses because they’re being out bid by investors or people who own other properties in Saratoga because the houses are less expensive. She said some of the investors don’t even live in NY State. One rental has 16 to 20 cars parked outside with 20+ people in the house, pool (with or without swimsuits), etc. Molly said it’s difficult to raise children in a neighborhood with that type of activity going on. These online rentals are a business – a service is being provided for money, and she doesn’t understand why the city council is suddenly not supporting their neighborhood. She said they’ve always City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 16, 2025 - Page 8 of 10 been supported by the Council and together have made many changes and improvements over the years. Chuck said the code didn’t have this use included so they are now trying to introduce it. Currently there’s nothing that can be enforced because they’re not technically violating the law. Susan said it’s not permitted now. She said dwelling units can be rented for more than 30 days at a time. Less than 30 days are not permitted. Mike asked if the problem in Molly’s experience is that someone who doesn’t live in the house but owns it, rents it out and it’s otherwise vacant. She said the most notorious one in her neighborhood, is one where the owners live in another state. Molly said the problem is not with the long-term summer rentals, it’s the week-to-week rental where the owner is not present. Bill said this is not unique to Saratoga, it’s a problem across the state of New York, especially tourist areas. Investors have purchased properties in residential neighborhoods for the purpose of short-term (weekly) rentals. Bill said if people want to go into the bed and breakfast business they are required to come before the planning board with a site plan and discuss parking and other accommodations. These on-line rentals are flying under the radar, with minimum qualification required – City safety laws to follow, but otherwise there’s no rules and they’re setting up businesses in residential neighborhoods. Chuck noted that noise, whether it’s a primary residence or not is covered by the city’s noise ordinance and the code enforcement element is the same. Alex said the board will be discussing parking and what will dictate the number of cars allowed, such as the size of the driveway, bedroom count, etc. Once that regulation is in place a citation could be issued if the law is broken. People will be less likely to throw a party if they’re at risk of losing their license or being fined. They’ve also discussed the amount of days a non-primary resident could potentially rent a property. The investor would have to consider purchasing a property for short-term rental if those days are limited and they can’t meet their debt obligation. Bill said he’s not in favor of putting the burden on enforcement because that’s after the fact. Mike suggested that the board look at the 8-point document that was drafted for the UDO regarding short-term rentals. Chuck gave the definition of short-term rental and a license “an entire dwelling unit or a room or group of rooms, other living or sleeping spaces”. Board recommendations: 1. There was a discussion among the board members about limiting the number of days a non-primary residence owner can rent their property as a short-term rental and possibly limiting it geographically to non-residential areas. Some board members feel limiting the short-term rentals to 30 days per year would be appropriate. The board is interested in addressing these items during the licensing process to curb reactive enforcement 2. PUD’s 3. Short term rentals are permitted in a residential dwelling unit as an accessory use provided this is clearly incidental and secondary to the primary use of the dwelling unit for non-transient residential purposes and does not change the City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 16, 2025 - Page 9 of 10  character of the dwelling unit or adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood of which it is part. Board members were concerned about enforcement issues. 4. 5. Between 30 and 60 cumulative days per calendar year for non-primary resident STR. 6. No alteration of the principal building shall be made. Unenforceable. 7. The short-term rental shall not create greater vehicle or pedestrian traffic than the customary use of the dwelling unit. A license and permit would be required, and parking would be based on the number of bedrooms in the home and the number of on-site parking spaces available. Mark asked if there was a way to license how many people are allowed in the building. Susan said that it will be established through the licensing. Mark said he read that cities can regulate the density of short-term rentals. There’s nothing in the regulations as it stands that prevents the entire street from becoming short-term rentals. He suggested limiting the number of licenses that could be given in a neighborhood. Susan said there are some municipalities that have a lottery or certain number of licenses that they issue and that could be considered for Saratoga. Mark said the board should tell the City Council that there should be a limit to the number of STR’s and consideration for neighborhood density. Susan summarized:  Primary residence short-term rentals stay at 150 days per year.  Non-primary residence short-term rentals are 30-45 days per year.  Maximum parking spaces either by the number of bedrooms in the structure or number parking spaces currently available (the greater of the two) on-site for primary and non- primary residences.  “and does not change the character of the dwelling unit or adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood of which it is part” should be removed.  1 to 4 units maximum for owner-occupied short-term rentals. Susan said she would draft regulations for Chuck and Mark to review before the City Council meeting on January 19th and follow up with final recommendations. Chuck Marshall made a motion that the board make a favorable recommendation with the following concerns and stipulations identified (drafted by Susan and reviewed by the chair and vice chair to be sure that the document meets the concerns of the board). The motion was seconded by Mike King. Vote: K. Mayo-Y, C. Marshall–Y, M. Pingel–Y, B. McTygue-Y, M. King-Y, A. White-Y. 6-0, motion carried. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Chuck Marshall made a motion to adjourn the meeting at approximately 9:15 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mike King. All in favor. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – January 16, 2025 - Page 10 of 10