Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FINAL THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 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, Alex White (alternate), Mike King, Anthony (Tony) Stellato, Joseph Ferrante ABSENT: Kerry Mayo 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. 1. #20240932 16 Marion Ave. Final Subdivision. Final Plat review of a proposed two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District THE APPLICANT WAS NOT PRESENT. Public Hearing: Deborah Lacomb, 11 Marion Ave. said the board should have received a letter from Renee Taliana regarding the lack of notification to the neighbors regarding16 Marion Ave. The neighbors had concerns regarding the lack of parking and should have been able to express them prior to the Planning Board’s approval of the application. The neighbors are saying the parking is deficient in the form as approved. Susan said the legal ad and neighbor notification were completed prior to the board taking action at the last meeting, but the property posting/sign on the property was not. She said when the applicant went before the ZBA they had added parking for the two-family residence. There are currently two off-street parking spaces on one side, and a parking area on the right-of-way in front of the building where residents have been parking, and which is not a lawful parking space. She said the Planning Board asked for streetscape improvements; sidewalk, tree belt, in that area which consequentially removed the unlawful parking spaces in the right-of-way. Susan said it was discussed whether additional parking was required because of the subdivision, and it was determined that the two-family residence was a pre-existing, non-conforming use with two parking spaces and the PB felt that there was sufficient off-street parking. Chuck said the ZBA issued the zoning variances that were required to make the building configuration conforming on the lots. The PB made the determination that the subdivision as proposed should go forward. Chuck said the parking consideration did not carry over from the ZBA. The PB did not receive notification that it was a concern at the time. Leah explained that procedurally the planning board is in a place where they would be with any application where there’s a public hearing requirement. The PB had acted and then realized it was premature because not all procedural steps had been taken. The board should now treat their previous approval as a nullity. If the board is ready to close the public hearing and move forward they need to decide if the issue of parking is relevant in their determination. If the decision is that additional parking is not necessary for this approval, there’s no harm in granting approval without the additional parking that’s being requested. They could effectively readopt their previous approval. Chuck asked Susan if parking on Lot 1 was also considered a non- conforming use. Susan said that was correct. Tony clarified the parking configuration: Lot 2 is a single-family lot with two parking spaces. Lot 1 is a non-conforming two-family lot (two- family not allowed) and has 2 non-conforming parking spaces. Chuck said he doesn’t feel comfortable discussing the application without the applicant being present and suggested tabling the application. Tony agreed and said the applicant should be made aware that because of the posting issue, the application was reopened for a public hearing and neighbors are concerned about the lack of parking spaces. Leah asked Susan if the applicant knew that there was a failure of notice and that it could impact on the decision that the board made at the last meeting. Susan said they were aware of the failure to notice. Chuck Marshall made a motion to table the application to inform the applicant. The motion was seconded by Bill McTygue. Vote: J. Ferrante-Y, C. Marshall–Y, M. Pingel–Y, B. McTygue-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, A. White-Y. 7-0, motion carried. Bill said ultimately he would like to see two parking spaces per unit and not rely on Avenue A for on-street parking. C. PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 2. #20241000 110-114 Nelson Ave. PUD. Consideration of SEQRA review and advisory opinion to the City Council on the Planned Unit Development (PUD) at 110-114 Nelson Ave. in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. Chuck Marshall, Chair said this is a recommendation to the City Council in contemplation of a SEQRA action. It’s an unlisted action and it has been deferred to the planning board as Lead Agent. Dave Carr, LA Group represented the applicant. Also present: Doug Heller, LA Group, Libby Clark and the applicant John Witt. Dave said they are seeking an advisory opinion from the PB to the City Council for their proposed PUD. The City Council also asked that the PB address SEQRA. Dave said they were before the planning board in 2021 for a sketch plan discussion about this parcel. They returned in 2022 and received approval for a 4-lot City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 13, 2025 - Page 2 of 14 subdivision and showed the board a sketch plan for the back parcel as part of that discussion, but the applicant decided to go for the subdivision first. Dave said the discussion with the board at the time was very favorable. Dave said John continued to work on the plan and presented the following:  The parcel is 1.86 acres. Dave pointed out two single family lots on the site location map that were subdivided in the previous approval.  The parcel fronts Nelson Ave. Frank Sullivan Pl. comes around the back of the parcel and connects to Lincoln Ave. They are bordered on both sides by NYRA property (barns, Trackside Grill, large short-term rental that was built last year, gravel parking on both sides and Ciro’s Restaurant). Nelson Ave. is a single-family neighborhood.  The parcel at its current highest and best use is a seasonal parking lot for the track. The original Shrade (Sunnyside) house is on the parcel.  For neighborhood context, Dave showed photos of primarily single-family homes along Nelson Ave. and the contrasting structures and businesses on Frank Sullivan (newly constructed Airbnb (large, 3 or 4 stories with a viewing platform at the top), Trackside Grill and the back of the Shake Shack and paddock which are directly across from their proposed driveway. Dave read the city’s purpose for a PUD “a special approval intended to encourage and allow more creative and flexible development of land than is possible under district zoning regulations and should only be applied to further those applications that provide compensating amenities to the city”. Dave said in discussions between the applicant and the city council members they determined that they would like to see the parking lot improved at the Rec Center. Dave said there’s a letter from the past DPW Commissioner that there was a memo of understanding between the applicant and DPW stating that the applicant would provide funds to build the parking lot and improve a playground at the Rec Center. Dave said the 2015 Comprehensive Plan designates this property within the Residential Neighborhood-2 which is characterized by “single-family residential uses with moderate density two-family” homes. The maximum density for this area is 7 units per acre but “should not cumulatively exceed 20% in addition to the maximum density envisioned by either the current Comprehensive Plan or by the applicable zoning in effect immediately prior to the adoption of the original PUD, whichever is lower”. The applicant is proposing 1.86 acres x 7 = 13 units x 20% (bonus) = 15.6 Units. They are proposing 8 single family homes, 3 guest cottages (1 bedroom, no kitchen) and 1 multi-family building with 4 units (owner occupied & seasonal apartments). Dave talked about the “Approval Standards" that guide the city council. Chuck asked Susan if a parking lot is a permitted principal use in a UR-2 District. Susan said it is not. Dave showed a slide of the existing conditions and a sketch plan of their proposal. The two single family homes on Nelson Ave. would match the character and respect the aesthetic of the neighborhood while developing something different behind. Six of the single-family homes have guest cottages (is it 3 guest cottages or 6?). Dave noted that a small guest cottage with one bedroom and no kitchen is viewed by the city the same as a 5-bedroom home. The multi-family building has a small pedestrian oriented commercial space between 800 and 1,000 sq. ft. that would be seasonal. Dave showed the floor plan for the 3 guest suites/cottages. They each have 1 bedroom, a sitting area, 1 bathroom and a coffee/wet bar. Pool house on the back of the house but also guest cottages?? Are the guest suites/cottages one in the same? Some are over the garage. Some are pool houses?? City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 13, 2025 - Page 3 of 14 Dave explained how the applicant’s proposal varies from the Code. He said they meet building and impervious coverage requirements; most of the exceptions are setback requirements and are internal between the single-family homes that are currently being built on Nelson Ave. The other variance is the height of the multi-use building and the commercial uses that will be seasonal and pedestrian oriented. John showed a 3-d rendering of the proposed PUD and talked about the floorplans and design of the units within. He showed a sketch of what the completed plan would look like from an aerial perspective. There was a discussion among the board members and staff about whether the proposed project would require DRB approval. It is not within the historic district or the architectural overlay district but is adjacent to an historic district, Union Ave. & the track, but will not require DRB approval. Joe F. said his main concern is that 40 ft. is the standard height for this district and the applicant is proposing a 55 ft. high multi-family structure. He said the track is 67 ft. high and most cities (Rome, Paris, etc.) that have historic properties like the track (in reading letters sent by the park) don’t allow buildings to compete with historic sites like the track. Mike asked about the number of parking spaces. According to his calculations 27 are required but they have 44. Susan said there are 15 dwelling units, and 2 parking spaces are required per dwelling unit. Mike said they’re 60% over with 44. Susan said this is one of the exemptions the applicant would be requesting in the PUD. John said there are 6 parking spaces under the multi-family building with 4 parking spaces outside the building. Chuck said the parking is not 60% over because it’s in its own zoning district (PUD). Susan clarified that the PUD section of the zoning is different than the PUD in previous zoning ordinances in that it’s more like an overlay district. The UR-2 zoning district still applies unless it’s specifically exempted from a requirement. Susan said normally you couldn’t exceed 120% of the minimum parking requirement. If they request to exceed 120% then that is a specific exception that would need to be granted in order to allow it. Chuck said he thinks the PB’s recommendation should be that the amount of parking be decreased and not be a specific calculation about how much they can exceed the requirement. Mike asked Dave what they’d done to maximize solar gain with these houses, heating, cooling. John answered and said that he designs these houses, and some are set up for solar panels that you won’t see from the street. He said he did a small test house on the west side of the city 4 years ago. It has a 13kw solar system on the roof, and an electric heat pump with a gas backup furnace (was never used). The electric heat pump heated and cooled. He said he got a $70 bill in December and an $80 bill in January. The rest of the year was free. He said these proposed houses are super insulated, above code. Dave added that because the site is deep sand, all the pavement is pervious – asphalt, pavers, even concrete. He said the fire department will not allow parking on the cul-de-sac or on the street so the applicant is providing parking for extra cars and will do the strips using porous pavers. They can reduce the number of parking spaces if needed. Joe asked about the lifespan of the pavers. Dave said it depends on the materials. The porous pavers likely would require maintenance every few years to clean and refresh the joints. If the asphalt is vacuumed once a year it can last pretty much the same shelf life as regular asphalt. Mike asked about the walkway out to Nelson Ave. and if it could be widened to fit a firetruck, thus eliminating the need for a cul-de-sac as a turnaround. Mike said the Comprehensive Plan talks about connectivity and creating alleys or backstreets – ways to get around, public access. John said there will be a locked gate that residents will use to get downtown, but they don’t want people from the track walking through the site. He said the pedestrian gate probably won’t be locked. Mike asked about the Rec agreement. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 13, 2025 - Page 4 of 14 Chuck said it’s outside the PB’s purview. It’s a host community benefit agreement that the applicant agrees to with the city council and is outside the realm of the planning board. Dave said the initial negotiation was with Commissioner Jason Golub, but they have a letter from the current commissioner that acknowledges the original agreement. Dave said the parking lot at the Rec Center was part of a project he did with another applicant about 10 years ago who donated the land to the city for a future parking lot. Dave said parking has become a real problem for the residents near the Rec Center, especially when they have youth basketball tournaments, etc. Dave said the city is looking to build a parking lot this year and this applicant will reimburse the city their share. Tony said adequate parking for residential development is desired and appropriate. He mentioned a paving product called Romex for Dave to consider which has an epoxy based joint filler that only requires pressure washing once a year to maintain it. Tony asked if the applicant considered that they will be displacing the current track parking once this development is built. Bill said they’ll go to NYRA where there’s plenty of parking, especially on the Oklahoma side. Chuck said it will likely drive up the rate of parking along Nelson Ave. as spaces become less available. Tony asked if 111 Nelson Ave. was under separate ownership (yes) because they could have required them to fix the paved front lawn parking lot and provide parking in the rear. John said the owner is looking to sell the property and it will likely get changed when this development is built out. Tony asked about the sidewalk from Nelson Ave. into the cul-de-sac. John said there will be a gate, they will not be drawing the public into the development. Chuck asked if there was potential to run utilities from Nelson Ave. along the corridor. Doug said at a minimum they are looking to run sewer and water through the corridor because there’s no service on Frank Sullivan. They spoke with the city engineer about looping the water line back to Nelson Ave. Chuck said if the water and sewer run underneath the sidewalk he thinks the city would prefer to own it over having an easement. James Sallaway, City Engineer said most of the time the city prefers not to own sewer lines. Tony asked about the height of the multi-family building and if the applicant thought it would infringe on anyone’s visual rights to the track. Dave said they started that conversation with SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) in 2021 when they did their sketch plan because they knew the track was important. He said they’ve received 3 comment letters from them during the process, but they are not up to date with where the project is at this point or if SHPO is aware of their proximity to the track. John pointed out the entrance to the track and said that trees between the development and the track prevent you from seeing their taller multi-family building. Tony asked about the pedestrian scale lights along Frank Sullivan on the conceptual plan and if the board or applicant has considered what they want for lighting. Susan said for tonight’s meeting there are two items for the board’s consideration: 1. SEQRA analysis. 2. An advisory opinion to the city council on the PUD legislation. The applicant will be coming back before the PB for site plan review. Mark said he would like to see the street view from Nelson Ave. because he’s very concerned about the height of the multi-family building. He said he would be concerned about anything that looks like commercial parking within this development. Mark asked what type of buyers will be purchasing these properties. John compared this development to the built-out “Downton Walk” where there is a 50/50 mix of seasonal and fulltime buyers. John said these are high-end, high-quality private residences. Mark’s opinion is that he would like to see the applicant build affordable housing in Saratoga instead of a parking lot at the Rec Center. John said they are currently building 52 affordable housing units (Excelsior Park) and a townhome project in the $400’s that has 7 workforce housing units within the project. Mark said it would still be good to add more to try and offset the short-term rental degradation in the city. Alex said the guest houses seem to be the same as an accessory structure with living space above and UR-2 doesn’t permit accessory structures with living space – full bath, City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 13, 2025 - Page 5 of 14 kitchen in those units. Chuck reminded Alex that this is the establishment of its own zoning district. Bill asked how the “shoebox” building (Airbnb) on Wright St. (shown as in the neighborhood during this applicant’s presentation) was built without historic or design review. Chuck said it’s outside the review district. Bill asked if the UDO would allow that to be built today. Susan said yes, because it’s not in a review district so there’s no DRB review. Bill asked Susan if there was something in the UDO where structures by themselves have to conform to the neighborhood. Susan said there are design standards that now apply to single family residences which they didn’t have before the UDO. The Airbnb was a pre-UDO structure and must have been on a buildable lot that only required a building permit to build. The house must have met the dimensional requirements of UR-2. Bill said this project will appeal to a high-end market. He said he would expect nothing less than the highest and best use of this property. It’s a very classy, upscale environment being created by in the neighborhood, and it will set the bar higher in the area around the Racetrack. Bill said he sees this project as a wonderful opportunity for the city and neighborhood. Joe clarified that he’s not concerned about the height of the multi-family building with regard to the view shed, his concern is competing with the height of the historic Racetrack building and will others want to build tall buildings. He’s concerned about the history and the future of the Racetrack building. Chuck said he’s less concerned about the precedent because this development is going to be a PUD. In his opinion, the height of the building is fine once they get acceptance from SHPO. Chuck noted that a parking lot (which the lot is currently being used as) is not a permitted use in the UR-2 district and the proposed density is appropriate per the comprehensive plan, so returning it to residential seems to be appropriate to the neighborhood. Chuck said the PB looked at a subdivision on Nelson Ave. between White and North Lane that had higher density/smaller lots and182 Nelson Ave. received a use variance for a two-family dwelling, so there has been an acknowledgement that there are some non- conforming examples in the area. Chuck said regarding the uses within the PUD, he doesn’t think the applicant should have to return to the PB for a special use permit because once the PUD is adopted it’s been acknowledged what the uses are. He said he does think the walkway should be accessible but understands why it’s not. He believes it should tie in to a sidewalk that goes around the circle. An easement from the Nelson Ave. lot owner to the HOA should be acquired. The offering plan should prohibit the rental of the cottage houses and the additional dwelling units. The Board’s suggestions to the City Council:  Chuck - the offering plan should prohibit rentals and include a sidewalk maintenance plan.  Mark - PB should express 2 concerns about the 55 ft. height of the multi-family: 1. Streetview – 360 degrees. 2. The relationship to historic structures. Concern about what the 44 parking spaces look like – not good if they look commercial.  Mike – point out to the city council that if this were UR-2 and not a PUD, 30 parking spaces would be required. With the 20% bonus they would have 36 spaces. They are proposing 44 spaces. John said he did a study around the entire block and there’s not one house conforming to UR-2. Mik commended the applicant for maxing out the site at 15 units. Look at eliminating the circle and widening the walkway to accommodate a fire truck in an emergency. Build affordable housing instead of a parking lot at the Rec Center.  Joe – his one major concern was addressed. It’s a beautiful project and will change the neighborhood. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 13, 2025 - Page 6 of 14   Bill – there’s a lot of commercial activity for several weeks during the track meet on Wright St. so he’s not concerned about some cars that might be visible from the street in this proposed development. It’s a unique neighborhood in the city with a lot of activity and excitement going on. This project fits there. Chuck Marshall made a motion for a positive recommendation for the adoption of the Hemingway PUD including the following: 1. The Council contemplates that under the normal UR-2 standard 30 parking places plus 20% would allow the applicant 36 parking spaces versus the 44 provided. 2. The offering plan shall include a prohibition on the rental of the guest cottages. The offering plan shall make clear that the HOA will maintain certain infrastructure. 3. The City Council contemplates the height differentiation of 55 ft. versus what would normally be provided in the UR-2 District and that height differentiation should include a street view of 360 degrees and the relationship to the historic structure that it surrounds. 4. It should be noted that the density matches the Comprehensive Plan and was achieved by unique placement of the buildings, and that the current use is a non-conforming use within the UR-2 District. 6. There was a discussion about affordable housing versus the intended benefit of a parking lot at the Rec Center. 7. The special use permit requirement be removed for Zone A. The motion was seconded by Bill McTygue. Vote: J. Ferrante-Y, C. Marshall–Y, M. Pingel–Y, B. McTygue-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, A. White-Y. 7-0, motion carried. Part 2 Short Environmental Assessment form for 110-114 Nelson Ave. PUD: 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 (note: the applicant has 3 pieces of correspondence attached to the application material from the State Historic Preservation Office with final plans to be submitted to them). 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 for 110- 114 Nelson Ave. The motion was seconded by Tony Stellato. Vote: J. Ferrante-Y, C. Marshall–Y, M. Pingel–Y, B. McTygue-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, A. White-Y. 7-0, motion carried. Chuck Marshall left the meeting at approximately 8:00 p.m. 3. #20220202 31-33 Marion Ave. Area Variance. Coordinated SEQRA review and advisory opinion for demolition of Existing Mobil station and car wash and construction of a new convenience store, gas canopy, and commercial tenant space in the Tourist Related Business (TRB) District. 4. #20240975 3-11 Maple Dell Stewart’s Subdivision. Preliminary plat review of a two-lot subdivision the Gateway Commercial – Urban (GC-U) District. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 13, 2025 - Page 7 of 14 Mark Pingel, Co-Chair said the board is to craft an advisory opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the variances that are being requested. Before the ZBA can take action the PB needs to complete SEQRA. Also associated with this application is the property across the street at 3-11 Maple Dell regarding SEQRA and potential Subdivision approval. Susan said the county referral is not back for the subdivision and the application materials are lacking so there likely won’t be subdivision approval tonight. Libby Clark, Attorney and Ryan Rubido, Stewart’s represented the applicant. Libby said they will be looking at the comprehensive environmental impacts of both Marion Ave. and Maple Dell that are contemplated at this time. Libby gave the project history:  January 2021 – proposed PUD (SEQRA – coordinated review and negative declaration by city council on December 21, 2021). PUD was not passed.  February 2022 – application for area variances filed with ZBA based upon letter of interpretation from code enforcement.  March 2022 – ZBA concern of the “100 ft. rule” raised at the meeting.  May 2023 – ZBA votes to reverse code enforcement officer determination. Stewart’s appeals decision.  January 2024 – Saratoga County Supreme Court confirms code enforcement officer determination. Underlying zoning request to proceed for area variances.  Site Plan/Subdivision 2024: Revised plans submitted to enable SEQRA review of two sites at Maple Dell and Marion Ave. Mark asked Libby to further explain the 100-foot rule. Libby said this application was heard under the former zoning ordinance, which allowed an extension of 100 ft. when a property owner owns a parcel of land that is in two different zones. The zoning itself bisects the property, and the city gives the owner the option to expand 100 feet into a non-conforming parcel. At the time, it was questioned as to whether Stewart’s ownership of the land gave them that benefit. It was determined that Stewart’s does get that benefit, and their uses were expanded onto an adjacent parcel of common ownership. 31-33 Marion Ave. is being evaluated under the 2012 zoning – Tourist Related Business District. 3-11 Maple Dell is being evaluated under the Gateway Commercial – Urban District. Libby said the DRB gave a favorable advisory opinion on this in 2021 to try and get the building away from Loughberry Lake and closer to the street. Revised Site Elements:  No car wash on either site.  Subdivision to allow two sites on Maple Dell.  All retail usages to move from Maple Dell to Marion Ave.  Buildings on Marion Ave. are more in keeping with the UDO.  Updated traffic to demonstrate overall lower traffic impact on Maple Dell/Route 9. Glitch in about 4 minutes of the video. Libby said the parcel that contains the physical therapy office now does not have a current tenant, so the highest and best was utilized there. She said if the potential tenant is not exempt they will come back before the PB for additional review. Libby displayed a chart City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 13, 2025 - Page 8 of 14 comparing TRB vs. GC-U: 2012 Zoning and UDO. She noted that the minimum front setback is significantly less (about 15 ft.) under the UDO than it was in the TRB when they started this process. There’s definitely an intent to bring these buildings closer to the street. Libby also noted that the environmental impact report that was uploaded to the city files indicates that from the existing conditions to the proposal there’s a reduction in impact - separation from Loughberry is increasing, the level of service for traffic is increasing, stormwater management will receive the benefit of less impervious surfaces, energy, etc. Libby presented the revised traffic letter from CME concluding that overall, the movement of the uses from the neighborhood area out to Route 9, overall improves and reduces the stacking that goes on at that intersection. Libby displayed the site plan and listed the procedural next steps that need to be taken to get to site plan review:  SEQRA – determination of significance prior to any approvals. OPEN  Subdivision – allow for the creation of two separate lots for the existing structures on Maple Dell. OPEN – still need more items.  Area Variances – request for relief from minimum front yard setback for canopy and building façade. TBD  Architectural Review – review of architectural elements for building design and material selection. TBD  Site Plan Review – determination of all site elements under UDO for Marion Ave site (not Maple Dell). TBD Bill asked how they plan to repurpose the Stewart’s Shop on Maple Dell. Libby said it will be the new physical therapy offices. The offices that are currently adjacent to Stewart’s will move over and take over the entirety of the space. The building on Lot 1 will remain vacant until a new tenant is identified. If their use is not exempt, they will come back before the PB. Mike asked about DOT’s comments about sidewalks and driveways which will be discussed at site plan review. Mark Pingel, Co-Chair opened the Public Hearing. Deb Lacomb, 11 Marion Ave. said several questions that she has submitted to various boards have not been answered. With regard to 31-33 Marion Ave. – when you tear down a non-conforming structure, does that make that legal status null and void? Deb said that’s what the applicant is doing, and they are increasing the size of their gas station building by greater than 50%. If they have to make it conform then they can’t have the gas station within 250 ft. (according to 2012 zoning) of a residential district because it’s a safety issue. She and other fellow residents ask that the whole project be considered in the light of whether or not a gas station really belongs there – adjacent to Loughberry and residential. Susan said it is included in the denial, so it is a consideration of the ZBA. The property line associated with a fueling station less than 250 ft. to an abutting residential district is an existing condition and is a variance that’s identified as needing to be evaluated by the ZBA. Libby said this is a gas station that was built prior to the 250 ft. rule and before some of the homes that presently exist within the 250 ft. It’s in the denial letter and will be appropriately discussed before the ZBA. Leah said the statement is that the applicant will need a variance, and the zoning officer has said the applicant will need an area variance. Libby said it’s her understanding that they need a variance because of where the gas station is located, not City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 13, 2025 - Page 9 of 14 because of what’s going on inside the building. Libby said she doesn’t believe the determination that was made by the zoning officer is appropriate for a planning board recommendation to a zoning board because the zoning board has to contend with the decision as it was written by the code enforcement officer. Mike asked how the applicant is dealing with the gas station becoming another gas station right next to the drinking water. Libby said #1. There’s been a lot of technical information placed in the record since 2021 - environmental, fuel storage and safety. 2. The building itself is getting further away from and safer than the existing conditions of 1968 because environmental regulations have improved – the site becomes better and even more improved when the site is re-developed. 3. This use is allowed in the zone. Libby noted that a plan for spillage was submitted by Stewart’s in 2021 as part of the original SEQRA review. In the record of 2021, there is a letter to the then Mayor Kelly indicating and citing to “petroleum bulk storage near sensitive receptors” which is governed by 613-4.1b1vb and applies to how you would protect, design, install and maintain near a critically sensitive area. Joe asked how many feet it is from the pumps to the nearest house. Libby said there’s confusion about that because that’s not the regulation. The regulation is 250 ft. from a residential district – a zoning line. The closest house to a gas pump is 158 ft. Libby said the overarching piece that will be discussed with the ZBA is the long-standing history that this has been reviewed by the planning board and the zoning board in the City of Saratoga Springs and placed there for the better part of 50 years, including a site plan that was before the planning board in 2019. Ryan added that the stormwater design is for what’s considered a hot spot. You can’t shed water, it has to be collected and mitigated as soon as it spills. He said tankers are split into 5 sections. Each section has its own hook up, so if there was a catastrophic accident to one compartment of the tank it wouldn’t affect the other compartments. Bill clarified that if the surface runoff gets contaminated there’s no way it can get into the ground water. Ryan said the water will be collected, treated and discharged at a lesser rate and piped to Marion Ave. into the State’s system. Bill asked if they intend to replace the existing underground storage tanks. Ryan said yes. Bob Lucaroni, Maple Dell referenced the traffic study that was done and said it appears that they counted the cars going into Stewart’s and the physical therapist and assumed the cars were coming out and going to Route 9. Bob said he begs to differ because a lot of the traffic gets stuck between Maple Dell and Route 9 and when the people come out of the current Stewart’s, physical therapist, and the medical building they decide to take Maple Dell instead. There was a discussion between the applicant and the board members regarding the traffic study. Libby summed up by saying that the reality is that there’s heavy commercial development in an area with a few homes and the surrounding zones are commercial, including the other municipalities – Greenfield and Wilton. She said there’s nothing that the applicant that she represents can do about it. Mark Pingel, Co-Chair said the board considers and appreciates the public comments that are submitted because the people who live nearby often raise issues the board isn’t aware of. Mark said the board would move on to the SEQRA Review. Susan said the board went through Part 2 of the SEQRA in July of 2024 and paused in four areas that can be discussed, or they can start over. Mark asked Susan to summarize all the sections and then the board will focus on the four. SEQRA, Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 2: City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 13, 2025 - Page 10 of 14  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, pause, 3e. no, 3f. no, 3g. no, pause, 3h. no answer, 3i. no answer, 3j. no, 3k. no answer, 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 pause., 13b. no, 13c. no, 13d. no, 13e.pause , 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. 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. After Susan went over what was decided in July, Mark asked Susan if the applicant proposes something that minimizes the Board’s initial concern over impacts, would it be appropriate to find that those impacts are no, or small. Leah said that’s perfectly appropriate, and the board can cite the element of the application that changed their decision or remain silent. Leah explained that if the board reaches a conclusion that any impact will be moderate to large in Part 2, then they are required to advance to Part 3 and to consider some more specific scope of impacts when it comes to those that are moderate to large. She said the City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 13, 2025 - Page 11 of 14 board can also explain more about why they found that a particular area of concern was likely not to create any moderate to large impacts (voluntary). It was decided that the board would focus only on the areas where there were “yes” answers: 3. Impacts on surface water. No. 3a. no, 3b. no, 3c. no, 3d. no 3e. no, 3f. no, 3g. no, pause, 3h. no, 3i. 3j. no, 3k. no answer, 3l. Other impacts – potential petroleum spill from off-loading a tanker truck. Tony said there’s a concern about the protection of Loughberry Lake. Susan displayed a map of the buffer. Libby said currently the dimensions to the canopies are 414 ft., to the edge of the building is 419 ft. and to the edge of the carwash 438 ft. Now they will be reduced to 424, 420. Mike said if this is not within 300 ft. then the answer is no. Tony said he wants to make sure there’s a site- specific plan in place for the unloading of a tanker truck to the underground tanks to address spill prevention, countermeasure and control – sandbags, catch basin mats, etc. Libby said that the plan was submitted as part of their 2021 review. Operator training requirements, tanks located in areas prone to flooding, the petroleum bulk storage processes by Stewart’s were all given as well as the training, design of the trucks – all mitigation measures were given regarding all aspects of the delivery and care of petroleum bulk storage on site. After a lengthy back and forth discussion between the board, staff and the applicant it was decided that the answer to #3 is No. 12. Impact on critical environmental areas – Yes. 12a. no, 12b., 12c. Other impacts – Mike asked if there could be a passive system in place that could handle a spill. Libby said DEC mandates passive petroleum containment on site. The board decided their answer to #12 continues to be yes and will require that the board advance to Part 3 where the board will direct Leah and Susan to draft something. 13. Impact on transportation – Yes. 13e. Leah said these questions were not answered at the time because the board wanted further traffic analysis which has since been received. Mark said he thinks there’s a potential for increased pedestrian traffic (13e) once the liquor store is moved and that the board should keep this answer “Yes” and move it over to Part 3 for further discussion. Tony said that it should be addressed in the traffic report. He reiterated that what they have is a trip generation assessment – counts cars that enter the site now and a trip generation for what’s proposed and totals those numbers. It does not talk about the intersections, etc. 13e will go to Part 3. 18. Impact on Community Character – proposed action is inconsistent with the predominate architectural scale and character. 18e. yes Leah said the discussion in July was about the size of the structure – the main Stewart’s shop. Mark said one of the variances being sought by the applicant is the setback. The building has been moved closer to the street (from 40 ft. to 25 ft.). Libby noted that there was an inconsistency between the 2012 gateway design guidelines that wanted to bring the building even closer to the street and the zoning ordinance. She said the UDO minimized that to a certain degree but the stated site constraints, overall layout and petroleum truck safety on site brought the location forward. Susan said the last time the board saw this project there was a concern with the proximity to the front property line (8 ft.), which is now 14 ft. back with the revised plan. Joe asked if the store was scaled down since it was presented the last time. Ryan answered but inaudible (no mic). The board decided that #18 is now No. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 13, 2025 - Page 12 of 14  Leah said the board has the following considerations for Part 3:  12 and 13 were answered moderate to large. Leah said the critical environmental area (#12) was discussed fully and the board has met the requirement of Part 3.  #13, Pedestrian Safety as a component of traffic was not fully discussed. The board talked about the location change for certain retail goods is likely to result in a change in pedestrian direction across the street. The magnitude of that impact has not yet been discussed. Mike said there’s a DOT recommendation (sidewalks) and he asked why the applicant wouldn’t want to implement that. He said there should be a conversation about the crosswalk, what it looks like and where it’s signalized. The vehicle traffic could be looked at because you’re removing everything from Maple Dell and moving it over to the east side of Marion Ave. Show how it will work and might it lessen the negative impact when all of the uses are lined up on Marion Ave. The intersection between Maple Dell and Route 9 is too short and will always back up. Perhaps Maple Dell gets closed off and becomes a driveway and gets cut off from the residential area. Mark suggested that if there was one signalized (rotating, rapid flashing beacon RRFB) pedestrian crossing that gets pedestrians safely from the neighborhood side to the sidewalk it would be helpful. Leah asked the applicant if they would have any objection if the board were to adopt a conditioned negative declaration that would result in whatever this crosswalk is and a SWPPP that demonstrates that any petroleum spilled during fill-up would be held on site. The applicant had no objection to the outcome. Leah said based on the applicant’s answer, she and Susan can draft Part 3 for the board’s review and consideration. She’s gathering from the board that the discussion about what should be contained in a draft of Part 3 is over, and she and Susan will consider the board’s comments and put together a Part 3 for the board’s review. Tony said the Part 3 should show that the board looked at the public comment and were thorough in reaching their determination. He feels the traffic study is lacking discussion of trip distribution, and he doesn’t think it would show anything that can’t be mitigated. He suggested diagrams of existing and proposed trip distribution at the intersections of Maple Dell and the residential intersection, and Maple Dell and Route 9 and the site driveways to Stewart’s shop would help the board come to a conclusion about traffic impacts. Leah said there’s been no formal SEQRA determination at this point. The board can request the applicant to provide additional information and specific details they need. Tony said he’s not saying the board needs a traffic study before there’s a SEQRA determination. He’s saying the work needs to be done and added to the record before site plan review. Leah said because they’re not taking SEQRA action tonight, the applicant will have about a month before doing so. If the applicant is able to supplement the information by then, it’s part of the SEQRA record. Tony asked if it would be appropriate to ask them to have the traffic engineer look at trip distribution and incorporate the recommendations of DOT into a traffic study including the pedestrian section. Leah said they can ask the applicant anything they’d like but it seems reasonable to consider trip distribution especially in light of the comment that was made about impact to the neighbors. Libby said the CME letter from 2021 does consider striping and contains the trip distribution study. She said she has a sense that the applicant is being asked to study a different applicant’s traffic problem with an adjacent medical provider, and that’s unfair. Bill said the board heard from the neighbors and everyone is concerned City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 13, 2025 - Page 13 of 14 about the impact of what’s going on at the corner of Marion Ave. and the critical intersection at Maple Dell. The applicant is asking for a two-lot subdivision on that corner. Did they consider keeping it one lot and eliminate one of the uses – the building closest to Marion Ave. or considered developing the property with one building instead of 2 or just keeping it one lot? One building was vacant for a long time. Libby said she’s not aware that they’ve considered that. Bill said it would soften the impact on the neighborhood. Mark Pingel, Co-Chair said there’s two items in Part 3 that will lead to a review of the SWPPP and a pedestrian traffic plan. Tony has asked for some additional information in the traffic study. Mark polled the board to see if they agree with Tony’s request. Joe said he doesn’t think it’s necessary because that traffic is going to be eliminated anyway. Mike, Bill and Alex agreed with Joe, and it was decided in a 4 to 2 vote that the board would not request an additional traffic study. Mark said moving forward the focus will be on the pedestrian crossing and the critical environmental area. Mark said there would not be a SEQRA vote tonight because they have to wait for Part 3 to be completed. Once that’s done they can issue their recommendation to the ZBA. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Mike King made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Joe Ferrante. All in favor. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary MINUTES APPROVED ON APRIL 10, 2025. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – February 13, 2025 - Page 14 of 14