Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FINAL THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 2025 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Joe Ferrante, Co-Chair called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Joe Ferrante, Co-Chair, Bill McTygue, Kerry Mayo, Alex White (alternate), Mike King, Anthony (Tony) Stellato ABSENT: Mark Pingel, Chair 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. #20250073 30 Caroline St. Site Plan Extension of site plan approval of a mixed-use project including first-floor commercial space and 11 residential units in the Urban Core (T-6) District. The approval was due to expire 3-1-25, 18 months from the approval date of the signature of the final plans, 9-1-23. The applicant is seeking an extension of the approval. If granted the new expiration date if construction is not under way is 9-1-26. Joe Ferrante, Co-Chair asked if there were any comments from the board or public. There were none. Bill McTygue made a motion to approve the extension of the site plan approval for 30 Caroline St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Kerry Mayo. Vote: J. Ferrante-Y, B. McTygue-Y, K. Mayo-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, A. White-Y. 6-0, motion carried. C. PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 2. #20240932 16 Marion Ave. Final Subdivision. Final Plat review of a proposed two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. Joe Ferrante, Co-Chair said the subdivision was approved on 1-16-25 but the required property posting notification of the Public Hearing had not been met. That was corrected prior to the last meeting on February 13, 2025. The applicant was not present at the February 13th meeting where public comment was made pertaining to the lack of on-site parking for the existing two-family residence. The application was adjourned to the following meeting on today’s date. Tonya Yasenchak, Y Engineering & Engineering America represented the applicant. Tonya gave a brief history of the approval process for this application:  January 2025 project approved  Planning Board for advisory opinion.  Has zoning variances associated with the project. In May of 2024 the project was before the Planning Board where the applicant received a positive advisory opinion with the layout and parking the way that it was proposed.  June 13, 2024, the project was before the ZBA. There was a public hearing, and variances were granted for the site plan and the layout as proposed.  The applicant went before the Design Review Board for a portion of the building that needs to be removed. On January 31, 2025, they received approval for a non- significant structure and demolition of the garage. Tonya said she was out of town for the February 13th meeting, and because the application was on the consent agenda and there had been several public hearings with no concerns voiced by the public about parking she wasn’t concerned about attending. There was discussion among the board members, and no one was using a mic. I am not able to record what I cannot hear. Mike said the comment was that 22 ft. wide is too narrow to have on-street parking. He said according to his measurements, the street/curb and what will be built will be the equivalent of a 26 ft. wide street. Tonya said they don’t plan on doing any modifications to the road. As required by the planning board they will include additional streetscaping – curbing (as shown on the plan), greenspace that goes between the road and the sidewalk, a sidewalk, additional street trees and streetlights. Tony said the site plan does seem to show a new curb, which would imply that they’re going to widen Avenue A and repave it, but it doesn’t specifically say that. Mike explained that at the corner of Marion and Avenue A there’s a curb on Marion and there’s a curb return, and that section is 26 ft. wide. Bill said that in the future if the city or the homeowner decides to install a curb further down the street it’s going to taper into something narrower. Mike asked what the parking requirements are in this district without variances. Susan said two parking spaces per residential unit are required. The current pre-existing non-conforming two-family property has only two off-street parking spaces, which also makes it non-conforming. They are only required to maintain the two off-street parking spaces and they are not required to add additional parking for the two-family residence on Lot 1. Bill said City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – March 20, 2025 - Page 2 of 10 at the workshop the board talked about a compromise that would provide one more parking space. He said the idea was to eliminate the necessity for on-street parking on a narrow street. It’s difficult for street maintenance, especially in the wintertime when cars are parked on the street. He suggested removing a mature tree to the right of the two-family structure and making a parking space/driveway and having the applicant plant something more mature for two of the proposed trees in their approved plan. Tonya said despite having all of the necessary approvals, they’re willing to compromise so that they can move forward with their project. Removing a mature tree will be an additional cost for the applicant. Bill said the tree they’re considering removing has a split trunk and if it fails it’s going to split in two. Joe Ferrante, Co-Chair asked if there were any public comments. Renee Taliana, 4 Avenue A said this is a safety issue first and foremost. The duplex is a rental and the person renting one of the units has the driveway adjacent to her driveway. If it were to be lengthened it would cause congestion in a very narrow driveway. She said there was a version of this design that was presented at some point in the approval process that showed parking on the right side of the two-family dwelling. She said the issue with parking on the street is that the road is a thoroughfare. The neighborhood is small, the houses are small and if a firetruck or ambulance were trying to get through with cars parked on the street it could be an unsafe situation. She said no one really parks on that street because it’s unsafe and congested. John Iacoponi, 4 Avenue A said the existing road is 22 ft. The action before this board is to approve an actual plan. Where is 4 ft. more coming from? (Mike’s calculation). He said the active roadway in the dead of winter with no on-street parking is 18 ft. He said by the planning board mandating the curb and the sidewalk, where cars have parked for 50 years, (Avenue A. in the right-of-way in front of the two-family) they will force parking onto the active roadway. John said when the Stewart’s Shop gets built directly across the street all of the traffic coming from Skidmore, eastside, etc. will go both ways down Avenue A. Joe Ferrante, Co-Chair asked the board members for their comments:  Bill said he would like to make room for a driveway where the large tree is and upsize the caliper of trees out front by an inch.  Alex said he’s against parking 3 cars in the driveway on the left of the two-family building and is in favor of the removal of the tree and creating a driveway like Bill suggested.  Kerry said he thinks on-street parking actually makes the street safer; it calms traffic and will slow down the additional traffic from Stewart’s. Fire trucks will still be able to get through if the street goes down to 20 ft. He’s in favor of keeping with the plan that was approved of last year.  Tony prefers the idea of moving the lot line and having a double wide driveway, expanding lot 1 and lot 2. If that won’t work he is agreeable with the compromise Bill suggested; remove the tree and make room for a driveway. He feels it addresses the concerns of the neighbors and accomplishes the goal. Alex noted that the utility lines will be buried there too.  Mike said he doesn’t agree with cutting down the tree to put in another parking space. He would support larger caliper trees in the tree strip. There was a discussion about the width of the street that Mike said he measured at 26 ft. (at the City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – March 20, 2025 - Page 3 of 10  intersection/proposed curb) versus the 22 ft. on the survey map. Bill suggested having the city engineering department to get the mean width of the street. Bill thinks it’s on the narrow side and Mike thinks it’s wider.  Joe said there are 2 people that want street parking and 3 who are for the proposal to take down the tree and add a driveway. Joe asked Mike if having on-street parking slows down traffic and Mike answered yes, 100 percent. Tonya said she can draw up a modified plan and submit it to the planning department. Leah suggested that the applicant prepare revised plans so the staff and DPW can take a look first and not vote tonight with conditions of approval. Tonya asked if the board could provide an advisory opinion in case they have to go back to the zoning board and ask for an additional variance for a second curb cut in order to save time. Susan said there’s the combined width per lot (25% maximum) and DPW would have to issue the permit for that. Tony talking without mic. Leah said if the applicant is going to present a revised plan and the public hearing should remain open and continue to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Joe Ferrante, Co-Chair said the board will look at the revised plan at the next meeting and the Public Hearing will remain open. 3. #20250089 274 Kaydeross Ave. East Final Subdivision. Final plat review of a 3-lot conservation subdivision in the Rural Residential (RR) District. Joe Ferrante, Co-Chair read the narrative about the conservation subdivision. Mike asked if the applicant had met the requirements described in the narrative. The applicant replied affirmatively. Susan said the preliminary plat approval had 3 conditions: 1. They have shown on the final plat future vehicular connection to Riley Farm Lane and that it will be constructed within one year of notification. 2. Modify dimensional standards for the conservation subdivision – they have included some setbacks. 3. The draft conservation easement was included with their final plat submission. Susan said the board can identify whether the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the three conditions. She said it’s typical that they would have maximum building coverage. The lot sizes are comparable to the city’s suburban residential district, where the maximum building coverage is 28%, maximum impervious surface coverage is 40%, and the maximum building height is 35 ft. These were not included in the plan and the board can consider having them added. The applicant (No name given) said they are proposing at max 3,000 sq. ft. building which was included for their SWPPP calculations as well. The patios in the pool areas measure 10 ft by 20 ft. She said there’s a small amount of imperviousness going onto the lots. They can come back with those numbers or make them a condition of approval. Mike asked the City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – March 20, 2025 - Page 4 of 10 applicant if they could meet the suburban residential requirements. She said yes, they are easily under those numbers. Susan said if the board approves the final plat tonight they should include a condition of final review and approval by the city’s legal counsel of the draft conservation easement. Leah said the reasoning is that they’re not sure whether the city would want to accept a conservation easement, so to avoid having to come back, it would make sense to craft a condition of approval that foresees different outcomes. The board should have a conservation easement in place at a certain point in the process. It could be before a mylar is filed or before a building permit gets pulled, but there should be some period of time at which at that moment they can confirm that a fully executed recorded conservation easement is already in place that it is acceptable to city legal counsel. If there’s a motion to approve tonight she would recommend inserting it at that point. Bill asked if it could be approved with the few small items that need to be addressed and leave the final approval as an administrative function of the board chair. Leah disagreed, the board should approve it now with conditions. Leah said it would be conditionally approved and when the mylar is submitted planning staff would confirm whether the conditions had been met. If they have, they would be given to the chair. The three conditions are: 1. They have shown on the final plat future vehicular connection to Riley Farm Lane and that it will be constructed within one year of notification. 2. Percentages of land use – the square footages of driveways, house & pool. 3. The final mylar shall not be signed until a fully executed conservation easement which is acceptable to the city legal counsel has been recorded. Mike King made a motion to approve the plat plan for 274 Kaydeross Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY with the conditions previously discussed. The motion was seconded by Bill McTygue. Vote: J. Ferrante-Y, B. McTygue-Y, K. Mayo-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, A. White- Y. 6-0, motion carried. 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. Joe Ferrante, Co-Chair said the applicant submitted a detail of an oil stop valve that was discussed at the last meeting that can be used to prevent fuel from entering into the public stormwater system. Joe said at the 2/13/25 meeting the board continued an evaluation of Part 2 of the long EAF and identified two areas as moderate to large. The board asked staff to provide a draft Part 3 for further consideration at the following meeting. He asked the board members if they read draft Part 3 and they said they did. This application was before the board on 7-18-24 and at that meeting the planning board accepted Lead Agency status and began SEQRA review. The planning board requested an updated traffic assessment and a contingency plan for possible spills. The updated traffic assessment includes the overall plan to relocate the existing Stewart’s on Maple Dell to the site of the Mobil station and garage. The ZBA deferred Lead Agency status to the planning board on 7-10-24. The ZBA initiated coordinated SEQRA review on 3-18-25. Stewart’s Shops overlay district purpose: the residential neighborhood 1 and residential neighborhood 2 designations are characterized by single family residential uses with City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – March 20, 2025 - Page 5 of 10 moderate density two-family. While a mix of housing types is present, these areas retain the basic character of single-family neighborhoods such as front and rear yards, driveways and garages. Small neighborhood scale commercial uses may currently exist to complement the residential uses. The SEQRA: the project appears to be unlisted Part 1 of the long form submitted. The planning board completed Part 2 on 2-13-25. Required actions: Area variance pending. Site plan review. DRB architectural review. Required referrals: SCBP referral required. Public Hearing is open for the area variance and remains open. The project summary: the proposal includes demolition of the existing Mobil Station and Car Wash and development of new Stewart’s Shops convenience store gas canopy and commercial tenant space. City Staff Comments: 1. Part 2 of the EAF: the planning board completed Part 2 and identified the following impacts as moderate to large: #12 impacts on critical environmental areas, #13 impacts on transportation. 2. The Gateway Design District 2 includes the following guidance pertaining to traffic calming for properties: special consideration should be given to design measures that reduce travel speeds on Marion Ave. Traffic calming measures include reducing the width of road shoulders and installing curbs, street trees, sidewalks and street lighting. Installing bump-outs and pedestrian refuge areas at pedestrian crossings. The site plan shows consolidation of existing four curb cuts into two for the development project as well as sidewalks added along the frontage. SEE comments from DOT Joe said the action tonight is to conclude SEQRA Review of the two outstanding items: traffic and spill containment. The applicant has provided the engineering details for spill containment as well as a plan for the transport of the fuel from the truck to the station. Leah said tonight’s goal is for the board to consider draft 3 and decide if they agree that it accurately reflects their views on what was talked about when discussing SEQRA at the last meeting. The board needs to determine if any changes are needed. Leah asked the applicant how many gallons of fuel the below ground tanks hold. Ryan said it would be 15,000 gallons and then a split 12,000 – with two 6,000-gallon sections in it. A total of 27,0000 gallons. The following is the board members’ comments on draft 3 regarding #12 impacts on critical environmental areas (board expressed concern that if there was a petroleum spill and it was not wholly contained on the site that it could potentially have an impact on Loughberry Lake). #13 - impacts on transportation as it relates to the two crossings and potential impact on pedestrians:  Mike – said his recollection regarding the crossings is that the applicant was to get together with DOT about getting across the road and extending the sidewalk. Joe said they talked about the sidewalk going the entire length of the property and having a crossing at the corner where Maple Dell comes out and one further north on Stewart’s property by Avenue A. Susan said the board has comments from DOT and a mock-up plan. There would need to be permits and approvals by DOT, so this is just a sketch.  Tony – Section 12b, the second paragraph says, “however the board finds no important impact to Loughberry Lake provided that any spilled petroleum remains on site”. Tony would like to modify that sentence so that it doesn’t sound like they expect City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – March 20, 2025 - Page 6 of 10  spilled petroleum. Change to “safe handling practices are implemented to minimize the potential for spilled petroleum and in the event of a spill any spilled petroleum remains on site”.  Mike – 2nd paragraph of 13e, “the applicant verbally modified its application to include” should be worded more specifically. Leah said it’s her recollection that the board wants to have the ability during site plan review to take into consideration those factors at that time. Leah said they can leave it somewhat vague now or make it much more specific. The concern is if it creates a problem in the future. They can always revisit the plan. Mike said he’s not satisfied with the statement that “the applicant verbally modified its application” because it’s too vague. He would like it to say, “the applicant has modified its application to include crosswalks and extension of a sidewalk and will coordinate with DOT because it’s a state route”. Libby noted that there’s significant precedence with the board accepting the wording with the Weibel Ave. Stewart’s project. The SEQRA review was done first, and things were noted in a general fashion. When they got to site plan review it did not in any way eliminate the board’s ability to address traffic impacts as part of the site plan review process. She said much more was developed by DOT at that time because that’s a county road as well and involved bike routes which remain to be seen with a successful outcome. That iterative process has worked well in the past. Mike said he would like a little more specificity. Leah - the final paragraph says “however, project to include sidewalk extensions and crosswalks acceptable to the planning board and DOT to provide safe pedestrian access to the site and thereby reduce…” Libby said her point is that the ultimate authority resides with DOT on their roads, but it was a collaborative process. Stewart’s is generally on board with a solution. Tony Stellato made a motion to accept and approve the Part 3 as modified tonight and adopt a SEQRA negative declaration for 31-33 Marion Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Kerry Mayo. Discussion: Bill McTygue clarified to the public that although there’s no public hearing for tonight’s action, the project will come back before the planning board for site plan review. Leah added that it will also be before the ZBA, DRB and PB. Vote: J. Ferrante-Y, B. McTygue-Y, K. Mayo-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, A. White-Y. 6-0, motion carried. Leah said the board has to give an advisory opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the variance application. Libby said over the course of the project’s review there’s been multiple discussions with the zoning enforcement office. At the last meeting on February 13th the zoning enforcement officer provided final official variances that will be sought on this project. She said they didn’t have a chance to review it at the last meeting. Libby said much of the project already exists in some form so the relief they are requesting is from the code, not existing conditions: 26 ft. for the front setback for the convenience store, 17 ft. for the fuel canopy, 10 ft. for rental office, fuel canopy from the rear setback 23 ft., and the rear setback rental location, 8 ft. Also, the property line associated with the fueling station not less than 250 ft. abutting a residential district – that it be permitted in this circumstance as an area variance (new condition in 2012). There’s a total of 6 area variances to present to the zoning board of appeals, mostly in the front and rear. Susan said the ZBA has seen this project, and they had a public hearing that remains open. At that meeting they coordinated SEQRA review. They are asking for an City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – March 20, 2025 - Page 7 of 10 advisory opinion from the planning board on these variances. Libby said the ZBA will see slightly less relief in the front. It went from 8 ft. to 14 ft. The planning board has already provided some commentary as part of the SEQRA review process that has been incorporated into the negative declaration that was just issued, so the ZBA will now see a more compliant plan to what the PB’s SEQRA determination was as opposed to what they saw in 2023. Libby simplified it by saying they modified the plan through the SEQRA process and the ZBA hasn’t seen that yet. The red dash line on the revised variance review plans is the build-to line. The applicant is proposing the project be built closer to the road to get it further away from Loughberry Lake. Libby said at the time this application was originally filed; it was prior to the UDO. At that time the overlay district in the design guidelines actually asked for the building to come closer as far as the walkability and accessibility desire for Marion Ave. Libby said it has existing site constraints and they either have to leave the property in C-2 as it exists or make as many changes as possible to bring it up to code by layering in current zoning, environmental regulations, traffic and the existing site constraints. There was a discussion about the vacant parcel to the north and whether it could eventually be built on. Libby said that the parcel will be “forever wild” conservation easement under deed restrictions. Bill asked the width of the sidewalk and the tree belt along the street. Ryan said there’s 8 feet of green space and the sidewalk along the road is 5 ft. Bill said he would like to see a 6 ft. sidewalk along the building. BOARD MEMBERS SPEAKING WITHOUT MICS. Leah said the reason for the PB to specify something to the ZBA is so they are aware of it and can do something – condition an approval, etc. ZBA’s have the ability to grant variances and to not grant all that’s being sought. Tony talking without mic. Kerry talking without mic. Mike talking without mic. Kerry talking without mic. Entire conversation on the board without mic. Someone shouting from the audience (inaudible). Leah said public comments are required to be taken when there’s a Public Hearing. What the board is doing tonight is not subject to a public hearing. When certain applications are advertised the board will allow public comment. This is not the situation tonight. The planning board is merely advising another board about the other board’s review process. Joe Ferrante, Co-Chair said they would allow 90 seconds of comments per person. John Iacoponi, 4 Avenue A said he wanted to clarify some things that were stated. He said the big lot to the north is residential and this project directly abuts residential. John said at the last meeting it was represented that this project is more in line with the UDO. The UDO requires a front setback behind the red line. It’s Stewart’s business desire to make the building this big. Two years ago, it was under 4,000 sq. ft. and now it’s 4,500. The scale of City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – March 20, 2025 - Page 8 of 10 the project has gotten bigger and it’s not consistent with the comprehensive plan and small neighborhood scale. Their main objection is to the front setback. Deb LaComb, 11 Marion Ave. said she’s not opposed to this concept except for the scale. She said they have to conform to the code once they tear down the building and remove the foundation they lose grandfathered status. 4,500 sq. ft. for one building is too much. Renee Taliana, 4 Avenue said the neighbors are all concerned about the grandfather situation. The 250 ft. zoning is to protect residents for safety reasons. It would be helpful to the residents to know why the board’s opinion would be that way if it were to impact the residents. Joe said the board is working to make this project more integrated into the neighborhood. Their job tonight is to decide if they have any advice to give to the zoning board as required. The neighbors can then go to the zoning board to speak about it further. Joe said he has seen this project three times and in his opinion it’s becoming more integrated into the neighborhood and community with sidewalks, crosswalks, greenspace, and tree lines. Advisory to ZBA: Mike two positions – conservation easement noted somewhere and he’s okay with the buildings closer to the street. He would rather have them closer to the street and with the parking on the side and the back. Tony – this is not an advisory opinion on the 5 criteria that the ZBA needs to consider. We’re advising whether there’s anything else that we want them to consider. He would want something built into the approval that would prevent the development of another fueling station on that piece of property. Susan said the front setback was 8 ft. and is now 14 ft. Is the board ok with that? Libby said there’s another zoning enforcement letter on this discrepancy (from Patrick) on this issue. The reason this was originally before the ZBA when it was in a PUD was because the design guidelines for the overlay asked for the building to be brought forward where the 40 ft. setback was in conflict. Patrick issued a letter saying there were two provisions in conflict that the ZBA is going to have to resolve. It’s not whether 40 ft. is too much. Forty is forty and the design review wants it moved forward. Ryan added that the UDO’s front setback has changed from 40 ft to 25 ft. Joe said the idea was to move it closer and create a green barrier from the street to act as a traffic barrier for safety on the sidewalk. Leah asked if the board wants to add a generic note like “the planning board recommends that the ZBA consider whether the structure could be moved back any further? No, no note about the front. They came back with what the board requested. Susan said it sounds like a favorable advisory opinion except the comment about the conservation easement and a portion of the lot to the north to prevent another fueling station to occur on that portion of the lot or any other commercial use. The PB is generally accepting of the most recent plan set date of May of 2024. Bill noted that the applicant is handing over a substantial piece of property for a conservation easement. Mike King made a motion to issue a favorable advisory opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding 31-33 Marion Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – March 20, 2025 - Page 9 of 10 Bill McTygue. Vote: J. Ferrante-Y, B. McTygue-Y, K. Mayo-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, A. White-Y. 6-0, motion carried. 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 – March 20, 2025 - Page 10 of 10