Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2025 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Mark Pingel, Chair called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mark Pingel, Chair, Bill McTygue, Kerry Mayo, Alex White (alternate), Mike King, Anthony (Tony) Stellato ABSENT: Joe Ferrante, Co-Chair STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, Leah Everhart, City Counsel, James Sallaway, City Engineer. A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: None 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. Mark Pingel, Chair announced that James Sallaway is now the City Engineer. Congratulations James! Mark mentioned that it’s his first meeting as chair and it will be tough to follow-up the two past chairs – Mark Torpey and Chuck Marshall. C. PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 1. #20230877 NYS Route 29 Mixed-Use. Consideration of SEQRA review for a mixed-use project including multi-family residences and a hotel in the Neighborhood Commercial (T-5) District. Bill McTygue recused himself from this project. Mark Pingel, Chair said this application has been before the board in the past. The board won’t be making any decisions tonight. They will listen to the presentation, ask questions and summarize to the applicant what further details are needed. Jamie Easton represented the applicant, Prime Companies and presented the following:   Project site is 17 acres and is bordered by the train station on Station Lane, Washington Ave. (Route 29), Intrada-NYSHCR Housing, and West Ave.  The project site contains 3 parcels of land – an undeveloped vacant parcel of land (16.5 acres) and two smaller parcels of land with a house and business being run out of it.  Zoning is T-5.  Came before planning board in the past and presented all residential use. The planning board requested they add some commercial uses. Site Plan:  Two “H” shaped buildings totaling 344 multi-family units. The project complies with City code with height and the amount of land coverage. There’s a general courtyard between the 2 buildings – 1area is a large grass space, the other is pools, courtyard, saunas, movie screens, picnic tables, fire pits, etc. There will be a dog park, playground, green space, & pavilion and connections to existing multi-use paths. This idea was used on Hudson Square apartment buildings in Cohoes. The only difference is this project is twice as big.  Rowhouse Units – 7 pods (4-6 units) = 40 units. They will be for rent/sale (TBD). Attached garages and 1 surface parking. 2-story structures with rear facing garages with internal courtyard.  Commercial – 110 Room Hotel (next to Intrada). DRB approval required. They’re using a prototypical 4-story hotel, Staybridge Suites is an example.  Parking – on-street = 157 stalls. Surface lots = 187 stalls. Underground or within garages = 407 stalls. Required=Proposed 751 Stalls.  Follows UDO – city streets, sidewalk, median. Includes a boulevard at the main entrances (76-foot right-of-way) – formal entrance with streetscape, bike lanes and sidewalks connecting to the multi-use path along Route 29. 55-foot right-of-way with 34 ft. wide road-UDO code.  Question from workshop – how does this project work with the City’s proposed park located off of West Ave? Two paths near walking tails proposed to connect to the park. Jamie showed a sketch of the City Park Plan. Next Steps:  SEQRA determination – water/sewer, traffic, stormwater, wetlands, SHPO, UDO.  ZBA – need area variances, not self-created, are in conflict with the city code – need maximum buildout frontage along Station Lane but there are wetlands, can’t build there. Need steep slope variance because everything along the roadway is considered a steep slope by the UDO. In order to put an entrance in at Route 29 they’ll need to disturb the buffer.  DRB  The boulevard will be owned and maintained by the city and will meet city standards and specifications.  The “U-shaped” road will be privately owned and is designed to city standards.  They will inter-connect the road from Intrada to their site. Alex asked if there was any traffic buildup indicated in the report. Jamie said no because they’ve limited the turn movements – can make a right out, make a left out but it’s a right in only. The queuing of someone coming across the railroad bridge on Route 29 is that they’re not allowed to make a left turn movement which is typically the highest conflict movement. Alex asked if they could create an access point between Intrada and the hotel. Jamie said City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – April 10, 2025 - Page 2 of 10 besides the grade issue, to have a secondary access point coming in there doesn’t work because DOT wouldn’t want two curb cuts right next to each other. A driver could go around Intrada and pull into the parking lot of the hotel. Kerry asked what roads the traffic report considered. Jamie said it considered Station Lane, West Ave., Church St., Washington Ave. and areas of proposed projects nearby. The traffic engineers would come before the board to answer questions. Kerry asked if they would need variances for height or lot coverage. Jamie said they’re in compliance except they are 2.3 ft., based on average grade around the building, which is above the city height code requirement, but because they’re using mini- splits and different heating systems, the planning board has the authority to grant up to a 5 ft. height waiver underneath that code requirement. They are asking for 2.3 ft. credit for this project. Kerry asked about parking for the homes for sale. Each home has a garage attached to the backside. Tony said he likes the plan, it’s well done. He asked about the grade of the boulevard from Route 29 coming into the project. Jamie said it does not exceed 3% per city code – it’s 2% for a way and then 3% due to the elevation difference. The guiderail on Route 29 will be reconfigured to DOT standards. Jamie said they will remove the cable guiderail, and a new box beam cable guiderail will be installed along the sidewalk. The sidewalk along Route 29 will extend past the boulevard along their property to the west and will transition into the shoulder. Jamie said DOT has seen this design in the planning dept., but it needs to go through full design review and specification review for the sidewalk and curb cut, etc. Mike asked what today’s action is. Mark said the board is making a list identifying the major issues they see at this point. Once they get to SEQRA review they’ll talk more about details. Ultimately they’ll consider a special use permit, 13-lot subdivision and site plan review. Susan said a special use permit will be needed for the multi-family buildings because they’re residential only. Jamie said the multi-family buildings, hotel and row houses will all be separate tax parcels. Mike asked for another connection (in purple on the map) from the northwest corner (from the loop-road) to the parking lot. Jamie said there’s an infiltration basin along the side next to the railroad station driveway. Mike asked if the applicant could show a potential connection to Intrada’s driveway. He said DOT offered comments last year regarding this site and said, “consider public access interconnectivity to future development in the adjacent parcels”. Susan said what Mike is referring to is DOT’s SEQRA deferral response and they provided comments as well. Alex said adding a pedestrian path so people would be able to walk around the whole hotel instead of entering the hotel would be beneficial. Mark said the applicant should look at connectivity to commercial areas on West Ave. and the overall impact of traffic. Civic space will be more about the park that’s planned, and it will be discussed in more detail later on. With regard to civic space, the city has a desire to have this project contribute toward the city park that’s planned in that area. Mark said the board would prefer that the applicant apply for the height bonus based on housing affordability instead of energy efficiency. Mark said they will be reviewing the long form during the SEQRA process which will require the applicant to submit detailed information to answer some of the questions on the form. Jamie said that they have submitted a narrative that briefly goes over the SEQRA questions to help the board. 2. #20240932 16 Marion Ave. Final Subdivision. Final Plat review of a proposed two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. Mark said they’ve looked at this project a number of times and are hoping to finalize their decision tonight. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – April 10, 2025 - Page 3 of 10 Tonya Yasenchak, Y Engineering & Engineering America represented the applicant. Tonya said she was asked by the board to revisit the parking for the existing two-family residence, and she presented two options:  Option B – a second driveway that would provide parking for two and would require removing a large tree.  Option A – was sent to the applicant from the city engineer’s office showing a parking space (indentation) in front of the two-family residence allowing the tree to be preserved. Mark asked if the applicant has a preference. Tonya said their preference is to have the parking in front of the building so the larger tree can be preserved but they’ll do either option. Mark Pingel, Chair asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. Deb LaCombe, 11 Marion Ave., also an HOA member said they would prefer plan B to have two off-street parking spaces. It will be safer and easier to maintain in the wintertime. Mark Pingel, Chair closed the Public Hearing and asked the individual board members to state their preference and reasoning for their choice. Bill – said he prefers the straight curb without the cutout (option B) from a practical street design standpoint. The cutout presents a problem for 2 cars in the future to be able to park there. The cutout cheapens the design of the project. Alex – agrees with Bill and with keeping the off-street parking consistent with the surrounding neighborhood properties. Kerry – prefers Option A and preserving the trees. Having cars parked close to the street will calm the traffic there. Tony – agreed with Bill and his reasons cited, Option B. Mike – on-street parking with parking bays is bringing the city into the future. It will have to be designed wide enough to accommodate snow/snow plowing. He said the material used for the bay could be a permeable material that would actually help with stormwater runoff. He agrees with Option A. It will calm traffic, make the street safer, and save the large tree from being cut down. After a straw poll it was determined that the board would prefer Option B. Leah said this will be a modification to the previously adopted SEQRA. The board can adopt a motion stating that this is a minor modification to the previously reviewed SEQRA action, and it will have no impacts different or greater than those already considered for SEQRA purposes. Mark Pingel made a motion that this modification to the previously reviewed and adopted SEQRA is minor. The motion was seconded by Kerry Mayo. Vote: M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, M. Pingel-Y, K. Mayo-Y, A. White-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 6-0, Motion carried. Mark Pingel made a motion to rescind their previous subdivision approval. The motion was seconded by Bill McTygue. Vote: M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, M. Pingel-Y, K. Mayo-Y, A. White-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 6-0, Motion carried. Mark Pingel made a motion to approve the subdivision at 11 Marion Ave. as defined by the drawing package that was submitted to the city, to include the parking plan which includes 2 driveways – one on each side of the two-family residence. The motion was seconded by City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – April 10, 2025 - Page 4 of 10 Tony Stellato. Vote: M. King-N, T. Stellato-Y, M. Pingel-Y, K. Mayo-N, A. White-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 4-2, Motion carried. 3. #2025132 54 Church St. Sketch site plan. Sketch plan of a proposed mixed-use project in the Urban Core (T-6) District. Mark Pingel, Chair said this property is currently a gas station with a small convenience store. Tonya Yasenchak, Y Engineering & Engineering America represented the applicant who purchased the property from Golub Properties. There was a gas station on it that the applicant leased for a period of time. When he purchased the property he was required to put in new fuel tanks and pumps which were done within the last 5 years. The cost for these new utilities for the gas station was over $300,000. The applicant is proposing to remove some pumps and construct a mixed-use building with commercial space on the first floor and apartments on the upper floors. Tonya said they are before the planning board with a sketch plan because the site is unique in size and configuration, and because of the existing utilities on the site. The address of the site is 54 Church, but the narrower frontage of the property is along Clinton St. Tonya said according to the UDO if a property is on a corner the narrowest portion of the lot is considered the front (Clinton St.). Tonya said because there are frontage requirements and possible zoning variances needed they wanted to get the PB’s thought on the project first. She showed photos of the site from various angles and a site plan map. She presented a sketch of the proposed 4-story building to show mass and scale. Tonya said she’s started discussions with the Preservation Foundation regarding rhythm on the building. The building will be brick with balconies, and they will add arches and metal work. The design is in a very preliminary stage. There will be 4 units on each floor 2nd-4th, and a penthouse unit that steps back 10 or 12 ft. for a total of 13 units. Mark Pingel, Chair said this is information enough for initial comments from board members:  Mike – in favor of more building downtown. 1. Pointed out that the design standards in the Urban Core district require buildings to be within zero to 12 ft. and to be built out to 80% of the property frontage of both streets. This does not, so variances will be required. 2. The UDO for commercial mixed use district design standards says “all buildings must be oriented toward a primary public street” which in this case (regardless of where the property is narrower) is Church St. and the building is not oriented toward that. 3. “All public entrances must include a direct pedestrian connection which may not be set back more than 10 ft. from the building line” – not sure this design does that. 4.“Commercial store fronts must include traditional pedestrian oriented elements”, this will retain a gas station appearance. Mike pointed out that this board does not consider economic impact ($300,000 spent on new utilities). He is in favor of the development and if the applicant were to present something that looked at the entire buildout of the site instead of just phase 1, post gas station, that might make more sense to the board. Tonya said the plan is very conceptual and they will also be required to go to the ZBA.  Tony – a gas station in the Urban Core T-6 is not a permitted use. The gas station that’s currently there is a pre-existing, non-conforming use. There’s a change of use and that’s what’s being considered. If they want to renovate the gas station, that’s permissible. If they want to introduce another use on this property (mixed use City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – April 10, 2025 - Page 5 of 10  commercial and residential) then it’s his understanding that the gas station is non- conforming and needs to go or needs a use variance. Mark clarified with Leah that the gas station has a special use permit and asked whether the other uses would eliminate the need for a special use permit for the gas station. Leah said those determinations are made by the zoning officer. Once the zoning officer determines the uses they will be binding upon the boards that review the application. This is determined at the administrative level. Tonya said they have not yet met with the zoning officer. Tony agreed with Mike with regard to the location of the proposed building. He said he has concerns about the underground tanks being so close to the apartment building.  Kerry – asked if the canopy and building could be switched to get the building out into the frontage of the property. Tonya said the pumps can’t be behind the building because they’re running a gas station there and the pumps wouldn’t be visible.  Alex agreed with Mike that the primary street is Church St. and pushing the building up front would be more attractive for the city.  Bill said he’s less than enthusiastic about this proposal. In his opinion the lot has tremendous potential and he’s not sure this plan gets anywhere near that potential, likely because they are constrained with the location of the canopy and gas pumps and underground tanks.  Mark said there’s a UDO requirement that no gas pump can be within 250 ft. of residences, and this will clearly violate that requirement. He agreed with Bill that there’s an opportunity to change the cityscape with this development. He suggested moving the pumps to the back and using signage for visibility. They could leave the underground tanks where they are currently located. Then the building could front Church St. and maybe bend around and be on Clinton as well. It would be a positive addition to the city. Mark said this plan seems to be a non-starter for the board. He said even if the zoning officer allowed the canopy to remain where it is there would be a lot of push back from the land use boards with the location of the mixed-use building. 4. #20250211 142 Henry St. Site Plan. Site Plan Review of a 3-family residence with attached garage in the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. Matt Brobston, LA Group represented the applicant, and they are seeking site plan approval from the board. The project is adjacent to “The Modern” condominium on Henry St. and this site was the construction site when the Modern was being built, rocks and stones. There is an easement and transformer that encumbers the site. Along Bank Alley there’s a stand of trees. During the workshop meeting the board asked what the streetscape looked like along The Modern building and Matt showed photos of existing conditions. There’s a 20 ft. slope from McTygue to Bank Alley making McTygue Pl. not conducive to pulling a side driveway off of. Site preparation – a portion of the wooded area would be taken out in favor of a driveway connection off of Bank Alley. They propose to keep some of the construction entrances but will remove leftover rocks and boulders. The layout plan shows a 3-unit structure. On the first level off of Henry St. is a driveway that leads to a one-car garage in the back. The majority of the first floor is for one unit. There will be a sidewalk along the property line with a grass strip between the curb and the sidewalk. The grade levels will be stepped up from Henry St. to Bank Alley and allows for a patio area for one unit and a porch for the lower level on Henry St. The proposed floor plan shows unit 1 on the first level with a garage off of Henry St. It’s approximately 1800 sf, 3 bedrooms and has a porch on Henry St. Behind City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – April 10, 2025 - Page 6 of 10 the first-floor unit is the foundation for the floors above. Mark asked if there’s a rear entrance to the first floor. Matt said there’s an entrance in the front and an entry door next to the garage doors. The second level is 1,950 sf and the garage/entry is off of the driveway. There’s also a covered porch for entry. The third level is accessed through the garage on the back of the building that leads in to the foyer and an entrance off of the driveway up top. The top unit is a 900 sq ft one-bedroom efficiency apartment with a walk-in closet, bathroom, living room, and kitchen. Matt talked about the grading and proposed walls on the site: one wall will hold up the existing transformer – encompasses the transformer and allows access to the side of the building. The owner is in discussions with parties that have parts of the easement to modify the easement and allow for the wall. It will provide a break from the electrical transformer and the driveway. They need to drop five feet from Bank Alley down to the flat area where the driveway will come in. They will be holding up the wooded area with a wall as well as the driveway. The walls vary in height from 2 to 4 ft. Utilities plan: They will extend the sanitary line along Henry St. to a new sanitary manhole and pull laterals off of that. Matt said the main reason they didn’t include streetlights or street trees within the streetscape is because of a water main that runs between the curb and the sidewalk. He said they’ll look at the landscape plan on the other side of the sidewalk. The connection for the water will be off of the existing line. Planting Plan: The property along McTygue Pl. will be tree lined. Foundation plantings on the front of the building and screening along the side. They will fill in some of the gaps along Bank Alley with deciduous and evergreen trees. Matt presented 3-d sketches of the building and materials that were approved by the DRB. Bill asked about streetlights and trees. Matt said they’ll have to talk with the department of public works about installing trees/streetlights around the water main. Bill said the grade is tricky and he understands the need for walls to stabilize around the building. Anything they do along McTygue Place would be an enhancement and it would be a welcomed addition in the neighborhood. Alex asked if there would be a fence at the top portion of Bank Alley where it drops off 5 ft. Matt said they would work with the manufacturer of the wall and include a fence or guiderail at the top end and the lower end. Kerry questioned no sidewalks along McTygue Place. Matt said it’s really steep there but they will discuss it further with the city. They may not want it in their right-of-way and it’s not a requirement on an alley within the UDO. Tony asked about trash pickup and if the garages were large enough to fit trash cans. Matt said that they are, and they will be ordinary roll-out trash cans – no dumpsters. Mark said the board has a number of suggestions and asked Susan if the site plan could be approved with a list. Mike agreed with Kerry about the sidewalks along McTygue. He noted that 30 units per acre are allowed here, and they could build 9 units (1/3-acre lot) but they’re only building 3, and questioned the board’s responsibility towards the city by approving a project that’s not maximizing the potential. Susan said the code is 3,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit and they could have one additional unit (UR-4). The condo next door is in a different zone. There was a discussion about where trees could be placed. Matt said if there’s potential to put a tree in the greenbelt they will do it as well as a streetlight. There will be a 5 ft. wide grass strip between the curb and the sidewalk. Kerry asked if streetlights could be added on McTygue since there won’t be a sidewalk and there are cars and pedestrians using the same roadway. Matt said it could be considered. Mark said getting the residents from the top units to Henry St. along McTygue on a path or sidewalk is worth considering, streetlights or something to get the residents safely over to Henry St. Tony said McTygue Pl. is more of an alley than a street. Many alleys throughout the city are used by pedestrians and don’t have sidewalks. It’s part of the character of the city. Mark said McTygue Pl. is how pedestrians will get to Caroline St., they just have to make sure they can see. Matt said they City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – April 10, 2025 - Page 7 of 10 can discuss putting one light on McTygue with city public works. Bill said there’s a streetlight currently on Bank Alley.  Enhance plantings along the retaining walls.  Masking transformers – make wide enough to do plantings on the top (tall grasses).  Indicate the substantial trees that will be preserved on the drawing.  Appropriately placed tree (city standard) and streetlight on Henry St.  A streetlight along McTygue Place.  2” DBH on trees Mark Pingel, Chair asked if there were any comments from the public. None were heard. Mark Pingel made a motion to approve the site plan with the list as reviewed. The motion was seconded by Tony Stellato. Vote: B. McTygue-Y, K. Mayo-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, A. White-Y, M. Pingel-Y. 6-0, motion carried. Bill McTygue made a comment that this property was in his family for a few generations, and he has a lot of memories from that area as a child, visiting aunts and such. He said he would be remiss to not mention it since he’s a McTygue sitting on the board. He thanked the board and the applicant. 5. #20250227 115 Regent St. Beagle School. Special Use Permit Modification for an addition to an existing school in the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. 6. #20250054 115 Regent St. Site Plan Review for an addition to the existing school in the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. Matt Brobston, LA Group represented the Beagle School for a special use permit and site plan modification. Also present, Jessica Totenhagen Director of the Beagle School and Archer Dombrowski, Architect. Matt said the school is the oldest remaining pre-school in Saratoga Springs. This expansion has the potential to have a large impact on the community and neighborhood. Currently there are 80 students split between two schools – Big Beagle and Little Beagle. Little Beagle used to be housed on Circular St. until a car accident took out the house and they moved locations and are in a state of flux. This project has been taken on for many years; since 1987. There is an opportunity to increase attendance. They routinely have walkers who attend. The plan is to bring both schools under the same roof. They purchased the adjacent land to give them room to expand. When they first looked at the project 5 or 6 years ago the expansion was much larger and more toward the north, that’s one of the reasons they purchased the land to avoid needing any variances. It also creates an opportunity to expand the outdoor recreation space for the students, and it’s fenced in to provide protection for the students and teachers. The site is on Regent St. almost directly across from White St., down the street from Empire State College, and a block from Congress Park. They will be increasing enrollment by 16 students, and all the students will be housed on Regent St. The number of classrooms will increase from one to three, with each having two classes per day. The starting times will range from 8:30 to 9:30, and departure times will range from 3:00 to 3:30. Matt showed the site preparation plan and the demolition they are proposing. They would remove parking spaces to make a new main entrance that will be located at the back. They will be removing a small wood deck and that area will become a storage room. Several of the large trees in the yard and out front will City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – April 10, 2025 - Page 8 of 10 remain. Pavers will be replaced. There are play structures that will be replaced, and the shed (playhouse/storage for toys) will be moved outside of the setback. There’s also another shed in a non-conforming location that will be removed. The roofs on the front of the structure will be removed. Proposed Condition:  Expand the building by 800 ft. at the rear of the existing structure which will house a new classroom.  Creating a new main entrance to the school to improve accessibility.  10 on-site parking spaces are required (3 per classroom & 1 for the office) – 4 on-site and the remaining 6 will be shared parking per agreement with the owner of the neighboring church. Matt went over the 6 questions that are asked in the zoning code with regard to a special use permit: 1. Is it consistent with the comprehensive plan and associated adopted land use plan? Yes, it is consistent with current uses permitted with the Zoning Code and Comp Plan. Allowed by special use permit. 2. Will the special use endanger public health? The expanded use onto the second floor will have no effect on public health, safety, or welfare. 3. Density, intensity and compatibility of the use within the neighborhood. The intensity of the use will increase but the neighborhood can sustain the increase in traffic during the drop-off and pick-up hours. 4. Safe and efficient pedestrian, vehicular access and circulation of parking. The current patterns will not affect pedestrians or vehicular access and circulation. The parking agreement with the nearby church should address any concerns about parking. 5. Demand for infrastructure and public facilities – the infrastructure demand on existing systems should not be affected. 6. Impact on environmental natural resources of the site and neighboring lands – erosion, flooding or excessive light noise, vibration, etc. The impacts on natural and environmental resources are minimal as the addition and modifications have been minimized. Matt showed the existing floor plan versus the proposed floor plan and photos of the existing architecture. Matt presented the 1977 special use permit that allowed for a pre-school in this zone and an apartment on the second floor. They are seeking a special use permit amendment to eliminate the second-floor residential component and to add a third classroom and to expand the preschool use into the second floor. There was an application in 1987 that was rejected due to traffic problems on Regent St. and the new structure and additional students would cause a negative impact on the neighborhood. Mark said the DRB has approved demolition and has done a preliminary review of the plans but has not made a final determination. Mark said he and Susan had a discussion with the chair and vice-chair of the DRB and their major concern is materials being used and not mass and scale. Mark Pingel, Chair opened the Public Hearing regarding the special use permit modification. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – April 10, 2025 - Page 9 of 10 Dan Maney, 108 Regent St. (across the street from Beagle School) said he’s concerned with traffic on Regent St. when parents are unloading their children, especially during track season. He would like the city to look at regulating parking in the area. Mark Pingel, Chair said the Public Hearing would remain open because they are waiting for a response from the County which was triggered by the distance to Union Ave. (within 500 ft. of 9P) Mark asked if the school considered crossing guards when the children are arriving and leaving. Jessica said they’ve never considered crossing guards. The speed on Regent St. is really the issue. It’s posted 15 MPH, but people go faster and it’s a cut-through street. The police regularly come there at 9:00 a.m. to give tickets to anyone parked illegally, which is a change from 1987. Jessica said they will look into getting crossing guards especially for the one-half hour morning drop off. Mike said if people are not doing the speed limit there needs to be traffic calming devices – drop off zone, speed humps, etc. He said it would help with the special use permit if the school could document any mishaps with children versus traffic in the years that the school has been open. Matt asked that the board consider and discuss any letters that have been received by the city with regard to this project. He also asked the board to consider any site plan review they feel comfortable with at this time so they can move quickly to an approval at the next meeting if that’s the direction they’re headed. Comments from the board on the special use permit and site plan:  Tony – parking configuration – eliminate the driveway to the south in front of what is now the garage and consolidate it with other parking. He would like to see a dedicated walkway leading to the side door that is separated from the parking area. Move the driveway 20 ft. to the north and double load it, letting people park two ways, and move the solid white fence back behind the parking area to create more of a front yard. He suggested making a section of Regent St. one-way. Matt said his concern with changing the parking area is that all of the parking would be in front of the house which is atypical for the neighborhood. Matt said they will consider the comments. Mark said there’s a clear concern about drop-off and pick-up safety.  Kerry said if you don’t have sufficient parking and need to share off-site why have any parking on-site? Matt agreed they could ask for more parking off site.  Bill said the city has a role to play – the department of public safety. Has the school reached out asking for the police to drop in periodically? Jessica said yes. Bill said it would be important for the school to demonstrate that they have reached out to the city for a solution. Matt said the off-site shared parking also eliminates curb cuts. Mark said the actions by the school – crossing guards, reaching out to the city for something physical – person, something that slows traffic are important, as well as no parking except for drop off out front. By taking the parking off site, it frees up sidewalks and eliminates the need for screening. Mike King made a motion to approve the minutes of February 13th. The motion was seconded by Alex White. All in favor, motion carried. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – April 10, 2025 - Page 10 of 10 Tony Stellato made a motion to approve the minutes of March 20th. The motion was seconded by Mark Pingel. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Mark Pingel, chair made a motion to adjourn the meeting. All in favor. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – April 10, 2025 - Page 11 of 10