Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FINAL THURSDAY, MAY 8, 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, Alex White, Mike King, Anthony (Tony) Stellato, Joe Ferrante, Co-Chair 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: 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 James Sallaway introduced the new city engineer Amy Valyou, Principal Engineering Tech. C. PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 1. #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. 2. #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. This is a follow-up from last month’s meeting on some remaining items to be discussed with the city staff. Matt went over the changes made after the last meeting:   Offsite parking & entrance. They expanded the curb cut to allow for two parking spaces side by side. Matt noted that the next-door neighbor also has 2 side-by-side parking spaces, so this is in keeping with the neighborhood. They eliminated the existing parking area on one side and replaced it with one single concrete sidewalk entrance going through the existing gate to the new entrance to the Beagle School around the side. As a result of this change, they increased the landscaping in front and used a fence to cover some of the dumpsters. Secured 8 off-site parking spaces per agreement with Empire State College and the Church.  Existing shed – will be removed.  Stoop & door - will come out in a different location in the back.  Traffic concerns – talked with the Mayor and Department of Public Safety regarding the school to address the neighbors’ and board’s concerns. As a result of the meeting, the city police have put the school on a watchlist to monitor speeding in that area. On their first watch they were able to issue seven tickets for speeding. They continue to monitor and have issued additional speeding tickets. The police department will consider increasing the school’s visibility by enhancing signage and adding lights in the area. Matt said the city officials are pushing to lower the speed limit throughout the city.  County Planning Board advisory – determined the project has no impact. Special Use Permit modification request to expand an existing use and utilize the second floor for a classroom: 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 of the second floor will have no impact 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 and college 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 sketches of the existing and proposed architecture of the building. If the project moves forward with the planning board, the next step is to go before the Design Review Board to go over mass and scale, materials, etc. Mark Pingel, Chair said tonight the board will close the public hearing and consider the special use permit modification and the site plan. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – May 8, 2025 - Page 2 of 14 Bill McTygue said he considered the removal of the 2 parking spaces and addition of landscaping to be an enhancement to the project. Mark Pingel, Chair asked if there were any comments from the public. None were heard and the Public Hearing was closed. Special Use Permit Modification discussion: Matt said the special use permit was from 1985 and included a school and an apartment on the second floor. The modification is to add a classroom on the second floor and expand with a classroom (gaining 2 new classrooms). Mark noted that in 1987 a special use permit was denied because of bus traffic from Waldorf School, Skidmore and Empire State College; those conditions are no longer present. Mark Pingel made a motion to approve the Special Use Permit Modification for 115 Regent St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Mike King. Vote: B. McTygue-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, A. White-Y, M. Pingel-Y, J. Ferrante-Y. 6-0, motion carried. Site Plan discussion: Bill thanked the LA Group for listening to the neighbor and board concerns about traffic and for investigating further with the DPW and city police for mitigation measures. Bill noted that it speaks well of the community that the Church and Empire State College are willing to cooperate and provide some of their available parking spaces to accommodate the needs of the Beagle School. He appreciated the applicant listening to the board’s comments about on-street parking and the modifications made along the Regent St. frontage. It will be a nice project! Mark agreed with Bill and said the project ended up in a good spot. Mark Pingel made a motion to approve the Site Plan for 115 Regent St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: 1. The site plan file will include the parking agreements with Empire State College and the Presbyterian Church. 2. The engineering comments will be satisfied. The motion was seconded by Mike King. Vote: B. McTygue-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, A. White-Y, M. Pingel-Y, J. Ferrante-Y. 6-0, motion carried. 3. #20230771 75 Weibel Ave. Special Use Permit. Modification to a previously issued temporary special use permit for a marijuana dispensary in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. Mark Pingel, Chair said the applicant is seeking to modify their temporary special use permit to a permanent special use permit. Josh Silver, Owner of the Silver Cannabis Co. said they opened their store last July and have had 6.5 million dollars in sales. The cannabis use tax collected at point of sale and is forwarded to the state and municipality; 4% of total gross sales (25% to the county and 75% to the city) equaling about $150,000 in under a year. They have 12 full-time employees, two of whom are salaried. They offer health insurance to all of their employees as well as to those whose spouse does not have health insurance. By the end of this year, they are looking forward to an employee profit sharing program. There have been zero police interactions at the store and no traffic or neighbor complaints. The following were conditions for the approval of the special permit: 1. Improve existing sidewalks. Initially terminated in front of the building and the board requested that it be continued to the edge of the property line towards the dumpster, which has been completed. 2. Installed a sidewalk to the left side of the building for City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – May 8, 2025 - Page 3 of 14 access around both sides of the building. The business has been a great success. Josh opened his first store in Williamstown, MA and now owns 8 stores. Bill asked about the cannabis tax rate and how it’s split. Josh said it’s 9% for the state and 4% for the municipality to split 75% to the city and 25% to the county. Mike noted that the future landbank gravel parking lot shown on the site plan from 2023 has been installed. Mark Pingel, Chair asked if there were any comments from the public. None were heard and the Public Hearing was closed. Board comments: Mark said there’s an issue with the state of the site since there was no gravel in the 2023 approval for site plan. It showed the proposed gravel area as being land banked, which would not allow parking until the applicant returns for approval. Currently, only parking on the macadam is allowed. The board can’t approve the permanent special use permit tonight because there’s an issue that goes back to the initial approval. The applicant can either restore the gravel parking to its original state, or come back with a site plan to make that area for parking, not land banked, and compliant with city requirements (gravel parking isn’t allowed). Bill clarified that the applicant is leasing space within the building. He asked the city planner if the applicant or building owner would be responsible for cleaning up issues within the parking lot. Susan said the owner needs to sign the application for the site plan and authorize the applicant to submit it. The owner of the property is part of the process. The applicant is not solely responsible for property improvements. Bill said he visited the site and there were 9 cars parked on the gravel and 17 on the asphalt so there’s clearly a need for additional parking. He noted that there’s a gully along the south side of the building that is quite deep and could use some site work. Tony said the gravel parking that has been installed is not in line with what was depicted on the 2023 site plan, and it appears that some of it is on National grid’s property. He suggested that a survey be completed to be sure who owns what property and to figure out how to rectify the parking situation. Mike said there are 23 parking spaces on the asphalt according to the site plan notes and 14 are required by zoning for the dentist and dispensary. He asked if the applicant did a survey to determine they needed extra parking and installed the gravel area. Josh said he has 8 dispensaries and had an instinct that they would need additional parking. Mike said he would like to see documentation demonstrating that need. Mark Pingel, Chair summarized the following: 1. The applicant should do an analysis of the parking requirement using point of sale or parking lot count to justify additional parking. 2. Rectify possible boundary issues with additional parking. 3. If additional parking area is to be paved, the applicant should return with the appropriate details – landscaping, etc. No dumpsters were approved, and there are currently two on the gravel parking area, so they need to be considered in the site plan. Mark asked Leah if they would need another public hearing. Leah said if a new application is required for a special use permit then they will have another public hearing after 90 days. The board and applicant decided that 180 days would be more appropriate to accomplish what’s needed. Susan said the application can remain open, but the applicant may want to re-notice because 180 days is a long period of time. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – May 8, 2025 - Page 4 of 14 Mark Pingel made a motion to extend the temporary special use permit for 75 Weibel Ave. to 180 days until the board considers once again the permanent special use permit.. The motion was seconded by Mike King. Vote: B. McTygue-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, A. White-Y, M. Pingel-Y, J. Ferrante-Y. 6-0, motion carried. 4. #20250267 54 Kirby Rd. Billington Subdivision Modification. Modification of a previously approved two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Mark Pingel, Chair said the last approved subdivision restricted any driveway access from Route 29 and the applicant is requesting to remove that restriction. Kevin Billington, owner said he purchased the property 5 years ago and rehabbed the house. The back part of the parcel has a note from 22 years ago that states “no access allowed or permitted from Route 29”. They would like to get the note removed and install a driveway from Route 29 to a new garage they would like to build and/or subdivide two lots off of the back of the property. Mark said the drawings show the current situation but not what they’re proposing with the new driveway to the garage or two lots. Kevin said if the note is not removed they can’t act on it. Mark said the board’s concern is that if there’s a subdivision they may be requesting another curb cut on Route 29. DOT said they wanted the curb cut opposite Eastman, which is a fair distance from the house. Kevin said if they brought a driveway in directly across from Eastman, for which they have conceptual approval from the DOT, that would go directly into a garage to be built, then build a road off of that that would go parallel to Route 29 into the 2 potentially subdivided lots to the east. Susan stated that the applicant cannot submit a building permit application until the note regarding access from Route 29 is removed. Mike asked why the condition is on there. Susan said it is likely because there’s already access to the property from Kirby Rd. and to limit the curb cuts on Route 29. Mike said the conditions haven’t changed since this restriction was put into place in 2003. Mike agreed with the decision that there shouldn’t be a driveway off of Route 29. The driveway should be off Kirby Road, and the applicant should try to figure out how to get one on the north side of the property. Mark asked Susan if the city’s public safety had an opinion on this matter. Susan said they deferred to DOT. Joe asked if the proposed driveway off of Roue 29 would connect to the applicant’s current driveway. Kevin said no, it would just go directly to the new garage, and he would keep his entrance off of Kirby Road as well. Tony asked if the applicant could connect the current driveway off of Kirby to the new garage. Kevin said because his driveway zig zags it would be difficult to bring anything large in like a camper, boat, etc. Mike noted that there are several driveways along Route 29 and he’s in favor of removing the note. Mark said he would like to see a sketch of what the applicant is proposing. Tony said if the note is removed the property would be prime for subdivision. He suggested that the board look at the minutes from the subdivision approval in 2003 and find out why the planning board added that condition. Tony said the original subdivision plans show that the state has a perpetual easement across the applicant’s property, so in order to put a driveway in they would have to work that out with New York State. Kevin said the easement was put on in 1957 when the railroad bridge was built. Tony said that easement needs to be researched and cleared up before the planning board can consider removing the note. Mark said he agrees with Mike that once the easement issue and note gets cleared up and DOT approves, he would agree to remove the note. Joe and Alex also agreed with the steps Tony suggested, and Mike’s comments. Bill said he doesn’t believe the State will relinquish the City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – May 8, 2025 - Page 5 of 14 easement. They determined a permanent easement was needed for a reason; likely to be able to maintain access should anything happen to the bridge in an emergency situation. After a discussion between staff, legal counsel, the applicant and board members it was determined that because the applicant will consider a subdivision in the very near future, the board will need to see a concept/context sketch showing the proposed subdivision and pole barn. The board and staff will research the reasoning behind the 2003 note and the applicant will be responsible for finding out about the perpetual DOT easement. Mark Pingel, Chair opened the Public Hearing for comments. John Hart, 13 King Arthur Court. John has sold real estate in Saratoga for 35 years and he approached Gail Kelly in 2003 to subdivide a lot for his in-laws. They went through zoning and planning at the time. There were concerns about access from Route 29. Lou Schneider, who was on the planning board at the time suggested that they put a note in to indicate that there should be no access off Route 29 for safety reasons. Gail Kelly could have subdivided years ago but because of the restriction she couldn’t. It should not be okay to do it now. If the board approves this it will set a precedent in the city and a lot more people will want to do the same thing. Brian Watson, Glenwood Dr. Lived in Saratoga all his life and on Glenwood Dr. 25 years. It would be very unsafe to have curb cuts at 45 mph on Route 29. He said the applicant said a stop light was added since the note was added and that’s incorrect. The stop light was added in 1989. The only difference is that there are lighted crosswalks. He’s completely against it. Gail Kelly agreed in 2003 not to put in any more curb cuts if she was allowed to have her subdivision. That’s how the notes were added and shouldn’t be removed. Kevin Murphy, 15 Glenwood Dr. He has lived there 24 years, and he agreed with Brian. A new road now runs adjacent to his property off of Route 29. It’s a gravel path that appeared about 3 years ago, apparently put in by the applicant. He said the truck traffic is worse than it’s ever been, the quarry is a mile up the road, they’re dealing with the entrance to the city and removing trees and vegetation would only increase the already high noise level from traffic. It affects their ability to enjoy their back yards. Resident (did not say name into the mic), 13 Glenwood Dr. said it was her property that was sold by Mrs. Kelly. She said she and her husband purchased the land with the understanding that it would not be subdivided any further. The trees and vegetation are the only barrier they have to Route 29. She’s opposed to any further subdivision. Cathy Otruba, 12 Glenwood Dr. said she has lived there for 28 years and has watched the traffic grow and people trying to walk there. It’s not safe to approve this applicant’s request. She agreed with the other speakers against the proposal. Cathy said there was another person who was going to purchase the property and do the same thing but pulled his offer when he was told by someone at City Hall that it would not be allowed because of the note. Mark Pingel, Chair said that the board needs to review the minutes from 2003, and the DOT easement may prevent any further subdivision as well. Mark said the State has said it is safe to put a curb cut across from Eastman. The public comments suggest that the reality is that it may be problematic. Mike said if the applicant could access their property from Storage Lane City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – May 8, 2025 - Page 6 of 14 or Kirby on his own property, he wouldn’t need a curb cut on Route 29. Leaving as much vegetation as possible to buffer noise might address some of the neighbors’ concerns. Mike noted that there are currently a number of driveways along Route 29. He proposed that as the city reduces speed limits, the State should consider applying these limits to nearby areas such as Route 29. Mark said the parcel is in the UR-1 district and it’s important for the board to understand that the original Notice of Decision prohibited further subdivision of the land. The Notice of the Decision says there can’t be a curb cut on Route 29. Susan said the minutes from 2003 are in the applicant’s file. Bill was on the planning board in 2003 and said he appreciates the neighbors’ comments on the minutes from that meeting. He agrees that the traffic has increased significantly from 2003 and that further research by the board is necessary. Mark said the board would not take any action at this meeting and will leave the public hearing open. The board will look at the 2003 decision and minutes and understand whether the DOT easement is relevant to their decisions. He suggested that the applicant look at alternative ways to access the internal property. Leah noted that the hearing will stay open, but neighbors won't get more notices and must track the agenda themselves. Mark asked Leah if removing the note would impact SEQRA. She said the board would need to consider any impacts that would be raised if a driveway or subdivision is considered. Mark thanked everyone who commented/presented for the quality of the presentation and civil discussion. 5. #20250165 131 Middle Ave. Subdivision. Modification of a previously approved two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. 20210452 Jesse Boucher, Kodiak Construction represented the applicant. He said the original subdivision application was in 2017. The applicants own the property from York Ave. over to Middle Ave., their home facing York Ave. They received approval for a two-lot subdivision in 2017 allowing for their existing home on York Ave. and new construction on the second lot on Middle Ave. The 2017 subdivision approval had 5 conditions: 1. Save sugar maple and mature trees to the rear of the lot. 2. Provide a single curb cut (maximum 20 ft.) between the neighboring parcel and the new parcel on Middle Ave. 3. The new house should sit 10 ft. from the front property boundary. 4. Having a recessed garage. 5. Planting street trees in accordance with city staff. Jesse said one of his clients’ primary goals when working with their architect was to be able to age in place, requiring a first-floor primary suite. While working through the design process with the architect they were unable to meet the conditions of the subdivision and still have a first-floor primary suite. They accepted that the bedrooms would all be on the second level. After price increases, Covid, etc. the applicant asked Kodiak to look at the design to see if they could come up with a design that met the applicant’s needs. Jesse said his company built a house in downtown Saratoga that had a first-floor primary suite, and the floor plan will fit this client’s parcel. They will need to seek an area variance from the ZBA because of the size of the lot but will first need planning board approval to amend the subdivision. The condition that they would not meet is having the house 10 ft. from the front property line. They are proposing 16.5 ft. from the property line so they can drive directly into the garage and also allow for off-street parking on the driveway. Jesse said the condition regarding the trees was changed administratively in 2021 allowing for the sugar maple tree to be removed and to be replaced with another tree in accordance with the city. The “mature trees at the rear of the lot” stated in 2017 were actually on the side of the lot and would have touched the garage as drawn by the architect, so they were removed from the previous approval as well. Jesse showed the subdivision plan with a front load garage and house behind. The applicant will need ZBA approval for the back porch because it goes into City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – May 8, 2025 - Page 7 of 14 the rear setback. Mark said the zoning regulation is that the garage cannot exceed 40% of the frontage and the applicant is seeking to remove the recessed garage condition from the approval. Mark clarified with Susan that the applicant will need relief from the ZBA. Jesse showed the proposed floor plan and photos of other houses in the vicinity with front load garages. Mark summarized what the modifications would require: 1. Remove the garage recess. The original condition said the curb cut will be added to the existing curb cut to the east, widening to 20 ft. maximum (10 ft. on each property for a shared driveway). Mike clarified with Susan that the zoning only allows an 11 ft. wide driveway, so the applicant would have to get relief for an 11 ft. driveway. Tony asked why the first-floor primary suite wouldn’t fit in the original drawings. Jesse said there wasn’t sufficient room to get in and out of the garage and the house plus the detached garage is 40% so a primary suite on the first floor would make the house substantially over the coverage. Mark Pingel, Chair opened the Public Hearing for comments. There were none. Bill said the lack of public comment is telling. He said a texture/color on the house drawing might help to soften the look of the garage. Space above the garage with creative architecture could also help to soften what’s going on below. Bill noted that many of the houses built 75 to 100 years ago in that neighborhood were smaller with one car garages, but the needs of homeowners have changed. Smaller homes in the city are being torn down and replaced with larger homes. Joe asked if the drawing could be flipped so they could share the driveway with the neighbor. Jesse said the neighbor’s driveway to the east is already 11 ft. wide so the maximum the applicant’s driveway could be is 9 ft. Mike said he’s concerned that a driveway was put in on lot 1 and trees removed on lot 2 without approval. After a lengthy discussion it was determined that the house design as presented doesn’t fit in the neighborhood. Several board members went to Middle Ave. and noted that if there was a garage at all it was only for one car. During the subdivision approval there were streetscape requirements identified for York St. that have not been done. Jesse said the applicant has maintained a letter of credit with the city since the subdivision approval. The house needs to fit better within the neighborhood. Mark Pingel, Chair said the board would consider granting the modification in the context of a set of drawings that address the comments and concerns raised at tonight’s meeting, and can be reviewed further by the board. Susan can also provide more detailed guidance. 6. #20250202 Park Place & Cottage St. Final Subdivision. Final plat review of a proposed two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. 7. #20250203 Park Place & Cottage St. Site Plan Review. Site plan review of a proposed multi-family dwelling including 6 residential units and associated site work in the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. Kirsten Catellier & Matt Huntington, Studio A, Matt Hurff, Frost Hurff Architects represented the applicant. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – May 8, 2025 - Page 8 of 14 Existing conditions:  Single family residence with a swimming pool and driveway access of off Cottage St.  Second access off of Cottage St. into a parking area and an additional access off of Park Place.  A white fence borders the property.  Sidewalks and curbs along Park Place and Cottage St. in disrepair.  Existing light pole/cobra head.  3 existing trees and hedge rows. Kirsten said they are requesting to subdivide the entire parcel into two separate lots. The existing single-family home will remain, and they are proposing to build a 6-unit condo building on the subdivided lower portion. The current acreage is .9028. Lot 1 (6-unit condo building) is proposed to be .415 acres and Lot 2 will be .486 acres. Both meet the zoning code requirements. Site Plan for Lot 1 (6-unit condo):  Considering both parcels at once they are proposing street trees, streetlights, new sidewalks and concrete curbing along Cottage and Park Place, compliant with City standards. The city would prefer granite curbs & the applicant is amenable to that.  The condo building will be located on the corner of Cottage and Park Place. The sidewalk will come across Park Pl., loop around to Cottage St. and extend down Lot 2.  Street trees will be placed along the front on Park Pl. and on the side of the building on Cottage St. along with standard spacing for light poles and concrete curbing.  Will improve the detectable warning strip at the corner of Park Pl. and Cottage St. Access to the front of the building will be provided by two separate 6 ft. wide concrete sidewalks.  Proposing simple landscaping along the front to soften the building and to provide color and greenery throughout all seasons of the year.  Vehicular access off of Cottage St. at an existing curb cut. They will extend the sidewalk across the concrete (proposed) driveway. At the end of the driveway, they propose to build a fence to enclose roll-off garbage cans that will be brought to Cottage St. on garbage day.  Permeable pavers with parking spaces are being proposed at the center of the building. There are 3 parking spaces on each side with two ADA spaces. There will be 3 interior parking spaces with 3 spaces on each side with lifts. 17 parking spaces proposed, 9 required. Susan said the lift spaces would not be included in the allowable spaces. There are 11 parking spaces considered (2 over required) and the 2 over would be allowed in excess of the minimum.  Will have a row of evergreens and a wood fence along the property lines with a gate entry.  Public utilities for water, sewage & stormwater on Cottage and Park.  Two bicycle parking spaces inside the building (2 required). Matt Hurff said the neighborhood consists of a variety of architecture – 19th century worker housing, mid-20th century suburban, and larger scale urban housing. There is also multi- family housing. Matt said they are showing consistency with the pattern and use within the neighborhood. The proposal includes the construction of a three-story building, consisting of City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – May 8, 2025 - Page 9 of 14 two brick stories with a mansard roof above. Matt showed an 1888 lithograph showing the site had a building of similar height at one time. The condo will have first story porches that will project out. The parking spaces are all below grade so there’s a ramp that goes down. There are overhead doors that access into the garage areas. Matt said the reason for putting the lifts in is that it allows for parking for two cars per unit and a spot for a visitor to park. There are also interior storage units off of the courtyard. Part of that space is available for bicycle storage. Floor plans:  Central circulation core with 2 units on each floor.  The third floor is a slightly smaller floor plan because of the dormers under the mansard roof. Kirsten confirmed that no zoning variances are being requested, and all code requirements are met. They are providing full streetscape improvements – sidewalks, curbing, etc. Mark Pingel, Chair said the board will first have a public hearing then consider SEQRA (for both), subdivision, then site plan review. Mark disclosed that he went to the neighborhood earlier in the day and was approached by a neighbor asking what he was doing. He explained that he was looking at the property and taking photos of the neighborhood in preparation for the planning board meeting. Mark encouraged the neighbor to attend the meeting if they had any interest. Public Hearing comments: Allie Dockum, 48 White St. said this project is too big for this property. The owner bought the property about two years ago and put up an 8-foot cheap white fence around his property. He’s not going to want to look at this big condo building. It’s a money grab; he’ll just sell his property after it’s built. Brian Rodems, 84 White St. said he has lived here for 33 years. The building is too big for the neighborhood, scope, scale, etc. He doesn’t see anyone using lifts so their visitors can park. Doesn’t fit the character of the neighborhood. Katie Hooper, 14 ½ Cottage St. – also owns 14 Cottage and has lived there since 1980. It’s been a quiet neighborhood, but parking is an issue on the street. The building is massive and doesn’t fit in the neighborhood. “Doesn’t feel like our community”. Richard Frank, 18 Cottage St. thanked the board for their work regardless of how this issue is resolved. Agreed with other’s comments and noted that there’s an elevation that faces down Cottage St. that wasn’t shown tonight. It’s windowless and with the sunken driveway it’s essentially a 50 ft. wall that will be visible as you walk down Cottage St. In the winter it will cast long shadows down the street. It is zoned UR-4, but directly across the street on Cottage and on Park it is zoned UR-3, so this is the last lot in the UR-4 zoning. The proposed condo is denser than the other multi-family on the block with more square footage and doesn’t provide a transition to the UR-3 across the street. The architecture and street improvements are all really nice, it’s just too big and too much for this neighborhood and site. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – May 8, 2025 - Page 10 of 14 Peter Gaddy, 67 Monroe St. said he’s lived in the community since 1998 and has lived on Cottage St. while doing a house renovation. The proposed building is really large and it’s going to change things a lot. He doesn’t want to lose the fabric of the community. The board needs to reflect on whether they would want that next door to them and what’s best for the community. Steve & Debbie O’Shea, 31 Park Pl. & 10 Cottage St. Steve said he’s been in the neighborhood since 1981. The project is complex, and he hopes the board doesn’t rush it through. He said they got their meeting notice on May 1st and there are neighbors out of town who would have liked to respond to this. He’s hoping the public hearing will not be closed and the project decided tonight. Steve asked what the “appendage” on Cottage St. was. Garbage day will not be good. Parking is very difficult as it is. He said he would like to see an elevation. Has a disabled brother who lives on the first floor of 31 Park who will be looking at a year of construction and a 40 ft. wall. Sunset for him will be around 3 pm. On the other side of the property, they’re putting a 40 ft. wall 12 ft. from a beautiful home on a smaller lot similar to what Bill mentioned earlier. They would like to see an elevation of what it looks like with that wall next to that home – their sunrise will be around noon. Jason Thord, representing 22 Park Pl., his mom, Roxanne Meade. They’ve lived there since 1976, and Jason has worked in construction all of his adult life. Jason said he’s blown away by this 18,000 sq. ft. proposal across the street from them. It doesn’t fit in the neighborhood. He invited the board to come and walk around the neighborhood so they can get an idea of what he’s talking about. John Coffman, 44 White St. thanked the board for the time and effort they put in on the board. Too much mass and doesn’t fit in with the neighborhood, not appropriate. Dave Guarino, 21 Park Pl. owns the large yellow building referred to in the applicant’s presentation. He said the footprint on his house is 2500 sq. ft. and what’s being proposed appears to be around 4500 sq. ft. The comps cited by the applicant are going more towards downtown and Union St. His neighborhood along Park is much more residential. Dave said he recently subdivided his lot near the subject property and will be building 2 single family homes that are an appropriate size and scale for the neighborhood. He said previously he proposed four units on the lot, and they were turned down by the board because of the density. Lars Andersen, 20 Park Pl. said his mother lived there for 30 years and now he lives there. He applauds people wanting to come in and live in the neighborhood, but this building is just too large. Marlene & John Wood, 23 Park Place. Marlene said they’ve lived here for 10 years and are directly next door to the proposed project. They have a very small side yard, and this proposed building will be another 12 feet off the side of their house. Their living room, bedroom and kitchen are on that side of the house, so people will be able to look down on them in their home. They will no longer have any privacy in their home. Marlene said they’re concerned about how the building will be lit and if it will keep them up all night. They’re concerned about sitting in their courtyard and having garbage cans right next to them. They’re concerned about landscaping and what type of barrier will be put up between the two City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – May 8, 2025 - Page 11 of 14 properties. The building will tower over their house; they’re never going to see the sun. It will change the way they live in their home. James Loyd, 12 Cottage St. said the only access into the building will be on Cottage St. Everyone who comes and goes will go right by his front door. He moved to Cottage St. 10 years ago because it was quiet. He’s been fixing his house up for the last 3 years. Had he known this building would be next door he wouldn’t have bought a house there. Right now, there’s no traffic. Mark Pingel, Chair said the public hearing will remain open, but the neighbors will not receive any further notifications about future meetings. Mike clarified with Susan that the UDO allows for this size building on this site. Mark said it complies with zoning, but the board decides whether it’s allowed. Mike asked if the applicant conducted any sun and shadow or bulk and height analysis or prepared a 3-d model. Matt said they can conduct a sun study and address the concern about mass and scale. Tony understands the neighborhood concerns and that they have a compliant application. How will trash be dealt with? Tony recommended that the application be submitted to the Design Review Board for their evaluation regarding mass and scale. Tony asked if there’s going to be a pad transformer and where it would be located. Alex said he would like to see a height comparison of the buildings in the neighborhood. Bill said the building conforms to zoning but neighbors are concerned about the height, mass and scale. He agreed that a referral to DRB is a good idea. Joe asked for clarity on the yellow “appendage” on the plan. Kirsten answered that it abuts the property line and will be planted with evergreens, shrubs, perennials, and annuals. Matt said the way the code is written, if you have a corner lot you have to declare the shorter property line as the front of the property. It was important to have the building face onto Park Pl. and not Cottage St., so they extended the length of the frontage on Cottage St. to make it long enough so the ordinance would permit the building to face Park Pl. Mark said after walking the neighborhood he questioned whether the building matched the flow of the neighborhood and agreed with Tony’s suggestion about a referral to the DRB. Mark noted that the site is only one block away from the historic district where the DRB does have jurisdiction. He added that Cottage St. and Park Pl. are in transition between two zoning districts and density needs to be considered. Susan suggested that because the board has asked the applicant to provide additional information and they are asking for an opinion from the DRB, they may want to hold off on SEQRA review at this time. Mark summarized how the application will proceed:  Referring application to the Design Review Board. Note to applicant: the line drawing will not be sufficient for the DRB, more context will be necessary.  Applicant to provide street views from various directions to the surrounding buildings so they can be seen in a dimensional context.  Applicant to provide a sun and shadow model.  Applicant to provide a face-on comparison with the yellow house next door showing the height difference and include some of the comps they showed tonight and how they’re comparable to the houses next door to them (all to scale).  The board needs to see the footprint for the building in the context of other neighborhood footprints. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – May 8, 2025 - Page 12 of 14 8. #20240614 Lexington Rd./Bemis Point Subdivision Area Variance. Consideration of SEQRA and advisory opinion to the ZBA for an area variance associated with a proposed subdivision modification in the Rural Residential (RR) District. 20220180 Bruce Steves, Attorney at Jones, Steves & Grassi, and Dominick Arico, Project Engineer, Arico Associates, Art & Debra Curto, Owners, Wendy Holsberger, PE Traffic Engineer Lansing Engineering, & Kevin Weed, PLS Wetland Technician, Gilbert VanGuilder Land Surveyor were present to represent the application. Bruce gave a project overview:  21-acre parcel of land that was former phase 3 of the Independence Square Development off of Lexington Rd. and approved in 1977.  Modified their previously proposed plan from October 2024 to wanting to consolidate the 41 existing lots into 14 lots (was 16) for the construction of single-family homes.  Seeking an advisory opinion from the PB to the ZBA supporting the granting of 12 area variances from the minimum front-yard setback requirement (wetlands on the rear of the lots) and 2 area variances from minimum lot width requirement (lots 6 & 7). (they could meet that minimum requirement but are seeking to remain consistent). Previously seeking 54 variances. All requests for variances from minimum lot area and side yard setback requirements have been eliminated.  Seeking a negative declaration under SEQRA.  Proposed lot sizes are largely consistent with neighboring lots off Lexington Road and Concord Dr. An overlay of the tax map shows the lots on Lexington and Concord are .29 acres and the smallest lot in the applicant’s proposal is .29 acres.  Dominick speaking from the audience (inaudible). Discussion about lots and conservation areas. Susan said the wetlands will be split between two parcels that will each have a home and be deed restricted. Leah said the city could own a conservation easement. If the city holds the easement it gives them the authority to enforce a no-build area on someone else’s land. Bruce said after an advisory opinion is issued and SEQRA is completed they will go back to the ZBA regarding the variances. If the outcome is favorable, they would return to the planning board for subdivision modification and a wetlands permit. Dominick outlined the wetlands as follows:  Proposed disturbance/impact area of 0.438+/- acres (to access property). ACOE won’t act or comment until SEQRA is completed. No permit to disturb until there’s an approved subdivision resolution filed with the city. Bill said he’s concerned that the basements will fill with water because it’s very wet in the area.  The majority of wet area is for the grading and construction of the proposed roadway.  Culvert to be installed to allow for continued hydrologic connectivity to minimize impacts.  All remaining lands on the 14 residential lots have deed restrictions prohibiting development, clearing or other disturbance. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – May 8, 2025 - Page 13 of 14   Potential home buyers are to be notified and provided with copies of wetland permit details and all deed restrictions.  Jurisdiction of Army Corps of Engineers – Status Update. Traffic:  Professional opinion letter from Lansing Engineering, PC (Wendy Holsberger, PE) provided as part of the record.  Project expected to generate 12 vehicle trips during AM peak hour and 16 vehicle trips during PM peak hour.  Magnitude of traffic generated by the total neighborhood (consisting of 82 homes) is expected to be 64 at AM peak hour and 85 at PM peak hour, below the threshold of 100 vehicles trips established by NYSDOT and the Institute of Transportation Engineers on a single intersection approach.  Conclusion of traffic engineers: No traffic-related mitigation is recommended. Dominick showed an aerial view of the proposed subdivision. Their clearing limit is 3.25 acres and it’s shown in light green. They are proposing street trees at every property corner. Dominick described the drainage pattern. The ACOE required and permitted the applicant to remove beaver ponds on the property. Mark said the board will be looking at the long form for SEQRA which will take some time. It was decided that SEQRA will be discussed at the next meeting in two weeks.. There will be a lot of discussion about the details of the wetlands and preservation, drainage, etc., everything that has to do with water will be reviewed in detail in order to get through the SEQRA form. The project seems to be compatible with the neighborhood but will be discussed further. Noise mitigation will be discussed. Mike suggested that the applicant consider noise mitigation to present at the next meeting. Dominick noted that constructing a wall or barrier would be challenging due to the wetlands. However, he mentioned that alternative solutions, such as considering planting vegetation, could be explored. He could also check the noise levels in the area. Leah reminded the board that SEQRA review is to evaluate the impacts that an action has on the environment/others and not what the environment might have on the action. Subdivision review might be a more appropriate time to discuss decibel levels for future owners because of the proximity to the Northway. If an existing home is affected by the removal of trees to build the subdivision; that can be considered during SEQRA. Bill said if this project moves forward, the board will want the trees flagged that are going to be removed. The tree inventory will be part of the site plan review. The applicant will return for SEQRA review at the next meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Mark Pingel, chair made a motion to adjourn the meeting. All in favor. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary MINUTES APPROVED ON June 12, 2025. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – May 8, 2025 - Page 14 of 14