Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FINAL THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 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, Joe Ferrante, Co-Chair, Alex White, Anthony (Tony) Stellato, Kerry Mayo, William “Bill” McTygue, Jennifer (Jen) Johnson, Alternate. ABSENT: Michael (Mike) King, STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, Leah Everhart, City Counsel, Amy Valyou, Principal Engineering Tech, James Sallaway, City Engineer. A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Joe Ferrante made a motion to approve the May 8, 2025 meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by Bill McTygue. Vote: 7-0, motion carried. B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: Note: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any applications that appear to be ‘approvable’ without need for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wishes to further discuss any proposed consent agenda item, then that item would be pulled from the ‘consent agenda’ and dealt with individually. C. PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 1. #20250165 131 Middle Ave. subdivision modification. Modification of a previously approved two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Jesse Boucher, Kodiak Construction represented the applicants/homeowners Mike and Kim Southern. The applicants are requesting modifications to the 2017 subdivision that created 131 Middle Ave. There were 5 contingencies to the subdivision approval in 2017: 1. The existing sugar maple and mature trees to the rear of the lot shall be preserved with appropriate notes in tree protection detail to be added to the plan. 2. A single curb cut shall be established in concert with the existing curb cut to the east widening to a total 20 ft. maximum. 3. Structure shall be constructed to build to frontage consistent with the existing homes to either side, approximately 10 ft. from the front property line. 4. Garage shall be recessed from front of the residential structure. 5. Street tree species along Middle Ave. shall be selected in accordance with City Staff. Changes to the plans were necessary due to financial and health reasons. The owners are no longer able to go up and down stairs requiring first floor living, and they have designed a more cost-effective home. The house has been re-designed; the living space has been pulled forward and the porch is now proud of the house (it also pulls the rear, covered porch forward) and moved the entire second floor forward. The new design brings the living space more toward the front of the house. The previous version had the garage further forward and the house further back. The garage meets the UDO requirement that front load attached garages must be loaded to 40% of the building façade line or 24 ft., whichever is greater. The current garage width is 21.6’ wide. They added additional aesthetics to give more character to the house with a carriage house style overhead door. They mirrored the floor plan so the garage is on the east side of the property, and they can maintain the same curb cut with the existing neighbor to the east. The house is now 11.1’ from the front property line. With the changes to the floor plan, the rear covered porch is now inside the rear setback and will require a zoning variance. Jesse referred to a letter that was submitted regarding the removal of the trees and said they were removed with the intention of using the 2021 building permit and moving forward with construction at that time. Mark verified with Susan that the garage is compliant at 21.6’. Bill said there’s a variety of architectural features on the street so he’s satisfied that this design would fit in the neighborhood. He feels it’s the best use for the relatively small lot. Joe said there were several notes from the workshop that haven’t been discussed; the distance of the driveway, double parking and whether it would cover the sidewalk; the garage being in the back; front porch. All the houses on Middle Ave. have porches and this house breaks that pattern. Joe asked why the garage is attached to the house and not in the rear. Jesse said it’s a mobility factor for the homeowners’ health. Mark said the lot width is 48’ by 110’ (10 ft. driveway, 23 ft. deep garage). Tony appreciates the changes that have been made based on the board’s comments. He’s concerned about the 11 ft. from the garage to the sidewalk where people will park and go over the sidewalk. He feels the applicant hasn’t exhausted all the options for the garage that won’t cause that issue. Jen suggested that they consider a tandem garage. That would also allow for more of a front porch that would be in keeping with the neighborhood. Bill suggested that the house and attached garage be moved toward the backyard so there’s more room up front to park a car without hanging over the sidewalk. He said he doesn’t like to see a driveway right up against the house. Tony agreed with Bill and noted that an area variance would be required for the rear setback. Kerry suggested pushing only the garage back and having a tandem garage as suggested by Jen. That would allow enough room to park outside the garage. Mark noted that the garage is compliant with the UDO for a front-loaded garage. After a discussion among the board members, it was decided that the garage will remain attached to the house but be moved back about 2.5 to 3 ft. and the porch will be increased in depth by the same amount. Susan said the UDO requires 20 ft. from the lot line for a detached garage (could be varied if it’s 18 ft. for attached garage). The other condition of approval “structures shall be constructed to build-to frontage consistent with the existing homes to either side, approximately 10 ft. from the front property line”. Mark said the porch line would meet that, but the garage would move further back. The applicant will return with revisions. Mark summarized for the next meeting: • The porch be expanded in depth sufficient to get a minimum of 18’ to allow a car to park. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – June 12, 2025 - Page 2 of 6  • The garage is pushed back by however much the porch is expanded. • Curb cut width and driveway design. 2. #20250271 20 Skyward Dr. Site Plan. Initiation of coordinated SEQRA Review and consideration of Lead agency Status for land disturbance activity and site plan review of a proposed 120,000 sq. ft. warehouse building and associated site work in the Industrial – General (IND-G) District. John Munter, Munter Enterprises & Brian Sipperly Verity Engineering represented the application. The use of the 120,000 sq. ft. building has not yet been determined. In 2017 the planning board approved subdivision and the SKS bottle facility (now Green Mountain Electric). A road was built at that time to access all three lots as well as utilities (water, gas electricity, & fiber optics). The parcel to the east was approved for a 70,000 sq. ft building in 2021 and is presently under construction. Now they are seeking approval for the final 12.5- acre parcel for a future user. John took a moment to thank the board members for coming out to look at the parcel. The building and the impervious area are designed to the maximum allowable. It’s designed to be a multi-tenant building, but a user may come in to do something different - versatile. Parking and truck access are very important. It’s designed so the passenger car traffic can be separated from truck traffic. They are looking to create a lot of jobs and tax revenue. Showed photos: • Looking at the site from Geyser Rd., at the top of the railroad trestle heading east toward SPAC. The tree buffer between the new Geyser Rd. Trail and Old Geyser Rd. is County owned property. There’s a healthy tree buffer between Geyser and Old Geyser Rd. • At the bottom of the hill looking west, road to the left is Old Geyser Rd. and there is a tree buffer between Old Geyser and the proposed site. A large portion is on the applicant’s property. During the 2017 subdivision design it was recommended by planning staff and the planning board that the buffer be left intact for future development screening. • Intersection of Skyward and Geyser looking east – same request from 2017 to retain tree buffer to cut down the view from Geyser Rd. into the industrial park and to screen neighbors within the park. This area is used for stormwater and greenspace calculations, not developable. • Making the turn onto Skyward from Geyser looking north to SKS bottle and the site they will be developing. Planting plan: • They will need to cut everything in the area to balance the soil on the site with a minimal amount of import or export of native soil. • Once the grading is complete they will be adding plantings along the road and the perimeter. • The applicant has communicated with neighbors that the building is being constructed. Jen said it seems reasonable and well thought out. Tony asked if they considered the economics for solar on the roof. John said the building is designed to take the load of solar. It depends on the number of units on the roof and if there’s room for solar. There are approximately 6 buildings within the park that have solar on the roof. The economic benefit of solar would be for companies that use solar for themselves. For companies that don’t use that much and it has to go back into the grid, it’s not financially feasible. Joe asked if the City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – June 12, 2025 - Page 3 of 6 county road will remain as is. Yes, the road will stay. Kerry asked if the planning board would see the project again when a tenant moves in. He asked if there would be another traffic study. Susan said there wouldn’t be another study but there’s one from when SKS came into the park and it did factor in the other two lots. Because there’s a planned project the board can ask for additional information if needed. In 2017 there was a study done showing the maximum square footage for each site and (sensitivity analysis) AASHTO has a quantity that has to be used based on Federal standards (what the actual traffic for a building that size regardless of the occupancy). Alex said he has done valuations of many industrial warehouses, and it’s perfectly designed for the intended use. Bill appreciated the tour that was given to the planning board members. He noted as he was leaving the site going to the Geyser Rd. intersection to turn right to head west over the railroad bridge there’s an issue with the trail as it intersects the intersection for bicyclist versus car. He didn’t see the bicyclist and vice versa and the bicyclist was moving at a pretty good clip. Bill had to turn back to his right to see the trail. The yield sign that’s supposed to be on the path is leaning up against one of the utility poles near the intersection and needs to be put back right away. It’s a hazardous condition right now. John agreed and said in his opinion there should be a stop sign on the trail where it approaches Old Geyser Road. Bill said some of the low-lying branches being removed would also help the sight distance. Bill asked that the city staff relay that information to the Department of Safety. He noted that because of thoughtful planning regarding vegetation there’s a nice buffer between the various entities at the industrial park. The applicant has presented the highest and best use for the parcel, and it will be a nice addition to the park. Mark also appreciated the site visit and said this is a great next step. He said the triangle area is an opportunity because there’s quite a bit of space on the sign side of it that won’t be developed, additional plantings would be helpful to add more shielding to the visibility into the site. He and Susan plan to discuss with the county the possibility of improving sight distance at Geyser Road, specifically at the spur and the 90-degree intersection. A stop light might be required, and the board may ask for a voluntary contribution toward the light from the applicant. He thinks it’s great that they’re paving the entryway, so they won’t be dealing with dust. Once the board does site plan review, they’ll pay a little more attention to the berm on the railroad side of the site and the vegetation that’s going to be there. Mark said an analysis from DPS is needed to make sure one hydrant is adequate. Dumpsters will face west and won’t be in the line of site for the highway. Mark said tonight they will request lead agency status for SEQRA. Mark said he and Susan will review the traffic study with the County. John offered to be available for a site visit for any other board members who were not able to attend the initial tour. Joe Ferrante made a motion to declare the Planning Board as Lead Agency for coordinated SEQRA review at 20 Skyward Dr. and that proper notice be given to the other agencies involved. The motion was seconded by Kerry Mayo. Vote: B. McTygue-Y, A. White-Y, K. Mayo-Y, M. Pingel-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, T. Stellato-Y, J. Johnson-Y. 7-0, motion carried. 3. #20250182 30 ½ Caroline St. Site Plan. Site plan review of a proposed mixed-use development including 2,758 sq. ft. commercial space and 29 residential units in the Urban Core (T-6) District. Dave Carr, LA Group & George Olsen, Olsen Architects represented the applicants. Dave said they’re seeking site plan approval and a lot line adjustment. They are seeking a 5 ft. height bonus to match the previously approved building at 30 Caroline St. that was compliant and approved under the former zoning in 2023. They delayed construction when Sperry’s City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – June 12, 2025 - Page 4 of 6 became available for sale with the idea of linking the two buildings together upon final approval. The proposed building at 30 Caroline includes 1,800 sq. ft. of commercial space and 11 apartments. The applicant is proposing 3,000 sq. ft. of commercial and 29 apartments for 30 ½ Caroline St. Dave referred to the existing survey, pointing out Sperry’s Restaurant building, the walled in area as an extension of Sperry’s for outdoor dining, and the stormwater and sewer easement that traverses the property, beginning in Congress Park and ending behind Excelsior Beverages. They were successful in getting a small variance for frontage area buildout because of the easement. The 1900’s portion of Sperry’s is kept intact. There is an addition on the rear of the building that is being removed. Dave presented the proposed site plan. There will be a driveway coming to the back of 30 ½ to service 6 parking spaces, 1 handicap parking, the dumpster, 10 bike racks, patio area and a walk back for handicap accessibility to the front door. The 6 parking spaces will likely be dedicated to Sperry’s employees. George gave some history behind the proposal. The building is not in the historic district, which is a few blocks behind. Sperry’s is a historic building, and the developer always intended to keep the building. The DRB approved the project with the exception of the mullion configuration, windows, etc. The building is set back as far as it can go and steps back from the third floor upward. George showed elevations of the building. The building will be brick all the way around. The façade of Sperry’s will remain and the new connection from 30 Caroline to 30 ½ will span over Sperry’s. The studio and one-bedroom apartments will range from 500 sq. ft. to 700+ sq. ft. Dave Carr addressed comments from the city’s engineering department regarding their request for raised granite curbs instead of tree grates: for 30 Caroline DPW asked for tree grates but the applicant is willing to do whatever the city wants. The width of the driveway is now 10 ft. but the city is asking for 12 ft. Public safety asked about parking: proposing 29 units in commercial space. Dave said there is no parking requirement. He gave an analysis of the parking within a quarter mile: There are 1600 parking spaces within ¼ mile of this site and 1,000 of the spaces are for public parking. Dave said the owner of the building will give the tenants the option to purchase a parking space for $1,500 a year and that cost will be passed on to the tenant. Mark asked what the lot line adjustment was. Dave said they are making one parcel out of two. Mark listed the job of the planning board: • Site plan approval – SEQRA, approve height bonus action, lot line adjustment, and detailed review of all the site plan details. Bill asked about all the glass on the front façade of the new building at 30 ½ Caroline. George said it was a collaboration with DRB to make the building more transparent, and Sperry’s would further pop out. Tony asked about the one-way versus two-way entry. If they were to make it 12 ft. wide with it being one-way it would soften the corner and allow for more landscaping. The board reviewed the short form SEQRA: City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – June 12, 2025 - Page 5 of 6 SEQRA, Part 2: 1. Material conflict with adopted land use plan or zoning regulations…- No, or small impact. 2. Change of use or intensity of use of land… - No, or small impact. 3. Impair character or quality…. – No, or small impact. 4. Impact on environmental qualities…. – No, or small impact. 5. Adverse change in existing level of traffic… - No, or small impact. 6. Cause increase in use of energy… – No, or small impact. 7. Public/private water supplies… - No, or small impact. 8. Impair Character or quality of historic… - No, or small impact. 9. Adverse change to natural resources… - No, or small impact. 10. Increase in potential for erosion, flooding… - No, or small impact. 11. Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. Mark Pingel made a motion to approve a negative SEQRA declaration for 30 ½ Caroline St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Bill McTygue. Vote: B. McTygue-Y, A. White-Y, K. Mayo-Y, M. Pingel-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, T. Stellato-Y, J. Johnson-Y. 7-0, motion carried. Height Bonus: is available within the UDO for supported housing or for energy efficiency. The applicant is asking for a 5 ft. bonus for 60 ft. height based on the energy code. They will be adding heat pumps for energy efficiency. Mark said the DRB approved the height bonus from an aesthetic and mass and scale perspective. The planning board will approve the height bonus based on the condition that the code is met. Tony Stellato made a motion to approve a height bonus of 5 ft. for 30 ½ Caroline St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the condition that the building department review the energy efficiency parameters for high performance construction 2. The motion was seconded by Joe Ferrante. Vote: B. McTygue-Y, A. White-Y, K. Mayo-Y, M. Pingel-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, T. Stellato-Y, J. Johnson-Y. 7-0, motion carried. Site plan discussion and list of items for the applicant to consider: • Trash collection – drawing showing how it will be done – where will the trucks go and where will the dumpsters be moved. • Transformer location – National Grid Access and not be visible from Caroline St. • How to use the space underneath the building; bike racks, trash collection. • More bike parking. Applicant may have to sacrifice car parking. One way traffic and more shielding of the open look portrayed in the drawing. • Safety issue on exit and entering – visibility; how to use the patio and keep it safe. Interface with Wild Horse. • Add one Sternberg light at the front of the building and upgrade all of the lights. • Tree grate/ granite outline for the trees. • Library interface boundary in the back – shielding if practical and within constraints of the property line. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – June 12, 2025 - Page 6 of 6 MINUTES APPROVED ON JULY 16, 2025. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – June 12, 2025 - Page 7 of 6