Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT THURSDAY, JULY 17, 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, Michael (Mike) King, William “Bill” McTygue ABSENT: Kerry Mayo, Tony Stellato STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, Leah Everhart, City Counsel, Amy Valyou, Principal Engineering Tech, James Sallaway, City Engineer. A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Mark Pingel made a motion to approve the June 12, 2025 meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by Joe Ferrante. Vote: 5-0, 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. 1. #20250419 126 West Ave. Site plan approval extension of a mixed-use project in the Urban Neighborhood (T-4) District. Susan said this project is at the corner of West Ave. and Grand Ave. and would be the applicant’s first request for an extension. There have been no changes to the application. The project was originally approved 12/18/23 with an expiration date of 6/18/25. The extension will expire on 12/18/26. Bill McTygue made a motion to approve an extension of a mixed-use project at 126 West Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY to December 18, 2026. The motion was seconded by Alex White. Vote: M. Pingel-Y, M. King-Y, B. McTygue-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, A. White-Y. 5-0, motion carried. 2. #20250274 Crescent Ave. & Jefferson St. Site Plan Extension approval for a multi-family residential project in the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. Stephanie Ferradino, the attorney representing the applicant said that there has been a cut in Federal funding since the new president took office which resulted in a 14-million-dollar gap in the funding for this project. She believes they now have a formula to help narrow that gap and are in the pipeline for the State funding. This project is the Liberty Affordable Housing Project at Crescent Ave. and Jefferson St. and would be the applicant’s first request for an extension. There have been no changes to the application. The project was originally approved 1/8/24 with an expiration date of 7/8/25. The extension will expire on 1/8/27. Bill McTygue made a motion to approve an extension of a multi-residential project at Crescent Ave. and Jefferson St., Saratoga Springs, NY to January 8, 2027. The motion was seconded by Alex White. Vote: M. Pingel-Y, M. King-Y, B. McTygue-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, A. White-Y. 5-0, motion carried. C. PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 3. #20250182 30 ½ Caroline St. Site Plan. Site plan review of a proposed mixed-use development including 2,758 sq. ft. of commercial space and 29 residential units in the Urban Core (T-6) District. Dave Carr, LA Group represented the applicants. Dave said they were given some homework at the last meeting that was submitted to the planning staff 3 weeks ago. He presented the revisions addressing the board’s concerns: • The double 10 ft. wide driveway has been reduced to a 12 ft. wide single driveway. • They have added a new Victorian streetlight and changed the fixture to LED on an existing Victorian light so they will have two LED lights at the front of the building. • The board asked that they change the tree grates to granite curbing, which they were willing to do, but the city’s arborist asked that they be tree grates to match 30 Caroline St. • The concrete paving, deciduous tree planting, and bollard details have been revised. • The city lateral has been revised to meet what the city requested. • The transformer location has been added to the plan with vegetative screening in front. • They had 10 bicycle parking spaces and 6 more have been added per board request. • Concern about sight line with arborvitaes – there’s a row of arborvitaes on the neighboring property and they do provide screening but are not owned by the applicant. Dave’s client will talk with the neighbor to see if they could possibly remove the first two trees to open up the sight distance for pedestrians. • Garbage – talked to County Waste and they feel two 3-yard dumpsters would be adequate with a pick-up twice a week. • Vegetation at the corner – moved the tree (ornamental tree and shrubbery) closer to the corner and slid the patio (13.5 ft. wide by 20 ft. deep) forward. The patio is accessed from the front (could be waiting area for Sperry’s). The handicap access is from the back to the front. Board Comments: • Joe – asked about the fence in the back that was requested by the board to buffer the library parking lot. Dave said they added a fence on the side and one in the rear. They are solid wood fences that need to be approved by the DRB. Additional vegetation City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 17, 2025 - Page 2 of 9  didn’t work with the grade. They can pull the fence in and add some vegetation on the outside. Mike asked who owns the existing wall. Dave said it belongs to Sperry’s. They will be taking it down and replacing it with a fence; it’s not compliant as a fence. Mike would like to see an opening in the fence with a path to give access to the library for the residents. Dave suggested putting in a gate with a fob for the residents. Alex said the egress is blocked off now so it would be nice to have access for the city residents too. • Bill said the driveway will be a convenient walkway for people walking north and south. He asked if there would be a low-profile screen that would separate the patio from the driveway. Dave said that’s not proposed. The parking lot has 4 parking spaces and one handicapped space that will be for some of the workers at Sperry’s. The driveway will be barely used. Mark suggested a wrought iron fence. Dave said they can do that. Mark Pingel, Chair summarized: • Have the applicant ask the neighbor if the two arborvitaes could be removed. • Go to the DRB for fence approval. • Re-route the fence to get vegetation on the library side of it. • Make an opening in the fence for access to the library (stepping sone path). • Add a fence/screening by the patio/driveway side. • High performance construction was reviewed and confirmed by engineering. • Civic space fee in lieu of to be negotiated. Administrative approval. Susan said two things came in today: 1. Acceptance of the fee in lieu of for the lack of dedication of recreational lands for each residential unit. 2. Per the city arborist, DPW would like to attempt to salvage the River Birch that’s in the wooden tree box that’s in that location (street tree) that they would like to salvage and replant. Mark Pingel, Chair said given the revised drawings and the conditions listed above he would entertain a motion for site plan approval. Bill McTygue made a motion to approve the site plan with revisions and conditions listed above for 30 ½ Caroline St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Joe Ferrante. Vote: M. Pingel-Y, M. King-Y, B. McTygue-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, A. White-Y. 5-0, motion carried. 4. #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/homeowner’s Mike and Kim Southern. The applicants submitted three items for revision at the June 2025 meeting: • Increase the size of the front porch making it easier for chairs, sitting, etc. They increased the depth of the porch to 9 feet. The width is 12 ft. • Per board request they have pushed the garage back by 2 ft. The porch is now pronounced 7 ft. – 7’ by 12.6’ front porch exposed at the road. • The board requested that the off-street parking go to 20 ft. They were able to get 19.6’ which will fit a Pilot sized SUV in the driveway off the sidewalk. Jesse said at this meeting they are discussing the width of the driveway. With the two-car garage having two off street parking spaces, an 18 ft. wide garage seems appropriate. Jesse City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 17, 2025 - Page 3 of 9 provided 25 comps from up and down Middle Ave. with an average width of 18 ft. for the driveways. There was discussion at the workshop about the trees and making sure there’s room for the large specimen tree as mitigation for removal of the heritage tree. There’s room between the two driveways where they can fit a full-sized tree. There are no overhead lines on this side of Middle Ave. Mark Pingel, Chair said the Public Hearing was still open and asked if there were any comments from the audience. There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Board comments: • Bill said the decorative light that will be installed according to city standards needs to be coordinated with city electricians and National Grid to make that light a city light because there are no other decorative lights along the street. A note to that affect should be on the plan. • Mike said the sidewalk should line up with the sidewalk at 129 Middle Ave. Mark Pingel, Chair said there were a number of open items associated with this subdivision that were modified and need to be closed off in order to get their escrow returned. They will need a variance for the driveway as shown in the drawing. Jesse said they’ll also need variances for rear setback and building coverage. Susan said the board doesn’t need to give an advisory to the ZBA, but they need to remove that condition of approval that states “single curb cut shall be established in concert with the existing curb cut to the east, widening to a total of 20 ft. maximum”. Once that condition is removed, the applicant can go before the ZBA and ask for relief for an 18 ft. wide sidewalk/driveway in addition to the other variances that will be necessary for the house. Leah noted that the removal of the condition is based on the plans that have been presented to the board. The board can conditionally approve the application and remove condition # 2 of the previous approval conditioned upon construction plans as presented to this board. Mark Pingel, Chair listed the conditions of approval: 1. Coordinate the new light with the city electrician. 2. Line up the sidewalk with the neighbors’ sidewalks on either side. 3. Condition regarding the location of the driveway will be removed. 4. All of the old subdivision conditions must be met. 5. This approval is contingent on the drawings as presented. Leah noted that SEQRA needs to be addressed but not undertaken. There was previously SEQRA review done when the subdivision was originally approved so this is a modification of that approval. The board needs to decide whether there are any new or different impacts that might result that were not previously considered or analyzed. Mark Pingel, Chair suggested that the new plans are not substantially different than the old plans and don’t require a new SEQRA finding. The remaining board members agreed with Mark’s assessment. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 17, 2025 - Page 4 of 9 Joe Ferrante made a motion that the existing SEQRA findings for 131 Middle Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY are still valid for the Planning Board. The motion was seconded by Mike King. Vote: M. Pingel-Y, M. King-Y, B. McTygue-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, A. White-Y. 5-0, motion carried. Mike King made a motion approving the subdivision modification at 131 Middle Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY with the conditions listed above. The motion was seconded by Joe Ferrante. Vote: M. Pingel-Y, M. King-Y, B. McTygue-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, A. White-Y. 5-0, motion carried. Bill McTygue thanked the applicant for working with the board on sometimes difficult changes. 5. #20240614 Lexington Rd. Bemis Heights Subdivision Area Variance. Consideration of SEQRA review for a proposed subdivision modification resulting in 14 single-family residential lots in the Rural Residential (RR) District. Bruce Steves, Esq., Jones, Steves & Grassi & Dominick Arico, P.E., Arico Associates represented the applicants Art and Debra Curto. The board will be discussing potential moderate to large impacts as identified on FEAF Part 2: 1. (1) Impact on land – f. the proposed action may result in increased erosion, whether from physical disturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides). Based on the SPDES Permit for construction (GP 025- 001), a full SWPPP is not required – only a Basic SWPPP. A Basic SWPPP has been provided for erosion and sediment control to prevent sediment runoff during construction. Over and above the requirement of a Basic SWPPP, stormwater quality basins (1,600 sq. ft. each) will be installed in two (2) locations per the submitted Stormwater Management Plan (collects stormwater from the roads and impervious surfaces prior to going offsite and into the existing drainage pattern). Site maps of the drainage patterns were shown and explained. Mark said the NYSDOT questioned the contribution of flow from Plot #1 to Lake Lonely. Dominick said he read that comment and there’s no disturbance with that channel now and they won’t be changing the lot configuration or land mass to affect anything downstream. 2. (3) Impacts of Surface Water – d. The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or tidal wetland, or in the bed or banks of any other water body. Wetland disturbance area is limited to 0.438+/- acres, principally for the grading and construction of the proposed roadway. A culvert will be installed to allow for continued hydrologic connectivity. In Lieu Fee Credits will be purchased by the Applicant as required by the Army Corps of Engineers which will create wetlands in the watershed at a greater ratio than the wetlands being disturbed by the project. Permanent deed restrictions will be implemented for all remaining wetlands and upland areas comprising the project site, a total of 18.15+/- acres (outside area, combination of Lots 13 & 14) which will prohibit development, clearing and other disturbance. Mike suggested that the area behind Lots 13 & 14 be given to the city in a conservation easement. Susan said those details could be looked at during subdivision approval. Oftentimes the property is privately held, and the city accepts a conservation easement on that property allowing the city to enforce maintenance and the restrictions on the conservation easement as opposed to ownership. Mike said he understands the lots are a certain size and shape in order to reduce the number of City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 17, 2025 - Page 5 of 9  variances necessary, but he suggested that the board recommend to the ZBA that the lots be the size of the cleared area and everything else goes to the conservation easement. Susan said she will pass that suggestion on to the ZBA. Bill agreed with Mike and said he’s concerned about beavers getting in and stopping up the wetlands on homeowner’s property causing expensive mitigation. Leah said there could be various components to a conservation easement with the city, but she’s not certain they would want to take on that responsibility. It should be further discussed with city attorneys during subdivision review. Bill said the most important discussion on this project is drainage; where’s the water going and how is it going to be dealt with in the future. This project is surrounded by wetlands on all sides, and the board needs to get this right; there’s no room for error. We need to make sure the water is going to find its way off of these properties and away from the subdivision. Dominick said the ACOE doesn’t want 100% of the water to be taken away from the wetlands. The water will be collected and won’t go to the rear of the property. Bill said he wants to see a hard copy of a drainage design showing definitive channels, elevations, invert elevations, and the size of the pipe that’s easy to understand. The details are difficult to see on the plan that’s being presented. All of the drainage from Concord Dr., Lexington Dr. and Bemis Heights Road will come to the project’s corner. Mark noted that Tony Stellato and Amy Valyou were tasked with looking at the SWPPP after the last meeting. Amy said they reviewed the basic SWPPP and have questions and concerns about what Bill has talked about. Mark said the applicant will need to provide enough information so the city engineers can fully understand the drainage design and give the board adequate answers to their questions. Bill said they need a more detailed plan that’s specific to the drainage, drainage structures and grades involved. Mark said the parties need to get together and look at the drawings that have been submitted to decide what the next step will be. Items 2 through 6 will be considered after the parties have met concerning the drainage plan: 3. (3) Impacts of Surface Water – h. The proposed action may cause soil erosion or otherwise create a source of stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies. Any adverse impacts during construction are addressed by the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Erosion and sediment control measures will not be removed until the site is 100% stable. Permanent deed restrictions will prohibit construction on over 83% of the project site. Deed restrictions are subject to the enforcement of the Army Corps of Engineers. 4. (3) Impacts of Surface water – j. The proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in or around any water body. 5. (5) Impact on Flooding – d. The proposed action may result in or require modification of existing drainage patterns. 6. (5) Impact on Flooding – e. The proposed action may change flood water flows that contribute to flooding. 7. (15) Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light – f. Other impacts: The proposed action may result in removal of noise attenuation for existing residences. Mark said the city received an interesting report from the sound engineer that seemed to answer the board’s questions on noise and there’s no need to discuss it further. The board members agreed with Mark’s assessment. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 17, 2025 - Page 6 of 9 The review of SEQRA on this project will continue at a future meeting. 6. #20230877 NYS Rt. 29 Mixed-Use, Saratoga Station. Consideration of SEQRA review for a proposed mixed-use project including multi-family residences (approx. 400 dwelling units) and a 110-room hotel in the Neighborhood Commercial (T-5) District. Bill McTygue recused himself from the discussion about this application. Jamie Easton EPLAND Services represented the applicant, Prime Companies. The parcel is 17 acres (plus 2 small pieces of land to enter the hotel) adjacent to the train station (Station Lane), Intrada-NYSHCR Housing, the Post Office and it fronts Station Lane and Route 29. SITE PLAN: • Multi-Family Units – 2 “H” shaped buildings with a total of 344 units. • Rowhouse Units – 7 pods (4 to 6 units ea.) = 40 units. For rent or sale (TBD). Attached garages and 1 surface parking space. Two stories with garages in the rear. • Commercial – 110 Room Hotel • Parking – on-street = 157 stalls. Surface lots = 187 stalls. Underground or garages = 407 stalls. Required=Proposed 751 stalls. • City Streets per UDO – 55 ft. R.O.W. with 34 ft. wide road. • Boulevard at main entrance – 76 ft. R.O.W. • Site amenities are private – pools, courtyard, green space, dog park, playground. Connection to the City Park and an extension/connection to existing multi-use paths. The next steps for the applicant: 1. SEQRA – Water – plenty of water capacity & pressure. Sewer – the existing pump station was upgraded for their project and the city engineer & Barton & Loguidice’s engineer agreed it makes sense. Traffic – traffic consultant who wrote the report can come in and answer the board’s questions. Stormwater – infiltrating up to the 100- year storm event. Nothing ever leaves the site and it’s four times larger than it needs to be. Wetlands – Obtained ACOE permit and NYSDEC Water Quality Permit for the project. The impact to the wetlands is less than 2,000 sq. ft. The culvert pipe that will be installed is approved by DEC and ACOE. SHPO – “no affect” letter on the project. UDO – area variances needed. 2. Zoning Board of Appeals 3. Design Review Board Jamie said there was public concern that people would be required to drive to get food, gas, etc. and listed several commercial retail establishments within walking distance to the site. Some of the problems with adding commercial retail within the site are: low traffic volume, site location and existing vacancies within the area, site grading of the roadway per city code causes small retail pad sites, multi-family buildings ADA and entry along the Boulevard is an engineering problem. Mark said they will set the stage for SEQRA with formal feedback of different concerns that may be raised during the SEQRA process. A Special Use Permit will be required for a residential only building. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 17, 2025 - Page 7 of 9 Public Comment: John Haas, 29 Outlook Ave. said the big concern is traffic on Washington St. Taking a left or right from Washington St. is very difficult at 8 or 9 am and 5 and 6 pm. The boulevards within the development are twice the size of Washington St. and that traffic will be exiting there. It seems the traffic report is underestimating the number of cars with 600 families living there. He said West Ave. already has high traffic volume. The board reviewed the Type 1, long form SEQRA 1. The proposed action may involve construction on or physical alteration of the land surface of the proposed site. Yes. 1a. no, 1b. yes, 1c. no, 1d. no, 1e. no, 1f. no, 1g. no. 1h. other – Y - the amount of vegetation removed will be a large percentage of the vegetation that exists. 2. Impact on geological features. No, or small impact. 3. Impacts on surface water. Yes. 3a. no, 3b. no, 3c. no, 3d. yes (permits), pause, 3e. no, 3f. no, 3g. no, 3h. no, 3i. no, 3j. yes (stormwater study), 3k. no, 3l. other impacts 4. Impact on groundwater – Yes, moderate to large impact. (per DEC design standards) a. no, b. yes, c. no, d. no, e. no, f. no, g. no, h. Other – no. 5. Impact on flooding - No, or small impact. 6. Impacts on air – No, or small impact. 7. Impact on plants and animals – Yes, moderate to large impact. 7a. no, 7b. no, 7c. no, 7d. no, e. no, f. no, g. yes, h. yes, I, yes. 8. Impact on agricultural resources - No, or small impact. 9. Impact on aesthetic resources - Yes, moderate or large. Route 29 designated gateway. 9a. yes, 9b. no, 9c. no, 9d. yes, 9e. no, 9f. no, 9g. no. 10. Impact on historic and archeological resources - No, or small impact. 11. Impact on open space and recreation - No, or small impact. 12. Impact on critical environmental areas – No, or small impact. 13. Impact on transportation – Yes. 13a. Yes. Mike said he would like to see a study that examines how 1,000 people living in this location with no retail will be accommodated – a proactive study. There was a discussion about putting small businesses in some of the 2 to 3,000 sq. ft. spaces. Alex noted that those businesses would need to be supported by more people than those living within that complex. If you draw in people from the outside it will add more traffic. 13b.Yes, 13c. no, 13d. Yes, 13e. Yes, 13f. other – Wait until traffic consultant comes to a meeting. Leah said it’s not a traffic study so if the board would like a more thorough study, now would be the time to bring that up with the applicant giving them time to address the matter. Jamie said it’s a traffic report. Mark said the thresholds are too high and the level of service (c) has been called into question. There was a discussion about the definition of mixed use. 14. Impact on energy – Yes. 14a. no, 14b. no, 14c. no, 14d. yes, (discuss renewable energy resources) 14e. Other 15. Impact on noise, odor and light – Yes, moderate to large impact. 15a. no, 15b. no, 15c. no, 15d. no, 15e. no, 15f. no. (there is a photometrics plan) 16. Impact on human health – No, or small impact. 17. Consistency with community plans – Yes, moderate to large. 17a.no, 17b. no, 17c. no, 17d. no 17e. no, 17f. no, 17g. no,17h. Other. The amount of commercial to service the future residents. Need internal trip capture. Not driving and connectivity. Connection to train station. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 17, 2025 - Page 8 of 9  18. Impact on Community Character – Yes. 18a. no, 18b. yes, 18c. no, 18d. no, 18e. yes, 18f. yes, 18g. Other – tree removal. Leah noted for the record that checking moderate to large is a placeholder. This does not determine at this point whether these impacts are moderate to large. It’s an indication of what the next step will be, so the applicant knows what to address further, and the board can consider further before making a decision. Mark noted for the record some preliminary ideas to share with the board: • Sent a set of photos of apartment complexes to the board that are about the same scale as the proposed project, but they have a lot of trees. • Suggested using the full 15 ft. height bonus instead of limiting it to 53 ft. - they are 15 feet from the roadway thereby reducing the footprint by 20%. They could also reduce their capacity by 10% and thereby reduce the footprint by another 10%. Calculating how much area was left, there would be more area for trees. • Two areas to push toward – ask for an advisory opinion on the design from the DRB inside the SEQRA. • Ask for an advisory opinion from Complete Streets to address the connectivity challenge. Susan was not audible – the board agreed with whatever she said with a 4-0 vote. There was a discussion about how to create more green space and preserve more trees. Mark Pingel, Chair summarized the issues: • Traffic • Mixed-use • Connectivity • Trees Susan inaudible, Mark responded that he would come in and meet with her to annotate the plan? The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 17, 2025 - Page 9 of 9