Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16, 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, Kerry Mayo, Jennifer Johnson ABSENT: Tony Stellato, “Bill” McTygue STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, Leah Everhart, City Counsel, Amy Valyou, Principal Engineering Tech. A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: Note: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any applications that appear to be ‘approvable’ without need for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wishes to further discuss any proposed consent agenda item, then that item would be pulled from the ‘consent agenda’ and dealt with individually. C. PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 1. #20250736 52 York St. Area Variance. Coordinated SEQRA Review and advisory opinion to the ZBA for an area variance associated with a proposed two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Susan summarized for the applicant who was not present: This is a zoning application for variances from the minimum lot requirement for a proposed two lot subdivision. This project was before the ZBA on September 15th where they initiated coordinated SEQRA Review and proactively deferred Lead Agency status to the Planning Board. The ZBA also requested an advisory opinion on the proposed variances. The minimum lot size requirement in this district is 6600 sq. ft., and the minimum average lot width is 60 ft. Each of the two lots would require minimum lot size of 5,450 sq. ft and lot width of 50 ft. Mark said the PB recently acted favorably on 131 Middle Ave. which is a very similar lot and two blocks to the east of this project. The variances being requested are also less than what was granted on Middle Ave. The tax map shows that the immediately adjacent parcel has two lots that are almost identical and the majority of the lots in the area are non-conforming. Susan reminded Mark that if the variances are granted a subdivision will be before the PB for review. Mark said the applicant will be required to meet the UDO design standards. There are substantial trees on the property to be considered, and the board needs to know what’s planned for the other lot even though the applicant plans to sell. This information should be communicated to the applicants to ensure they are adequately prepared for the next steps. Joe expressed concern over the trees being clear-cut prior to the application coming before the planning board. Leah said the board currently has authority over coordinating review for SEQRA and issuing a recommendation back to the ZBA. There’s no compulsory edict that can be issued to the applicant. Leah said she’s not sure if there’s any prohibition to clear cutting prior to application in the UDO but the PB could ask the ZBA to set certain conditions to memorialize the existing trees (photos, etc.). The planning board’s jurisdiction is limited to what the ZBA has requested of them. Mike said he’s fine with the subdivision but if the applicant comes back before the planning board with a subdivision application and all the trees are gone that would reflect poorly. Mike added that it reflects poorly that the applicant is not present for this meeting. Mark noted that the planning board is bound by the criteria of the UDO and the SEQRA form so the fact that the applicant is not present is not relevant. Jennifer is in favor of the subdivision; it’s very much in keeping with what currently exists in the neighborhood. She agreed that the applicant be made cognizant of the tree situation. She’s okay with the applicant not being present at this meeting. SEQRA, Part 2, 52 York St.: 1. Material conflict with adopted land use plan…- 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. Jennifer Johnson made a motion for a negative SEQRA declaration regarding 52 York St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Joe Ferrante. Vote: J. Johnson-Y, M. King-Y, M. Pingel-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, K. Mayo-Y, A. White-Y. 6-0, motion carried. Mark said the Board would like to issue a favorable advisory opinion to the ZBA and read the planning board’s concerns into the minutes to be considered by the ZBA: 1. There are a number of substantial trees on the property, and the Planning Board would like the opportunity to work with the applicant to preserve them if possible. 2. Make sure the applicant knows that when they come before the board for subdivision they are required to be present, and the planning board would want to see information on how they plan to build on the lot. That information will be attached to the subdivision’s approval. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 16, 2025 - Page 2 of 7 When the lot is sold, the conditions of approval go with the lot. Susan said these would be an existing conditions plan, and a development plan. Mike King made a motion for a favorable advisory opinion regarding 52 York St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the conditions listed above. The motion was seconded by Kerry Mayo. Vote: J. Johnson-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, K. Mayo-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 6-0, motion carried. 2. #20250566 33-35 Caroline St. Site Plan. Site plan review of a proposed mixed-use project consisting of 25 dwelling units, approx., 5,000 sq. ft. of retail and associated site work in the Urban Core (T-6) District. Mark Pingel, Chair said the board would consider SEQRA and act on the site plan if appropriate. Charlie Gottlieb, Attorney from Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna and project architects William and James Christopher and Project Engineer from Bohler Engineering, Caryn Mlodzianowski were present to represent the applicant, Oldest Lighthouse LLC (Cronin Dempsey, Principal). Charlie stated that the applicants appeared before the Board in July 2025 and are present to advance their application. He refreshed the board on the application:  25 residential dwelling units on the 2nd floor and above.  2 retail spaces on the ground floor; 2,396 sq. ft. and 2,670 sq. ft.  The project received DRB approval (architectural and bulk & mass) except for signage which will be obtained following site plan approval.  Received demolition permits.  Received approval from the Saratoga County Planning Board.  Obtained comments from the City Planning Board & City Staff in July.  Resubmitted their application on August 29, 2025, to address planning board and staff and engineering comments.  The City Engineer referred their geotechnical report to a third-party engineer because they are proposing below grade parking; there were no comments. Addressed comments from workshop:  The applicants submitted a landscaping and lighting plan. They’re adding a streetlight on Pavillion Pl. and street trees on Caroline St. (with grade boxes around them so they will be level with the sidewalk).  Recreational needs & civic space requirements – the applicant has proposed a Payment in Lieu of. According to the fee schedule the applicant will make a payment for other recreational and/or civic space needs in the city.  Planning Board granted a height bonus in 2024 in exchange for one affordable dwelling unit (unit 202, 20% of the total unit count). The condominium association, established after approval, will handle regulations. The affordable unit will be a recorded deed restricted unit for a maximum of 60% AMI for a period of 30 years. After 30 years the owner would decide whether to keep it affordable. The UDO requires a 30-year affordable housing unit in exchange for the height bonus. Mark asked if there was a way to encourage it to be renewed after 30 years. Charlie said that would be a City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 16, 2025 - Page 3 of 7  decision to be made by the condominium association at that time. The UDO requires 30 years.  The project is 3 tax parcels, and the lots will be consolidated into one tax parcel and it will be a condition of approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Susan said lot line adjustments are reviewed administratively and require an application and a map consolidation.  Construction logistics – submitted a narrative and construction logistics plan that will be explained by Mr. Christopher.  Generator for elevator – none required per NYS fire code and there were no adverse comments from the fire department or city staff for the need for a generator. If necessary, a generator can be placed in the mechanical room.  Sidewalks – the project engineer measured from the old foundation of D’Andrea’s to the end of the sidewalk, and the proposed sidewalks are going to get larger (8.1 ft. near the corner of Caroline on Pavillion and 7.9 ft. near the exit and entrance to the garage. The sidewalks will be heated. Two streetlights are proposed on Caroline St. and one on Pavillion. Mark is concerned about lighting by the entrance on Pavillion. Mr. Christopher said there will be down lighting on the building that will provide pedestrian lighting along the sidewalk. The lighting at the car entrance will be on all the time. There will be a system that’s motion sensors activated for pedestrians and vehicles. On each side of the driveway entrance there will be warning lights and signs that are visible and audible.  The construction is a combination of steel and wood (Mr. Christopher not speaking into the mic). Temporary ramp off of Pavillion down into the site to be used for excavation and the concrete trucks. They plan to stay away from Caroline St. completely during construction and have everything coming off of Pavillion. Comments/questions from the Board: Jennifer agreed with Mike that the decorative light on Pavillion may not be necessary. Mike said there’s 25 units and 36 parking spaces are proposed in an area that doesn’t require parking. He asked if they considered finding parking elsewhere. Mr. Christopher said they talked to owners of two different parking lots in the area and have not gotten any positive reply. The below ground parking will be valeted and below ground. The city garage was also considered but is a little far from the building. The DRB advocated on-site parking as well. The underground parking is an amenity for condominium owners. Mike said this will need to be considered during SEQRA – if it creates a medium to high impact because of the parking in an area that doesn’t require parking. Mike asked about the bicycle parking. Mr. Christopher mentioned that residents have access to two locked bicycle storage rooms in the basement, while those using the retail space can park their bicycles in the driveway at the back. Mr. Christopher addressed Joe’s question about construction logistics. Alex asked how many of the 36 parking spaces were devoted to the commercial/retail component. Mr. Christopher said there would be one parking space per residential unit and the balance would be leftover for the commercial space. One unit owner could buy two parking spaces. Alex asked if it could be limited to one spot per unit, which would leave 11 spaces for people coming and going, working retail. Mr. Christopher said that there would be a deed restriction and they haven’t discussed it yet. They would be willing to dedicate parking spaces for the retail workers. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 16, 2025 - Page 4 of 7 Kerry asked if any trees were proposed along Pavillion. He noted that the Pavillion Grand building has trees along the sidewalk. Mr. Christopher said at this point they have not proposed any trees along Pavillion, just two along Caroline. Kerry said he would like to see two trees planted along Pavillion. Mr. Christopher said the ADA requires a clear 5 ft. wide sidewalk and this sidewalk will be 7 feet wide in some places. A small planting bed would be 3 ft. wide. Amy said all of the existing trees on Pavillion and Caroline St. are pushed all the way to the curb, so they have a longer bed versus a boxed square bed. Mr. Christopher said they’re not opposed to doing that. Charlie said if there are future plans to change Pavillion Pl. – reconfigure the directions of the road, widen the sidewalk, etc. the applicant would submit a payment when that does occur for future tree plantings when the time comes. It would be in addition to the Fee in Lieu of. Mark asked how the cars would turn around to get out of the parking garage. Mr. Christopher said there’s 20 ft. minimum between the aisles, which is ample room for a car to back up, turn and pull out. Amy said the water and sewer usage were okay; a fire flow test was performed by the applicant. The stormwater is close to being resolved, they just have to determine the slope and placement of where the pipe will come into the 8x10 culvert. All of the water will be collected in the project’s stormwater drains and then go underground to Pavillion. Caryn Mlodzianowski said the actual connection has been on the grading and drainage plans. The roof will get collected and they are proposing a 10” HDPE pipe to go into the box culvert (8’x10’). They just need to determine the elevation. It will be set as high as possible within the culvert. Mark asked if the 30 ft. dumpster at the very north of the building is being built around for the entryway. Mr. Christopher said the ramp goes into the basement temporarily until construction is complete. Mark noted that during construction there will be daily street sweeping and occasional sidewalk sweeping. He asked that everything be swept daily and the applicant agreed. Mark asked about the process for weekend construction permitting. Susan said once the final plans are provided for chair signature and the conditions have been met, plans signed, and a financial guarantee is in place for an approved project (site plan, subdivision), the applicant schedules a pre-construction meeting with representatives from DPW, DPS, planning office, and the building department to go over those types of items, construction staging, lane closures, etc. Susan listed a possible condition for a right-of-way plan along Pavillion Pl. shall be submitted for administrative review by the chair. Mark listed the conditions:  Generator to be added.  Building lights (downlighting) along the street will be permanently on (in addition to any motion and safety plan).  Complete plan for motion sensors and pedestrian safety. Need clear temporary markings for pedestrians to cross the street.  Complete placement of stormwater pipe.  Unit 202 to be deed restricted – need draft deed language and verification of filing of deed. Charlie noted this is a timing issue because this is obtained through the Attorney General’s office for offering plan approval. They won’t have it when the building permit is issued but definitely prior to certificate of occupancy.  Lot line adjustment. SEQRA Part 2, 33-35 Caroline St.: 1. Material conflict with adopted land use plan…- No, or small impact. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 16, 2025 - Page 5 of 7  2. Change of use or intensity of use of land… Discussion: the use of the land changes but the impact has to be weighed within the context. The intent of the comprehensive plan is increased density. The land was underutilized in the past. Decision: 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… Discussion: the applicant benefits from a UDO that says build here, but it also says don’t build parking. The applicant is building 36 parking spaces, which is an adverse change to the amount of driving in that area. Mark noted that parking can be difficult to find in the city and may require the residents of this project to drive around to find a parking space, which may end up being far from their condo. Alex said parking underground is a positive thing. Jennifer noted that as a realtor it’s her experience that people buying condos want designated parking. Many of the condo owners are seasonal and won’t be going in and out on a regular basis. Decision: 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. Jennifer Johnson made a motion for a negative SEQRA declaration regarding 33-35 Caroline St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Kerry Mayo. Vote: J. Johnson-Y, M. King-N, M. Pingel-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, K. Mayo-Y, A. White-Y. 5-1, motion carried. Discussion about trees and lights on Pavillion – will a grated tree interfere with easy pedestrian movement along Pavillion? How many decorative lights on Pavillion? The board voted for 2 grated trees unless engineering says differently. Leave the decorative light between the two trees on Pavillion. No fee in lieu of will be required. Employee parking – what can the board do to require parking for the commercial units? Charlie said this could be discussed prior to CO when the applicant has an offering plan approved by the Attorney General. The applicant could then report back to the planning board once they know the market trends and what they have to offer. Leah outlined the condition: the applicant would create an order of priority for use of the parking spaces. The first level of priority would be the residential units – up to two spots for purchase or rental; thereafter any unused spots would be offered to the commercial units up to two spots per unit, and thereafter any unused spots would be open to the public. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant will report to planning staff or building department the outcome of that exercise. Lot Line consolidation Joe Ferrante made a motion to approve the site plan for 33-35 Caroline St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: (Susan will add) The motion was seconded by Kerry Mayo. Vote: J. Johnson-Y, M. King-N, M. Pingel-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, K. Mayo-Y, A. White-Y. 5-1, motion carried. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 16, 2025 - Page 6 of 7 3. #20250674 67 West Ave. Integrity Special Use Permit Extension. Extension of a previously approved special use permit in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. The applicant was not present. Per Susan’s draft will extend the special use permit by 6 months from when their special use permit would have expired, which will equal 4 months. Joe Ferrante made a motion to extend the Special Use Permit for Integrity at 67 West Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Mike King. Vote: J. Johnson-Y, M. King-Y, M. Pingel-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, K. Mayo-Y, A. White-Y. 6-0, motion carried. 4. 2025-1 UDO Text Amendment-Commercial Mixed Use District Development Bonus. Consideration of advisory opinion to the City Council for a proposed UDO text amendment to the process for determination of compliance with development bonus action. Mark Pingel, Chair said he sent out a draft wording and Susan pointed out that there are also height bonuses available (up to 5 ft.) for civic space and community space. The net zero and high-performance construction are up to 8 to 10 ft. The only full 15 ft. is for affordable housing and there are two of those. The planning board has mostly seen energy efficiency and affordable housing. They haven’t seen bonus action for civic and community space. Mark pointed out that NYS is putting in new energy efficiency requirements, so if the city leaves the energy efficiency in the UDO for height bonus then the applicants can get it for free because they have to do it anyway. Mark said in his opinion the change doesn’t go far enough. He would like the city council to give the planning department time to really look at the changes and suggested that he and Susan add the few places that an applicant can get bonuses. He asked if the board members agreed with issuing an unfavorable opinion so the city council could add to the change before any action is taken. Susan said no one had an issue with the procedural change to this particular section. The decision could be favorable for that change but the PB is going to suggest that council not move that forward until the planning department can provide more direct suggested changes. Mark prefers to say don’t make this change as you’ve written it, improve it. Mike asked if there could be a bi-annual process to update the UDO. An addendum will be added to the motion suggesting a regular schedule be implemented to update the UDO. Susan noted that suggestions can be made for UDO updates by many people: planning staff, land use boards, citizens, etc. Mike King made a motion for an unfavorable opinion to City Council regarding the proposed UDO Text Amendment with this rationale (to be added by Susan) and the recommendation that a regular UDO change process be initiated. The motion was seconded by Kerry Mayo. Vote: J. Johnson-Y, M. King-Y, M. Pingel-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, K. Mayo-Y, A. White-Y. 6-0, motion carried. Mark Pingel moved to adjourn the meeting. All in favor, motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 16, 2025 - Page 7 of 7