Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 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, Vice-Chair, Kerry Mayo, Michael (Mike) King, William “Bill” McTygue, Tony Stellato, Alex White ABSENT: STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, Leah Everhart, City Counsel, Amy Valyou, City Engineer. 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. PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. Susan noted that 48 Lincoln was adjourned and is not on the agenda this evening. 1. #20220889 52 Kirby Subdivision. Proposed modification to a previously approved two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Richard Timberlake, owner said when he subdivided his lot in 2021 and there was a notice of decision from December of 2022 requiring every subdivision to have a sidewalk. The sidewalk cited in the NOD is quite a bit longer than the subdivided lot; 212 feet from Glenwood out to Route 29 and it crosses his neighbor’s property. He has asked to discuss this requirement since it doesn’t seem to make sense. For four years he has had 15,000 dollars escrowed and when he contacts the city they say they’re not doing a sidewalk for various reasons. He's hoping to get this resolved. He is requesting that the city review the NOD and consider issuing a refund should the sidewalk project not proceed. The property has been subdivided, and in order to get the tax ID# he was told he’d have to pay up or escrow the 15,000 dollars. Mark recalled that in the NOD the applicant was required to put a sidewalk on his property and put the 15,000 in escrow for the future continuation of the sidewalk, when the city has the resources and time, to Washington Ave. Richard said it appears now that the City is considering the sidewalk to be very impractical. He said Susan suggested he install the sidewalk himself, possibly for less, and get some money back from his escrow. He would like to try to change NOD to putting the sidewalk only on his property – on the front of Kirby and side on Glenwood. Susan said the conditions of subdivision approval pertaining to the sidewalk are as follows: the planning board shall accept payment in lieu of installation of a sidewalk along the Glenwood Rd. frontage of 202 linear feet; the payment shall be used to install a 5 ft. wide concrete sidewalk in the city right-of-way along the frontage of 54 Kirby Rd. of approximately 215 linear feet. She said they discussed the applicant installing the sidewalk himself instead of paying the fee in lieu of as identified in the condition of approval. That would be considered in compliance with the condition of approval. There are street trees and utility poles in the way so it was suggested that the applicant could request a modification from the planning board to install a sidewalk along Glenwood, which is the boundary of the subdivided lots. Richard said he will need help from the city to do it. Susan said the condition was that the board would accept the fee in lieu payment for whenever it got on the list for DPW to construct. If the applicant chose to construct the sidewalk, that would also meet the condition. Mark said the board needs to consider whether there’s any reason to change the original decision of which there are two ways to implement: to construct the sidewalk along Kirby, which would require design work, or wait for the city. The applicant’s property has been subdivided, and the lot on Glenwood, which is not yet sold, would have a lien based on the conditions of the subdivision. The Kirby sidewalk is to be built by the applicant in front of 52 Kirby. Mark suggested that the original conditions are appropriate for the city and act in the city’s best interest, and the Board should deny the application. Richard said the city engineer suggested that he be the general contractor and build the sidewalk and submit the receipt. If the cost to build the sidewalk is less than the $15,000 in escrow then the city would return the remainder. Richard said he didn’t feel comfortable building over a public road, and he was told he could just build around his property. Mark said it was a suggestion but not a commitment by the city. What the original board saw was a sidewalk along Kirby and that still seems to be an appropriate approach. Mark Pingel, Chair opened the Public Hearing. Cynthia Shaw 5 Glenwood shares a property line with the applicant on Glenwood. She asked if there would be sidewalks on Glenwood since that is where the lot is for sale and any future construction would take place. Mark said the city could put sidewalks on Glenwood in their right of way but there’s no active process for that. Mark Pingel, Chair hearing no further comments, closed the Public Hearing. Mark Pingel made a motion to deny the application for 52 Kirby and noted that the original decision of the Board should stand. The motion was seconded by Mike King. Vote: M. Pingel-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, K. Mayo-Y, A. White-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 7-0, motion carried. 2. #20230590 177 S. Broadway Stewart’s Demo & Construction. Advisory opinion to the ZBA for an area variance for the construction of a new Stewart’s Shops establishment in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – November 20, 2025 - Page 2 of 12 Mark said the planning board is to provide an advisory opinion to the ZBA. He asked the applicant to present the variances they’re seeking from the ZBA. Once the decision for the variances is made the decision comes back to the planning board for site plan approval. Following site plan approval, the project will go before the Design Review Board for architectural review. Libby Clark, Attorney and Ryan Rubado represented Stewart’s Variances: Libby gave a brief history of the timeline for the project from 1986 to date. The DRB granted approval for demolition subject to conditions in January of 2025. They went before the ZBA with the redesign concept, and they have requested an advisory opinion from the planning board. The site layout is 2 lots that are not currently combined, the demolition of a house on Lincoln, the main entrance is on Lincoln and is pedestrian only and provides mid-block access through the site to the Duo site next door. Parking is provided at the front where the site is the widest because of truck traffic circulation. Lincoln has truck traffic restrictions, so all trucks have to enter and exit off of north Broadway. Variances sought for 177 S. Broadway: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MIN. BUILD-OUT PERCENTAGE 70% 14% 80% (LESS THAN (LINCOLN AVE.) EXISTS TODAY) MIN. BUILD-OUT PERCENTAGE 70% 0% 100% (SOUTH BROADWAY) FRONT YARD SETBACK (TO S. 0-12 FT. MAX 36 FT. 100% BROADWAY) MAX. FREESTANDING SIGN 12 SF. 17 SF. (MORE COMPLIANT AREA (MORE COMPLIANT THAN THAN TODAY) NOW ) MAXIMUM CUMULATIVE NEW 3,000 SF. 3,719 SF 24% ONE-STORY (NEW ) Libby said the maximum cumulative one-story is a new request resulting from an original application in 2022 where they had a false second story similar to other businesses along S. Broadway. The planning board said they would like to see a full second floor. When that design was shown to the DRB they did not care for the second floor. The applicant has no opinion either way. Libby said the false second floor was originally designed to hide the mechanicals and protect the neighbor from noise and disruption rather than locating them behind the building. Libby presented the most current site layout and building sketch plan. Board comments: Bill asked for clarification of truck movement – tanker tractor trailer coming and going. Libby said the trucks can enter into the site from S. Broadway by making a left and drive the entirety of the site in one continuous loop around the canopy and exit the same way they came in with no backwards movements. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – November 20, 2025 - Page 3 of 12 Alex asked about the connectivity to the Duo site. Libby said that’s a negotiated cross-access onto the Duo site. The sidewalk is completely on Stewart’s property. Alex said the site looks functional. Joe asked what the life cycle of the tanks are from 1986. Ryan said he doesn’t know the age, but they have been replaced since they were first put in. The new tanks they’re installing will be double wall fiberglass with a “Brian” layer in between. Joe asked where the 17 ft. sign would be placed. Ryan said it will be integrated into the brick wall going around the frontage. Tony said Stewart’s is a great company and we’re fortunate to have them. He has concerns about the loss of the building on S. Broadway which will now just be gas pumps. He would support renovation of the current building to prevent expanding the open area on S. Broadway and building a larger building behind. It changes the character of S. Broadway. If the building is going to be a two-story it should be functional. He said he struggles with the size, scale and a second story that’s only going to house mechanical equipment. It’s out of character and will change the neighborhood for the worse. Kerry said in 2022 the planning board said they wanted to keep the tanks away from the residential side of the property. Changing the configuration would also change the variances needed. Mike said the planning board’s expertise is site plan and city planning and the ZBA is zoning. With respect to the existing building, the zone is Neighborhood Center T-5 and should follow the UDO. Mike listed some of the criteria: All buildings must be oriented towards a primary public street – this is not. All public entrances must include direct public pedestrian connections and may not be set back more than 10 ft. – this is not. Sites must be designed to insure safe pedestrian/bicycle access – this has two 30 ft. driveways. Must have a cohesive visual character – it does. They’ve done well with off-street parking. To the ZBA - from a site plan point of view, the applicant is trying to shoehorn a gas station and the associated retail into a corner site, in an area of town where gas stations are not allowed to be built or expanded (shouldn’t be allowed to move their tanks). His opinion is that if the variances are given it’s because the site plan forces them to do that and that’s not what this zone really wants. Leah reminded the board that this has been a long process with many boards and zoning determinations. The distinction between what is allowed and what’s proposed is limited to the variances that are being sought. She recommended that the board not consider other zoning issues because by definition the people deciding zoning issues have decided there aren’t any other problems or issues. She further explained that if the applicant receives all of the variances they’re seeking then it has been deemed lawful. If this board is concerned that site plan is not going to be a successful process, they can let the applicant know that. If the applicant decides to go forward as is, they’ll go to the ZBA and back to the planning board where the design elements can be discussed further. The applicant is on notice that it might happen. Mark said there are two things to keep in mind that limit the planning board; 1. There is a special use permit for a gas station located here. 2. There’s a variance/SUP for the canopy at its current location. The planning board can ask the applicant to change that but can’t force them to. Mark agrees that there has to be street frontage but not on Broadway because of the canopy. It could be on Lincoln. The existing main entrance is facing Broadway and doesn’t give anything that resembles T-5 along Lincoln. The canopy could be connected to the building along Lincoln which would give the appearance of a continuous structure. Mark said if the building were squarer it could be turned into a trapezoid and front Lincoln. The parking could come around the back of the building. He suggested that the curb cut on Broadway could be moved up closer to the intersection and they could put more wall toward the Duo City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – November 20, 2025 - Page 4 of 12 side. There was a discussion about the ramifications of the canopy being connected to the building. Mark believes the second floor should be functional. Bill said the dilemma for the planning board is that the applicant is trying to fit a gas station into very practical and important design standards for S. Broadway. It’s a corner site and it’s difficult to put a gas station and Stewart’s shop that addresses Broadway. It can’t be done and was discussed at length 3 years ago. There will be an opportunity at site plan review to maximize the end product. Mark reviewed the variances. If the second story becomes functional the variance is not needed. Mike went through the variance requests and noted the following: • Min. buildout % Lincoln – can be discussed at site plan. • Min. buildout % Broadway – is impossible to meet because of the location of the existing canopy and SUP and variance associated with it. They’re not moving the canopy, so they won’t be putting a building on Broadway (could keep the existing building). • Front yard setback (to S. Broadway) – is tied to the building. • Maximum free standing sign area – no reason from a site planning point of view that the sign has to be 17 sf. (or greater than 12 sf). • Maximum cumulative New One-story – no reason from a site planning point of view that you can’t have two stories. • As Tony pointed out, because the tanks and canopy are where they are and the circulation of the trucks is where it is to service the underground tanks (and not going onto Lincoln) and the improbability of any structure on Broadway should be noted in the advisory opinion. Leah added that if the board can’t meet a consensus for their advisory opinion, a list of comments is appropriate. Mark said he feels it’s appropriate to give a positive advisory opinion to the ZBA that includes Mike’s comments. The variances won’t restrain the PB from doing a useful amount of planning board work to make the design more T-5 compliant. Mark Pingel, Chair opened the floor for public comments. Geoff Wood 26 Lincoln Ave. lives next door and said he is the most affected adjacent property owner. He’s a licensed professional engineer, civil engineer, roadway safety professional, and a member of the Design Review Board. He said he was here three years ago, and the sketch plan was approved and moved forward. Tonight’s discussion is off point and irrelevant and not consistent with past discussions. He said he wrote letters on July 8, 2022, to the planning board and September 22, 2022, to the ZBA and it appears the board has not read them. He has supported this project exactly as presented. The Stewart’s building being located in the exact footprint of the house that’s being demolished will serve the same purpose of shielding him from the noise and traffic, potential fire hazard, headlights. He said all of his issues have been addressed with Stewart’s from the very beginning of the project. He will return for site plan review. Mark Pingel made a motion for a positive recommendation to the ZBA for the first four variances at 177 So. Broadway (the fifth one will be removed because there will be a functional second story). Comments: the Lincoln Ave. buildout can be changed but will not be City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – November 20, 2025 - Page 5 of 12 less than currently proposed. The two S. Broadway variances are required because of the existing special use permits in place. After a discussion Mark Pingel withdrew his motion. Mark Pingel, Chair said the board will give the ZBA the following comments: the Lincoln Ave. buildout can be changed but will not be less than currently proposed. The two S. Broadway variances are required because of the existing special use permits in place. No opinion on the sign. The second-floor variance will be removed, and the second floor will be fully functional. Mark Pingel made a motion to forward the above comments regarding 177 S. Broadway to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The motion was seconded by Mike King. Vote: M. Pingel-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, K. Mayo-Y, A. White-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 7-0, motion carried. 3. #20250203 Park Pl. & Cottage St. Final Subdivision. Final Plat review of a proposed two- lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. 4. #20250202 Park Pl. & Cottage St. 7 Cottage St. 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. Mark Pingel, Chair said the board will be reviewing SEQRA, subdivision and site plan. The applicant received a list of items from board members and public comments after their planning board presentation. The board will begin reviewing the project where it left off at the last meeting and Mark asked that public comment be in reference to new information being discussed tonight. Matthew Hurff responded to comments made at the last meeting: A revised rendering of the building was shown. The building is 16 ft. shorter than previously shown. Two housekeeping notes in terms of context: 1. Zoning at 2537 Clinton St. and 100- 108 Woodlawn – the buildings are in UR-4 and UR-3 zones (comparable density zoning districts to the subject project). 2. The context of Cottage St. is less varied than what was presented at the previous meeting. There is a significant number of single-family residences on Cottage St. that should be considered, but there are also apartment buildings, structures of significant size and a similar building as to what is being proposed two doors down from the site. Subdivision/original site plan: • concerns with “dog leg” – eliminated (proposing a partition creating a rectangular lot) • sufficient water to supply the project. – the waterline in Park Place is 4” and is not sufficient to supply the needs of this project. There’s a 6” line on Southeast St. that does provide sufficient flow to the project without stressing the city system. A flow test result has been provided to the city engineers. • Stormwater – one-hundred-year rainfall design for the courtyard area. It has been designed for a 100-year rainfall event. The calculations and design were City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – November 20, 2025 - Page 6 of 12  submitted and reviewed by the city engineer. A generator has been provided to run the pump in an emergency. • Viability of using a pole mounted transformer to power the building. They are proposing a single-phase pole-mounted distribution transformer with room to mount additional transformers. They’ll need 144 KVA for this project. Will have to get National Grid approval. • Excessive parking – 17 parking spaces including 5 surface spaces were proposed. Because the width of the building has been reduced, there’s no longer room for surface parking. The total number of parking spaces has been reduced from 17 to 11 (1.83 per unit) • Length of the building along Park Place and proximity to residence to the west. Reduced the width of the building by 16 ft. Original Sun study showed the shadow of the building was having an impact on the northeast corner of the existing building. Showed renderings with the reduced building size and how the shadows don’t affect the building next door. Kirsten Catellier, Matt Huntington, Studio A presented changes to the site plan. The same general layout. Changes are with the planting plan along the two interior property lines with 19 total trees to buffer from the adjacent neighbors. Regarding the landscaping in front: swapped out the shrubs along the building edge with Inkberry to provide year-round cover (3- 4 ft. tall). They are continuing with roses and grasses to create a layering approach for seasonal interest and color. Tree removal – there were trees removed prior to the start of this project and there are remaining trees to be removed. The overall plan, if you were to do a one-to-one mitigation plan looking at the trees that were there prior to removals, they would have to be replaced by 295 inches. Compared to what is there today and proposed to be removed is 57 inches. The planting plan is for 19 trees at 5-inch caliber. They are proposing 95 inches of replacement which exceeds the requirement by 38 inches of what’s there today. After discussing with Susan, the applicant has agreed to replace the remaining 200 inches somewhere within the city limits. They are proposing evergreens around the perimeter of the property that’s being subdivided and placing trees as you come up to the main front door. The existing white fence on the subdivided parcel will be removed, and they’ll add trees and pavers along the driveway, and pillars out front. Kirsten showed 3-d renderings of the landscaping. Matt talked about the utilities: water, sewer and stormwater – they provided a water and sewer report and stormwater narrative to the city engineer who is generally in concurrence with their design methodology. They analyzed the existing sewer main that runs through Park Place and some of the contributing properties and determined that the applicant’s property will add less than 1% of pipe capacity. Water and stormwater were addressed above. Joe asked where the garbage retainment will be located. Matt said in the garage. Bill not audible. Mic not on. Mark Pingel, Chair opened the meeting for Public Comment. Steve O’Shea 10 Cottage and 31 Park Place. There are wires all along Park Place and the trees won’t be possible. Requesting a no vote tonight because the paperwork is not correct on the website and it just came out on November 14th. He would like the public comment to remain open so everyone will have a chance to look at the changes. He likes the change on the lot line with the dog leg being removed and the subdivision squared off. Looking at the City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – November 20, 2025 - Page 7 of 12 size and scale of the project, he’s concerned about how they can build it and keep everything on site. The residents don’t want dumpsters in the streets and construction equipment all over the place. Lars Anderson, 20 Park Pl. - the building is still the same size as what was proposed before. Still a very big structure. Will take away from the feel of the street. Proportionally it’s the same mass as was proposed. With the wall being proposed he’s not sure how anyone will utilize the green space. Seems awkward. Dr. Greg Leck, 39 Park Pl. compared the project to comments about the Stewart’s proposal: “changed the neighborhood”, “shoehorned into the lot”. The local press said its “an assault on a neighborhood” and “an elephant in a shower stall”. The attorney for Stewart’s said, “just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should do it”. Just because the project meets zoning, etc. it doesn’t mean it needs to be approved. He asked that the board give weighted consideration to the people who pay taxes and live in the neighborhood. Arthur Burt Porter strongly urged the board to reject the project. It’s too large in scale and doesn’t fit the neighborhood. Jim Lombardo 35 Park Place – talked about this being in U-R 4 and whether it’s compatible as you go west toward downtown. This borders UR-2 and is not consistent with Cottage St., Southeast St., Park Place or as you go east. Asked that the board consider the implication of a structure on the border between UR-4 and UR-2 where this would not be allowed. The neighbors should have gone before the City Council and asked that it be UR-2. They didn’t and now they’re being penalized. Derek Olsen, Southeast St. This monstrosity doesn’t belong in the neighborhood. The kids play in the area, and they don’t need the traffic. He wants to make sure these cannot be Airbnb; there will be parties all summer. The applicant put up the white fence right away and cut down trees. We need a few homes like there are right down the street where it’s still UR- 4. Quinn Frank 18 Cottage St. asked to see the aerial view. His primary concern is outdoor parking. Is there enough room on the street for the increased traffic. Deirdre Ladd, 113 Regent St. near Beagle St. school which is going under a large renovation that will increase the size of the classes therefore increasing the number of people parking for students who attend the school all year round. The increased traffic is quite a concern – the streets are narrow. There are also a soup kitchen and church on the corner. Regent Street is also a cutoff to the high school so there’s lots of speeding going on already. Park Place is how many people get to the track and the clubhouse entrance. It’s a very busy neighborhood and this project will increase the traffic even more. Allison Dockum, 48 White St. – appreciates the changes being made, especially next to the historic house. The neighbors are not against development; they just want to see the right thing be done in a small neighborhood on a one block street. This project could be two houses and still make money. It shouldn’t be pushed on neighbors who have lived here 20, 30 & 40 years. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – November 20, 2025 - Page 8 of 12 Amanda Kukle, 14 Cottage St. – concerned about parking and increased traffic. More vehicles than can fit in the parking garage. People will leave their car on the street for convenience. Cottage St. is alternate parking year-round and it can get tight during track season and snow events. David Guarino, 21 Park Place appreciates that the public hearing was left open and the work the board does. The applicant has cut down trees and put up a white fence. It’s shameful how they talked about our neighborhood. The project is too large for the area. The slight reduction in size is a slap in the face. The building is 3 times the size of the largest house on the block. The previous bed and breakfast hotel on the site was depicted improperly. Single family homes should be built on the property. This type of project belongs downtown. Mark asked about the board’s obligation to give time to review the information that was posted – November 14th. Is that enough time? Leah said there’s no legal obligation. Mark noted that the board is a constrained body and they do not get to change the zoning ordinances. They have a limited amount of discretion within the zoning ordinance. This district is UR-4 bounded by UR-3 and UR-2. Mark agreed that UR-2 should be taken into consideration because there is a transition, as well as acknowledgement that the property owners have rights within the UDO to put together a compliant proposal, which the applicant has made. Leah said when there are no design changes or materials being proposed by the applicant or it is submitted as requested by the board then it’s appropriate to close the public hearing. Mark Pingel, Chair closed the Public Comment. There were 5 questions from the last meeting that required more discussion. 2, 3, 5, 7, 10. SEQRA, Part 2: 1. Material conflict with adopted land use plan…- No, or small impact. 2. Change of use or intensity of use of land.. talked about the width of the building in the front. This project is allowed by zoning. 3. Impair character or quality…. – discussed visual impact of the driveway on Cottage St. and whether 22 ft. width is necessary. Eleven cars can be parked in the garage (5 on stilts), and width could be reduced to 10 ft. Changes can be made during site plan review to make it a better site design. Overflow parking on city streets will likely occur. Mark noted that there are similar row houses throughout the city that are of similar height and width, surrounded by one- and two-story houses. A straw poll showed that 4 members agree with moderate to large. Susan suggested that the board members specifically identify the areas or alternatives that they would like to see to help them better analyze SEQRA questions 2 and 3. 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. (was tied to 4” water main) 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 (now a 100-yr flood plan and generator for the pumps) 11. Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – November 20, 2025 - Page 9 of 12 The Board decided that they would further discuss the impact of the project at the next workshop. 5. #20250940 48 Lincoln Ave. The Green House Saratoga. Special Use Permit for reuse of the existing building and site for marijuana dispensary in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. ADJOURNED 6. #20240682 25 New St. Subdivision. Preliminary plat review of a proposed 20-lot subdivision (resulting in 36 new residential units) in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Mark Pingel, Chair said the applicant will present significant changes from the last presentation before the Planning Board. Andy Brick, Brick Law Firm represented the applicant, the McNeary Group, LLC. Bill McNeary was also present. Andy presented an aerial view of the project proposed to be located on New St. behind the Price Chopper on Route 50 and between Price Chopper and Railroad Run. To the north of the project is state owned property, Empire State College, which accesses to Aletta St. The project is zoned UR-3 and is in full compliance with zoning. The existing conditions – parking lot with a building in disrepair. There’s a treed buffered area off of the subject property between them and Railroad Run a portion of which will be donated as part of the project to the city. Project proposal: • 20 lot subdivision with 18 duplex lots with driveways directly to New St. (a new city street). The 19th lot (to the left on the plan) will be a dog park, playground and asphalt path from the street separating the kids park from the dog park accessing up to Railroad Run. The intention is to keep the ownership of the parks private so the owners can perform maintenance and set guidelines and hours of use. • The 18 duplex units are all on separate lots and are anticipated to be rental units. The ownership will remain unified under McNeary Group. • Originally proposed a maintenance building in the area where they are now proposing a cul-de-sac and the design has been reviewed and approved by city departments and staff and will accommodate snowplows and firetrucks turning around. The applicant will be required to install “no parking” signs to keep residents from parking in the turn around area. There’s a waterline easement that goes across to the state property. Their surveyor signed off on the plans, and it has been submitted to the legal department to draft up the easements. It will be 20 ft. emergency access (with a crash gate in the cul-de-sac) as well as a waterline easement. • Stormwater management will be underground in the street in front of the houses and conveyed to the east which is where it goes now. • Landscape plan (presented to and approved by staff) – street trees along the front and a variety of trees in the rear to act as an additional buffer between the rear of the apartments where they will have patios and decks and Railroad Run. Decks, buffer of trees, city trees that will remain. • Recreation space – decorative and designed entranceway with an asphalt path between the playground and dog park connecting from New St. to Railroad Run. They will have significant landscaping because this is the gateway into the project as well as to the parks. Showed site renderings. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – November 20, 2025 - Page 10 of 12  • Traffic Review – the board requested at the last meeting. The existing levels of service in the study area will remain the same. • Noise study – conducted over a period of 4 days (January 6-9, 2025) and measured during morning, mid-morning, evening and overnight periods. The primary source of background noise is from traffic along Route 50, Empire Ave., Elm Ave. and within Market 32 Plaza. The decibel levels (mid 30’s to high 40’s) were determined to be acceptable for a residential area. They were slightly elevated during the peak commuting hours. It was concluded that the proposed development will not add significantly to any of the increased noise levels that are coming from traffic and the Plaza. • NYSOGS Water and Ingress/Egress Easement – site plan displayed. • Sewer line – designed so the sewer flow will be bifurcated – two-thirds of the left side of the project will gravity flow to the city system and flow to the left. One-third will gravity flow to the county line in Railroad Run. Amy will double check that the city has agreed to maintain and own the sewer line and infiltrators. Mark Pingel, Chair asked if there were any questions from board members – not at this time. Mark Pingel, Chair asked if there were any comments from the Public. Suzanne Jagoda, 16 Empire Ave. moved there 20 years ago. When she moved in Railroad Run was well-groomed and is now decimated by Oriental Bittersweet that brings down entire deciduous trees. She is concerned about the increased traffic near the YMCA and general area. What will happen with the mess of Oriental Bittersweet? Not anti-development but has concerns that not everything is being looked at – increased noise from dog park, fences should not be contiguous between dog park and playground. Lepkowska-White, 2 Joseph St. lived there 26 years and has questions about the development. Would like to see a full landscaping plan for both sides of the trail – sizes, species, planting locations, etc. Lives behind Price Chopper and the noise wakes her up in the middle of the night. She would like to see more of a barrier. She talked about the importance of maintaining Railroad Run as a gateway to the city, for families and the environment. She asked if National Grid signed off on the 75 ft. easement and if they will be removing trees. She would like the neighbors to have the ability to comment throughout the process. How will the sanitary sewer proposed to cross Railroad Run be restored? The damage to trees, etc. Will there be basements? If not, where will people store their things, outside! What protective measures will be put in place by the board since they will be closer to Railroad Run than the present homes. She waits at the crosswalk light to cross to the YMCA and counts many cars. Many more cars and people will be added to the area with this project, and it will affect the character of the area. Parking will be a problem on a small narrow street. She would like to hear more discussion about the light and pollution in this area once the trees are cut down. Doesn’t understand how the turnaround on a gravel road that’s not plowed or sanded is safe. Jared Dinsmore, 13 Joseph St. his concern is sound. Price Chopper has refrigerated trucks that run constantly and are loud. Once the trees are removed he’s not sure how the sound will be mitigated. Sewer lines on Railroad Run got torn up bad and were not repaired properly. Amy said that issue should be deferred to the City Commissioner. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – November 20, 2025 - Page 11 of 12 Kate Maynard, 13 Joseph St. Railroad Run is an asset for the city – 186,000 trips in 2024 according to the Capital Region Transportation Council – the board should consider that magnitude in their review. It’s a main connection point for people walking and biking to Spa State Park, SPAC – and it’s become an amenity, the transportation aspect, economic development and tourism to the city. She’s in favor of the project if it’s implemented well. Things to keep in mind: removal of hundreds of trees on the site that are of a mature size that were noted in the plat and slated for removal. Traffic is a concern because this is a dead end. How safe is it? Was it discussed to allow people to enter off of Aletta and traverse either way through the site? The community on the other side of Railroad Run has several access points to reach Railroad Run, but the proposed development lacks clear connectivity to it. She has concerns about the property boundary in the back of the units being very close to Railroad Rund without much of a buffer. Tony said the applicant showed the inclusion of new trees in the noise study but not the affect of removing the old trees. Mark Pingel, Chair said the board would review SEQRA at the next meeting. Andy responded to some of the public comments: all of the units will have basements and garages, and no parking will be allowed on the street. Tony noted that the powerlines run where they’re proposing the trees. Have to make sure it’s reviewed and there’s no conflict. Andy said it’s his understanding that the bulk of the National Grid easement is on the Price Chopper property, but they will confirm that. Mark Pingel, Chair said the Public Hearing will remain open until SEQRA is completed. There will not be any more public noticing of this application. Tony Stellato made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mark Pingel. All in favor. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – November 20, 2025 - Page 12 of 12