HomeMy WebLinkAbout20220217 17 Park Place Area Variance Public Comment (7) May 16, 2022
Ashley Gardner, Co-Trustee of Andrea H Gardner Revocable Trust
105 Regent Street
Saratoga Springs NY 12866
To the Distinguished Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals-
My name is Ashley Gardner, and I am a Co-Trustee of the Andrea H Gardner Revocable Trust, owner of
105 Regent Street. I am writing in response to the application for 17 Park Place,which is directly across
Regent Street from our property.
Starting in 2015, there have been a number of different applications and iterations for this property
brought before this Board,the Planning Board, and the Design Review Committee. I am hoping to
remind the Board of these attempts, and the decisions that were ultimately handed down by the various
Boards, regarding their opinions about what is appropriate for this site.
All previous applications that I am aware of came from the previous owners, David Guarino and Linda
Hayer. Project Their last attempt, a two-lot subdivision of 21 Park Place (project 20200155), was
approved by the Planning Board on August 13, 2020, and the property has since been purchased by the
applicants. Previous applications before the Planning Board, 16.014 and 14.053 for"21 Park Place
Condominiums"were denied or revoked after feedback, respectively. I urge you all to read the minutes
from the March 11, 2015 and July 22, 2015 meetings,wherein most if not all of the members of the
Board expressed great concern over having too much density on this lot. Those comments were made
regarding a proposal for 4 units on this site. The current application does not even outline the number
of units proposed, it simply states single family home with "multi-unit" carriage house. I ask that much
more detail regarding this carriage house and the proposed density be provided to this Board before
reviewing the project.
My mother owned 105 Regent Street for 43 years before she passed away, and she was a fierce
protector of the historic character of her home and of the neighborhood. She and I worked tirelessly
together, along with many neighbors and members of the larger community, to fight the projects that
Guarino/Hayner brought before the land use boards because we believed that they would have a
significant negative impact on the neighborhood. The most glaring issues presented by their various
plans were related to the density on the property. Other issues included historic preservation,
neighborhood character, preservation of the existing trees,traffic and curb cuts, snow removal and
trash placement, sewer load, emergency vehicles, architectural appropriateness, and others. The land
use boards, particularly the Planning Board and the DRC, agreed with most of the concerns about these
projects, as reflected in their decisions.
The lot in question at 17 Park Place was created via a two-lot subdivision, application #20202155. The
discussion around this subdivision and the single-family home with detached garage as presented in the
plans were extensive. The Planning Board's decision to allow this subdivision was, I was under the
impression, based on the single-family home proposed, and came with a number of stipulations. The
approved plat plans, as well as the Notice of Decision from the Planning Board are attached hereto as
evidence of what was approved and the concerns that were noted. I believe that both the Planning
Board and the Design Review Committee should both have a chance to review and comment on the
current proposal before this Board can take any action on this application. I ask that the ZBA, at a
minimum, request an Advisory Opinion from both the Planning Board and DRC on this project.
The approved plan was for a single-family home with a detached garage. Now the project before you is
a single family home with an attached garage and a "multi-unit" carriage house. I believe that this
current application is an attempt to yet again "stuff 10 pounds in a 5 pound bag," a direct quote from
planning board members during the review of a previous application that was for two two-family
structures on this lot.The current application asks for variances that are unnecessary for the
construction of the single-family home with detached garage that was approved for this lot.
The application has a couple of mistakes as well, such as stating that 105 Regent Street has a carriage
house. 105 Regent Street IS a carriage house, it does not have one. It does not appear that the applicant
has explored alternative feasible means for the applicant to achieve the benefit of a single family home
with detached garage, and the proposed design does not yet show that it fits in with the surrounding
architecture. If, as stated,the plan is put forth in order to save the existing trees, I believe the City
should have the City Arborist review the plans with relation to the location and health of the root
systems of these trees to ensure that that they are not disturbed by construction of the proposed
structures and the location of the foundations.
As far as the specifics of the setback variances requested in this application are concerned, I have the
following comments:
1. 17 Park Place is a corner lot, therefore having two front yards, one side and one rear.
2. As such, the line on the application asking for a side yard setback variance is calculated
incorrectly. What they refer to as the "side yard" in the application is actually a front yard. So
asking for a variance to put the house 10 feet from Regent Street is a variance of 15 fee! If you
look at Regent Street on that side of that block, all of the other homes on the street are set back
from the road approximately 25 feet. Granting this variance would make this home very
inconsistent with the rest of that street. Especially since this is now architecturally and
functionally the"side" of the house and we cannot see any drawings of what that will look like
and how it will impact the Regent Street streetscape. I believe the original plans for the
subdivision that the PB approved either presented or assumed that the front of the house would
face Regent Street.
3. The setback on the application identified as the back yard is actually the side yard, so they are
asking for 13 feet rather than 20. 1 would ask the ZBA to evaluate how that difference will
impact the views of 21 Park Place. During the Planning Board meeting when this lot was created
via subdivision, the Board expressed great concern over the impact this project would have on
the neighborhood character and the views of 21 Park Place as a "contributing structure"to the
Historic District.
4. Accessory Structure variance of 7.5 feet seems unnecessary. While it might look better for the
accessory structure to be in line with the home, on the original application this was supposed to
be a detached garage. What the applicants are now proposing is a "multi-unit" carriage house,
which is not in the approved subdivision plan. I ask the ZBA to please review the approved
subdivision plan and the minutes from the Planning Board meeting thoroughly before discussing
or approving any variances for this property.
Thank you for your service on this Board and for your consideration in this matter.
Respectfully Submitted-
Ashley Gardner
OG,4 71 PLANNING BOAM
MINUTES (FINAL)
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11,2015
7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL Room
�cORPORATE�) PRESENT: Mark Torpey, Chairman; Robert Bristol,Vice Chairman; Clifford Van
Wagner;
Dan Gaba; Howard Pinsley;Janet Casey
LATE ARRIVAL: Tom L. Lewis arrived at 7:18 P.M.
ABSENT: Robert Bristol, Vice Chairman
STAFF: Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs.
Tony Izzo,Assistant City Attorney
CALL TO ORDER: Mark Torpey, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG:
ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING:
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the proceedings of this meeting are being recorded for the benefit of the secretary.
Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings,the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of
the recording.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADJOURNED PROJECTS
ADJOURNED PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
14.010 SUBDIVISION OF LANDS OF HARRISON, 180 Meadowbrook Road, public hearing for a two-lot
subdivision in the Rural Residential District.
14.059 77 EXCELSIOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, 77 Excelsior Avenue, Special use permit for commercial
and residential uses in a Transect-5 (T-5) District.
14.067 STONE PROPERTY, 68 WEIBEL AVENUE, 30 Church Street,site plan modification in a Transect-6 (T-6)
District.
14.074 UNION FOX APARTMENTS, 72 Union Avenue, Site plan review for multi-family residential in an
Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District.
15.003 BROADWIN PROPERTY, 131 LINCOLN AVENUE, Advisory Opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals in the
Urban Residential-1 District.
COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR:
UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGSIAGENDA WORKSHOPS:
Planning Board Caravan, Monday, March 23, 2015 at 4:00 P.M.
Planning Board Workshop, Monday, March 23, 2015 at 5:00 P.M.
Planning Board Meeting, Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 7:00 P.M.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR:
None heard.
APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION:
2. 14.053 21 PARK PLACE CONDOMINIUMS,21 Park Place, Site plan review for multi-family residences in
an Urban Residential-4(UR-4) District.
BACKGROUND:
Project proposes the construction of 4 additional units contained within 2 structures. ZBA issued variances from
maximum principal building coverage, and minimum front yard setbacks. While historic review is not required for the
project, DRC issued an advisory opinion which provided that the"DRC does not believe that this project will result in
any large or significant adverse impacts to the nearby National Registry District nor the historic qualities or general
character of the neighborhood" and provided four recommendations. The recommendations were reinforced in the
applicant's November 13, 2014 response letter, and which were required to be"incorporated into the final design of
the project" as a condition of the variances
- Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation provided November 14, 2014 correspondence to the ZBA
Correspondence to the ZBA related to their considerations for the project.
- Josh Dulmer, City Arborist provided recommendations related to the successful preservation of the
150+year old trees on the site.
SEQRA:
Planning Board and ZBA involved agencies. Planning Board deferred SEQRA lead agency to the Zoning Board of
Appeals, ZBA issued a negative declaration on December 15, 2014.
Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated this project has been seen by this Board previously. We have received
the DRC Advisory Opinion and Correspondence from the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation as well as
correspondence from the City Arborist. The applicant has received the appropriate variances requested as well as
SEQRA Negative Declaration from the Zoning Board of Appeals dated December 15, 2014. They appear before this
Board tonight for site plan review. Additional information requested by the Board was provided. 4 separate curb cuts
are proposed for the site. One change on the revised plans is a turnaround which has been added which allows cars
to exit the site front out. Two curb cuts proposed on Regent Street, all vehicles will need to back out of parking
spaces into the road. Storm water management has been clarified on the revised plans. Proposal of brick sidewalks
and further information will be provided by the applicant this evening.
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE BOARD:
Correspondence received from Tom Denny, Sustainable Saratoga, received March 11, 2015.
Correspondence received from Kathryn Oppedisiano, 79 Pepper Lane received November 15, 2014.
Applicant: Dave Guarino and Linda Haner
Agent: Frank Owen, Rexford Engineering
Mr. Owens reviewed the engineering portion of the project history for the Board. The applicant obtained zoning
variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals as well as SEQRA Negative Declaration on December 15, 2014. This
application was seen by the DRC and an Advisory Opinion was provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals. We have
incorporated many of their suggestions as well as those of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation. There are
a lot of design modifications which were incorporated into this project. Site plans have been prepared incorporating
these changes. Mr. Owens, site consultant reviewed the site plan proposal, %of an acre project.Visual presentation
provided. Two units,two structures are proposed. It is a developed lot. The impervious area will be increased to
City of Saratoga Springs—Planning Board Meeting—March 11,2015-Page 3 of 10
50%. 85% is allowed in this district. Two approved zoning variances have been granted for this project. The
applicants are proposing some infrastructure improvements; the applicants will be relaying the brick sidewalks to
preserve that aesthetic on the corner. The applicants are proposing 180 feet of curbing as well as 2 Sternberg
lights. There are 11 trees currently on the property. We are proposing to retain 8 of those trees. We will be adding 6
new trees in the right of way. Adequate off street parking is being provided for these units. 5 spaces will be offered
inside and 6 will be outside on the driveway. A turning radius template has been provided. Construction will take
approximately 9—12 months. Detailed construction plans will be provided to the Board,as well as a sediment
control plan. Storm water management plan was discussed. Very well draining soil, infiltration trenches will be
added as well as rooftop gutters to drywells, and vegetative channels. We will treat water runoff.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed plan for preserving the on-site trees,and staging during construction, as
well as access for fire trucks.
Linda Haner, applicant provided a visual presentation of the details of the design.
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated one of the recommendations from the DRC is that the design not look like cookie-
cutter homes.
Linda Haner, stated these are sister buildings which frame the courtyard. The courtyard will be redbrick on gravel.
All elevations were reviewed. Ms. Haner reviewed the DRC recommendations concerning the water table, and how
they are to be implemented, lowering of the roof pitch to enhance the focal point of the Gothic qualities of the
adjacent house, more robust corner boards, and fascia and frieze boards. Minimizing the pitch of the gable pediment
so the little roof is visible atop the pediment. Consider the use of metal in lieu of shingles. Consider color, material
detail changes to distinguish one new building from the other, minimizing the mirror image appears of the two new
buildings. These structures will be clapboard sided, color studies were done. Dark colors were chosen a warm
charcoal grey for one building and dark cadet blue will be used for the other building.
Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated just for the Boards information this application will not return before the DRC.
Ms. Haner reviewed the differences between the two buildings. Windows are different as well as doors,garage
doors and trim elements. One building has attached garages.
Janet Casey questioned if the DRC made any suggestions concerning the fronts of the buildings.
Ms. Haner stated they did not; the basic symmetry of the design was not questioned. Material information was
provided to the Board. Trash receptacles and fencing materials were also discussed. All penetrations will be through
the roof, only the chimneys will be vented out the sides of the buildings.
Mark Torpey questioned the location of the air conditioning units and condensers and how this will impact the
neighbors.
Ms. Haner stated there are several other options for the location of the air conditioning units.
Discussion ensued regarding placement of air conditioning units, size of the driveway, and ingress and egress of
emergency vehicles as well as snow removal.
Mark Torpey, Chairman questioned the status of the HOA documents.
PUBLIC HEARING:
City of Saratoga Springs—Planning Board Meeting—March 11,2015-Page 4 of 10
Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application.
Beverly Mastroianni, 125 Regent Street. Ms. Mastroianni stated she cannot get out of her driveway as a rule now.
Traffic is a major problem. Parking is a problem as well.
Alice O'Brien, 23 Park Place. Concerns regarding parking. This is a very busy road and very dangerous.The air
conditioning units and the periphery of the trash receptacles are also of concern. Residents on the periphery will be
most affected by the air conditioning units. The reality is the trees will not survive this construction. Noise—this is
making a bad situation a lot worse. Please consider the neighbors when you make your decision.
Johanna Anderson,20 Park Place. Problems exist with sewage and water. Very concerned about additional water
and storm water on the site. We have an aging sewer and water system.
Deidre Ladd, 113 Regent Street. Additional traffic with the schools, soup kitchen. Vehicles have been hit on
Regent Street. A 4-way stop increased traffic and congestion. We are on the historical side of the Street. This is an
important intersection—Congress Park.
Michael Ladd, 113 Regent Street. We moved here in 1998. We have seen the evolution of the neighborhood.
Speed limit signs have been installed on Regent St. Our area is great. These homes are treasures and the property
surrounding it and unique treasures and very distinctive homes.
Andrea Gardner, 105 Regent Street. I have lived here since 1977. 1 have watched the traffic situation. It is not an
adequate intersection and there are so many accidents. Adding extra curb cuts will create a worse situation.
Linda and Dave are in the business of rentals. They rent their home out. They are creating a burden to the rest
of the neighborhood.
Ashleigh Gardner, Ballston Spa. My Mom owns 105 Regent Street. This corner has beautiful estate homes and
beautiful lawns. Zoning variances were granted. There is not adequate property for trash, snow,
air conditioning units and the driveway. The site is not adequate for this project. The Board should listen to the DRC
meeting regarding this project.
Field Horn, 50 Granite Street. I am not impacted by this project. The home currently on this property is one of a few
of Gothic Revival Houses in Saratoga. Proposal for the two new buildings do have some balance and symmetry
but it is not Gothic in style. There is a massiveness to this that takes away from the existing building on this property.
Marne Onderdonk, 37 Park Place. I have lived here for 17 years. We live on a majestic street. This proposed
construction is completely out of character for the neighborhood. Parking is also a concern. Encourage there be
some dialogue in the City on how new construction can move forward when we have dilapidated properties that exist
yet approve construction which is out of character for the neighborhood.
Tom L. Lewis stated the four curb cuts will have a negative impact on the neighborhood. This is a great project as far
as planning it. It is odd to me how the density is out of character for that neighborhood. Most of the difficulties could
be minimized if only one building was built on this property.
Clifford Van Wagner stated he has been on Land Use Board for over 23 years. I have always recognized property
owner's rights to building on their land. We have just listened to a project which speaks of concessions. 5 point
turns, cars backing out, trash receptacles moved from behind a house to a courtyard. The four curb cuts are not
compatible and will eliminate parking spots. The comment that a fire truck can blow through a hedge if necessary
that is a concession. The Planning Board is not about making concessions, but making a project work from the get
go. This is incompatible with the neighborhood it too much for this majestic site. I cannot support this.
City of Saratoga Springs—Planning Board Meeting—March 11,2015-Page 5 of 10
Howard Pinsley stated he agrees with the other board members.
Dan Gaba stated it just does not fit. When you speak about snow a ten foot driveway, air conditioning units, cars
backing out into the street,with the schools and children and traffic. From my perspective it would be irresponsible
for me to condone this project. There are some great ideas, but they just do not work on this site.
Janet Casey stated she is also in agreement with the other board members. This is too dense. I am concerned
about the parking and the traffic in this area. There are too many curb cuts. I am not happy with the mirror image
routine. It is aesthetically they look like any type of condos you could see in any development. I am not satisfied that
in fact they lend anything to the unique character of the neighborhood.
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated he agrees with all the board members.
David Haner,applicant stated we are zoned to have 7 additional units on that property. We are building 4. We are
not maximizing the site. We are not going with the density that is allowed. The design by the setbacks is for a
massive 7 floor structure 70 feet high. We are intending to build the nicest condos for this site. Air conditioning units
can be relocated,future porches can be developed. We can alternate Regent Street driveway reconfiguration.
The applicant was encouraged to review the Board's recommendations.
The Board recessed at 9:00 P.M.
The Board reconvened at 9:09 P.M.
3. 14.060 HOFFMAN CARWASH FACILITY,2216 NYS Route 50, proposed special use permit for a car wash
Facility in the Highway General Business (HGB) District.
BACKGROUND:
Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the site is between an existing used car sales directly to the north,
Adirondack Trust Bank directly to the south. Site is at the southern boundary of the City just north of Route 50 and
Northline Road intersection. The site is in the Highway General Business District and within the Gateway Design
Overlay District. Special use permit,site plan review and architectural review by the DRC are required for this
application. You previously reviewed this application for sketch plan review. Since the last appearance before the
Board you have received additional materials in the form of Creighton Manning Traffic Report; correspondence from
Adirondack Trust; information concerning the wetlands on the site,and more information on noise mitigation
measures from the applicant. Question regarding tying into Ballston Spa Water.
Applicant: Martin Hoffman, Hoffman Development
Agent: Gavin Vuillame, Environmental Design
Mr. Gavin Vuillame, Environmental Design provided a visual presentation to the Board of the site. Concept plan was
provided to this Board in November of 2014. Plans have changed somewhat due to the feedback received from the
Planning Board. Plans were submitted in December and they were forwarded to Barton and Louguidice to be
reviewed. They have since completed a technical review of the project. The site access is a shared access with
Adirondack Trust. At this point, no variances are required. The building location has been placed on the site to
meet all the current setback requirements. We have relocated the dumpster/trash enclosure. We have moved the
location of the parking spaces from the front to the back now. We have reduced parking from 21 spaces to 19,which
will be adequate parking. Two stop bars have been installed to control traffic as well as directional signage.
City of Saratoga Springs—Planning Board Meeting—March 11,2015-Page 6 of 10
Discussion ensued regarding the shared access agreement for the driveway. It was the determination of the Board a
formal approval must be received from Adirondack Trust prior to the approval of the special use permit. No vote or
determination on this project will occur this evening.
Kate Maynard, Principal Planner reviewed the criteria for special use permits for the Boards review. The second item
which is particular with this project is when this parcel was subdivided and the access was created there is some
language which gives some authority to the Adirondack Trust Company.
Mr.Vuillame reviewed the utility plan which involves a connection to the Saratoga County Sewer Line. The sewer
district is in favor of the project. The water is a 1"water service on the site. We will be looking into a well for the
water for the mechanical portion of the car wash. Storm water management on the site will include green
infrastructure and was reviewed by the consulting engineers. Landscaping plan was reviewed as well as including
buffering along Route 50 and some screening along the entrance by the bank. Land disturbance remains at.19
acres in this area between us and the railroad. We will remove the berm and create more wetlands. We have
submitted these plans to the Army Corps of Engineers and a response is forthcoming. Visual presentation of the
proposed building was provided to the Board.
Clifford Van Wagner asked if the applicant thought of switching the traffic flow of this carwash 180 degrees, have the
cars enter on the south and exit on the north and just getaway from that common driveway. This would create
another curb cut.
Alanna Moran, Creighton Manning reviewed the traffic study they completed. Shared access is good, it minimizes
curb cuts and is supported by the NYS-DOT along their roadways. Adirondack Trust was concerned regarding the
intensity of the land use. This use is seasonal peaking on nice days in Spring and Summer and a different level of
use on snowing winter days. Peak operations for the two businesses only coincide in the peak evening hours on
Thursdays and Fridays,and until noon on Saturdays. Otherwise the bank closes at 3 PM other days. There are
other permitted land uses for this parcel which would generate more traffic and those are a fast food facility;which
would generate 105-115 PM peak hour trips on a regular basis. This site currently generates on a Thursday evening
peak hour 20 trips entering and 20 trips exiting that driveway. Level of service analysis with that volume in a Level of
Service B. With this proposed project on a typical day the car wash would generate 30 vehicles evenly entering and
30 trips exiting the site,for a total of 100 trips. This results in a Level of Service C. There is a 3 second delay on
Thursdays and Fridays when both the bank and the carwash are both open late.
Discussion ensued regarding what the Level of Service is at the intersection of Northline and Route 50.
Ms. Moran stated she can provide that information to the Board.
The applicant will return before the Board when additional information requested has been provided.
4. 14.07619/23 WASHINGTON STREET DEVELOPMENT, 19 AND 23 Washington Street, (Adelphi Hotel
Redevelopment), Sketch plan review and consideration of SEQRA lead agency and SEAR review for
Hotel and Group Entertainment Facilities.
Applicant: Adelphi Hotel Partners, LLC
Agent: Tony Stellato, CHA; Kristina Downey, CHA
BACKGROUND:
Project site consists of 2 separate parcels that are directly proximate to Universal Preservation Hall to north, Rip Van
Dam expansion site to the south, and Druthers' to the east, Bethesda Church across the street on the south side
of Washington Street. Site is within the Broadway National Registry District. Washington Street site is transitional
between approved 6 story Rip Van Dam hotel expansion, and 2 story stone mansion. Proposed project consists of
City of Saratoga Springs—Planning Board Meeting—March 11,2015-Page 7 of 10
a 6 story 14,000 square foot hotel,4,500 square foot banquet facility, and refurbishment of existing stone mansion for
use as a hotel facility or rental. Project seen for sketch plan review by Planning Board on 01/28/2015.
SEQRA:
Action appears to be a Type I action due to its location within a National Historic District, ZBA(Variances), DRC
(Architectural Review), and Planning Board (site plan review)are involved agencies, DRC and ZBA pro-actively
deferred lead agency status. Planning Board consideration of accepting lead agency status.
Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the ZBA and the DRC have deferred SEQRA Lead Agency to the Planning
Board.
Mr. Stellato discussed the reasoning behind the fact that these are three distinct parcels. He believes this was for
financing purposes. If that is a concern we can pursue that. Mr. Stellato provided a visual presentation for the
Board's review. He reviewed all the buildings encompassing this application. Mr. Stellato reviewed each building
and the proposed use for each. Parking demand calculations were provided citing 65 spaces. Valet parking will be
provided to the hotel guests.
Kristina Downey, traffic engineer with CHA. Traffic impact analysis. Trip generation estimate was provided for a
Saturday which resulted in 17 trips,for this project only. Valet parking doubles the trip generation figures.
We also looked at parking for banquet functions,25% of attendees at the banquet functions will be hotel guests.
There are approximately 70 trips before a function at the banquet facility, a nominal amount of exit trips for drop offs.
30 trips total for the hotel, 15 in and 15 out. 84 total for the banquet facility. The peaks of the hotel and the banquets
are not anticipated to occur at the same time. Hotel guest's arrival peaks earlier than the average banquet. Each of
these uses individually is below a threshold of 100 trips and that is standard practice. Ms. Downey did review the
valet practice the hotel will use. 36 entrance trips for the valet and 36 exit trips for the Saturday peak hour were
calculated. A complete traffic assessment report was provided to the Board for their review.
Mr. Stellato requested the Board opinion on whether the applicant has provided the information necessary or
is there more work to be done.
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated he appreciated the time and effort expended. He would like to see more qualitative
and quantitative assessments completed. This route does not allow us to do anything more with this street regarding
traffic mitigation.
Clifford Van Wagner stated no one has spoken regarding the truck traffic which is a concern. No one has addressed
this issue. This is an approved truck route. The development on this street is just too much. It is the wrong site.
Traffic and parking is an issue here. There is nothing to convince me otherwise. We are doing a disservice adding
more traffic to this one or two block area.
Discussion ensued among the Board concerning traffic and valet parking.
The applicant stated they will return before the Board.
5. 15.001.1 SARATOGA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL,459-539 Lake Avenue,Consideration of SEQRA Lead
Agency status and environmental review in the Rural Residential (RR) District.
BACKGROUND:
Original 3 phased project for school facilities considered for site. Use variance granted for the school
February 26, 2003. Site plan approval for Phase I approved April 30, 2003. Area variance granted June 10, 2003.
Architectural review approval October 2003. Variance modification is currently proposed. Applicant's intent is to then
proceed with review of Building 2 site plan review and DRC architectural review will be required.
City of Saratoga Springs—Planning Board Meeting—March 11,2015-Page 8 of 10
SEQRA:
Planning Board served as Lead Agency for the required SEQRA review considering 3 phases of the project
and issued a negative declaration on January 22, 2003. Currently ZBA considering a request to modify findings
of use variance based on increase in number of students from prior assumption of 100 students to currently
proposed 250 students and 35 total staff members. ZBA and DRC have pro actively deferred SEQRA Lead
Agency Status to the Planning Board.
INVOLVED AGENCIES:
- Army Corps of Engineers.
- New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
- New York State Department of Health
- New York State Department of Transportation
- Saratoga County IDA
Applicant: Saratoga Independent School; Felice Karlitz, Director
Agent: Libby Corrino,Attorney, Jones Firm; Bill McMorty, Construction Management Committee;
- Ken Siverson,Architect; John West;Alana Moran, CME
Ms. Corrino provided a brief visual presentation of the proposed project. Currently the school enrolls 106 full time
students. In January of 2003 the Planning Board as Lead Agent issued a Negative Declaration for all Three Phases
of the project under SEQRA. This allowed 42,000 square feet of classrooms, office, recreational and assembly
space. Visual presentation included an overview of the current site, proximity to wetlands, and forested areas. This
information and concept plan has recently been submitted to the ZBA because we are in a Rural Residential zone
operating under a use variance. Rendering of the buildings were provided to the Board. 87%of the site remains
permeable. Prior to this expansion the original plan was a campus style feel. Currently we are proposing connecting
the facility together to form an east and west wing. Due to the success of the school the enrollment is increasing to
approximately 250 students. This results in small increases in traffic trips,water usage per day,wastewater and
storm water runoff, all of which are small and can be mitigated. All other environmental issues we believe we can
stay in compliance as set forth in the 2003 SEQRA Negative Declaration. More students on site under the existing
metrics. 40%of the students are bused to school. 60% are driven to school. Traffic assessment report was
submitted for the Boards review. The proposed new project will be two stories and 8 classrooms will be fitted and
completed. The remainder 8 classrooms will be framed but not finished. DEC forwarded correspondence
regarding the wetland delineation boundary,they feel there will be no further intervention necessary.
Mark Torpey, Chairman reviewed the SEQRA and the SEQRA Negative Declaration issued on January 22, 2003.
There are two areas of the paperwork which need to be updated to include the new revisions concerning the
ten year construction time frame and the area stating the new construction will be two stories.
Tom L. Lewis made a motion to continue as SEQRA Lead Agency for this project.
Clifford Van Wagner seconded the motion.
Negative Declaration issued on January 22, 2003 and updated Part I and Part II on March 11, 2015.
VOTE:
Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor;
City of Saratoga Springs—Planning Board Meeting—March 11,2015-Page 9 of 10
Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor
MOTION PASSES: 6-0
Howard Pinsley made a motion to amend SEQRA Negative Declaration issued on January 22, 2003
with an updated Part I and Part II with the following revisions: amend the ten year construction time frame,and the
area stating the new construction will be two stories.
Tom L. Lewis seconded the motion.
Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion.
None heard.
VOTE:
Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor;
Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor
MOTION PASSES: 6-0
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the next Planning Board Meeting scheduled for March 25, 2015.
MOTION TO ADJOURN:
There being no further business to discuss Mark Torpey, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11:26 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane M. Buzanowski
Recording Secretary
APPROVED 5/27/15
City of Saratoga Springs—Planning Board Meeting—March 11,2015-Page 10 of 10
OG,4 71 PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES
WEDNESDAY,JULY22,2015
7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL Room
�cORPORATE�) PRESENT: Mark Torpey, Chairman; Robert Bristol, Vice Chairman; Dan Gaba;
Clifford Van Wagner, Tom L. Lewis, Janet Casey
ABSENT: Howard Pinsley
STAFF: Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs.
CALL TO ORDER: Mark Torpey, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG:
ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING:
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the proceedings of this meeting are being recorded for the benefit of the secretary.
Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings,the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of
the recording.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADJOURNED PROJECTS:
ADJOURNED PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
14.067 STONE PROPERTY, 68 WEIBEL AVENUE, 30 Church Street,site plan modification in a Transect-6 (T-6)
District.
14.074 UNION FOX APARTMENTS, 72 Union Avenue, Site plan review for multi-family residential in an
Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District.
14.010 SUBDIVISION OF LANDS OF HARRISON, 180 Meadowbrook Road, public hearing for a two-lot
subdivision in the Rural Residential District.
15.022 EXPERT INSPECTION SUBDIVISION, 508 Grand Avenue, 2 lot residential subdivision in the
Suburban Residential-2 (SR-2) District.
COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR:
15.014 SUBDIVISION OF LANDS OF MICHAEL MAGNATTA, Jefferson St., & East Broadway, 2 lot subdivision
review within the UR-2 District. This application has been withdrawn.
UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGSIAGENDA WORKSHOPS:
Planning Board Caravan, Monday,August 10, 2015 at 4:00 P.M.
Planning Board Workshop, Monday,August 10, 2015 at 5:00 P.M.
Planning Board Meeting, Wednesday,August 12, 2015 at 7:00 P.M.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR:
None heard.
APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION:
1. 15.019 PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT-CLUBHOUSE DEFINITION
(SARATOGA NATIONAL),Advisory Opinion to the City Council
Mark Torpey, stated on June 3, 2015 the City Council forwarded to the Planning Board a request for an Advisory
Opinion with text amendment application. We did have Exhibit A. There were two additional revisions, Exhibit B and
a modified Exhibit B, received on June 17,2015. One of the things we want to discuss is which version we are
looking at and speak to the appropriate amendment. The text amendment is to identify Clubhouse golf, and that is
what we are focusing on. The Planning Board does have 60 days to render a written advisory opinion to the City
Council, unless extended by mutual consent.
SEQRA:
Action appears to be a Type I action with City Council as an Involved Agency. No action is required from the
Planning Board at this time.
Mark Torpey, Chairman questioned when the Planning Board response is due.
Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the Planning Board does have 60 days to render a written advisory opinion to
the City Council. This was originally sent to you on June 3,2015, so this technically is due back to the City Council
on August 3, 2015. This maybe extended by mutual consent,with the reasoning for the extension.
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the Planning Board's scope of review shall include but is not be limited to:
- Whether the proposed revision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and
- Whether the proposed revision is not contrary to the general purposes and intent of this Chapter
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we are in receipt of a Comprehensive Plan Update approved by the City Council in
June 2015. The final version is not yet posted on the website. When will that be available?
Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the final draft approved by the City Council is incorporating
changes/formatting. Draft is available on the City's website for Board's review. The formatting has just been
completed today and should be posted within the next few days. Copies can be provided to the Board to review.
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated based on the fact that the Comprehensive Plan is not up and available for the public
to see,and one of the key questions is whether or not the proposed revision is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, it seems a little premature to proceed with a vote this evening without having more time for that to be reviewed
and analyzed. I do not think the public has had the opportunity to see the new version and I feel it is quite important
to make the best decision we can. It is a fairly complex issue. We did receive a number of comments today,from a
variety of folks. They came at the last minute and we would like to review and digest those. It seems appropriate for
this conversation to have a public hearing and spend some time on this. Also to see if my fellow Board members are
okay with that.
Clifford Van Wagner stated I have been on this Board for over 11 years. I agree that a public hearing is absolutely
appropriate. I do not think tonight is the night for that since we are getting new information. I would like to make a
motion to schedule a public hearing for August and also ask the City Council to extend our deadline which obviously
we are not going to meet. Also, as a part of that, request Mark Schachner, Planning Board attorney to communicate
with the applicant, and to give us a clear idea of what these definitions are. Tonight we should hear a short overview
by Mr. Toohey and move on with tonight's agenda.
Bob Bristol,Vice Chairman seconded the motion.
City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes—July 22,2015-Page 2 of 18
Tom L. Lewis requested a conversation with Mark Schachner and the Planning Board.
Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated she will reach out to Mark Schachner. He will provide legal guidance. The
policy portion remains under the Planning Board's purview. The ultimate decision is the City Council's.
Mark Torpey, Chairman questioned if the council members have seen the final version,and modified Exhibit B that
we have as the latest version. Are they ok with it?
Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the council took up the question of the versions of the special definitions prior
to their last meeting. What they had discourse on is and the overall consensus was they wanted the Planning Board
to see exactly what was sent on in the original application. They were firm on this.
Tom L. Lewis,stated just to be clear there was the first document labeled Exhibit A, then a second one labeled
Exhibit B and a third one Exhibit B which was dated.
Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated Exhibit A was provided with the original application and sent by the City
Council to the Planning Board for your review.
Janet Casey stated Exhibit A and Exhibit B were the same,save for a sentence.
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated there is some confusion here. We need to know what version we are looking at.
Bob Bristol,Vice Chairman stated he likes to have paperwork which is dated.
Mark Torpey discussed using Exhibit A which is what the council has sent us and have a workshop with Mark
Schachtner prior to the next Planning Board meeting.
Discussion ensued regarding scheduling of the workshop.
VOTE:
Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Bob Bristol,Vice Chairman, in favor;
Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor;
MOTION PASSES: 6-0
Applicant: Saratoga National Golf Club, Inc. Tom Newkirk and Kevin Betty
Agent: Michael Toohey,Attorney
BACKGROUND:
Saratoga National is pursuing additional expansion at their existing facility which includes a 100 room hotel, and 48
rooms contained within 6 golf lodges,and a spa facility.
Mr. Toohey stated we are here this evening is to begin the dialogue with the Planning Board concerning the use and
utilization of the only mechanism that is available to us now is to modify the zoning code with regard to a particular
use. In a rural residential zone we are not allowed to do PUD's. As a result we have to find another way to better
define what we would like to do with the property. What we are proposing is the largest dedication of green space in
the City of Saratoga Springs short of the State Park. Mr. Toohey provided a history of Saratoga Springs, commerce
City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes—July 22,2015-Page 3 of 18
and tourism and green space that presents a green view of the City of Saratoga Springs beyond what was ever
imagined. The only place where you can have a golf course and a clubhouse in the City of Saratoga Springs is in a
RR-1 zone,which is exactly where my clients are proposing on. Mr. Toohey provided a history of the evolving zoning
code which changes definitions from nothing to something to something different. Mr. Toohey stated this would be a
clustered utilization. There is enough acreage to be able to do what is being proposed and would remain taxable at
some level. There is a benefit to the City. We can work with the Conservation Overlay District. We can dedicate
extreme amounts of green space. We have a plan in place that will open this for public use. We believe this a win-
win situation for everybody. We are a tourist related community. This is a mechanism that will allow us to continue
to develop the tourist dollar and spread the word of Saratoga Springs.
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we will have the new Comp Plan 2015 up and on line.
Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the marked up copy is currently on the site and available.
John Kaufmann, questioned if the meeting with Schachner could be open to the public. Questioned looking into the
open meeting law.
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the workshop will be opened to the public. Check the website for date and time.
Mr. Toohey questioned if all the versions of the Exhibits could be posted on the web so the public can see the various
versions.
2. 15.018 O'SHEAIETHIER SUBDIVISION, 316-318 Ballston Avenue, public hearing for a 12 lot residential
Subdivision within the Transect-4 Urban Neighborhood (T-4)District.
Both structures are currently under construction. Subdivision proposed to allow for individual parcel boundaries for
individual units, open space and HOA ownership and maintenance of alleyway.
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we have seen this project before. This is just a matter of tying up loose ends.
Understanding the HOA language and terms, such as stormwater management, and sidewalks and how that was
addressed. The project has all of its approvals, it is being constructed now. We are now finalizing the maintenance
issues.
Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the project was previously approved for:
- Special use permit for 12 multi-family residential units
- Site Plan Review
- Area variance for side setback(shared common walls)
- DRC Architectural Review
One issue which was recently discussed with the applicants agent was the lot configuration. The applicant was
amenable to place all the commonly maintained areas maintained by the HOA on one parcel. That includes the
private street to the rear and the space between the two structures. It also contains the stormwater management.
The choice was the applicant could go back and modify variances to include that single parcel look or to proceed with
looking at what you are looking at which is retaining the open space portion as part of 316F-318A with the provision
that the HOA have the ability to access and maintain the stormwater management infrastructure on that parcel. The
HOA language has been provided showing the connection between those items. There are technical clarifications
which will be clarified with Tim Wales, City Engineer. This will be noted on the plat plans.
Agent: Paul Male
Applicant: Steven O'Shea, Steven Ethier
City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes—July 22,2015-Page 4 of 18
Mr. Male stated the application is exactly as Kate Maynard described it. This was approved as a site plan. It was
subdivided into two parcels. All existing utilities are there. The water line is along the back. The sewer line is in the
public right of way. In conversation with Tim Wales I believe I have addressed all his issues. A checklist was sent to
him this afternoon. The only issue at this point is to reference the existing utilities and show what was approved on
the site plan 3 years ago.
Mark Torpey, Chairman questioned the HOA language.
Mr. Male stated the HOA will maintain the road and the storm water management area.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Mark Torpey, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:49 P.M.
Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application.
None heard.
Mark Torpey, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:50 P.M.
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the language in the HOA has been worked out with the staff and the applicants
attorney.
Clifford Van Wagner made a motion in the matter of the O'Shea/Ethier Subdivision, 316-318 Ballston Avenue for a
12 lot residential subdivision within the Transect-4 Urban Neighborhood T-4) District,with modifications to the HOA
language. Reaffirmation of the SEQRA Negative Declaration, no physical changes to the project.
Janet Casey seconded the motion.
Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion.
None heard.
VOTE:
Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Bob Bristol,Vice Chairman, in favor;
Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor;Janet Casey, in favor;
MOTION PASSES: 6-0
3. 14.053 21 PARK PLACE CONDOMINIUMS,21 Park Place, Site plan review for multi-family residences in
an Urban Residential-4(UR-2)District.
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the Planning Board provided feedback to the applicant at the last meeting. The areas
of concern were the size of the structures,fire access, vehicular ingress and egress, potential on street traffic issues,
Terms of the HOA, in terms of protecting trees, location of HVAC air conditioning equipment, hydrant flow and
pressure, DRC weighed in with an Advisory Opinion in terms of design. Additional letters of support. Some letters
have been received.
City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes—July 22,2015-Page 5 of 18
Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the Planning Board had deferred SEQRA Lead Agency Status to the Zoning
Board of Appeals. ZBA issued a SEQRA Negative Declaration for this project. The ZBA also issued variances from
maximum principal building coverage and minimum front yard setbacks. Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation
provided correspondence, Josh Dulmer, City Arborist provided recommendations related to his expertise and
successful preservation of the 150 year old trees on the site. This is before you for site plan review. The Planning
Board has received many comments to date. The Zoning Ordinance your criteria for site plan review ensures that
the development of the proposed site will not adversely impact nearby properties, community character,or the
general health,safety and welfare of the community,which then goes into the site plan criteria. You have received
revised plans. You have received HOA language drafted. Parking arrangements were provided, how spaces will be
allocated and maintenance of site related items which contain either the open space vision, mature trees on site, as
well as the impervious surfaces, sidewalks, driveways, etc.
Comments received prior to meeting:
Lenore Strocchia-Rivera, PhD-Union Avenue.
Mark Herwig, 107 Regent Street.
Beverly Mastroianni, 125 Regent Street.
Diane&John Roche, 30 Circular Street.
Andrea Gardner, 105 Regent Street.
Nicole Herwig 107 Regent Street.
Ashley Gardner, 160 East High Street, Ballston Spa.
Jim & Barb Lombardo, 35 Park Place.
Christopher Wallace, 33 Newark Street.
Robert Toole, LA, 215 Regent Street.
Nancy Lombard, 3 Lee Drive.
Kirk Haner.
Phil Murphy, Greenwich CT.
David Wolfe.
Dr. Peter Shea, 7 Saratoga Circle.
Tom Gardner, 480 Broadway.
Regent Street Neighbors—12 signatures
The applicant will provide an overview of the changes.
The Board recessed due to technical difficulties by the applicant @ 8:00 P.M.
The Board reconvened at 8:06 P.M.
Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America
Applicant: David Haner,owner
Ms.Yasenchak provided a brief overview of the project outlining the changes which were made since the last time
the applicants appeared before the Board. A visual presentation was provided. This project is located at the corner
of Park Place and Regent Street. The applicant is proposing the addition of two two-family residences to the existing
three unit site.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
June 2014—application submitted to the ZBA.
June 2014-Planning and Zoning decision to have ZBA Lead Agency Status for SEQRA.
October 2014—City Arborist visited the site and provided comments.
November 2014—Preservation Foundation reviewed the project.
City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes—July 22,2015-Page 6 of 18
November 2014—DRC provided Advisory Opinion to the Planning Board, unanimous approval.
December 2014-ZBA provided Negative SEQRA determination, unanimous zoning approval.
2015—the project returned before the Planning Board.
Ms.Yasenchak reviewed the Comprehensive Plan to show how this project is consistent with the neighborhood, as
well as the plans and the goals of the City. In the Comprehensive Plan both in 2001 and 2015 version it does say it
would like to encourage the development of higher density residential alternatives within the Urban Core. To
promote a broader mixture of uses in selected areas to encourage social, business and residential interaction and
diversity. The key for future growth is focusing development near the City's core and the existing infrastructure
resources. This is very important because as the City grows there is limited space for it to grow. In order to reduce
any kind of urban creep into the neighborhoods where the City wants to keep more farm like, it will as a City has to
look at lots and the resources that are within the City. This project does fit within the goal outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan. The map in general shows this area should be in a HDR Core Urban Density. This suggests
10-15 units per acre. This site is 0.726 acres which would equal to 10.8 units. The lot is in an HDR-2 zone
which would suggest a higher density. This is in a UR-4 zone. This site does have over 31,636 square feet of
developed property. We are within the parameters. A three apartment structure exists currently on the property. We
are asking for 7 units out of the 10 which is allowed. A neighborhood review of the homes and its diversity in
multifamily residences and architectural styles. Review of elevations was provided. The proposed project buildings
are no longer mirrored. We have added porches. We have not changed density. We have made some drastic
changes to the driveways. We are only adding one driveway. All driveways will have the ability to access the street
going forward. Parking has been revised. 1'/z spaces are required per unit. 10 units would be required. Parking
spaces will number 14 on the site. They are the appropriate size. Statistics regarding traffic accidents was also
provided to the Board. Construction schedule has not changed just the timing. Extensive information concerning
stormwater management during and after construction. Information regarding the trees. Infrastructure improvements
will be made. The applicants are adding curbing and 2 Sternberg Street lamps. All lighting will be downward facing.
Eight of the eleven trees will remain and 6 additional trees will be added. Two hydro flow tests were performed and
they have more than adequate supply for the residences as well as emergency services. Sanitary sewers will be
tied in to the existing infrastructure. Revised landscaping plan was also submitted. Air conditioning units have been
moved and are now located on the sides and backs of the buildings. They are located within the courtyard. Trash
areas have been relocated and screened. HOA language has been included concerning the maintenance of the
trees. Concerning the adequacy of the fire lanes and emergency vehicles,we do have a letter from the Fire Chief
which stated the concerns they previously had have been rectified with the new driveway configurations. The
applicant has shown that this project the addition of two—two family units is still within the zoning which has been put
forth as well as the Comprehensive Plan.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated will now provide privilege of the floor to the audience.
Dan Maney, 108 Regent Street. I live adjacent to the project. I am opposed to the project. Mr. Maney provided
some history of the street and area, noting how these homes and this area was rehabbed, many years ago. This
project will change the character of the neighborhood.
Alice O'Brien, 21 Park Place. Ms. O'Brien cited the City Code Chapter#241 subdivision regulations. This is not a
subdivision but it is a subdivision. This is a family neighborhood. There are overshadowing issues. Trees on site
forever lost. Privacy is lost. Inadequate setbacks. Added density,detriment to me and my home. Increase of traffic.
Mark Herwig, 107 Regent Street. Regarding the pink map. Increase in density, too much going on. Even though
garages have been taken out of the plan; there are the same number of cars, people and density. 5 Accidents on the
corner are 5 too many.
City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes—July 22,2015-Page 7 of 18
Deidre Ladd, 113 Regent Street. Provided a brief overview of the neighborhood. The schools, high school,
preschools, church, soup kitchen, etc. Tons of cars and an amazing amount of traffic. This is a very unique spot.
Diversity of buildings. No one in the neighborhood wants this project. Very heavy foot traffic.
Ann Trainor, 77 Regent Street. Neighborhood signatures were submitted to the Board. These people have lived
here for a long time and don't want to move. Some homes listed as 2 families but they are not 2 families. This is a
busy traffic area.
Ashley Gardner, Ballston Spa. Regarding the trash, there is not enough space for trash. Six cans for garbage and
recycling. Arborvitae not adequate to replace the beautiful hedge on the property. This plan is not significantly
different from what it was originally. I do believe in infill development. Concern where the construction materials and
storage would be located.
Jane Wie, 44 White Street. I have lived here since the 1960's. My husband John Kaufman bought our home at 44
White Street in 1978. This project is not consistent with the neighborhood. We object to this project.
Ms.Yasenchak noted that there were approximately 13 letters which were written and sent to the Planning Board
within the last couple of weeks in support of the project.
Christopher Wallace, Newark Street.
Richard Haner.
Kirk Haner, Clifton Park.
Phil Murphy, Greenwich CT.
Susan Kiley, East Avenue.
Dr. Peter Shea, Saratoga Circle.
Stephen Lombard, Lee Drive.
Nancy Lombard, Lee Drive.
Dr. Lenore Stroochia-Rivera, Union Avenue.
David Wolfe, Division Street.
Kathryn Oppedisano, Pepper Lane.
Zita Ryan, Woodlawn.
Barb Haner, Webster Street.
Clifford Van Wagner read out of the new Zoning Code 7.2.4 evaluation of criteria for site plan review: "Ensure that
the development of post site will not adversely affect the impacts on the property, community character, or the
general health, safety and welfare of the community. The Board's evaluation shall include the following: Location,
arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings. Adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic
access, and circulation. Location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off street parking". That is what we
have to look at. From the beginning this Board felt this project was too much. I have struggled with the visual
density. My contention is the visual density has hardly changed at all from the initial application.
These buildings do not blend in. It is oil and water to me. I go back to the neighbors speaking about how it is going
to affect their properties. Therefore, I cannot support this project at all.
Tom L. Lewis stated I commend the applicant for a number of things which were changed. It is a neighborhood
character issue. It is a density issue and I am not comfortable voting for this.
Janet Casey stated she is opposed to this project. The traffic issue. Too much density. While the Comprehensive
Plan does support infill, it does not necessarily mean every single space needs to be filled it. This is a particular plot,
with a particular character in a historic district. I do not support it.
Dan Gaba stated he will not support this. It is the same horse with a different color.
City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes—July 22,2015-Page 8 of 18
Bob Bristol,Vice Chairman stated from the beginning his issues were density related questions. I do not feel the
project has reached the level of defending their case that it is not.
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the Planning Board does have a responsibility in terms of looking at the location,
arrangement, size, design and general compatibility of the buildings. I know the DRC has weighed in on this.
They have provided an Advisory Opinion. They do not have any jurisdiction in this project. It is our responsibility to
look at this in a discerning way to make a judgment call about size, design, location and arrangement. I drive by this
area in the morning just to get a sense of it. I drive by it on my way home from work again to get a sense of it and a
feel for the area. I was trying to find what exactly my problem with this project is. It has to do with the concept in
general. The layout of the courtyard as being the focal point of the project. You have a beautiful site, a beautiful
home and have done wonderful things to it. This bulks out and isolates the feel of that property from the neighbors.
The pedestrian feel and connection will be gone. I respect your desire to want to do this. This is running counter to
the public connection and that feel. I cannot get over that. I appreciate the work you have done. It is the sense of
connectivity. When you look at the Comprehensive Plan to encourage new housing development to be consistent
with the human scale, historical context and design and characteristics of traditional Saratoga neighborhoods. I can't
in good faith support the project because it does not hit that hurdle.
We have a uniform Board on this.
Clifford Van Wagner proposed the Board speak to legal counsel and each other and take time to draft a motion for
this project and issue that at the next meeting on August 12,2015.
Dan Gaba seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Bob Bristol,Vice Chairman, in favor;
Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor;
MOTION PASSES: 6-0
The Board recessed at 9:15 P.M.
The Board reconvened at 9:24 P.M.
4. 15.032 BAZARR SUBDIVISION, 2 North Circular Street, public hearing for a two-lot residential subdivision
In the Urban Residential-2(UR-2) District.
Applicant: Al and Meghan Bazarr
Agent: Michael Ingersoll; LA Group; Larry Ambrozino, Project Manager
SEQRA:
Action appears to be Unlisted.
BACKGROUND:
Proposed lot located close to dead end of Catherine Street(abuts Route 50 ROW). Lot currently has a sidewalk, and
curb along Catherine and North Circular frontages.
Mr. Ingersoll provided a visual presentation to the Board of the site. We have a parcel here which is .64 acres. The
house currently on this site is being renovated at this time. There is a back building. They will create a parcel off of
Catherine Street. We have gone to the real estate committee because the stoop on the building is in the right of way
City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes—July 22,2015-Page 9 of 18
by 3 feet. This is currently before the real estate committee. We are trying to retain the land here along North
Circular. The Catherine Street parcel we are proposing to sell. We have retained 35 feet on Catherine Street for the
possibility of access from Catherine Street for future development of the back building and/or a driveway at some
point. A combined sewer line was in place and we will be divorcing ourselves from that sewer and create a new
connection so we would have had an easement anyway. Mr. Ingersoll we have included two street trees and two
lights per the requirements. No other offsite improvements. We will get a water pressure test. We will try to
preserve trees in the setback area. The only thing we are not sure about is a letter of credit. The applicant is hoping
for a waiver regarding the letter of credit. We will discuss this with the City Engineer.
Kate Maynard, Principal Planner reviewed the subdivision regulations and why a letter of credit is requested and
required.
Mendez Avery, 42 Catherine Street. Mr.Avery provided a brief history of the area for the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Mark Torpey, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:36 P.M.
Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application.
Mendez Avery, 42 Catherine Street,stated the school was in this area, they buried the basement.
How will the demolition occur and will there be blasting. I am afraid it will cause damage. Not objectionable
to the project. Concerned about snow removal and with stormwater.
Mark Torpey, Chairman closed the public hearing at 9:44 P.M.
SEQRA:
The Board reviewed Part I of the short EAF submitted by the applicant. Several changes were recommended By
Kate Maynard, Principal Planner and the applicant will make the appropriate changes.
The Board reviewed Part 11 of the short EAF. No large or important areas of concern were noted.
Bob Bristol stated that based upon the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEAR Full Environmental
Assessment Form,and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part 11 of the SEAR Full Environmental
Assessment Form,the project will not result in any large and important impacts and,therefore, is one that will not
have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based on this, I move to make a SEAR negative declaration
for this action.
Clifford Van Wagner seconded the motion.
Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion.
None heard.
VOTE:
Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Bob Bristol,Vice Chairman, in favor;
Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor;
MOTION PASSES: 6-0
City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes—July 22,2015-Page 10 of 18
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we will now move onto the subdivision portion of the application. You have the
curbing, the sidewalk, street trees, the Letter of Credit conversation with Tim Wales, City Engineer. This is pretty
straightforward.
Dan Gaba made a motion in the matter of the Bazaar residential subdivision on 2 North Circular Street that we
approve the application as submitted.
Janet Casey seconded the motion.
Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion.
None heard.
VOTE:
Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Bob Bristol,Vice Chairman, in favor;
Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor;
MOTION PASSES: 6-0
5. 15.031 MUNTER LAND HOLDINGSIAGROCHEM FARM AND DAIRY, Freedom way, public hearing for a
two-lot commercial subdivision In the Industrial-General (IND-G) District.
6. 15.030 MUNTER LAND HOLDINGSIAGROCHEM FARM AND DAIRY, Freedom Way, Site plan review for
manufacturing use in the Industrial General (IND-G) District.
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we have seen this application previously when the applicant was proposing to
renovate and reuse existing space. This is a new application and location down the road, in the Grande Industrial
Park.
SEQRA:
Action appears to be Unlisted, includes following 15.030 site plan application for proposed subdivision site.
BACKGROUND:
Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated we have seen some projects of a similar nature in this area. We are seeing
both actions immediately adjacent to each other. First is the two lot subdivision. This is proposing a subdivision off
the parent parcel. This is within the immediate vicinity of where you have approved Greenfield Manufacturing and
Pure Source. This is continuing development off of the currently private access way called Freedom Way. The
Board is reviewing the subdivision and the site plan specific to that subdivision. SEQRA in this case as with the other
projects we have reviewed, contains the entire known aspect of the action. So it contains both the subdivision and
the site plan specifics.
Applicant: John Munter
Agent: Nace Engineering
Mr. Munter stated the projects this Board has approved over the last year including Greenfield Manufacturing and
Peroxi-Chem. This project will be located just south of the Peroxi-Chem Site on the new road we are building. It is
approximately a 5 acre site. The proposed building will be in the vicinity of 35,000 square feet upon completion.
The applicants have provided information concerning their manufacturing building previously to the Board. Most
City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes—July 22,2015-Page 11 of 18
Comments which were brought up by Kate Maynard, Principal Planner were items which needed to be clarified on
the plans for the permanent record. There were no major concerns regarding the engineering aspects of the
building. Those items which were noted were reviewed and changes were made. The Kamer Blue Butterflies do
come up on all sites being developed in this area because they do have a habitat on the power lines. There was an
endangered species consultant hired to review this specific site. A record of her findings was provided to the Board
for their review. This report stated there would be no impact on the habitat because this is a forested area; butterflies
do not have habitats in forested areas.
Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated just to tie into that,for SEQRA review. This is an area where the species
have been noted. The regular correspondence from the state has been received. The Frosted Elephant, the Karner
Blue and Pennyroyal plant,are listed as endangered or threatened. Follow up further review was performed by
Roberts Environmental Consulting. A report was provided as well for the Boards review. A field assessment as well
as the description of the habitat. The conclusions of that report stated there would not be adverse impacts on the
three species mentioned.
Mark Torpey, Chairman questioned if Freedom Way was a private street.
Mr. Munter stated Freedom Way is a private street. Conversations with the County have been unsuccessful at this
point. Our ultimate goal is to have it become a county road, since they maintain the roads coming up to it. All the
property owners on the road basically enter into a shared maintenance and access agreement with an easement. A
copy of the shared maintenance and access agreement with an easement was provided to the Board for their review.
Mark Torpey, Chairman questioned handicap parking on the site.
Mr. Munter stated there was one handicap parking space on the plans. Return comments from Chazen stated we
needed to provide 2 handicap parking spaces. We will rectify that on the updated plans.
Mark Torpey, Chairman questioned the applicants regarding storage and discharge.
Mr. DeMarco stated all storage is accommodated indoors, and they have zero discharge.
SEQRA:
The Board reviewed Part I of the SEQRA short form which the applicants provided. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner
provided initial comments to the Board and the applicant.
The Board then reviewed Part 11 of the SEQRA short form. No large or important areas of concern were noted.
Clifford Van Wagner stated that based upon the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEAR Full
Environmental Assessment Form, and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part 11 of the SEAR Full
Environmental Assessment Form, the project will not result in any large and important impacts and, therefore, is one
that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based on this, I move to make a SEAR negative
declaration for this action.
Dan Gaba seconded the motion.
Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion.
None heard.
VOTE:
Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Bob Bristol,Vice Chairman, in favor;
Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor;
City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes—July 22,2015-Page 12 of 18
MOTION PASSES: 6-0
PUBLIC HEARING:
Mark Torpey, Chairman opened the public hearing at 10:04 P.M.
Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application.
None heard.
Mark Torpey, Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:05 P.M.
Tom L. Lewis made a motion in the matter of the Munter Land Hold i ngs/Ag rochem Farm and Dairy, Freedom Way,
Grande Industrial Park for a two-lot commercial subdivision in the Industrial-General (IND-G) District be approved.
Dan Gaba seconded the motion.
Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion.
None heard.
VOTE:
Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Bob Bristol,Vice Chairman, in favor;
Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor;Janet Casey, in favor;
MOTION PASSES: 6-0
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we will now move onto the site plan. We have gone through the issues and
addressed all the questions.
Tom L. Lewis made a motion in the matter of the Munter Land Hold i ngs/Ag rochem Farm and Dairy, Freedom Way,
Grande Industrial Park for site plan approval for manufacturing use in the Industrial-General (IND-G) District that the
application be approved.
Janet Casey seconded the motion.
Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion.
None heard.
VOTE:
Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Bob Bristol,Vice Chairman, in favor;
Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor;
MOTION PASSES: 6-0
7. 15.016 EAST AVENUE DEVELOPMENT—RESIDENTIAL, EAST AVENUE, Special use permit
Review for 2 attached residential units of proposed mixed use development within the Transect-5
(T-5) District.
8. 15.017 EAST AVENUE DEVELOPMENT—MIXED USE, East Avenue, Special Use permit review
For 12 residential units of proposed mixed use development within the Transect=5 (T-5) District.
RECUSAL:
City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes—July 22,2015-Page 13 of 18
Board member Dan Gaba recused himself from the remainder of the applications on the agenda and exited the
meeting at 10:08 P.M.
DISCLOSURE:
Tom L. Lewis disclosed that Dave Trojanski is likely to build a new home for Mr. Lewis. He has no financial interest
in this project whatsoever. No recusal is necessary,simply a disclosure.
SEQRA:
Action appears to be Unlisted and includes proposed action included under Planning Board agenda item#15.016.
BACKGROUND:
Site is within Excelsior Avenue corridor experiencing high degree of re-development activity.
Applicant: Trojanski Builders
Agent: Dave Carr, LA Group
Mr. Carr stated there are two separate projects. There are two separate actions. We were before this Board on
June 10, 2015 and presented both projects. The Board initiated Lead Agency Status for SEQRA and referred us to
the Design Review Commission. The DRC deferred Lead Agency Status to the Planning Board. They looked
favorably on the project and mass and scale of the project. We are here this evening for SEQRA Negative
Declaration and Special Use Permit for both projects. If we are successful this evening we will then prepare a site
plan for review in the fall. A visual presentation was provided for the Boards review. A review of the site was also
provided noting the Spring Run Trail, parking and the location of the 2 residential units as well as the mixed use
building. Also noted was the City of Saratoga Springs parcel. The residential project is .4 acres. Two attached units
will be accessed by a driveway. An easement was obtained for both of these parcels from the City of Saratoga
Springs to access garages in the rear. Curbs exist;we will be adding sidewalks, street trees and street lights and all
other amenities the City requires. There will be one curb cut for both projects. Floor plans were also presented to
the Board. Water and sewer connections.
Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated we spoke about the elevation as we head down the hill. How is the
stormwater management and buffering, land erosion being addressed.
Mr. Carr reviewed the topography of the site. We will not touch the rear of the property. We did check the storm
sewer and it is not connected. We performed a dye test as well. Our proposal will be to construct a retaining wall
along the back and route the water into the city system. We do not have to treat or manage the water, it is not ours.
We are actually getting the water into the city system via a system we will build and it will improve the management
of the stormwater in this area. Concerning buffering there will be very little buffering added since what currently
exists there will remain. Landscaping will be provided but apartments will be built close to the property line.
Concerning project#2 at the corner, the mixed use building. Three story 6700 square feet of commercial space.
Possible uses, eating and drinking establishment, as stated no interest in putting in a tavern. Perhaps a cafe. Retail
office and service establishment. We do have adequate parking space 42 spaces with the commercial use and 12
apartments which are split between one and two bedroom. A land swap was executed for the public safety building
with access out to Warren Street. In exchange the City provided an easement over that property for access and
parking for both of these parcels. There will always be two separate parcels.
City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes—July 22,2015-Page 14 of 18
Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated there was conversation with Vince DeLeonardis, Tony Izzo and Tom Roohan
concerning the assignment of the easement. At this time it is written to Tom Roohan. What we reviewed within the
scope of this project is if the Board sees fit to assign the easement to the two owners who would be utilizing the site
to the north and south.
Mr. Carr reviewed the traffic plan in the area.
Tom L. Lewis made a motion to accept SEQRA Lead Agency Status.
Clifford Van Wagner seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Bob Bristol,Vice Chairman, in favor;
Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor;
MOTION PASSES: 5-0
SEQRA:
The Board reviewed Part I of the SEQRA short form which the applicants provided. No large or important areas of
concern were noted.
The Board then reviewed Part 11 of the SEQRA short form. No large or important areas of concern were noted.
Clifford Van Wagner stated that based upon the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEAR Full
Environmental Assessment Form, and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part 11 of the SEAR Full
Environmental Assessment Form, the project will not result in any large and important impacts and, therefore, is one
that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based on this, I move to make a SEAR negative
declaration for this action.
Janet Casey seconded the motion.
Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion.
None heard.
VOTE:
Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Bob Bristol,Vice Chairman, in favor;
Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor;
MOTION PASSES: 5-0
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we will now move onto special use,for the application 15.016 East Avenue
Development-Residential.
Clifford Van Wagner made a motion in the matter of the East Avenue Development—Residential, Special Use Permit
be approved with the following conditions: Public parking be retained and the easement assigned to property owners
both north and south.
Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman seconded the motion.
Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion.
City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes—July 22,2015-Page 15 of 18
None heard.
VOTE:
Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor;
Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor;
MOTION PASSES: 5-0
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we will now move onto Special Use for the application 15.017 East Avenue
Development—Mixed Use.
Clifford Van Wagner made a motion in the matter of the East Avenue Development—Mixed Use, Special Use Permit
be approved with the following conditions: Public parking be retained and the easement assigned to property owners
both north and south.
Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman seconded the motion.
Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion.
None heard.
VOTE:
Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Bob Bristol,Vice Chairman, in favor;
Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor;
MOTION PASSES: 5-0
9. 15.034 GRAZIANO SUBDIVISION, 33 Joseph Street, public hearing for a two-lot residential
Subdivision in the Urban Residential-2 District.
RECUSAL:
Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated she and her family have a potential interest in one of the lots, therefore she
will recuse from this application and then left the room.
SEQRA:
Action appears to be unlisted.
Applicant: David Trojanski, Trojanski Builders
Owner: John, Joseph and Jill Graziano
Agent: Dave Carr, LA Group
Mr. Carr stated this is a two lot subdivision. Visual presentation of the site. The site is .53 acres. The existing home
will be demolished. Subdivide into two parcels into equal size .26 acres each site. There are no sidewalks on this
side of the street. We will install sidewalks and curbing and a street light with several street trees. The power is one
the east side of the street. Power will come overhead across the street and underground to the homes. There is an
existing Maple tree that will be transplanted or replaced. This will be up to the homeowner. No zoning issues.
City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes—July 22,2015-Page 16 of 18
PUBLIC HEARING:
Mark Torpey, Chairman opened the public hearing at 10:38 P.M.
Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application.
Fred Mapes,29 Joseph Street. I do not have any problem with this project. My concern is the very high water table.
I am concerned regarding the effect on my home especially water in my basement.
Mr. Trojanski assured Mr. Mapes how the stormwater will be managed on site.
SEQRA:
The Board reviewed Part I of the SEQRA short form which the applicants provided. No large or important areas of
concern were noted.
The Board then reviewed Part 11 of the SEQRA short form. No large or important areas of concern were noted.
Clifford Van Wagner stated that based upon the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEAR Full
Environmental Assessment Form, and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part 11 of the SEAR Full
Environmental Assessment Form, the project will not result in any large and important impacts and, therefore, is one
that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based on this, I move to make a SEQR negative
declaration for this action.
Tom L. Lewis seconded the motion.
Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion.
None heard.
VOTE:
Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Bob Bristol,Vice Chairman, in favor;
Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor;
MOTION PASSES: 5-0
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we will now move onto the 2-lot subdivision.
Tom L. Lewis made a motion in the matter of the Graziano Subdivision, 33 Joseph Street,for a two-lot
residential subdivision in the Urban Residential-2 District be approved.
Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman seconded the motion.
Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion.
None heard.
VOTE:
Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Bob Bristol,Vice Chairman, in favor;
Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor;
City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes—July 22,2015-Page 17 of 18
MOTION PASSES: 5-0
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Approval of meeting minutes were deferred to the August 12, 2015 meeting.
MOTION TO ADJOURN:
There being no further business to discuss Mark Torpey, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:50 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane M. Buzanowski
Recording Secretary
APPROVED 9/9/15
City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes—July 22,2015-Page 18 of 18
CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS
MARK TORPEY,Chair
PLANNING BOARD JAMIN TOTING,Vice Chair
n 0 TODD FABOZZI
City Hall -474 Broadway RUTH HORTON
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 SARA BOIVIN
Tel:518-587-3550 fax:518-580-9480 LEXIE BONITATIBUS
/�C�R�'ORATED `91� KERRY MAYO
www.saratoga-springs.org
SHAWNA JENKS,Alternate
NOTICE OF DECISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE FINAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATION #20200155 OF
GUARINO/HANER SUBDIVISION
21 PARK PLACE
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866
Involving the premises with Tax Parcel I D#165.84-1-1, in the City of Saratoga Springs, on an application for
a two-lot residential subdivision within the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District with the Planning Board who
met on August 13, 2020 and made the following decision(s) by a 7-0 vote (In favor: Torpey, Totino,
Fabozzi, Horton, Bonitatibus, Mayo,Jenks).
In accordance with SEQRA regulations 6NYCRR Part 617 and after review and evaluation of the SEQRA short
Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and 11, made a motion to issue a Negative SEQRA Declaration.
And, in accordance with requirements set forth in the City's Subdivision Regulations, the Planning Board
issued the following decision:
Q Approve with following conditions
Conditions:
• As offered and consented to by the applicant because of the property location being adjacent to the
Canfield Casino-Congress Park-Circular Street Historic District, any future construction on the
subdivided lot shall apply for and obtain architectural review and approval by the Design Review
Commission (DRC). A note stating such shall appear on the final approved subdivision plat and as a
deed restrictive covenant, both to be filed with the Saratoga County Cleric.
• The applicant or future owner shall return to the Planning Board for final driveway placement and final
addressing upon recommendation by the DRC.
• Final plans shall be to the satisfaction of DPW— including installation of full curbing and repair of the
brick sidewalk along Park Place and Regent St.
• Final plans shall incorporate City Arborist recommendations for street tree plantings.
• Utility easement language shall be approved by City Attorney.
The applicant is required to complete the following as per the City of Saratoga Springs Subdivision Regulations:
• Submit a fee in lieu of recreation of $2,000 for each new residential lot per Appendix A of the
Subdivision Regulations.
• Submit two (2) mylar and two (2) paper copies of the final approved subdivision plat for signature by
the Planning Board Chair.
• File the signed final subdivision plat with the Saratoga County Clerk within sixty-two (62) days as
provided in Article 3, Section 32 of General City Law.
20200155 Guarino/Haver Subdivision Page 2
This approval shall expire if not enacted within 180 days as set forth in the City of Saratoga Springs
Subdivision Regulations Article 11, Section I. D.15.
Date Chair
cc: Building Dept., DPW,Accounts Dept.,Applicant, File
�� la
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
T.
_ems _E=
_ sates:�� r►*:'4 ev����esd ^.,*. ',.
m"" i M! Y'bYe• e i J
-- E_ PROJECT LOCATION AMIA—P
/ MAP
------------
6�CEP �NN�N AT -
W�'-,g��^ �• _ � y°"'.v0 i �,hR' �PPOPOSEDYKINMMRP
M2021028 FILED -
a. 02/t9202103:06:23 PM �
NOTES:
1.) mIS SIN— to IN,NONOT,I AN---I IP I-
G Aac pw SIGN—c Sm'S
ZONING'INF:7 IF INFORMATION:
OEEO REFERENCE:
PRINCIAl 8011GIN0.25 1 1 1998,F�'GAASWKM S;,AS=nED.
GFIGS AT PACE as.
.1=1'SG"DlGG S='Nl—S—1....,wa GI
A'`2 F� CITY—RATIOGA SPRINGS-STANDARD NOTES:
45 IT
—G. 1)
ST=
S�I
%OC—S CSTARL"ED"OMNFORY S7 T—1.
,G.,_INsGR,.0 alp:AW4,''TfGY THE
1 1 6ANA111A SH1111IMI1
U ......II
3' =S'%ISDAl —"71 IN"�GM.0m�,G
I "=11"�u
N_T —
11CIMI OTTIUN.�,:STT I.—N AFI—.1 TNI TY....R,
DO N ', IT
__g -1—FOR—T I U.T 1.1 FER—SUC ISS THE—AMR M11T IT IF A PIE-Iffil—IN IECTGNI
— I—%��"M_Tol*Ny= FSl.lTl
GG'a..GN I— 11
GR"CTW WIROED�WMST I"IS 0;GN UWTME
APPUCg%�r N ESCNSW"0,TMM IIxEa"M" I US
T. y
5.1 TH IGGLg�%M0SF%MTSTISL NGPGGMGT'R0M THE'FITIN NT I IN,
T==0. Sl NIC CGHTNACTOR MOST IT-A S" ISNING T ISSID IT, ,, PUSUG
..T I.,' IN NIGNT.1—I ANY—STNIII MAD.111
Al I�TF
A.1pXNA GI WNSTNTUC�. SSGG
AREA ..I'S IU...N.A..
.1—DIM..IS S..IT.
'N'A.—ISS1.L113 11
T IN IT—
=Z".AS_lU 7MM16.
AWMAHM 11 ILITIO
LOT I
"I=ln 1) ES6EI6m N I—AlY 11 GGGG.
G.) I—NG A.G.—TIN
———————— -ENT 11M GN1 1.211.
Lu
$f)JkEY VANGUEL D--R,LS
GY )W6CMTES,LLC
PLACE
lG.
PARK —Ym,a.SUME S. INGS,I
GA SPRN 12GS6
,A�M
P'O"CT OW NlJE%BEVELOPE'AMG 1, A G _A E ANtze.
A" lEl YIN
SIG-11—S,
—PLANNING BOARD PROJECT NO.20200155
TITLE: —
'Sy MADE 14 AC�OA I 1"AN"WAS1 W SlCXMEL�AN`_ d,<�,
—ITID�l S IM M G, 4
21 PARK PLACE Sug61vislON
LOCATION: DATE:
CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS AUGUST 10,2016
r11—UNII A111 I A IE OL111 ADOPM., (INSIDE DISTRICT)
PL,Or
y PL kG I I U"TGGA SARAT GA COUNTY,KM YORK
IGNS..
14 NIGNS.H SCALE,INCH=20 FEET MAP N0.2016-07-04
am 1
M2021028 02tj FILED
PM
e...... FI rvwcxs Dswau 95t
xGw sganPnlorw PnxxPwrFJ '"s.°'
eeI I I . .i
n% _ wNGs NEwvonx lxesb nx suswrnewm ^,'Ili t ,mrt
a N[n6wND P.GVan rvD wexw uuw
iP ranuu.°.w°
SITE LOCATION MAP
z
Finn gaq �l i I l �- �} sa• I � �v...,"� + INO SCALE)
m
a ' L T J .__f. I
m ,I
1 1 1 xl 1 r TTyp��r3� u - 21 PARK PLACE N
WII;IJ,..
ox
-
115xmrvl M - -
s sFglD3�ac
r nsa ,—
., c�E�
� I - --
»,+
� ' 11 lxwsmrvl � � f ,easrssocr -1 ��1=
E +e„
E
I FAQ � i en
v
n
'I
,grAxDs�Tw� , � n,,DF<mwl ax�NDw�roAm,TDT i
r.nngF�a
,S.Tmn1 mP[gwDVSDcov�- aTsxlgsxmoxl susaxvmsaw — 11 PARK sP%IACE
1
3. ie
I aee
g:PnxenneeVlnxcwvmnI
e 1TPMKPucE
1.PDDE&Soxr9u Ldwo -
zFRONTYPROSETSnGt
o 1 iwGASilroFimlwl T - �s.°w aenn w.xmue
�
rs. wcx:u FTae rrmlrvl •- PARK PLACE
+s. iD wD xe nwT: Iro FTmaxl xa+ - ,.n:.. .,._ 1
ievxwc Fn,TDnccesso Ivc Dls.nwcr_xFrnonmlwl - --1 -
io:TT�mnL'u.Pixvouscos-
31.uEwrFIFon;xTETma LA1'1on'ns'P
sueamslan.aatM g °4p v my x
�gsdnrzana nNr�gturtnerwuxaeaane aescnbea aal°Iiws.
uca"emnanlaa„rnasarnogamaxnde i
�rNl�ea�n P�lacemamry�ma mrmnsaa odmareegu�e���e xtlrovrmeMn eaaiparck p.�e, S
asaeg.De mi".gVaec.wear samfen+aapa°r+n°°ce+n�°gn lame falem°ewe°Ixlcamus:l.lwonn aT aeg
Is ea Dogma
ma
D DNxD,gA nw aEgD1 TDx
PB#20200155
ga fth,,be.aa:<axenc mn n eroGArowwes - r,+'FFrss19 a
+°�,eermaa�emeaa"ema,xaa aaag�aa xrgni aDDFrT
r°rtuer»arram a�aaaaxamamema,a°agaxrtma<a maa.mge�°. ��°•^�^a .�tea,•.w.ndum..•7.WR.a"..,...:.:rn. t�
A gPEssox .�.............�..
si
DgTFgGrv,D �.16'l .....��•�.x...x_..,.��.,,so.,n�.a� a� i�.l„b �„a
m,„-=--'.tea..®^.•.^..•^^.w^�,®A..,�,.. lJe^29r tttu+ � PROPOSED SITE PLAN
—M2021028 rtEo
- U2I19202103:W:23 PI
»�wx�ww�.a i II �.".�0� P��a _RATDGASPR S.NfWrDRK ".�°�. S.NEwrDRx
� �il' acESBBMUSIDN
wYlll
WrDRx a
,.d,•ro _ i` �.. •, i` 21 PARK PLACE
sTlorvena.axD -
oleua.o�zxza
f mOK,<s>ol DIED
•.a«...= _ W�`,� III ! _—'I _ -en�am
1 0xTRol
SIR
»„�„„,„°"wu..,„» -�W - -II f '. coxsraucfoNDsnaaarvcEAPvaox MAlfly
""_ •.•.•.�. ionsY
noc� onfsfT frvT MATREI:araaoaMarflv>s fT
NI � TOP50LArvof LLTHAT sio REMaxSnaP uo aN srzEfoRvfRlOos
I{ RPERanorv,TxcsrocxP LLO MAlER usxu�BEGRABEO As
_ _ scr f aPvx
orts
r 1 fxcEEB x�3x Uays sNau aEnaB uzfD ersEEU rvG,vR ORTDrx
ll RM.a p I
AND=DRDN EDNeMNEBrvaP oN
kNO
A.N`a wTRITA s,MA oE1-1TPax�anU.
R UPPATB,,,LINE W116RBR
DGMEErAE
ART
Er cDM
1 HIGH
ffx�STDREERE EDARDBNDPRDERExTREsaTDR
w MEMO x »»�., DfDR
a oR a.,a,„war N5 Rox,E,PNN,.
WrnRx�,NBE
��xDWD.fDRN�Nxf = � �¢.
Wx .W aNx _..„_
° �...�»u»,Exa� E�n�ano�aFa�o`��o�SH�,oNs`FEN�E��BEaEM�"EaD
R
tt o.laxo,ca
-_______.______— -- - 1�. 17 PARK PLACE
TREE VRpTCTONE NOIFs: � "`•' � I - -
I
IOL11116AMAGEDWILL BERORDTNSTRUCTIER"AND BMNCHES LHAT �o� {cD
1. 1REEs WILL
BE PROFE
FOLLOW NGALLCE FEO
MOVED. I �
E HGx VSBUtt ORANGE L ABOVE VE HIREM ON FIANGEDPOSis •.-°' r J
W LL Bf NSTALLED PERpETAIABOVE TO FROIONTHR PRGHOU ON ZONE
iENCE SHALL eE MENi ONEO NGOOD CONDTON IHROVGHOUTTHE - ` r
f ONREPHDFTHEPRDxEDT
I m�m'w
3. FENC NG SHALLBER01Fi USINGSiHEGEES PRELY ERANACCEPTEO 1 ".- •' - - ry "•"' ^•'^ ^--'y^-+ _ I wu�w•="wxlrcvl'TRUNK OIAMETERMElfNEAS IRE 85MLEY 3WB'MANAG N6 TREES
FOR CONSTRUCT ON•)�M1IEABURE THE DAMETFA OF THE B PBOVE ^-" • " "rn aew=„uaxlrn�N
THE PROTECT ve Feucrvcly erslo oETERMNETHE RAONs of ,.. .. PARK Trvof PAvennxT PLACE -..-
�m >eR ._..... 1
rvG FOR B N IN3AE—
WHEREPosaeLEA1mUNDTMUMREEsioBEPRoiO AMFTER FOUND EcrEDwx
coNSTRUcioN AREAS OR STRucnlREs co NcpsminM Mum
s-PRAcnc TO
wMEFEft.LOCATECLOSE AAL MINIMUM
{ e
DIAMETERRCL FENc nG AS ESILLBEALLOAREDTO DRIVE INTHETREE
ROTEMI.E zoNE.
MATERULs mu BE DUMPED IN THE TREE
1 a
RorecrloN zone. g 3
MATERIALS BE ETOREDN THETREE PROTECTION
ONE. AMETERWILBECEEAR�LYCULANp WRAPPEDWWETURV.P.
P
B.
Z. NOM we""rnrnr„e.
m
MOE DEDEftTOBAPTxEBURLAPwE.
BURE.AP WILL HE PB#2020015�
EMovEO Pwaftio BACKFunG. n _ ..d, n x:xaLsuaMxTa<
PrED BrnEP snRa ocaSPRINGS.
9 MANUAL
WORK WRHNTHE TREE PROTECTION ZONE WILL BE DONE
ALLY - a:m::.,,.•o�.,....,..,ao,.":.....,... ENGINEERINGAMERICA CHAIRPE0.50N ....mum,.un.mmm,.., - -..m..a
AWU9UTO�ACTMTIES Y• , N $2
wALKwavAND LANosuPNG coxsrft nsGNSD PROPOSED SITE PLAN
BE REMovEo oR
I Da a.s�"'° >swa:xxvTouST
a.•.,,A.,,.,,.m,a:am.....,«<....,R".•.m...,s.,.v,,,,:. s,a-:rc>-,.uR �rq�.....st oo=s
FILED
-- -M2021028 D2I'DIS.Po0G:08:2e PM
..M
i
m
x �ti nia YoxA .rrmrm.. 'ii t Na.
„ 111 A SOH , sx ITl �H
�
wNa u„m:, ,u�ee iwn �.rc .• r. -o n Puwmv vuum I a'..�., -,. •m•°". (-oric rt.N
Sao!
�mn
z
Ei a_ E
1,A,v—
� � a
JHL
0�GOO
..
h
1l
door
.—ATTAILFPB#20200155� �1
- --
v� ENGINEERING AMER CA
t
M
- .......
--- _ ':I.AF:cPo:
-11bH--
,m 518587-1340
��M2021028 ovlanoziaaez