The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20240727 225 Clinton St. Final Subdivision Application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´ 5()(5727+(&855(17)((:25.6+((7,1&/8'(',17+,6'2&80(17 &KHFN&LW\¶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linton St., Saratoga Springs, NY 165.35-2-45 UR - 1 0.57 acres 2 518 / 587 - 1340 (same)Engineering America Co. 76 Washington St.,Saratoga Springs Karen & John Harvey 45 Brookside Dr., Saratoga Springs 518-450-8125 karencharvey@hotmail.com tonyay@nycap.rr.com Karen C. Harvey Digitally signed by Karen C. Harvey DN: cn=Karen C. Harvey, o, ou, email=tonyay@nycap.rr.com, c=US Date: 2024.08.27 11:52:33 -04'00' ✔ ✔ City of Saratoga Springs Subdivision Checklist 1 Checklist Prepared By: __________________________________ Date: ____________ Listed below are the minimum submittal requirements as set forth in The City of Saratoga Springs’ Subdivision Approval (Article 14). The Planning Board reserves the right to request additional information, as necessary, to support an application. The Board also reserves the right to reject the application if these minimum requirements are not met. Please complete the checklist below and provide with your submission. REQUIRED ITEMS: CHECK EACH ITEM  1.Completed Subdivision Application  2.SEQR Environmental Assessment Form- short or long form as required by action.  3.Set of plans including: (3) large scale plans (sheets must be 24” x 36”, drawn to a scale of not more than 1”=50 feet) and (1) 11" x 17" copy. One digital version (PDF) of all submittal items printable to scale 4.Basic or Full Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan as required per Article 17 of the UDO.  5.Copy of signed DPW water connection agreement for all projects involving new water connections to the City system  6.Engineering Report for Water and Sanitary  7.Complete Streets Checklist  8.Project Cost Estimate for Letter of Credit (utilize City template) REQUIRED ITEMS ON SUBDIVISION PLAT, AS APPLICABLE:  1.Name of Subdivision  2.Property line survey prepared by a licensed land surveyor. Subdivision plat must reference such survey with all corners set and marked on plan. Reference NGVD 1929 datum. A copy of the original property survey must also be included.  3.North arrow and map scale PRELIMINARY/ FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL REQUIRED SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST *4 hard copies (1 w/original signature), 1 digital copy of ALL materials (all maps, drawings, or image documents as separate files) and Fee are required. CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS PLANNING BOARD CITY HALL - 474 BROADWAY SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866-2296 TEL: 518-587-3550 X2533 www.saratoga-springs.org 1a. Conservation Design (Article 16) if required City of Saratoga Springs Subdivision Checklist 2  5.Parcel tax map number  6.Site location map (with title block and map key)  7.Site vicinity map (all features within 300 feet of property)  8.Identification of current zoning district with corresponding dimensional standards  9.Building setback lines shown on plans  10.Title block with subdivision name; name and address of applicant; and name and address of property owner (if different)  11.Name, address and phone number of subdivision surveyor and/or engineer  12.Names of all adjacent property owners within 300 feet (include both sides of street)  13.Identification of size, material, elevations, and slopes of all existing and proposed utilities within 400 ft of site.  14.Parcel street address (existing and any proposed postal addresses) Yes No N/A 16.Identification of existing or proposed easements, covenants or legal rights-of-way on this property 17.References to all prior variances or special use permits 18.Existing and proposed contours and spot grades (at 2 foot intervals) extending to property boundary 19.Identification of all watercourses, designated State wetlands, Federal wetlands, buffers, floodplains, rock outcroppings, etc. 20.Identification of all existing or proposed sidewalks or pedestrian paths (show type, size and condition) 21.Location, design specifications and construction material for all proposed site improvements (drains, culverts, retaining walls, berms, fences, etc.) 22.Location and distance to fire hydrant 23.Erosion and sediment control plan – including designated concrete truck washout area 24.Approximate location, dimensions and areas for proposed lots and proposed public recreational land 25.Proposal for utility systems and lateral connections 26.Location and width of proposed streets  4.Location of proposed home on each lot including finish floor elevation to nearest tenth foot.  15.Incorporate the City's standard engineering details. Application to City Council FEE Comprehensive Plan amendment $1,800 + $300/acre Zoning Ordinance amendment $800 + $300/acre Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment $800 + $300/acre Application to Zoning Board of Appeals Use Variance $1,400 + $50/app Area Variance - Residential $350/1st var +$50/app +$150/ea add variance Area Variance - Non-residential $1000/1st var + $50/app+ $200/ ea add variance Interpretations $650 + $50/app Application Fee x 2 + $50/app Variance extensions 50% of Application fee + $50/app Application to Design Review Commission Demolition $500 Residential Structures Principal $70 Accessory $70 Extension $35 Modification $55 Multi-Family, Comm, Mixed-Use Structures Sketch $200 Principal $650 Extension $250 Modification $400 Multi-Family, Comm, Mixed-Use Accessory, Signs, Awnings Principal $150 Extension $100 Modification $150 Application Fee x 2 Application to Planning Board Special Use Permit $1200 + $50/app Temporary Use Permit $500 Special Use Permit - extension $400 Special Use Permit - modification $550 + $50/app Site Plan Review - incl. PUD: Sketch Plan $400 per sketch Site Plan Full Residential $400 + $250/unit Non-residential $800 + $150/1000 sf Administrative SPR Residential $400 Non-residential $800 Extension Residential $250 Non-residential $350 Subdivision - incl. PUD: Sketch Plan $400 per sketch Preliminary Approval Residential: 1-5 lots $700 + $50/app Residential: 6-10 lots $1100 + $50/app Residential: 11-20 lots $1450 + $50/app Residential: 21+ lots $1800 + $50/app Residential - extension $350 Final Approval Residential $1,550 + $200/lot + $50/app Non- Residential $2,400/lot + $50/app Final Approval Modification Residential $400 + $50/app Non- Residential $800 + $50/app Final Approval Extension Residential $250 Non- Residential $350 Other: Lot Line Adjustment/Subdivision Administrative Action$400 Letter of Credit - modification or extension $400 Letter of Credit - collection up to 1% of LoC Recreation Fee $2000/lot or unit Land Disturbance $750 + $35/acre Watercourse/Wetland Permit $750 SEQRA EIS Review (Draft & Final) TBD Post Work Application Fee Post Work Application Fee OFFICE OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FEES - 2023 City of Saratoga Springs OPED Fees Page 1 of 1 5 P LANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT THURSDAY, JULY 18, 2024 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Charles (Chuck) Marshall, Chair called the meeting to order at 6:05 P.M. PRESENT: Chuck Marshall, Chair, M. Pingel, Vice-Chair, Bill McTygue, Anthony (Tony) Stellato, Joe Ferrante-Alternate, Patty Morrison ABSENT: Mike King, Kerry Mayo STAFF:Susan Barden, Principal Planner, Leah Everhart, PB Legal Counsel, James Salaway A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: VOTE: B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: Note: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any applications that appear to be ‘approvable’ without need for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wishes to further discuss any proposed consent agenda item, then that item would be pulled from the ‘consent agenda’ and dealt with individually. 1. #20240489 3368 S. Broadway Site Plan Extension. Site plan approval for an extension for an addition to an existing hotel in the Gateway Commercial – Rural (GC-R) District. 2. #20240456 182 Excelsior Final Subdivision. Final plat review for a two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. A motion was made by Bill McTygue and seconded by Joe Ferrante to approve consent agenda items 3368 S. Broadway and 182 Excelsior Ave. Vote: B. McTygue-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, C. Marshall-Y, T. Stellato-Y, P. Morrison-Y., M. Pingel-Y. 6-0 motion carried. 3. #20240386 3320 Rt. 9 Pet Lodge. Consideration of advisory opinion to the ZBA for an Area Variance for a 760 sq. ft. addition to Pet Lodge in the Gateway Commercial – Rural (GC-R) District. Patty is concerned that the variance went from 20 ft. to 7 ft. and why wasn’t that anticipated? Chuck said they would still have to make that case at the ZBA. He said from the planning board perspective the concern is whether the variance creates a site plan City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 18, 2024 - Page 2 of 10 problem. Chuck said because it was already built and they’re just now anticipating it being covered, he did not envision it as a site plan problem. That’s why he placed it on the agenda for a favorable recommendation. The footprint won’t change. A motion was made by Bill McTygue and seconded by C. Marshall to approve a favorable recommendation for variances at 2230 Route 9. Vote: B. McTygue-Y, C. Marshall-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, T. Stellato-Y, P. Morrison-Y., M. Pingel-Y. 6-0 motion carried. C. PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 4. #20240465 1 Driscoll Rd. SUP Modification. Modification to a special use permit for a mixed-use project to replace commercial space with dwelling units in the Gateway Commercial – Rural (GC-R) District. 5. 20240382 225 Clinton St. Subdivision. Consideration of coordinated SEQRA review and advisory opinion to the ZBA for an area variance for a two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential -1 (UR-1) District. 6. 20220202 31-33 Marion Area Variance. Consideration of coordinated SEQRA review and advisory opinion for demolition of existing Mobile station and car wash and construction of a new convenience store, gas canopy, and commercial tenant space in the Tourist Related Business (TRB) District. Chuck Marshall recused himself from this project. 4. #20240465 1 Driscoll Rd. (Just Cats) SUP Modification. Modification to a special use permit for a mixed-use project to replace commercial space with dwelling units in the Gateway Commercial – Rural (GC-R) District. Chuck Marshall, Chair said that there were three items that the board requested for clarification of the application at the workshop: 1.Septic expansion when the units are converted from commercial to residential. 2.The change in traffic generation from commercial to residential. 3.Clarification of the contingency in the Notice of Determination – improve Driscoll Road. Chuck said the board discussed that the most appropriate path for this project is that the PB look at the information that they’ve asked for from the previous application to the current application to see the delta and sewer flows, traffic, parking, etc. so they can understand the implications from a SEQRA perspective. He said they do have an approved site plan and they received a Negative Declaration. Luigi, represented the applicant. Dr. Susan Sikule, owner was present. Luigi said the footprint will stay the same. They are proposing 7 apartment units on the second floor and 4 units on the first floor in addition to Just Cats. The square footage is 3,879. He said they looked at the traffic summary from the previous approval and provided it to the board. He said there will be a reduction of 6 to 7 trips in the new proposal versus what was previously approved. Luigi said the traffic summary utilized the ITE, 11th edition for the Institute of Transportation. He said there would be no increase in traffic for what they’re proposing now. Regarding the septic system, Luigi said he compared what was previously City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 18, 2024 - Page 4 of 10 6.Cause increase in use of energy… – No, or small impact. 7.Public/private water supplies… - No, or small impact. 8.Impair Character or quality of historic… - No, or small impact. 9.Adverse change to natural resources… - No, or small impact. 10.Increase in potential for erosion, flooding… - No, or small impact. 11.Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. Chuck Marshall made a motion to approve a Negative SEQRA Declaration for 1 Driscoll Road, Saratoga Springs. The motion was seconded by Tony Stellato. Vote: C. Marshall-Y, T. Stellato-Y, B. McTygue-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, P. Morrison-Y., M. Pingel-Y. 6-0 motion carried. Chuck Marshall, Chair listed the Special Use Approval Standards: 1.The special use proposed in this location is consistent with the comprehensive plan and associated land use policies and the purpose and intent of this ordinance. Yes, uses are allowed and consistent with adopted policies. 2.Will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare. Applicant received a previous negative declaration for a site plan where there was more intensity regarding traffic. The septic system does increase wastewater flows, it will be accommodated within the existing footprint. 3.The density, intensity and compatibility of the use in the neighborhood and the community character. Allowed 11 residential units and that’s what is being proposed and the minimum parking requirement has been achieved. There is the ability to have additional banked parking spaces if needed. 4.Safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian access circulation and parking. Accessing off one road that is tied into Route 9 and there’s a two-way turn lane, which is consistent with the standard. 5.Existing and future demand for infrastructure on public facilities and services. The water is public water regulated through the city, and DPW determines eligibility for a water extension. 6.The environmental and natural resources of the site neighboring public lands including any potential erosion, flooding or excessive white noise, vibration and the like. The original site plan and SUP permit standards are similar, and they are achieving the necessary standard. Chuck Marshall made a motion to issue a special use permit for 1 Driscoll Road commonly known as Just Cats with the condition that a revised site plan be submitted for administrative review indicating 46 parking spaces. The motion was seconded by Tony Stellato. Vote: C. Marshall-Y, T. Stellato-Y, B. McTygue-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, P. Morrison-Y., M. Pingel-Y. 6-0 motion carried. 5. 20240382 225 Clinton St. Subdivision. Consideration of coordinated SEQRA review and advisory opinion to the ZBA for an area variance for a two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential -1 (UR-1) District. John Cannie, Attorney represented the applicants, Karen and John Harvey. The property is in the Woodlawn Oval created in 1924. It was split into smaller lots 53-60, unimproved and vacant. In 1954 lots 53-57 were purchased by the Carroll’s and a home was constructed and is the current home on the property. In 1960 the Carroll’s purchased lots 58-60. In 1979 the property was conveyed to Mary Jane Ellis via a single deed with two separate descriptions. The applicants purchased the property in 2023 from the Ellis estate. John said they are City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 18, 2024 - Page 5 of 10 seeking two area variances to create a new lot. One lot is completely conforming. The second lot requires two variances. Lot 1, 9,780 sq. ft. and conforming will contain the house as currently placed, and is in the approximate area of lots 53-57 Woodlawn Oval; Lot 2, lot width required 100 ft., applicant is requesting a variance for 75 ft. It will be in the area of lots 58-59 Woodlawn Oval and is currently vacant with the exception of a gazebo and plantings. John said there’s a history of this being two separate parcels. John showed site photos of the proposed new lot at the corner of Embury St., a private street owned by Wesley. Chuck asked if Wesley had easement rights for the placement of the sign. John said not to his knowledge, but they are in discussion with Wesley about the sign and potential for an access driveway off Embury. Lot 2 will front Clinton St. because Embury is a private street. John listed the criteria for an area variance. Can it be achieved by any other means? Lot size, no. There’s nothing for sale and they can’t buy Embury St. John said the same thing goes for the lot width. They have 190 ft. and need 200 ft. Splitting it down the middle would require additional variances for what is Lot 1. Detriment to character or nearby properties? No, not encroaching on anyone, no non-conforming lot next to another house except one owned by the applicant. John said it is in conformance with the neighborhood. They sampled 16 lots and 6 of the 16 are nonconforming lot sizes, 5 of 16 have nonconforming lot width. In the same UR-1 zone 7 are nonconforming on Granite St. John showed a neighborhood map of the non-conforming properties. Will the proposed variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental condition on the neighborhood district? John said the variance requested will not produce permeable space below UDO requirements. There are no significant environmental resources present on the property or in the surrounding area. Wetlands noted on the EAF mapper are on the Wesley property, far enough that 225 Clinton is not subject to runoff. There will be no impact on archaeological or historical resources and a letter has been submitted to that effect. Bill M. said he grew up a few doors away from this property and knew that one day it would be developed. Driveway access off Embury drive makes sense and he hopes Wesley can work out an arrangement with the applicant to make that happen. Bill said he’s fine with supporting a recommendation to the ZBA. Patty confirmed that they will be building a single- family home. She said it seems to be consistent with the neighborhood. It would be ideal if they could have the driveway on Embury. Mark P. said the comprehensive plan says that infill is desired for the community, and this seems to be a good example of that. It’s a good thing for the city. Chuck agreed with Mark and said it also matches the density identified in the plan. Tony S. said there are conforming lots in the neighborhood, and he can see those people saying they don’t think this is in harmony with the character of the neighborhood. He said it also sets a precedence for the neighbors to say that they can take their conforming lot and make it a non-conforming lot. Tony asked Leah how it became one lot from two lots. Leah said she had no information about that. Tony said he feels that there’s potential that there was an error made by the County Clerk’s office. It could be that the lots were unintentionally consolidated. He said based on that, he can go along with the project. Joe F. asked what the original division of the lots was. John said the lots were divided so that you would buy several lots to construct a single-family home. He said the vision was that 58-60 was one lot and 57-53 was another lot. There’s a slight adjustment from the historic lot line. Chuck said the precedent is when the ZBA contemplates the balancing test and if it adheres to the rhythm of the street. Chuck Marshall, Chair said the board will contemplate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 2 having identified this as an unlisted action: City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 18, 2024 - Page 6 of 10 SEQRA, Part 2: 1. Material conflict with adopted land use plan…- No, or small impact. 2. Change of use or intensity of use of land… - No, or small impact. 3. Impair character or quality…. – No, or small impact. 4. Impact on environmental qualities…. – No, or small impact. 5. Adverse change in existing level of traffic… - No, or small impact. 6. Cause increase in use of energy… – No, or small impact. 7.Public/private water supplies… - No, or small impact. 8.Impair Character or quality of historic… - No, or small impact. The applicants provided a letter from the State Historic Preservation Office. 9.Adverse change to natural resources… - No, or small impact. The applicants provided excerpts from the EAF mapper. 10.Increase in potential for erosion, flooding… - No, or small impact. 11.Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. Chuck Marshall made a motion to approve a Negative Declaration under SEQRA for 225 Clinton St., Saratoga Springs. The motion was seconded by Mark Pingel. Vote: C. Marshall- Y, M. Pingel-Y, T. Stellato-Y, B. McTygue-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, P. Morrison-Y. 6-0 motion carried. Chuck Marshall made a motion that a positive recommendation be sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the subdivision and necessary variances associated therewith for 225 Clinton St., Saratoga Springs. The motion was seconded by Mark Pingel. Vote: C. Marshall-Y, M. Pingel-Y, T. Stellato-Y, B. McTygue-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, P. Morrison-Y. 6-0 motion carried. 6. 20220202 31-33 Marion Area Variance. Consideration of coordinated SEQRA review and advisory opinion for demolition of existing Mobile station and car wash and construction of a new convenience store, gas canopy, and commercial tenant space in the Tourist Related Business (TRB) District. Chuck Marshall recused himself from this project. Mark Pingel, Vice Chair said the Zoning Board has asked for a recommendation from the Planning Board. Mark said because of the proximity to Loughberry Lake and the number of variances that are being requested they should do the long form SEQRA. Ryan Robideau represented Stewart’s as the designer and project coordinator. Ryan said in 2021 Stewart’s went before the City Council for a PUD and displayed the plan for the planning board. Ryan said the PUD was given a negative declaration by the City Council but the vote failed for the PUD. Ryan showed their newest proposal and said he’s met with neighbors on Maple Dell who stated that the car wash was the “greater of all evils” on this project. Ryan said they’ve talked to their tenant and are trying to work out a new location for the car wash. The car wash has been removed from the site plan. Ryan said they are now looking at a 4,500 sq. ft. store (standard size) and a 3,000 sq. ft. rental space. He said the fuel canopy has not changed from the PUD; it will have less dispensers than there are today. Ryan said they went through with the 100 ft. offset because Stewart’s owns parcels on both sides. He said now they own the whole parcel, so they combined all of them and are able to use the 100 ft. offset from the TRB into the residential area. Ryan pointed out a section of property owned by National Grid and said that Stewart’s has a license agreement that allows hard surfaces (parking, truck turnaround), but no structures. He also pointed out a section of ENGINEERING AMERICA CO. 76 WASHINGTON ST. SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 518 / 587-1340 518 / 580-9783 (FAX) TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: FROM: Planning Board Tonya Yasenchak COMPANY: DATE: City of Saratoga Springs AUGUST 26, 2024 FAX NUMBER: TOTAL N O. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 8 PHONE NUMBER: SENDER’S REFERENCE NUMBER: RE: YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER: Harvey – (2) Lot Subdivision Water, Sewer & Basic SWPPP  URGENT  FOR REVIEW  PLEASE COMMENT  PLEASE REPLY  AS REQUESTED ENGINEERING REPORT: INTRODUCTION: Engineering America Co. has been retained by the applicants, John & Karen Harvey to provide land planning and site/civil engineering services in connection with the subdivision application for 225 Clinton St. in the City of Saratoga Springs, Tax Map # 165.35-2-45. Subdivision approval will be required from the Planning Board which includes all requirements listed on the City of Saratoga’s Preliminary/Final Subdivision Approval Required Submittal Checklist. This report is intended to fulfill items 4 & 6 of the Required Items part of the Preliminary / Final Subdivision approval checklist. DESCRIPTION OF INTENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT & USE: The site, #225 Maple Ave. is located at the South West intersection of Clinton St. with Embury Dr. in Saratoga Springs New York. The 24,700 sq.ft. lot has an existing single family residential building with attached garage. The existing dwelling is accessed via paved driveway from Clinton St. The lot area is nearly level in the area of the existing house and across the property. The property is mostly grassy with lawn & garden areas, a few larger mature trees with additional trees along the South & West perimeters. 2 The proposed subdivision of this parcel would result in dividing the single lot into two lots. The existing dwelling would be located on a 14,950 sq.ft lot (designated as Lot 1 on the map). The existing driveway access off of Clinton St. would remain unchanged. The existing electrical utility connection underground from a utility pole towards the South East corner of the property is proposed to remain unchanged. The new lot to be created to the North of the existing dwelling, would be subdivided from the main parcel and marketed for sale as a residential building lot. The new Lot 2 is proposed to be 9.750 sq.ft. in area. A zoning variance was granted by the City of Saratoga Zoning Board of Appeals on July 22, 2024 for the new Lot #2: - Min. Lot Area: 12,500 sf req. / 9,750 sf proposed / 2,750 sf (22%) relief granted - Min. Lot Width: 100’ req. / 75’ proposed / 25’ (25%) relief granted Compliance with the requirements of Table 3-A of the City of Saratoga Springs Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for the lots within a UR-1 District is as shown on the subdivision plat pages S2 & S3 WATER REPORT : Currently, there are 2 bedrooms within the existing single family dwelling on the property. Using a standard demand of 110 gallons per capita day (gpcd) the existing property can be estimated to have an annual water consumption usage of 80,300 gallons. Assuming the new lot will accommodate a single family residence with 4 total bedrooms the annual water consumption would increase by 160,600 gallons to 240,900 gallons (increase of 440 gallons per day). There is a 4” water main located in Clinton St. The existing residence appears to be currently connected to this main with services to remain unchanged. A new 3/4” Type K copper water service connection is being proposed for the new residence on the proposed new Lot #2. SANITARY REPORT : There are 2 bedrooms within the existing single family residence. Using a standard sanitary sewer of 110 gallons per capita day (gpcd) the existing property can be estimated to have an annual sanitary load of 80,300 gallons. Assuming the new lot will accommodate a single-family dwelling containing 4 bedrooms the annual sanitary load for the two lots will increase by 160,600 gallons to 240,900 gallons. There is an 8”sanitary sewer main located in Clinton St. The existing residence appears to be currently connected to this main with services to remain unchanged. The proposed new single dwelling unit building would be expected to use a 6” 3 diameter SDR-26 service line connecting to this main. The additional load from the construction of the new residence is not expected to tax the capacity of the municipal system. STORMWATER & BASIC SWPPP / EROSION CONTROL SOIL CONDITIONS: The project site (in location of the proposed new lot & current residence) is slightly pitched towards Clinton St. Soils on this site are, GaB, Galway Loam in hydrologic group B. According to Saratoga County Soil surveys, the depth to any restrictive feature in this soil type is typically 30”. The soil is classified as moderately deep, well to moderately drained, with moderate permeability, slow surface runoff and slight erosion hazard. SEDIMENT & EROSION CONTROL: A sediment and erosion control plan has been developed in order to specify minimum controls and measures to reduce sediment runoff during construction. - Construction Entrance: One construction entrance has been specified to accommodate the new driveway to the proposed new residence along Clinton St. - Topsoil: A potential topsoil storage area for foundation backfill and topsoil will be identified (possibly located at the North West corner of the new lot) and will be surrounded by silt fencing. In general, excavated soil for foundations that will not be retained for backfill and topsoil grading will be required to be removed from the site. - Concrete Wash: A Concrete washout location has been proposed at the Eastern portion of the new Lot #2 towards Clinton St. Concrete washout details and instructions are include on page S-4 of the subdivision development plans. - Sediment Control: Less than 0.15 acres are anticipated to be disturbed during construction. Silt fencing has been specified around the perimeter of the new lot project area to reduce off site erosion migration. City of Saratoga Springs Complete Streets Checklist 1 City of Saratoga Springs Complete Streets Checklist Project Name: __________________________________________________ Date: ____________________ Project Location / Limits: __________________________________________________________________ Project Description: ______________________________________________________________________ Instructions: For each box checked, please provide a brief description for how the item is addressed, not addressed, or not applicable and include supporting documentation. Street Classification (identify street or streets within the project area) Principal arterial Minor arterial Mixed use collector Mixed use local Residential collector Residential local Special use street EXISTING CONDITIONS Item to Be Addressed/ Checklist Consideration YES NO N/A Required Description Existing Bicycle & Pedestrian Operations Do bicycle and pedestrian accommodations exist? (see page 2 for examples) Existing Transit Operations Do transit facilities exist within the study area, including bus and train stops/stations? Is the project area on a transit route? (CDTA Service Routes) Are there bicycle racks, shelters, or parking for transit riders available? Existing Access and Mobility Do connective opportunities exist with schools, hospitals, senior care or community centers or persons with disabilities within project area? Are there gaps inhibiting continuous access between schools, hospitals, senior care, or community centers or persons with disabilities within project area?” Project Area Context Are there prominent landmarks, recreation, shopping, employment center, cultural centers or other key destinations that offer opportunities to connect this site? Please list and/or describe planning or policy documents addressing bicyclist, pedestrian, transit, or truck/ freight use for the project area. Examples can include: City of Saratoga Springs Comprehensive Plan, City of Saratoga Springs Open Space Plan,Capital District Transportation Committee Bicycle/ Pedestrian Priority Network, City Standard Details, etc. Saratoga Springs Complete Street Policy Vision (May 2012) The City of Saratoga Springs Complete Streets Policy will encourage the development of a complete streets network throughout the City to create a more balanced transportation system. The Policy shall be consistent with and assist in achieving the goals and recommendations set forth in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and other policy documents. The Policy shall ensure new and updated public and private projects are planned, designed, maintained and operated to enable safer, comfortable and convenient travel to the greatest extent possible for users of all abilities including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders. This checklist is intended to assist the City in achieving its vision for complete streets. Project adjacent to Embury & in close proximity to Skidmore Harvey Subdivision 8/26/24 #225 Clinton St. 2 Lot Subdivision: Lot #1 with existing Dwelling. New Lot #2 with proposed new Dwelling. Existing sidewalk.No Bike acc. CDTA Bus / No train stop CDTA stop adjacent to project site Connecting sidewalks exist City of Saratoga Springs Complete Streets Checklist 2 PROPOSED DESIGN Item to Be Addressed/ Checklist Consideration YES NO N/A Required Description Complete Streets Design Bicyclist accommodations? Pedestrian accommodations? Access and Mobility accommodations? Transit accommodations? Truck/ freight accommodations? Streetscape elements? Bike Facilities: Off-roadway bike accommodations Yes No NA Dedicated bike lane Yes No NA Shared-use lane Yes No NA Shoulder Yes No NA Acceptable actuated traffic signal bike detection, including turn lanes Yes No NA Do signals allow adequate minimum green time for bicyclist to safely cross intersection? Yes No NA Signage and pavement markings specific to proposed bike facilities Yes No NA Bicycle safe inlet grates Yes No NA Bicycle parking, eg. bike racks, bike lockers Yes No NA Transit Facilities: Transit shelters Yes No NA Bus turnouts Yes No NA Standing pads Yes No NA Has CDTA been contacted?Yes No NA Access and Mobility Facilities: Adequate sidewalk or paved path Yes No NA Acceptable consideration/provision for accessible pedestrian traffic signal features Yes No NA Curb ramps, including detectable warning surface Yes No NA Acceptable slope and cross-slope for driveway ramps, sidewalks, crossings) Yes No NA Have conflicts been reduced among pedestrian, bicyclists, and motor vehicles (access management)? Yes No NA Pedestrian Facilities: Sidewalks on both sides of the street Yes No NA Striped crosswalks Yes No NA Geometric modifications to reduce crossing distances such as curb extensions (e.g. bulb-outs) Yes No NA Acceptable provision for pedestrian traffic signal features (e.g. ped. buttons) Yes No NA Pedestrian signage for crossing & wayfinding Yes No NA Safety islands/medians on roadways with two or more traffic lanes in each direction Yes No NA Enhanced supplemental pedestrian treatments at uncontrolled marked crossings Yes No NA Connectivity: Are there proposed connections to other bike paths, pedestrian facilities, or transit facilities? Yes No NA Are there proposed connections to any key destinations listed on page 1? Yes No NA Are there proposed connections to neighborhoods? Yes No NA Streetscape Elements: Are streetscape elements proposed such as landscaping, street trees, planters, buffer strips, etc? Yes No NA Pedestrian-level lighting Yes No NA Public seating or benches Yes No NA Design Standards and Guidelines Design meets guidelines such as described below for bicycle/pedestrian/bus/transit facilities? Yes No NA Describe *American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)-A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets, Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities; Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guide(PROWAG);Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD);Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG); National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) -Urban Bikeway Design Guide.New York State Department of Transportation – Highway Design Manual Existing facilities updated Sidewalk to be repaired & updated in front of Lot 2 Sidewalk to be updated to facilitate crossing Clinton Existing stop adjacent to site / Unchanged No truck / freight accomodations req by project (2) new street lights & (2) new street trees