Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20250989 Rt 9 / South Broadway Special Use Permit Response to CommentsCannie Law PLLC 4 Roberts Ln. Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 518-350-4137 cannielawfirm@gmail.com February 5, 2026 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Attn.: Susan Barden 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs NY 12866 Via in hand delivery and email RE: Supplemental Submission – Response to Board Comments Special Use Permit Application - South Broadway, Saratoga Springs New York, 12866 – Tax Parcels: 178.-2-17.11 and 178.-2-17.12 Proposed Special Use: Multi-family Dwelling: Residential Only Hello Susan: As you are aware, this office represents Matrix BDC JV, LLC, (the “Applicant”) with respect to a Special Use Permit Application for Tax Parcels: 178.-2-17.11 and 178.-2-17.12 located on South Broadway in Saratoga Springs New York (the “Application”). The Applicant appreciated the Board’s review and comments of the Application on January 22, 2026, however short it may have been. In response to some of the comments made that evening, I submit the following responses. Each comment will be summarized and set forth in bold. Each response will follow if italics. 1) Front Setback and Relation to Other Properties. It was noted that the front setback seemed small when compared to neighboring properties. In the GC-R zone specific to this property, and all lands south of the intersection of South Broadway and Cresent Avenue for a distance of 3000+ feet, the required setback is 60 feet. The Application proposes a setback of 80 feet for the mixed-use structure and 150 feet for the hotel. Both are easily outside of the minimum front yard setback of 60 feet and do not require a variance. Further, they are not significantly different than the setbacks of the neighboring properties. As identified on the approved site plans for each project, Homewood Suites has a front setback of 160 feet and Tree House Brewery has 114 feet. As such, the setback for the hotel portion of the Application is clearly in line with the neighbors, falling in the middle of the two. It will provide a step-backed setback on the first portion of the site for traffic coming north on Route 9 – much in the same manner that Homewood currently provides a step-backed setback prior to the closer to the street Tree House building. As to the mixed-use structure, such use is significantly different from its neighbors in terms of need for visibility from the right of way. Primarily, both Tree House and Homewood do not involve individuals from the street coming to the site solely based on engagement from the right of way. It is rare for an individual to just happen upon a hotel and decide – ‘I’ll go check that place out’. Additionally, Tree House is unique in its design as it has its beer to-go service upfront and access to the building for on-site consumption in the rear. Therefore Tree House requires less engagement with pedestrians and vehicular traffic in order to bring people to the site. Further, Tree House was built and established – and has proven to be – primarily its own standalone attraction. Individuals are coming onto South Broadway specifically for that use, and therefore public engagement is not as necessary to attract users and patrons. The mixed- use structure, and specifically for the ground floor commercial users, will want and benefit from engagement with users in the right of way – thus needing to be closer in proximity to be seen. Further, the Design Standards for the GC-R zone identify that “Commercial storefronts must include traditional pedestrian-oriented elements such as display windows, bulkheads, transoms, and cornices.” See UDO Table 4-I, Standard 3. This is a clear intent and request of the UDO drafters to require commercial storefronts to engage pedestrians. If the setback for the mixed-use structure is increased past the already proposed 80 feet and set to match Tree House or Homewood, the intent and purpose of the pedestrian engagement would be lost as the pedestrian pathway will be over 100 feet away from the storefronts. 2) Multi-Use Path. It was mentioned that some members of the Board that the multiuse path should be extended the entire length of the South Broadway frontage, including past the area of development. The Applicant originally did not propose this for several reasons. First, because the South Broadway right-of-way is owned by New York State and they do not permit pedestrian installations in that location, any multi-use path will have to be located wholly on the subject parcels. As a result, this will require significant tree cutting in order to establish this path which the Applicant believes will likely not be utilized. Additionally, knowing the neighbor to the immediate south is New York State, it is more likely than not that parcel will never get developed, and therefore the extension of the path would be a path to nowhere. Furthermore, due to the location of the wetlands on the site, the construction of a multi- use path along the entire frontage would require a Title 24 Wetlands permit from DEC to actually encroach upon and develop the wetlands. Based upon consultation with the Applicant’s site engineers had with DEC, we do not believe DEC would issue such a permit. Finally, and most specifically, such an action is specifically prohibited under the terms of the UDO Section 7.1(D)(1 – 4). This section generally prohibits the construction of buildings, structures or paved surfaces in any DEC Wetlands, the 100 foot DEC buffer, Federal Wetlands or a 50 foot buffer around Federal Wetlands. It permits for encroachments into the buffer areas under a Wetlands Permit to be issued by the Planning Board – but provides no option for an exception for disturbances in the actual wetlands. As a result, and due to the wetlands on site running all the way to the edge of the right of way, the Applicant is without an option for the multi-use path continue down the entire length of the South Broadway frontage. 3) Traffic Mitigation Consideration The Traffic Impact Study from GTS Consulting – which was submitted on December 19, 2025 - evaluated the proposed mixed-use development consisting of 200 apartments, ground floor retail/office space and an 80-room hotel. Site visits, traffic counts, speed studies, site distance checks and gap analysis were conducted in early November 2025 to assess existing roadway conditions and intersection performance. The study confirmed that Route 9, a four-lane arterial with a center turn lane, currently operates at acceptable Levels of Service C or better at adjacent signalized intersections during all peak hours. Analysis of traffic gaps, speed data and sight distance found no safety or operational concerns. More than adequate gaps exist on US Route 9 for vehicles to turn into and out of both proposed driveways, and available sight distance significantly exceeds AASHTO recommendation, even when using a conservative 60-mph design speed. A three-year review (2022-2025) showed a low severity crash pattern with both nearby intersection and the roadway segment classified as LOSS 2 locations indicating performance consistent with expectation and no notable safety deficiencies. It is important to note that this study does incorporate data collection with the existence of the new user in the area – namely Tree House Brewing. Future background traffic was projected using a conservative 1% annual growth rate through the anticipated 2028 build year. Trip generation for the proposed project was estimated using ITE Trip Generation (12th edition) resulting in moderate peak hour volumes: 109 total trips ion the AM peak, 187 in the PM peak and 180 during the Saturday peak. Applying expected trip distribution patterns, traffic was assigned to the roadway network and incorporated into the build condition analysis, Modeling using Synchro showed that even with full build traffic, all study area intersections and the site driveway would continue to operate at Levels of Service C, with only minor increase in delay and no significant degradation of operations. Given the strong sight lines, plentiful traffic gaps, modest trip generation and absence of crash patterns concerns, the study concludes that the proposed development will not cause notable impacts to US Route 9 operations and does not warrant and offsite traffic mitigation measures. 4) Speed Reduction Should Be Required As South Broadway is a state-owned right of way, only NYSDOT has purview to require a speed reduction. This was covered with this Board during the Tree House approval process. The Applicant is not opposed to a change in speed, and would be happy to assist the City in any way that it can to advocate for a reduction. To that effect, the Applicant has reached out to local State Legislators in hopes of advocating for a reduction in the speed limit. Senator Jim Tedisco has requested instruction from this Board and/or the City Mayor’s office in order for his office to contact NYDOT. The Mayor has committed to issue such a request letter. Assemblywoman Carrie Woerner has offered to facilitate a virtual meeting between NYSDOT, the Applicant, its agents and City Staff. This virtual meeting is being arranged, and the Applicant will update the Board once it has occurred. However, because NYSDOT can act in its own discretion and has no obligation to change the speed under any circumstances, it would be arbitrary, capricious, unduly unfair, and unwarranted to tie any approval for this Application at this Property, or any others, to a condition that the speed be reduced. Especially in light of a traffic study that indicates no off site traffic mitigation is required. 5) Potential For Less Parking There was a desire expressed by the Board to construct less parking on this site. The Applicant also wishes to have reduced parking. To that effect, we have reduced the proposed parking from 506 to 452 – the minimum UDO requirement for per the proposed uses. In addition, the Applicant is seeking to use the 25% permitted land-banked parking allowance, and proposing 100 land-banked parking spots. Attached as Exhibit “A” is a redesigned concept plan showing the new proposed parking arrangement, along with the requirements for minimum parking. The Applicant is amenable to modifying the site to the smallest number of spaces required under the UDO, to promote greenspace within the development area in addition to the over 42 acres of the Site that will be preserved in its natural state. As part of this reduction, a portion of the parking was removed between the hotel building and South Broadway, as well as individual spots within the interior parking lots to provide breaks in the parking spaces that will include new tree plantings. 6) Frontage along South Broadway – what will be there? In an effort to conform to the Design Standards for the GC-R, as much of the natural tree buffer along the South Broadway frontage will be maintained. As can be seen on the additional submission highlighting the landscaping, where the current trees cannot be preserved, we will provide new plantings to continue complement the rural character of some of the neighboring parcels. All of this is in line with Design Standard 17 from Table 4-I. The goal is to provide a campus-like, State Park influenced design as requested in the UDO and Comprehensive Plan. In advance of the next appearance with the Board, and no later than February 18, 2026, the Applicant will provide new renderings and three dimensional “fly thru” animation of the Property which will help identify significant trees along the frontage that will be preserved. 7) Relocation of Parking in Front of Hotel Parking is required in the front of the hotel because most national hotel brands require a certain number of guest-visible spaces near the main entrance. These standards are tied to guest convenience, late-night arrival safety, and ADA compliance. The Americans with Disabilities Act also mandates that accessible parking be located on the shortest accessible route to the primary entrance, which typically ends up being the front of the building. Moving all parking to the rear or sides often breaks these requirements unless the entire building layout is reconfigured. Further, traffic circulation and safety considerations influence the layout. Driveway placement, turn movements, and internal vehicle flow are already optimized based on the location of the parking and hotel entrance. If parking is moved away from the front, vehicles may be routed into tighter internal turns, create conflicts with service or loading zones, or complicate fire lane requirements. Since the Traffic Impact Study already demonstrates safe and efficient operations, relocating parking could unintentionally introduce new conflicts. With all that being said, as is shown on the attached revised site plan, 17 spots of parking have been removed from in front of the hotel as part of the Applicant’s response to reduce the amount of parking on site. The previous design had 34 spots to be constructed, with 34 land-banked in front of the hotel. The current plans shows 17 spots to be constructed with 40 to be land-banked – reducing the number of constructed spots in front of the building in half. 8) Traffic Analysis does not mention Saratoga Spa State Park First, the analysis shows that US Route 9 has ample spare capacity, with all nearby intersections and roadway segments operating at Level of Service C or better even after adding full build-out traffic from the project. This development is expected to generate only 1–2 vehicles per minute during peak times—an amount too small to cause congestion or queuing that would obstruct access to or from the state park. In addition, there are more than sufficient gaps in northbound and southbound traffic—260+ usable gaps per hour for entering movements and 100+ for left-turns exiting the site—so project traffic will not create backups that spill across lanes or affect park visitors traveling northbound or southbound on US Route 9. Second, the safety review found no crash patterns, no sight-distance limitations, and no operational deficiencies along this segment of US Route 9 that would make the corridor sensitive to small increases in traffic. Available sight distance exceeds 1,500 feet in both directions at both driveways, far exceeding AASHTO criteria, ensuring that both development traffic and park traffic can see and react to one another safely. The report identifies no mitigation measures because the project’s impacts are not significant enough to alter corridor operations or introduce new risks. As a result, there is no indication that access to or from the state park will be degraded, either in terms of congestion, safety, or delay. Finally, because these studies were conducted with real data, they already incorporate the Spa State Park users into the data, without the need to specifically mention those users. 9) Traffic Analysis Does Not mention Left Turns Left turns are not expected to be a problem for this development based on the technical analyses completed for US Route 9. The gap study found more than 100 acceptable gaps per peak hour for left turns exiting the site and over 260 usable gaps for left turns entering the site, demonstrating that vehicles will have ample opportunities to turn safely even during the busiest hours. Sight distance is also exceptionally favorable—while 750 feet is required for safe left-turn movements at the operating speed of 60 mph, more than 1,500 feet of clear sight distance is available in both directions at both driveways, far exceeding AASHTO safety criteria. Operationally, the site driveways are projected to function at Level of Service C during all peak periods, which is considered acceptable for unsignalized access points. The study also found no crash patterns or history along this segment of US Route 9 that would indicate left-turn safety concerns; only one left-turn-related crash occurred mid-block over three years, and both nearby intersections are rated LOSS 2—meaning they do not exhibit elevated crash risks. Together, the operational analysis, sight-distance evaluation, and crash history confirm that left-turn movements to and from the site should operate safely and efficiently without requiring mitigation. 10) Does Real Estate Market Data Support Interior Commercial Development? Amy Sutton from Roohan Realty has completed a market survey for the surrounding area, copy of which is submitted herewith as Exhibit “B". This shows that there are currently 81,426sf of space available currently, and 79,146 sf leased within the last year. Much of this is located within the Downtown core of Saratoga Springs. The City of Saratoga Springs has long benefited from a vibrant, walkable downtown commercial district. Modern planning practice and smart growth policy emphasize the importance of reinforcing existing downtown cores, preventing unnecessary commercial dispersion, supporting compact, pedestrian-oriented retail clusters, and protecting small businesses through concentrated demand. Downtown Saratoga Springs functions as the City’s primary commercial center, supported by tourism, strong foot traffic, and an interconnected street network. Introducing new speculative retail space outside of this established core, particularly in internal site locations, risks fragmenting commercial demand and weakening the economic ecosystem that has made downtown Saratoga Springs so successful. As noted in Amy Sutton’s letter, Downtown already contains a year’s worth of active inventory. Accordingly, adding additional commercial square footage outside the downtown core would not represent smart growth. Instead, it would contribute to unnecessary commercial oversupply and decentralization. Further, as noted in the Saratoga Springs Comprehensive Plan, this area of the City is intended to provide commercial uses that are “complementary to the Downtown Core and Complementary Core”. To add in a significant amount of new retail and commercial space in an area that is designated to serve only as a complementary base, could potentially undermine the vitality of the primary commercial centers. Finally, a highly instructive regional example of the lack of industry support for interior ground floor commercial is Ellsworth Commons in Malta, New York. This is a comparable mixed-use development, where retail space was constructed within internal buildings removed from the main roadway -specifically Route 9. Ellsworth Commons is only 5.5 miles from the Project site here. At Ellsworth, the interior retail component that has no frontage on Route 9 has proven unsuccessful. Current listings indicate that over 27,000 square feet of retail space remains available, underscoring the inability of interior retail formats to attract and sustain tenancy in similar suburban Saratoga County locations. As shown in Exhibit "C”, this precedent demonstrates that retail without corridor frontage is not merely challenging but structurally flawed. Additionally, based upon the proximity to this Project, the open retail and commercial space at Ellsworth could be more attractive to tenants as it is in closer proximity to other retail and commercial options and has over twice as many on-site residential units (312) than what is being proposed by the Applicant (128). In summary, while mixed-use development is often desirable in principle, the inclusion of commercial retail space within interior buildings at this site would not be viable and would not advance the City’s planning objectives. Downtown Saratoga Springs already contains substantial available commercial space, successful leasing activity remains concentrated along major corridors, and regional precedent such as Ellsworth Commons confirms the failure of internal retail configurations. For these reasons, the Applicant submits that while the Property could support commercial configurations along the South Broadway frontage, interior commercial/retail would not be supported by the market or be consistent with the stated land use goals of Saratoga Springs. 11) Clear cutting and not leaving substantial trees The Applicant is not proposing clear cutting, and instead is going to preserve over 42 acres of the project site in its natural state. Within the area of development, the Applicant proposes to preserve as much of the vegetative buffer as possible along South Broadway. Further, the Applicant following final site plan, will conduct a tree survey on site in an effort to retain any significant trees that ware not within areas of necessary development under the final site plan. The applicant is hopeful to preserve a stand of trees within the courtyard area of the multi-family development as part of the campus setting of that portion of the development, in order to compliment the campus-style of the neighboring Saratoga Spa State Park. As can be seen, many of the comments focused on site design and site layout, all of which the Applicant is happy to continue to discuss with the Board. However, due to the Board’s time constraints, the Applicant was not able to share and review much of the information and reasoning relative to the Special Use Permit at issue – the details of which were previously submitted in the Narrative on October 24, 2025. The Applicant requests to be placed on the next February 25, 2026 agenda to review the responses above, but most critically discuss in detail with the Board the Special Use Permit standards of approval and what additional information the Board may need on the Application in order to progress it towards a public hearing, Design Review Board advisory opinion and a determination under SEQR. As always, please feel free to contact me directly with any questions. Very truly yours, /s/ John B. Cannie John B. Cannie, Esq.