Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20250989 Rt 9 / South Broadway Special Use Permit Response to Board CommentsCannie Law PLLC 4 Roberts Ln. Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 518-350-4137 cannielawfirm@gmail.com June 16, 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 (“SUP) 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 March 12, 2026. Additionally, since that meeting the Applicant has received a comment letter from the Board’s Third-Party traffic engineer, Creighton Manning, dated April 21, 2026 (the “CM Letter”). In response to some of the comments made by the Board at the most recent meeting, and the CM Letter, the Applicant submits the following responses and additional/revised materials. Each comment will be summarized and set forth in bold. Each response will follow if italics. 1) Sketch Plan Revisions Submitted here is a revised Concept Plan dated June 15, 2026, that advances the site layout and design further than the one submitted on February 5, 2026. However, this is still a concept plan and not a full and complete site plan. It is the Applicant’s intention to respond to the Board’s request for modifications and get a consensus from the Board as to the concept during the SUP review. Once completed, the full site plan will be formalized for the Board to review under the specific Site Plan Review criteria. The changes to the Concept Plan since the Applicant last appeared before you include the following: a) Increasing the front yard of the multi-family residential building to nearly 120 feet, as requested by members of the Board. This permits the Applicant’s buildings to match the neighboring properties to the north, but also will allow for the retention of additional native trees within this increased setback area. b) Modifications to the Parking Lot layout, to allow for the changes in the locations of the buildings due to the increased setback and add a vegetative strip in the larger parking area between the hotel and the residential structures. c) Following receipt of soil testing, updated locations for stormwater elements and avoidance of discharge directly into the wetlands. 2) Response to CM Letter re: Traffic Study Update Submitted herewith is an updated Traffic Impact Study from GTS Consulting, which covers responses to items 1 through 26 of the CM Letter. Items 27 through 40 will be provided here: 27. It is assumed that the “Site Master Plan” dated February 5, 2026 provided by Bohler is the “sketch plan” referred to in the document on page 1. Please confirm. Confirmed, it is just a sketch plan, or Concept Plan, not a full site plan. As is the revised plan submitted herewith. Full site plan layout and design is being worked on by the Applicant and its consultants and will be supplied when we are closer to submission for that approval. 28. A permitted use in GC-R includes a day care center as noted on page 2. These types of uses typically require drop-off/pick-up plans or areas in order to minimize vehicular conflicts. How would this type of use be accommodated within the internal roadway network? The inclusion of the use in the narrative was more informational, noting the types of uses that could be undertaken. At this time there is no intention to offer daycare as a use. If such use were to be proposed during site plan design, the Applicant would have to account for that. 29. A review of the traffic assessment indicates that the site will not negatively impact the six criteria of a special use permit. Confirmed and agreed. 30. The Applicant must obtain a Highway Work Permit (HWP) from NYSDOT in order to provide direct access to US Route 9. The following items should be considered: - NYSDOT standards for the entrance radii, roadway width, and spacing. - Number of entering and exiting lanes. - Number of access driveways. Confirmed and Agreed. Applicant’s site engineers at Bohler are in contact with NYS DOT for this Application. 31. A direct pedestrian connection from the hotel land use (south side of main access driveway) to the multi-use path should be considered since guests will likely walk to neighboring land uses such as Tree House Brewing, the Saratoga Spa State Park, and the Saratoga Performing Arts Center (SPAC). Confirmed. A direct connection of the multi-use path is proposed via the walkway to the north of the southern driveway. Further pedestrian connection to the south is not proposed to retain as much of the native vegetation in that area as possible. Additionally, it will likely reduce the number of pedestrians crossing that driveway. Furthermore, although the UDO requires continuation of the multi-use path over the entire frontage, the Applicant will be seeking a waiver of this to the south of southern driveway, as locations further south of the site in the area where such a path would run contain DEC wetlands and archeologically sensitive areas. The Applicant wishes to avoid, and the UDO prevents, the construction within the wetlands. As such, a waiver is warranted and can be further discussed with the Board during site plan review. 32. Can a pedestrian connection be provided from the rear of the project site to the Hemlock Trail located east of the development or to Crescent Avenue located north of the site? Such a connection would require direct impacts to wetlands and a DEC Title 24 permit. The Applicant has specifically designed the site to avoid such impact. 33. The traffic assessment should be expanded to discuss other modes of travel such as pedestrians, bikes, and transit. Detailed routes to various local destinations such as downtown Saratoga Springs, SPAC, etc. should be provided. The Applicant acknowledges the request to expand the transportation discussion beyond vehicular traffic and has considered pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access in relation to the surrounding transportation network. The Project Site is located along the Route 9/South Broadway corridor, where existing and proposed sidewalk and multi-use path facilities provide a practical non-vehicular connection to nearby destinations. Based on the site’s location along South Broadway, the proposed frontage multi-use path would connect to the existing pedestrian network extending north toward the City’s commercial core. From the Project Site, Downtown Saratoga Springs and Congress Park are approximately 1.5 to 2.0 miles to the north, depending on the destination point, and are reachable by continuing along South Broadway/Broadway. Saratoga Spa State Park, SPAC, and related recreational destinations are generally located within approximately 0.5 to 1.0 mile west/northwest of the Project Site, with pedestrian and bicycle access available by traveling north along South Broadway and crossing Route 9/South Broadway at the signalized Crescent Avenue intersection. From that crossing, pedestrians and cyclists may continue west toward Saratoga Spa State Park and SPAC, or continue north along South Broadway toward the Downtown core. Transit access is also available within the broader pedestrian network serving the site. CDTA publishes regional route and schedule information for Saratoga County service, including Route 540, the Northway Express, which identifies a stop at Broadway at Congress Park Centre, and Route 450, Schenectady-Wilton via Route 50, which identifies stops along Broadway and Ballston Avenue, including Broadway at Congress Park Centre, Ballston Avenue at Union Street, Ballston Avenue at South Street/Market 32 Plaza, and the Ballston Avenue Trailhead. These transit stops are located north of the Project Site and can be reached using the same South Broadway/Broadway pedestrian network described above. The availability of these nearby fixed-route transit services, in combination with the proposed multi-use path and existing sidewalk network, demonstrates that the Project Site is not limited to vehicular access and is positioned to support pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips to Downtown Saratoga Springs, SPAC, Saratoga Spa State Park, and other nearby commercial, civic, and recreational destinations. Additional route detail, including any desired walking-distance exhibits or multimodal routing diagrams, can be incorporated into the Traffic Impact Study or site plan materials as the application advances through site plan review. 34. A more direct internal pedestrian and /or vehicle connection from the Homewood Suites hotel should be considered. The commercial space may become a destination for hotel guests since it can accommodate eating and drinking establishments. The existing pedestrian connection on the Homewood Suites hotel property directs guests to the north and it is reasonable to assume that pedestrians will cut through the parking lots between the two uses. Noted. The Applicant will consider this connection with discussions with the neighbor to the north to get their permission and report back to the Board during site plan review. 35. The parking table included on the “Site Master Plan” is not consistent with the number of units or space shown on the plan; therefore, the required spaces for each building is not reflective of the plan. The table should be revised. It is noted that the size of the commercial space is larger than what is included in the table and may increase the number of required spaces based on zoning. A shared parking assessment could be considered using Parking Generation (ITE), Shared Parking (ULI), or the shared parking calculations in the UDO if the proposed spaces are less than the required spaces. See the revised and updated Concept Plan, with associated parking table. The site meets all parking requirements without the need for a shared parking assessment under the UDO, as there will be sufficient total parking spots on site. 36. The parking table notes that there are 100 banked parking spaces with 60 spaces for the hotel and 40 spaces for the residential uses; however, the plan only shows 40 banked spaces near the hotel with the remaining 60 banked spaces located in the northeast quadrant of the property adjacent to the residential uses. Would hotel guests be able to use these banked spaces if they are needed in the future since they are not located near this use? Yes. The Applicant, as part of the site plan approval, will be conducting a lot line adjustment to carve out separate parcels for the multi-family and commercial use to be separated from the hotel. However, the site will continue to operate generally as a cohesive development, with cross-access, utility, stormwater and parking easements. Shared parking between lots is permissive under the UDO, and the Applicant intends to provide for reciprocal parking easements between the two lots, the final agreement of which will be provided to the City as required by UDO Sec. 10.6(B). 37. Has lighting been considered at the site driveway intersections to improve driver visibility? This will be further reviewed, evaluated and discussed during site plan review. 38. Provide truck turning templates that confirms emergency vehicles can access the buildings through the parking lots. Submitted herewith is a firetruck turning template, demonstrating emergency access to all buildings on site. 39. Where will snow storage be accommodated? This will be reviewed in greater detail once we have a better understanding of the concept plan meeting the approval of the Planning Board. 40. Ensure that site related signing and the landscaping plan will not obstruct sight lines exiting the development. Noted. 3) Provide a breakdown of the commercial real estate market assessment. Submitted are two exhibits that evaluate both the available and previously rented commercial real estate that was discussed in Amy Sutton’s Letter dated February 3, 2026. They provide in chart format the property address, building size, available space and available space in three categories – retail, office and warehouse – of all the properties noted in her letter. 4) Archeological Review Update As was noted in the FEAF submitted with the Application, the Property was noted as having potential for historical and archeological significance. Submitted here is a preliminary report prepared by Stephen Oberon of Columbia Heritage, that summarizes his findings with respect to Phase IA, IB and II for archeological and historic significance. As noted in his conclusion, the Property does contain the previously documents nineteenth century J. Rouse Historic Site, containing a house foundation and the remains of what appear to be two smaller outbuildings. However, following his in- depth investigation, he concluded the J. Rouse Historic Site “does not appear to have potential to produce significant additional cultural information, was not associated with a significant local personage and therefore is unlikely to meet National Register of Historic Places eligibility criteria”. Furthermore, regardless of its eligibility for National Register listing, the Applicant in its site design has avoided any encroachment or disturbance of the house location, which has been noted on the Concept Plan as a building foundation, surrounded by a 20-foot buffer. The Phase II study considered other archaeological remains, and concluded that proposed disturbance in those areas will have no impact on potentially significant cultural resources. Columbia Heritage is in the process of submitting these same findings to New York State SHPO/OPRHP for their final assessment and evaluation. The Applicant will update the Board further when SHPO/OPRHP have made their final assessment. The Applicant looks forward to continuing the discussion with the Board on the SUP Application and SEQR review. On behalf of the Applicant, I request the Application be placed on the next available agenda to discuss the Project with the Board. As always, please feel free to contact me directly with any questions. Thank you for your continued time and attention to this Application. Very truly yours, /s/ John B. Cannie John B. Cannie, Esq.