Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20250989 Rt 9 / South Broadway Special Use Permit Response to comments from Creighton Manning 07.22.2026Cannie Law PLLC 4 Roberts Ln. Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 518-350-4137 cannielawfirm@gmail.com July 22, 2026 City of Saratoga Springs - Planning Board Attn.: Susan Barden 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs NY 12866 Via in hand delivery and email RE: Second Response to Creighton Manning - Comments Dated July 17, 2026 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 has received a second comment letter from the Board’s Third-Party traffic engineer, Creighton Manning (“CM”), dated July 17, 2026 (the “7-17 CM Letter”). Each comment from CM shall be set forth in bold. Each response will follow if italics. Response to 7-17 CM Letter Submitted herewith is a response from GTS Consulting, dated July 22, 2026, which covers responses to items 1 through 26 of the CM Letter. Items 31, 34, 37 and 39 - 44 are provided here: 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). Cannie Law Response: 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. CM Response: The Planning Board should review the waiver request to not provide a multi- use path along the entire frontage. It is noted that the updated site plan does show a multi-use path along the frontage (including south of the southern driveway). Applicant Response: No further response needed. Discussion of the requested waiver can continue during 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. Cannie Law Response: 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. CM Response: The Applicant should inform the Planning Board if these connections are feasible. Applicant Response: No further response needed. As noted below, the City of Saratoga Springs is investigating its ability to enforce the alleged easement for interconnection between the parcels. The Applicant will await the City’s response to that inquiry and discuss the matter further with the Planning Board during site plan review. 37. Has lighting been considered at the site driveway intersections to improve driver visibility? Cannie Law Response: This will be further reviewed, evaluated and discussed during site plan review. CM Response: Noted. The Applicant should continue discussion with the Planning Board. Applicant Response: No further response is needed at this time. The Applicant notes that the existing driveways along this portion of South Broadway are not separately lighted, and the proposed driveway condition is therefore consistent with the existing corridor character. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Applicant will continue to review driveway lighting during site plan review and will evaluate whether any limited, code-compliant lighting is warranted to address visibility while avoiding unnecessary glare, light spillover, or inconsistency with the surrounding roadway context. 39. Where will snow storage be accommodated? Cannie Law Response: This will be reviewed in greater detail once we have a better understanding of the concept plan meeting the approval of the Planning Board. CM Response: Noted. The Applicant should continue discussion with the Planning Board. Applicant Response: No further response is needed at this time. The Applicant notes that the current concept plan includes substantial green space areas within and around the perimeter of the proposed parking lots, which are expected to provide appropriate locations for snow storage without interfering with required parking, internal circulation, pedestrian facilities, or site access. The specific snow storage areas will continue to be reviewed and refined during site plan review, including consideration of drainage, visibility, landscape protection, and operational needs. NEW DOCUMENTS WITH ADDITIONAL REVIEW/COMMENTS Concept Plan (C-301) 40. No new comments (see response to Comment #31). Applicant Response: No further response needed, see response to 31 above. Site Layout and Materials Plan (for Saratoga Springs Homewood Suites) 42. A review of the site plan for Homewood Suites indicates that cross easements were included in the approval of that project. These should be used to connect the two properties which will minimize mainline conflicts. Applicant Response: Although the alleged cross-easements show on the site plan provided by the City of Saratoga Springs, such easements due not show up in the title report for the Property that is subject to the instant application. As such, the Applicant does not believe that they have a right to enforce those easements, if they are binding on the owners of Homewood Suites, and that it would be the City’s right to enforce. The Applicant will await the City’s determination as to enforcement before proceeding with any modifications to the site plan for cross-access. Site Master Plan (Traffic Signal and Traffic Circle Options) Applicant Response: For purposes of clarity, these supposed options were not presented by the Applicant as options for the development of the Application, and instead were produced by the Saratoga Springs Principal Planner. The Applicant wants to be clear that they had not seen these diagrams until the 7-17-26 CM Letter was presented from CM, and played no role in the drafting of the diagrams. 43. Traffic Signal Option: a. A connection in the northeast quadrant of the property to the Tree House Brewery would allow patrons of that development to access a potential traffic signal; however, this connection would increase traffic through the parking areas for the site. In addition, a connection would eliminate some parking spaces for the Tree House Brewery and it is unknown if patrons of that site may start to park on the South Broadway Mixed-Use Property or the Homewood Suites property as an overflow option. b. A vehicle/pedestrian connection provided in front of Homewood Suites between the proposed development and the Tree House Brewery would minimize mainline conflicts by allowing internal travel between these sites. c. The northern driveway has been limited to a right-in/right-out only driveway on this concept. This would minimize mainline conflict points and would force more site related traffic to the main site driveway which would increase the chances that a traffic signal would be warranted. d. The marked crosswalk across US Route 9 from the South Broadway Mixed-Use Property would not connect directly to a sidewalk/mixed-use path on the west side of US Route 9. It is noted that a break in an existing row of trees located within the Saratoga Spa State Park would need to be created in order to access an internal multi-use path. e. A traffic signal would likely reduce right-angle and left-turn crashes at the main site driveway. f. This type of traffic control would improve access to/from the site; however, it would increase delay to through traffic on US Route 9 for a private development. g. If the multi-use path provided on the east side of US Route 9 is terminated at the southern driveway due to wetland impacts located south of this property (as noted in the Supplemental Submission), this might represent a logical pedestrian crossing location. Guests from the hotels, residents of the apartments, and patrons of the brewery that are destined to locations in the southwest quadrant of the Saratoga Spa State Park may not walk approximately ½-mile north to the existing traffic signal provided at Cresent Avenue to cross US Route 9. If there is no intention to bring the multi-use path to the signalized E. West Road intersection, a signalized pedestrian crossing approximately halfway between these two intersections would be appropriate for consideration. h. It is noted that an exclusive pedestrian phase could be provided to increase pedestrian safety. i. It is noted that the installation of a traffic signal would be based on NYSDOT review and approval. Applicant Response: A traffic signal is not proposed by the Applicant, as the traffic signal warrant analysis conducted by GTS Consulting provides that no signal is warranted. This analysis contemplates not only a full build out of the instant application, but also the instant and projected functioning of the neighboring properties. Without analysis resulting in a traffic signal warrant, there is no reason to propose a traffic signal. Additionally, the proposed connection to additional properties would require the consent and approval of two additional landowners, the re-development of two existing and approved site plans, and increased liability to all parties and future owners caused by cross-access along private parcels and roadways. If the traffic analysis does not result in warranting the addition of a traffic signal in this location, those are significant and burdensome costs for private landowners to bare without a noted, empirical need for such modifications. Most significantly, and as noted by CM, any traffic signal installation would require review and approval by NYSDOT. Based upon the traffic signal warrant analysis prepared by GTS Consulting, the applicable signal warrants are not met for this location. Accordingly, and based upon initial conversations with NYSDOT, the Applicant does not believe NYSDOT would approve the installation of a new traffic signal at this location in the absence of a demonstrated warrant or other empirical basis supporting such traffic control. It is for all of these above reasons that this option was not proposed or contemplated by the Applicant. 44. Traffic Circle Option: a. The comments made for 43.a through 43.e are the same for this concept. b. A roundabout would introduce a calming element entering the City of Saratoga Springs. It is noted that the speed limit on this section of US Route 9 would need to be reduced if a roundabout were constructed at the main entrance to the site. It is noted that this would be a two-lane roundabout due to the existing geometry on US Route 9. c. A roundabout would be significantly more expensive to construct than the installation of a traffic signal. d. A roundabout would provide adequate traffic operations; however, delay would be spread to all movements. e. A roundabout would provide less protection to pedestrians since motorists would not be forced to stop by a traffic signal. Applicant Response: See response to 43 above, as to the traffic study not warranting a traffic circle, the need for multiple additional parties to incur liability and modify their site plans, and the NYSDOT having the ultimate authority to approve or deny such option. Additionally, the comments about the need for speed reduction for a traffic circle installation, and the delays from the circle being spread further up and down Route 9 provide additional reasons as to why such an option was not contemplated or proposed by the Applicant. NYSDOT has already advised they will not consider a speed reduction, and it is our understanding based on initial conversations that they would not wish to have delay to spread to all traffic movements by the installation of a roundabout, as they are satisfied with the current operation of Route 9. The Applicant looks forward to continuing the discussion with the Board on the SUP Application and SEQR review on July 30, 2026. 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.