HomeMy WebLinkAbout20241018 NYS Rt 29 Station Lane Site Plan Review Response to Planning Board's Comments 07.29.2026EP Land Services LLC
621 Columbia Street Ext.
Cohoes NY 12047
(518) 785-9000
July 29, 2026
Susan Barden
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
Re: Station Lane Subdivision
PB# 20240589/20241018
City of Saratoga Springs, NY
#2022-02
Dear Ms. Barden:
EP Land Services LLC has received potential Planning Board comments via email on 7/21/26 and below are
responses to those comments.
1. Amtrak future demand at the transit station – ridership and future route projections.
Response: Listed below are the annual ridership. As shown below, ridership is constant,
except in 2020-2022 (Covid) years. There are no known increased routes to Adirondack and
Ethan Allen Express lines at this station.
• FY 2025: 37,146 passengers
• FY 2024: 42,433 passengers
• FY 2023: 16,892 passengers
• FY 2022: 23,453 passengers
• FY 2021: 4,798 passengers
• FY 2020: 16,543 passengers
• FY 2019: 41,611 passengers
• FY 2018: 37,303 passengers
2. Project is adjacent to north-south Saratoga Greenbelt Trail plan segment. Plan for
connection/construction of trail?
Response: Saratoga proposed Greenbelt Trail is located on the east side of railroad track (see
attached Greenbelt maps). The proposed sidewalk extension on Washington St. associated
with project allows for connection to this future “ramp option” (figure 8.3). Also proposed
sidewalks from project site connect to Station Lane existing sidewalks so people can have
access to Greenbelt Trail near the existing train station. Thus, project has proposed
connections on north and south side to connect to the future Greenbelt Trail system. Per
CSAB comments, an easement should be considered to connect to Greenbelt Trail system.
While we believe the north and south connections approximately 1,200 feet apart are
sufficient and additional location near Dog Park can be provided if the City so chooses but as
there is an existing infiltration basin associated with Saratoga Train Station parking lot,
traversing this feature will be difficult and unsafe.
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 2 of 7
3. Why is there such a disparity in the findings from the 2018 Traffic Impact Study (Capacity
Analysis P. 15) done by SRF Associates from VHB findings completed in 2025/2026 for a
similar use?
• AM Southbound right-turn/through lane impacts (AM and PM peak)
• West Avenue and Washington Street – westbound through/right-turn lane
• Post Office driveway at Washington Street – LOS impact PM peak.
Response: The Traffic Impact Study completed by SRF was based on a different land use scenario,
traffic volumes collected in 2017, and different background traffic growth and projected other
development traffic volumes. The analysis presented in the 2017 study resulted in
recommendations for traffic mitigation.
The traffic evaluation prepared by VHB in 2024 followed industry guidelines and procedures and
was based on traffic volume data collected in 2023. The analysis did not identify any deficiencies
in intersection operations or the need for site-related traffic mitigation measures. A comparison
of the 2017 and 2023 traffic volumes showed that the peak hour traffic volumes collected in 2023
were lower than the counts in 2017 at each of the study area intersections by between 3.9% and
17.7% during the AM peak hour and 7.2% and 12.0% during the PM peak hour. Although the 2023
volumes were lower, the existing conditions yielded similar analysis results for the existing
conditions prior to the application of background growth and site trip. A review of the peak hour
trips shows that the development plan evaluated in the 2023 study has similar trip generation
during the AM peak hour, but 88 fewer PM peak hour trips than the development plan assessed
in the 2017 study. The combination of the different background growth and site trips for two
studies resulted in the varied results between the two studies.
Lansing Engineering is in the process of updating the traffic evaluation based on traffic volumes
collected in July 2026. The updated traffic evaluation will be provided to the City for their review
and comment.
4. TDM (Transit-Oriented) program for the site not discussed in the VHB review – ride share,
bike share, van pool service to CDTA could be explored.
Response: The Applicant will contact CDTA to discuss potential options to reduce passenger
vehicle trips to and from the site.
5. Validate whether Station Park main entrance should allow left-turn egress movements due
to peak period traffic impacts along Washington Street? Proposed as full access egress
entrance seems problematic, where the nearby intersection at Washington and West Avenue
has vehicular mobility challenges in AM and PM peaks.
Response: The site driveway intersection with Washington Street is proposed for right-turn only
entering and left- and right-turn exiting movements. The traffic evaluation prepared by VHB in
2024 shows that the site driveway approach to Washington Street will operate at level of service
B/C conditions with less than 20 seconds of average vehicle delays during the weekday AM and
PM peak hours with both left and right-turn exiting movements. The analysis does not indicate
that left-turn egress movements should be restricted at the site driveway. This is supported by
NYSDOT Stage 1 approval of the site driveway location and intersection geometry.
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 3 of 7
Lansing Engineering is in the process of updating the traffic evaluation and will confirm the
intersection geometry.
6. May not be a need for on-street parking along the boulevard if no non-residential uses
contemplated. Possible to reduce width of ROW to reduce land disturbance.
Response: ROW width is per City Code (Article 18). On street parking along proposed
boulevard is also required per City code (Article 18) and is also required per to meet parking
demand per Table 10-C of city code. See C-2 of plans set for required parking versus proposed
parking calculation. 751 parking stalls are required per code and between parking lots, on
street and underground there are 751 proposed parking stalls.
7. Safe bike/ped connection for residents of the new development to access shops across
Washington St. Signalized ped crossing at entrance to boulevard?
Response: Sidewalks and a multi-use path are proposed along the north side of Washington
Street to connect pedestrians and bicyclists to the signal controlled intersection at
Washington Street/West Avenue that has pedestrian signals, countdown timers, and
pushbuttons on all intersection approaches.
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) provides standards and guidance
for the locations and installation of crosswalks. The MUTCD specifically states that “At
uncontrolled approaches, an engineering study should be performed before a marked
crosswalk is installed.” and lists several factors to consider in the engineering study including
the distance from adjacent signalized intersections, average daily traffic, vehicular travel
speed, pedestrian and bicyclist paths of travel, etc. Conditions along Washington Street were
reviewed to identify a potential location for an uncontrolled crosswalk. Based on the land
uses on the south side of Washington Street, the most likely locations to potentially provide
a marked crosswalk are at Freeman Lane (Intrada Apartments access) or opposite the
sidewalk leading to the post office. These two locations are 550 and 400 feet from the
Washington Street signal controlled crossing.
Washington Street is owned and maintained by NYSDOT and therefore any mid-block
crossing would need to be approved by NYSDOT. We have initiated coordination with
NYSDOT regarding potential installation of a marked crosswalk across Washington Street.
While we continue to work on this matter this should not affect a SEQRA determination but
during site plan approval this issue will need to be fully reviewed and documented with the
City.
It is noted that the City of Saratoga Springs and the Capital Region Transportation Council
(CRTC) are currently conducting the “West Ave Complete Streets Study”. The study area for
the complete streets study includes Washington Street from West Avenue to Kirby Road. The
presentation from Study Advisory Committee Meeting #1 held on May 1, 2026 included a
slide about the Station Park project indicating that the study findings and recommendations
will consider the Station Park project.
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 4 of 7
8. Provide bus stop within the site.
Response: Fixed CDTA bus service along Washington Street was removed. Bus service near the
site is now provided via Saratoga Springs FLEX which is an on-demand point to point service
throughout the City. FLEX points are available on Washington Street near Freeman Lane, at the
train station, and the West Avenue/Station Lane intersection. The applicant can coordinate with
CDTA to determine whether a FLEX point can be created at the Station Park access on Washington
Street. FLEX service pick-ups and drop-offs occur at main roadways and not within the site
therefore a bus stop within the site would not be used.
9. Relocate townhouses and amenity spaces adjacent to RR to maintain existing dense, vegetative
buffer, to reduce noise and visual impacts and reduce tree clearing.
Response: By removing the playground space and relocating dog park and installing a retaining wall
the area below can achieve the deserve effect by saving 30-35 existing trees. This revision can be
included in the final plans issued to the City during site plan approval process.
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 5 of 7
EP Land Services LLC also received Planning Board comments via email on 7/24/26 and below are responses
to those comments.
Per the concept plan developed below by Planning Board member, housing or additional row houses cannot be
extended to Station Lane as a result of ACOE wetland and City’s 30 foot buffer requirement. The “U” shape road cannot
be omitted on the west side as this would not comport to NYS Building code for fire protection and parking on road is
required per City code to meet parking demand. The area to the west would still need to be disturbed as a result of
NYSDEC stormwater design manual.
Per the concept plan developed below by Planning Board member about connectivity we offer the following
comments
1. Sidewalk 1 can be extended but it should be noted that if this is done additional impacts to trees and steep
slope per City code would apply. This can be done it City requests it during final site plan, subdivision and
special use process.
2. Sidewalk 2 goes nowhere as Intrada does not have sidewalks on that side of the road. Per the plan developed
and last issue to the City on 1/12/26 the proposed sidewalk will be connected to the existing path. Sidewalk #2
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 6 of 7
will also result in another mid-block crossing, in which four (4) are proposed. The Highway department already
expressed concerns about maintaining them and adding another may cause additional burden on the Highway
department.
3. Sidewalk #3 will result in another mid-block crossing, in which four (4) are proposed. The Highway department
already expressed concerns about maintaining them and adding another may cause additional burden on the
Highway department.
4. Sidewalk/crosswalk #4 can be extended but it should be noted that there is on less than 50 feet away.
5. Sidewalk/path #5 cannot be located in this area as a result of the existing infiltration basin on Saratoga Railroad
parcel. If a path is so warranted it can be added near Rowhouse #1 to #6 . This can be done if City requests it
and can be added during final site plan, subdivision and special use process.
6. Sidewalk/path #6 cannot be located in this area as a result of the slope (2:1). There is no way to install
path/sidewalk to railroad bridge on NYS Route 29 as to make ADA compliant and would result in additional
steep slope disturbance per City code. The safety way to this location and meeting ADA requirements is shown
on plans with sidewalk along Route 29.
7. Sidewalk/path #7. See response to #7 above.
8. Sidewalk/path #8 when developed its intent was to connect to the proposed city park. Per the most recent
park plan developed by LA Group this area will not connect to the proposed park trail system so it can actually
be removed as the main connection to the proposed city park can be achieved from middle and south end of
the site.
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 7 of 7
If the City has questions about the responses, please feel free in contacting me at 518-785-9000 or at
jeaston@theprimecompanies.com.
Sincerely,
James W. Easton, PE
Director of Land Development
Division St.
Elementary School
Church St
29
9N
Care Lane
Medical
Sunnyside
Farms
Empire State
College
Ac
t
i
v
e
R
a
i
l
L
i
n
e
Cou
n
t
y
W
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
S
e
w
e
r
R
.
O
.
W
.
Washington St
Morgan St
29
9N
W
e
s
t
A
v
e
Grand Ave
K
i
r
b
y
R
d
M
y
r
t
l
e
S
t
W Circular St
Gle
n
h
a
m
A
v
e
P
i
n
e
R
d
B
i
r
c
h
S
t
O
u
t
l
o
o
k
A
v
e
N
e
w
t
o
n
A
v
e
H
y
d
e
S
t
L
e
e
D
r
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
L
n
Glen Dr
Station Ln
Allen Dr
A
l
l
e
n
D
r
S
Tait Ln
G
l
e
n
m
o
r
e
A
v
e
B
e
n
s
o
n
h
u
r
s
t
A
v
e
Worden Dr
Ash St
Marjorie Dr
St Charles Pl
Em
p
i
r
e
A
v
e
Ja
i
p
u
r
L
n
Con
g
r
e
s
s
A
v
e
B
e
n
e
d
i
c
t
S
t
C
a
l
l
a
g
a
n
D
r
Eastman Ln
Care Ln
Frederick Dr
Glenwood Dr
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
D
r
McGee Rd
B
l
u
e
S
t
r
e
a
k
B
l
v
d
M
o
k
a
s
h
a
S
q
M
a
d
e
l
i
n
e
D
r
M
a
x
w
e
l
l
D
r
Alee
D
r
James Dr
T
u
r
n
e
r
D
r
Pinehurst Dr
To
m
p
i
o
n
L
n
Karen Dr
R
o
b
i
n
H
o
o
d
C
t
Gilm
a
n
A
v
e
Morgan St
Meadow Ln
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
A
v
e
Woodland Ct
Moore Ave
Walter Dr
W
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
r
C
t
S
t
L
e
a
C
t
S
t
R
o
s
e
C
t
Saratoga High School
YMCA
Saratoga
Train Station
Source: NY State GIS Clearinghouse, CDTC
Author: Sam Piper
WATERLINE CONNECTOR SOUTH (Detail Map 7 of 8)
Saratoga Greenbelt Trail Feasibility Study
- City of Saratoga Springs, NY-0 0.50.25 Miles
29
9
29
9
9N
9P
50
50
87
Date: Sept 2013
We
s
t
S
i
d
e
G
r
e
e
n
b
e
l
t
T
r
a
i
l
Project Locator Map
Legend*
Intersection Improvement
Existing Greenway
Greenbelt Trail Connector
Wetlands
Point of Interest
Schools and Universities
Trail Parking
Proposed Tunnel
Proposed Bridge
Saratoga Greenbelt Trail
Trailhead
CDTA Bus Stop
*Abbreviated legend. For complete legend refer to Overview Map.
Figure 8.1
Figure 8.2
Figure 8.3
Figure 8.4
Section G
I
WATERLINE CONNECTOR SOUTH (SECTION MAP 7 OF 8)
SARATOGA GREENBELT TRAIL FEASIBILITY PLAN
Date: September 2013
Author: Sam Piper, Alta Planning + Design 0 0.50.25 Miles
W
e
s
t
A
v
e
Church St
Washington St
Grand Ave
Rai
l
r
o
a
d
R
u
n
T
r
a
i
l
W
e
s
t
A
v
e
Figure 8.2
Section G
3"*-8*5)53"*-4&$5*0/
$POTUSVDUJOHUSBJMTBEKBDFOUUP
BDUJWFSBJMDPSSJEPSTIBTQSPWFO
UPCFBTBGFBOEF⒎FDUJWFXBZUP
QSPWJEFMJOFBSUSBJMTZTUFNT
BMPOHFYJTUJOH3JHIUTPG8BZ
GPPUIJHICBSSJFSTCFUXFFOUIF
USBJMBOESBJMMJOFXJMMCV⒎FSUIF
WJTVBMJNQBDUPGQBTTJOHUSBJOT
JNQSPWJOHUIFDPNGPSUPGUSBJM
VTFST
Centerline
of track
Centerline
of ROW
Centerline
of track
l(0"306/%z015*0/
"OBMUFSOBUJWFPQUJPOUPBUVOOFM
PSBSBNQJTUPbHPBSPVOE`UIF
SPBEXBZBOESBJMXBZDSPTTJOH
5IJTXPVMECFBDIJFWFECZ
BRVJSJOH308BOEUIFO
EFUFSNJOJOHBOBQQSPQSJBUF
MPDBUJPOUPDSPTTUIFSPBEXBZBU
HSBEF5IFUSBJMXPVMEUIFO
SFUVSOUPUIF3BJM308BGUFSUIF
SPBEXBZDSPTTJOH5IJTPQUJPO
XPVMECFMFTTDPOTUSVDUJPO
JOUFOTJWF
CVUXPVMESFRVJSFUIF
BDRVJTJUJPOPGBEEJUJPOBM308
3"*-"/%30"%$3044*/(4
5IF"NUSBLMJOFUIBUSVOT/PSUI4PVUIUISPVHI
UIFXFTUTJEFPGUIFDJUZQSPWJEFTBOJEFBM
PQQPSUVOJUZUPDPOTUSVDUBl3BJMXJUI5SBJMz5IF
FYJTUJOHSBJMSPBEDPSSJEPSJTCSJEHFECZUISFF
SPBET$IVSDI4U 8BTIJOHUPO4U BOE(SBOE
"WF5IFQMBOOJOHUFBNIBTEFWJTFEUISFF
TPMVUJPOTUPDPOUJOVFUIF(SFFOCFMU5SBJM
UISPVHIUIFTFDPOTUSBJOFEJOUFSTFDUJPOT
0OFTPMVUJPOJTUPCVJMEBUVOOFMVOEFSUIF
SPBEXBZ
TFQBSBUFGSPNUIFFYJTUJOHSBJMSPBE
UVOOFM"OPUIFSPQUJPOJTUPDPOTUSVDUBSBNQ
XIJDIXPVMECSJOHUIFUSBJMUPUIFHSBEFPGUIF
SPBEXBZ5IFUIJSETPMVUJPOXPVMECFUPHP
BSPVOEUIFJOUFSTFDUJPO
&BDIPGUIFUISFFPQUJPOTJTBQQSPQSJBUFGPS
FBDIPGUIFUISFFCSJEHFMPDBUJPOT
56//&-015*0/
0OFTPMVUJPOUPDPOUJOVFUIFUSBJM
UISPVHIUIFSBJMXBZBOESPBE
DSPTTJOHTJTUPUVOOFMVOEFSUIF
SPBEXBZ5IFUVOOFMXPVMECF
DPOTUSVDUFETFQFSBUFGSPNUIFSBJMSPBE
UVOOFM5IFUVOOFMXPVMECFGFFU
XJEF
BOEXPVMEQSPWJEFUXPXBZ
BDDFTTGPSUSBJMVTFSTUSBWFMJOHBMPOH
UIF(SFFOCFMUUSBJM
3".1015*0/
"OBMFUFSOBUJWFPQUJPOGPSUIFSPBEBOE
SBJMXBZDSPTTJOHTJTUPDPOTUSVDUSBNQTPO
UIFOPSUIBOETPVUICPVOETJEFPGUIF
SPBEXBZ
XIJDIXPVMECSJOHUIFUSBJMVQUP
UIFHSBEFPGUIFSPBEXBZ5IFUSBJMVTFS
XPVMEUIFODSPTTUIFSPBEBUHSBEF33'#T
BOEIJHIWJTJCJMJUZDSPTTXBMLTXPVMECF
JOTUBMMFEUPBMFSUNPUPSJTUTUPUIFQSFTFODF
PGDSPTTJOHUSBJMVTFST
Figure 8.1
Figure 8.3
Figure 8.4
Figure 8.1
Figure 8.3
Figure 8.4
Figure 8.2
We
s
t
S
i
d
e
G
r
e
e
n
b
e
l
t
T
r
a
i
l
RR Underpass Abutment
18 ft
Tunnel
Abutment