[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6677055,"mediaKeyId","2312600-72f7860f250ff68c407d16c76d436a1d","parentId",2312600,"title","Planning board sends positive advisory on Nelson PUD to City Council, issues SEQR negative declaration with conditions","audioSeconds",5756,"startMs",1460000,"endMs",7216000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2312600-72f7860f250ff68c407d16c76d436a1d&start=1460&end=7216","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2312600-72f7860f250ff68c407d16c76d436a1d/thumbnail_1460000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6677055/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Planning-board-sends-positive-advisory-on-Nelson-PUD-to-City-Council-issues-SEQR-negative-declaration-with-conditions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6677055-d272f14b56f08c2a99dfb72bb8b26c03/orig.mp4?Expires=1777425161&Signature=GFJEuCwzEWRUQjhJdHDCC85NTobY6dbL7T~haWo0~TPXkGSdgTPJKQ3CwAxa1M0kVAQ0cACW-ndsy869Z-fJ6dSfO5-sIu73vpFPjvtWss3h~1qsNswvOnqSQk1j2x8VefwMCxWJVQbIPTwZWUEl3WW1hHbRNyhevrhRui9sIYtWpMD2cMdk9paygOP6ANrpZikXUzAPRiltPhnCe5sTayqaskCMMH-XEjzqteCK~G1Xm3CkC4LutxPMSJ~VLs9Y-1fMNextEowMHLwgo~ery5N8azzKOPno0M5LF-Os4fsJCIp4wyqv3Q5rZyQt~uPP9Jlqxbb1NYaltbLRvOv0kg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Saratoga","date","2025-02-13T00:00:00Z","article","The Saratoga Springs Planning Board on Feb. 13 gave a positive advisory recommendation to the City Council on a proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) at 110–114 Nelson Ave and simultaneously issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR), with the board recording concerns the council should consider before adoption.

The applicant proposes a 1.86‑acre PUD with 15 dwelling units: eight single‑family houses, three one‑bedroom guest cottages (counted as dwelling units under City code), and a four‑unit multifamily building, plus about 44 parking spaces and a small seasonal, pedestrian‑oriented commercial space near the track. The plan parcels most residential and retail activity toward Marion/Nelson, retains single‑family‑scale houses along Nelson, and places the larger multi‑unit building at the rear adjacent to the Saratoga Race Course.

At the meeting applicant representatives said the project seeks the UDO PUD density bonus (20%) and proposes 15 units in total, within the 20% allowance over the UDO maximum. The planning board discussed code variances and design details including front setbacks, internal parking layout, pervious pavement, phasing of a proposed off‑site public parking improvement (rec center lot) and whether proposed uses should return to the board via special use permits.

Concerns and recommended conditions: Board members praised the design intent but asked the City Council to consider the following items in any PUD adoption:

- Street‑view and historic concerns: Several members asked the council to scrutinize a proposed 55‑foot maximum height for the multi‑unit building because it is higher than the UDO’s 40‑foot standard in the zone and could set precedent near the historic Saratoga Race Course. The board asked the council to request a 360‑degree street‑view analysis and SHPO review of the building’s visual relationship to the track. Applicant materials note SHPO correspondence in the file; the applicant agreed to provide additional visual studies.

- Parking exceedance: Under UR‑2 calculations the site would normally require roughly 30 spaces (15 units × 2), plus allowances, and a 20% bonus would give 36 spaces; the applicant proposes 44. The board asked the City Council to evaluate whether the PUD should approve the larger parking footprint or require a reduction and suggested the council consider allowing some shared or flexible parking approaches instead of fixed assignment.

- Offer/HOA restrictions on rentals: The board recommended the applicant’s offering plan explicitly prohibit separate short‑term rentals of the guest cottages (the board asked that guest cottages not be separately leased as transient rentals).

- Sidewalk, connectivity and public benefits: The board asked that pedestrian connections be studied and that the applicant coordinate on off‑site pedestrian improvements. The council and applicant previously discussed an applicant contribution toward expanded parking at the nearby recreation center; the board noted that the city/council arrangements on that related amenity are outside the planning board’s advisory scope.

Motion and SEQR action: A member moved a positive recommendation to City Council with the items above for council consideration; another member seconded and the board adopted the motion (voice vote recorded as \"aye,\" motion carries). Later in the meeting the board reviewed the SEQR Part 2 and motions and issued a negative declaration under SEQR for the PUD; the board recorded that it would send its advisory recommendation and the SEQR determination to the City Council. The planning board also noted that site plan review, architectural and detailed stormwater/parking engineering would return to the planning board as part of subsequent reviews.

Next steps: The board will forward the advisory recommendation and SEQR negative declaration to the City Council. The project will still require final legislative action by council (PUD adoption), and the applicant must complete site plan and design review, provide final SHPO coordination, and resolve parking/street‑view details during site plan review.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Saratoga - Planning Board - Feb 13, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Saratoga Springs Planning Board voted Feb. 13 to recommend approval of a 15‑unit Planned Unit Development at 110–114 Nelson Ave and issued a SEQR negative declaration, while asking the City Council to consider conditions on height, parking and protections for the nearby historic race course.","taxTitle","Saratoga Springs City, Saratoga County, New York","taxId",7807,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6677060,"Planning board reopens then tables 16 Marion Ave subdivision after neighbor raises parking, notice concerns",1418,41000,1459000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2312600-72f7860f250ff68c407d16c76d436a1d&start=41&end=1459","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2312600-72f7860f250ff68c407d16c76d436a1d/thumbnail_41000.jpg","/articles/6677060/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Planning-board-reopens-then-tables-16-Marion-Ave-subdivision-after-neighbor-raises-parking-notice-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6677060-d63259b02d3425fa131b48d551bf52d5/orig.mp4?Expires=1777425161&Signature=HtaVtZ4y-DWkPuO9PaSYxsfn9E0sbQUwid3a6EjYLafMX8u-evce4mjcHwIyuHLKSUst1LGYUvgE6swB1ZW4FokUNIzvBGU3FNKETJeAWQucMf7DMH4ACB0-8IoCeM1sVGzeG-kBRJJDoUphHiAMm~JrRa3eP-YLtXrrfE9FJJ5KEUDq~V7-oTFmtCTNBsCIePpGfXlzp~Bya1xfLIQkizILwL-ghiGSGX5vRN8-HvERHkdNOfrYXw-GWze~tS1-qwJEPUKWQSeKRyT7TLtvJ1cMaO5vNA~7MP91bkCwhF6Jb2GExYbNhdGG96ebjhcXAFptdJgQs94Ydl6MwdraJQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs Planning Board reopened public comment on a consent item for a proposed subdivision at 16 Marion Ave on Feb. 13 after a neighbor raised questions about notice and parking. The board left the public hearing open and voted to table the application so the applicant could attend a future meeting and address concerns.

The item had been listed on the consent agenda but was returned to the regular agenda because a required sign posting at the property was not completed before the board’s previous action, planning staff said. Neighbor Deb Lacombe told the board she had not been able to access application links and raised questions about whether the subdivision eliminated informal on‑street parking in front of a preexisting two‑family building at Lot 1. \"There was 2 spaces out in front of the apartment building... if you build a sidewalk and everything, then you can't do that anymore,\" Lacombe said, summarizing the neighborhood concern about the loss of informal curbside spaces.

Planning staff explained the site was a legal nonconforming two‑family and that the subdivision would create separate lots; the board does not decide whether an existing use is lawful — that determination rests with code enforcement — but the planning board can consider whether the proposed subdivision triggers parking or other site‑design concerns. Staff said the legal ad and neighbor notices had been sent; the property sign had been posted only after the prior meeting, which is why the board reopened the item.

Board members repeatedly said they preferred having the applicant present for substantive discussion. After public comment, a motion to table the application was made and the board left the public hearing open. No formal vote counts were recorded in the planning board minutes for the tabling motion; the board announced the application would return once the applicant was present to respond to comments about parking layouts and notification.

The board advised staff to notify the applicant that the board reopens the public hearing and expects the applicant to address the parking configuration (including whether required off‑street spaces will be provided) and to provide any documentation that had not been accessible online.

The board moved on to later agenda items after tabling the Marion Ave application. The public hearing remains open and the record shows that the earlier approval is being treated as a nullity until the board acts again with full procedure satisfied.

A return date for the item was not set at the meeting.","Saratoga Springs Planning Board reopened public comment on a consent item for a two‑lot subdivision at 16 Marion Ave after a neighbor said notice and parking questions remained. The board left the public hearing open and unanimously tabled the item until the applicant can appear and address parking and notification issues.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6677050,"Planning board continues SEQR review of Stewart’s Marion/Mapledale proposals; requests site‑specific stormwater and pedestrian/crosswalk analysis",6786,1810000,8596000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2312600-72f7860f250ff68c407d16c76d436a1d&start=1810&end=8596","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2312600-72f7860f250ff68c407d16c76d436a1d/thumbnail_1810000.jpg","/articles/6677050/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Planning-board-continues-SEQR-review-of-Stewarts-MarionMapledale-proposals-requests-sitespecific-stormwater-and-pedestriancrosswalk-analysis","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6677050-dc98ba2fe38cc9302342d1e90dd06a95/orig.mp4?Expires=1777425161&Signature=gE9a00-kE37Yb44Ur9P5MhjrfJ9M2DwCUAri1QNnzKpLgdrnJwlXv89iDWETwrmnIieBYybp6Khc2PvoXHJK2iulCSrjXkEC40uT3BELfSg~oh46oluC7W8dOVHsjwkX9h4pVvpvsMklLcqjxGqkvUUzUObGQTa-HVcq2XYoShTw9-aqCEj5K1p5B95UUPTEKKej3qWwr6MhAMMCEqnaMmAVmZsu1E5vj4g~k19AYRfAy8upIe1zaQhIpb3fifgQtvoqZ6ZTwjRzHecyQFMdOTh8sy~yhfqLRxrlNFJ8uf5SnmdMdK0PBBwagbOrghheG0jSzdSOqPIg7XfSLWlmRA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs Planning Board on Feb. 13 heard a detailed update from Stewart’s representatives and their consultants on linked redevelopment applications for properties on Marion Ave and Mapledale (two noncontiguous parcels). The board did not close SEQR review; instead members requested additional, site‑specific documents and said they would prepare a Part 3 SEQR memo for further consideration.

Applicant presentation and changes: Libby Clark (counsel) and Stewart’s engineers explained that the current filing removes the previously discussed car wash use and reconfigures retail and professional uses so retail functions concentrate on Marion Ave, with office/professional use to be located on Mapledale. The applicant provided an updated traffic letter from CME and an updated environmental assessment showing that, in the applicant’s analysis, shifting retail access to Marion Ave will reduce AM‑peak stacking at the critical Maple Dell/Route 9 approach.

Public concerns and board requests: Neighbors raised questions about notice and long‑standing nonconforming uses (including whether a gasoline/service station that predated current zoning is a lawful nonconforming use and what happens if it is rebuilt or expanded). Planning staff said zoning and variance questions are within the Zoning Board of Appeals’ (ZBA) purview; the planning board’s responsibility for SEQR is to identify environmental issues that require mitigation or further study.

The board focused on two issues it wants resolved before concluding SEQR:

- Surface‑water/contaminant containment: Several members asked for a site‑specific spill prevention, control, and countermeasure explanation tied to the SWIP (stormwater pollution prevention) and the applicant’s petroleum‑bulk‑storage regulatory controls. Board members stressed passive containment and engineered on‑site measures (detention, separators, and design that prevents contaminated runoff from reaching Loughberry Lake or downstream receptors). Planning staff noted prior submittals and state petroleum bulk storage references in the record but the board asked that the applicant explicitly demonstrate how worst‑case delivery or spill scenarios would be contained on site.

- Pedestrian safety and trip distribution: Members and neighbors said the traffic/ trip documentation should show existing and proposed trip distribution and consider pedestrian crossings where retail is concentrated on Marion Ave. The board referenced an NYS DOT comment recommending a marked crossing and asked the applicant to produce an updated circulation/trip‑distribution analysis and to coordinate any crosswalk or signalized pedestrian improvements with DOT.

Next steps and timing: The board asked the applicant to provide a site‑specific SWIP that demonstrates containment capacity for potential petroleum releases and an updated traffic/trip distribution memo that includes pedestrian crossing treatments (and DOT coordination). The board said, once those materials are in the record, staff will draft a Part 3 SEQR memorandum that documents mitigation and justification and return to the board for action; the board did not vote on SEQR at the Feb. 13 meeting. The zoning/variance questions for the gas station and other relief will proceed before the Zoning Board of Appeals as needed.","The board reviewed linked Stewart’s applications for Marion Ave and Mapledale properties, accepted updated traffic and environmental information, and asked the applicant for a site‑specific stormwater (SWIP) plan addressing petroleum spill contingencies plus a pedestrian circulation/trip‑distribution analysis before concluding SEQR Part 2.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning board sends positive advisory on Nelson PUD to City Council, issues SEQR negative declaration with conditions

Planning board reopens then tables 16 Marion Ave subdivision after neighbor raises parking, notice concerns

Planning board continues SEQR review of Stewart’s Marion/Mapledale proposals; requests site‑specific stormwater and pedestrian/crosswalk analysis