Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Infill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board presses applicant to deepen porch, move garage back on Middle Avenue infill
Summary
Saratoga Springs Planning Board reviewed a proposed redesign for a small infill home at 131 Middle Avenue, asking the applicant to enlarge the front porch and push the garage rearward to avoid cars overhanging the sidewalk and to better match neighborhood frontage.
Saratoga Springs Planning Board Chair Mark Pingle and members on June 12 asked the applicant for a redesign of a single-family house at 131 Middle Avenue to deepen the front porch and push the garage further back so a parked vehicle would not overhang the sidewalk.
The board heard a presentation from Jesse Boucher of Kodiak Construction, who said he represents homeowners Mike and Kim Southern and that the current plan is a revised design to respond to earlier board feedback. "We redesigned the house, pulling the living space forward ... the house has been brought forward so it is now 11 foot 1 inches from the front property line," Boucher told the board, and he noted the revised garage width at "21 foot 6 inches wide, less than the maximum 24 foot that is permitted" under the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
Board members said the revision improved compatibility with the streetscape but remained concerned that the driveway length between the garage door and the sidewalk (reported by staff as about 15 feet to the property line and 11.1 feet from the sidewalk to the front step) was too short to allow a car to park entirely off the sidewalk. Planning Board member Tony Stellato and others said vehicles would likely sit partially on the sidewalk unless the garage was pushed rearward or the porch depth increased.
"I'm, with the overall approach ... I'm satisfied with this current design," said Planning Board member Bill McTighe, while others urged that the board press the applicant to exhaust alternatives. Member Gary (surname not specified in transcript) and Member Jen Johnson proposed design workarounds: Johnson suggested a tandem garage (two cars in a row) and others discussed side- or rear-loaded garages or modest additional setbacks.
Board members and staff reviewed the relevant UDO frontage requirement the original subdivision approval included, which the applicant had sought to satisfy: "structures shall be constructed to build to frontage consistent with existing homes to either side, approximately 10 feet from the front property line," planning staff noted. Boucher and staff also discussed the project's 2017 approvals and a 2021 building permit that had been issued but not used because of later economic and builder changes.
After extended discussion the board coalesced around a specific set of revisions to bring back: enlarge the front porch depth so that developers can create a minimum of roughly 18 feet between the garage door and the sidewalk (staff and board calculations indicated the current design yields about 11–15 feet depending on measurement method), and shift the house rearward by the same depth so the recessed garage sits farther from the sidewalk. The board agreed to leave curb-cut width and driveway design to a later, more focused submittal.
The board did not take a formal vote to approve the current plan. Chair Pingle summarized the outcome as a direction to the applicant to return with a revised site plan reflecting the deeper porch, a pushed-back garage, and details clarifying driveway curb-cut width, tree-protection notes, and how the design will comply with the UDO garage-width limits. Boucher said he would make the updates requested and return for a shorter discussion at a future meeting.
Board members also highlighted other practical concerns raised during discussion: ensuring on-site mobility accommodations given the homeowners' health needs, clarifying whether shared driveway easements exist with the neighbor to the east (the applicant indicated there is no recorded shared easement), and how snow removal and ramp options could be used to address mobility without moving the garage entirely to the rear.
The board requested that the applicant provide a revised site plan showing the porch and house shifted back by the proposed dimension, any corresponding variance or zoning-board application needed if that change would affect rear-setback compliance, and a clear drawing showing driveway length and where cars would sit relative to the public sidewalk. The board also asked planning staff to confirm how the city measures the 10-foot build-to frontage in older properties (staff noted the building-department measures from the front steps).
