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

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.