Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board signals support for 40-space plan for new UU congregation, waiver required
Summary
The Saratoga Springs Planning Board directed the applicant for a proposed Unitarian Universalist church to return with revised site plans showing 40 parking spaces (down from the 65 in the special-use permit) and noted a planning-board waiver will be required for spaces exceeding the UDO minimum.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Saratoga Springs Planning Board on Oct. 24 told the applicant for a proposed Unitarian Universalist congregation to revise its site plan to a preferred layout with 40 parking spaces and return to the board for an official site-plan vote. Chair Chuck Marshall said the earlier special-use permit and its SEQR/negative determination remain in effect but that the site plan must be consistent with those approvals.
Jeff Anthony of Studio A Landscape Architects and Engineers presented attendance data and design changes, saying the congregation’s 2024 average attendance is 77 and the peak is about 100. "As of 2024, their average attendance is 77 across the course of a year," Anthony said, and the applicant withdrew a prior 5% growth assumption used to justify 65 spaces. The applicant removed the 25 future spaces previously shown and eliminated a dedicated exit lane to reduce paving and tree removal.
Planning staff reminded the board that the city’s Unified Development Ordinance establishes a baseline parking requirement and that a planning-board waiver is needed for spaces above 120% of the minimum. Staff noted the submitted special-use permit was originally based on 65 spaces; the board’s direction was to proceed with a plan reflecting 40 spaces and to expect a waiver application at the formal site-plan submission. Chair Marshall summarized that the likely next step would be revised engineering drawings and an action vote at a subsequent meeting.
The board did not take a final vote on site-plan approval on Oct. 24; members framed their comments as guidance and directed the applicant to respond to engineering comments and supply final drawings before any approval.
