1451 ROUTE 5O
STEVENSON PARCEL SITE PLAN
SLB # 228.5-1-38
Note that this project is another in which planning board member Laura Muschott and the Planning Board Chair John Van Vorst will need to recuse themselves for conflict of interest.
Courtesy of the same builder that brought you this (see photo below) building right on the edge of Route 50 across the way from Tomaselli Court.
 |
| Just south of 1451 Route 50 |
Their next project in town will start by demolishing the home at 1451 Route 50 and then erect 16 condominiums, a parking garage and some more pavement.
1451 Route 50 property size is 1.18 acres. This is only 51,247 square feet which is planned to have 16 condominium units and parking garage on it. It is currently zoned Hamlet Residential District.
The applicant for the project, Mourningkill Properties, LLC, is currently developing the two properties located directly to the south on Route 50.
This project will impact the Town of Ballston and is within proximity of homes on the following roads:
1400 block of Route 50/ Saratoga Road
Autumn Lane
Cindy Lane
Covered Wagon Court
Harold Street
Moonlight Drive
North Avenue
Pine Grove Avenue
Reita Street
Robert Drive
Springwood Meadows Drive
Sunset Avenue
Tomaselli Court
Tomaselli Court
Based on the papers filed with the Town of Ballston, they plan to demolish the home on the property and construct two 8-unit condominium buildings and one 12-stall garage. The condominium buildings will be a two-story design and the garage will be a single-story building.
 |
| Home at 1451 Route 50 |
The builder is claiming these 16 condos are in line with the Town's Comprehensive Plan by offering opportunities to vary the style and price of housing, developing in close proximity to services, installing a sidewalk on Route 50 to promote walkability, creating an appropriate transitional land use between the mixed-use development to the south and the single family detached housing to the north, and considering infill development and redevelopment activities instead of developing on green fields.
 |
| Site Plan Map of 1451 Route 50 |
The proposed condos will have an estimated total use of 3,200 gallons of Town of Ballston water per day as well as making an extension to the Saratoga County sewer main to provide sewer service to each of the individual buildings.
On May 29th Lansing Engineering presented a site plan to the Town of Ballston Planning Board. The Planning Board made the following comments at the presentation:
Dalia Garcia, Planner, noted that per CT male a 10 foot setback is needed, and the site rule is 12 units per acre, therefore a maximum of 14 units is allowed, not 16 as proposed.
Ms. Mathias noted that question #14 of the analysis was not answered.
Mr. Shorey noted that the site statistics contain an error, saying 1.19 acres but should be 1.18.
Mr. Dipasquale noted that it should be clarified that the parking in the garage and the open space directly behind it are both for the same unit.
Ms. Mathias noted the following: 1) there should be something proposed to extend the sidewalk for the safety of the residents in answer to the lack of connectivity and grading issues, 2) snow removal on the south side needs to be addressed, and 3) screening on the north side, discussed last October, needs to be addressed, and 4) the County requirement of a maximum of 14 units needs to be addressed.
After the presentation, a public hearing was held (May 29, 2019). The following comments were made:
Fred Whittredge, 2nd property to the north of the site asked if the driveway would be angled in to the site, asked if the building in the front was going to be far enough back. He spoke for his neighbor who is the person who lives next to the north side and said that nothing short of a 10 foot wooden solid fence with vegetation will be acceptable to him, and that “some time” would not be good enough for when to address the concern. He asked, “Is there no way to slow down apartments and condominiums? I’ve been watching it grow and grow.”
Peter Solberg, Charlton Rd noted he was on the PB when this project was initially proposed and had the following concerns:
1. Setbacks – if under 5 feet, no windows are allowed and therefore no egress, and would not meet the fire code
2. Emergency vehicles do not have access to the back of the front building – perhaps it could be made smaller
3. Much impervious surface and excessive storm water runoff
4. No screen on the north side driveway
5. Fire hydrants are not noted on the plan
6. Crosswalks should be considered
7. How will the rest of the area be accessed?
8. There are a lot of apartments – the PB might consider asking the developer to think about funds toward a crosswalk, as the taxpayers would need to pay for it if DOT doesn’t
9. Handicap ramps should be provided, but based on the plan this doesn’t look feasible
Frank Rossi Jr. – Saratoga Avenue stated the questions regarding connectivity, roads, etc are being addressed by the Church Avenue crosswalk going in as part of the Hannaford project and shouldn’t be thrown in to this project discussion.
· Scott Lansing addressed the concerns raised:
· The driveway lines up with driveway across the street.
· The front building location is 80 feet back from the road.
· He will work with the PB on the specifics for a high fence on the northern boundary.
· The site is fire code compliant – 70 feet in and 70 feet over, with sprinklers, more than adequate overlap
· Storm water solution will be addressed in the final proposal
· A hydrant will be addressed.
· ADA accessibility will be addressed with signage/markings.
Mr. Maher noted that this is currently a preliminary concept design, just as a reminder and not to discount any comments made during the public hearing.
Ms. Mathias noted the privacy on the northern end is important, as is meeting the maximum number of units and storm water mitigation.
Dalia Garcia, Planner, noted that per CT male a 10 foot setback is needed, and the site rule is 12 units per acre, therefore a maximum of 14 units is allowed, not 16 as proposed.
Ms. Mathias noted that question #14 of the analysis was not answered.
Mr. Shorey noted that the site statistics contain an error, saying 1.19 acres but should be 1.18.
Mr. Dipasquale noted that it should be clarified that the parking in the garage and the open space directly behind it are both for the same unit.
Ms. Mathias noted the following: 1) there should be something proposed to extend the sidewalk for the safety of the residents in answer to the lack of connectivity and grading issues, 2) snow removal on the south side needs to be addressed, and 3) screening on the north side, discussed last October, needs to be addressed, and 4) the County requirement of a maximum of 14 units needs to be addressed.
After the presentation, a public hearing was held (May 29, 2019). The following comments were made:
Fred Whittredge, 2nd property to the north of the site asked if the driveway would be angled in to the site, asked if the building in the front was going to be far enough back. He spoke for his neighbor who is the person who lives next to the north side and said that nothing short of a 10 foot wooden solid fence with vegetation will be acceptable to him, and that “some time” would not be good enough for when to address the concern. He asked, “Is there no way to slow down apartments and condominiums? I’ve been watching it grow and grow.”
Peter Solberg, Charlton Rd noted he was on the PB when this project was initially proposed and had the following concerns:
1. Setbacks – if under 5 feet, no windows are allowed and therefore no egress, and would not meet the fire code
2. Emergency vehicles do not have access to the back of the front building – perhaps it could be made smaller
3. Much impervious surface and excessive storm water runoff
4. No screen on the north side driveway
5. Fire hydrants are not noted on the plan
6. Crosswalks should be considered
7. How will the rest of the area be accessed?
8. There are a lot of apartments – the PB might consider asking the developer to think about funds toward a crosswalk, as the taxpayers would need to pay for it if DOT doesn’t
9. Handicap ramps should be provided, but based on the plan this doesn’t look feasible
Frank Rossi Jr. – Saratoga Avenue stated the questions regarding connectivity, roads, etc are being addressed by the Church Avenue crosswalk going in as part of the Hannaford project and shouldn’t be thrown in to this project discussion.
· Scott Lansing addressed the concerns raised:
· The driveway lines up with driveway across the street.
· The front building location is 80 feet back from the road.
· He will work with the PB on the specifics for a high fence on the northern boundary.
· The site is fire code compliant – 70 feet in and 70 feet over, with sprinklers, more than adequate overlap
· Storm water solution will be addressed in the final proposal
· A hydrant will be addressed.
· ADA accessibility will be addressed with signage/markings.
Mr. Maher noted that this is currently a preliminary concept design, just as a reminder and not to discount any comments made during the public hearing.
Ms. Mathias noted the privacy on the northern end is important, as is meeting the maximum number of units and storm water mitigation.
Mr. Dipasquale requested additional information in the next meeting with a proposal from Mr. Lansing and to see what the neighbor’s input is, the one who lives on the northern boundary.
A motion was made to table. A preliminary plan will be brought to a future meeting.
A motion was made to table. A preliminary plan will be brought to a future meeting.
This will be on the Planning Board Agenda again for August 28th at 7:30pm with public comments open. BNU encourages residents to attend and let their voice be heard.
No comments:
Post a Comment