Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20181047 EP Special use permit Revised Plans The LA GROUP Landscape Architecture&Engineering P.0 People.Purpose.Place. 40 Long Alley Saratoga Springs NY 12866 p:518-587-8100 f 518-587-0180 a vv Uv.thelagroup.com May 18, 2020 Ms. Susan Barden, Principal Planner City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board 15 Vanderbilt Avenue (Recreation Center) Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 RE: Excelsior Avenue Special Use Permit City Project No. 18.056 Dear Ms. Barden: The original application for this project was made on November 9, 2017 and the project team presented the proposal to the Planning Board on February 1, 2018. At this time requests were made to provide a document which would compare the original Statement of Findings from 2002 with the current application and provide a comparison to the Board and Planning Staff to clarify the SEQRA review process. After several meetings and conversations with the Planning Staff and City Attorney, the requested documentation was submitted on October 16, 2018. The City then engaged the Chazen Companies to review the proposal and a comment letter was submitted to Bradley Birge on February 26, 2019. After reviewing the contents of the letter, we had additional meetings with Staff and one meeting with representatives of Chazen to clarify the scope of the comments and the expected detail of the responses. This was due to the changes in the background and culture of Saratoga Springs between 2002 and now. The attached documents represent the project teams response to comments received over the past couple years. We look forward to restarting the review process presenting this project to the Planning Board in the near future. Best Regards and Good Health, Atel /A/ David R. Carr, Jr., RLA, ASLA Associate Principal dcarr(a�thelagroup.com 11 GPIEngineering I Design I Planning I Construction Management April, 29, 2020 Mr. John Witt Witt Construction Inc. 563 North Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12966 RE: Excelsior Park Trip Generation Update and Special Use Permit Evaluation (revised) Saratoga Springs, New York; GPI project# ALB 2017119.00 Dear Mr. Witt: Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. (GPI) has reviewed the current proposed site plan for the build out of Excelsior Park (dated 02/06/2020) prepared by the LA Group to estimate traffic generating potential of the land use being proposed. These trip generation estimates were then compared to the traffic mitigation thresholds as contained in the Special Use Permit was granted by the City of Saratoga Springs for this project in October 2002. Currently, Excelsior Park Phase I has been constructed and Phase II has been approved and is under construction. With Phase I and Phase II the site will contain a 100room extended stay hotel and 160 residential housing units (a mix of single family, condominiums, townhomes, and apartments). The LA Group plan is proposing 179 residential units however 155 is being utilized as a worst case scenario, maximizing the commercial space in the mixed-use building. A copy of the current Site Plan is attached for reference. For the trip generation assessment, the new development on-site was broken down into three separate areas that could be constructed all at once or in phases. These areas, which are graphically depicted in Figure 1 on the next page include the following proposed land uses: Area "A" Area "B" Area "C" 63 Townhomes 10 Townhomes 60 Room Hotel, which includes all 23 Apartments (includes 9 59 Apartments amenities (restaurant, spa, etc.) short-term guest rooms) 36,200 SF Commercial* 1,400 SF Commercial* * Since the exact breakdown of the commercial development areas is not yet known, trip generation will be estimated for these areas using the Shopping Center land use data. In addition to these areas, the site contains a fourth area, which is the already constructed and previously approved development from Phases I and II of the site construction. The trips generated by this previously approved land uses will be added to the trips estimated for each of the new development areas noted above to estimate the trip generation potential for the build out of the site. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. 80 Wolf Road, Suite 300 Albany, NY 12205 p 518-453-9431 An Equal Opportunity Employer $a� ' r ,L, — I ji' ' 1-I„11 [f _, ..„_,_ __ 2 I :-- 1 lira' JU li I Iff MEM 6 ( / 00°9 — 1 L' C' , ,.... \p , i igh. o¢ m Ill411 ■ ,,.i.:., 8 IND. ‘1\ (-) *1! 1 �_ JI \� liar sIH1r1IrI 111-.1 1o ,.,1 >lli 1 . 3 lair 1-1 J Ii 111111.1 J :I°1. .___: re ) le, , 1, ..-- ,,_:,1; _ __,„ ilt111,.„_J C I '' D I- 0 EXCEL AVENUE : i......... rl �f \\ Iii . , Jr :_TJi'iui ■ ' aw�� ii `t /1 .. 4 i,---: :,,,) . il M I i la i 1 in117Miiii M:: :Mil i / pW¢1y, i I1i1ii 11 [1 o-§8 .• .LI I ■Ire , • I ./V ■ ■ �; — .0 1 t_ 1�1��IW „______ , ...Nos., Ii –A—J=1- III �/, , I g vi yin wr !) � • ...,- ______.7 1,.., Irvn\,9�u' � �iis i li ./ \ I 0_ � uJ�w A .z�pla \\ r — --c- _),, ,,,<te "Afar -� / I l F_, \,� / \ wo .� _ — �� I \W. .6, a1 � - {L 2 S 111 It / z \ co+ 11 t •/ . 4 w �1 \ • w 0 Z ¢ ■ !LI OOYv�i 6C7 w. \Uom 7a? ]..- \ J� W� O 411 ZO IM a • OJ w O F a U �(//�Uo a ` C¢7 1 \ wo zw \ L, SCC 1 O U 0¢ I U< or rt N. I FIGURE 1 - PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT WITH DEVELOPMENT AREAS DEFINED FOR STUDY PURPOSES Page 2 GPI Existing Site Traffic As part of a previous study GPI performed for this site, Traffic counters were placed along the site access road from May 7 to May 15, 2015 to determine the existing trip generation of the site with Phase I development in place. Additionally, the trip generation potential of Phase II site development was detailed in a June 10, 2015 Traffic Generation Analysis letter. These volumes, as detailed in the previous study, will be used as the existing condition base for the overall trip generation of the site in all development scenarios presented. These existing site trips are as shown in Table 1 below. TABLE 1 — EXISTING SITE TRIPS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Development Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Phase I Development 13 26 39 27 26 53 Phase II Development 13 55 68 59 31 90 Total Existing and/or 26 81 107 86 57 143 Approved Site Trips Trip Generation Estimates of Current Proposal The current standard for estimating trips being generated by a particular development is the Trip Generation Manual, 10th edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). This publication offers average rates and equations based on hundreds of case studies to estimate the trip generation potential of various land uses. For the purpose of this assessment, Land Use Code (LUC) 220 "Multi-Family Housing — Low Rise" was used to estimate the trip generation potential of the apartments and townhomes; LUC 310 "Hotel" was used for the hotel; and LUC 820 "Shopping Center" was used for the commercial development areas. For this analysis the following is noted: • The spa, restaurant, community space, meeting rooms and other amenities included in the proposed hotel are all considered within the LUC 310 land use and are not estimated separately. • Area "A" includes nine short-term guest room units. There is no land use code for these type rooms, so LUC 220 was used to approximate the trip generation potential of these units. • The commercial space could encompass a multitude of land uses such as restaurants, specialty shops, banks, retail stores, office space, etc., but this has not yet been defined. As such, it is being estimated under the catch-all land use for commercial development, Shopping Center (LUC 820), which by definition may include any or all of these individual land uses. • Additionally, the estimated ratio of commercial space versus apartments in the mixed use buildings has been skewed to maximize the commercial land use, which provides the most conservative or "worst case" estimate of trip generation. Table 2 on the next page summarizes the trip generation potential for each of the future development areas. It should be noted that Table 2 represents the Gross number of trips before Page 3 GPI any adjustments are made to account for trips that remain internal to the site. As discussed in ITE's Trip Generation Handbook, development with multiple land uses will tend to capture some trips internal to the site, where one user may visit 2 or more of the land uses within. The handbook defines a procedure to estimate the number of trips internally captured based on the land uses and their sizes on site. Using these procedures, internal capture rate percentages were calculated for each of the development scenarios. These percentages and the resulting number of trips, which will be subtracted from the trip generation totals to define the number of trips external to the site, are shown in Table 3. TABLE 2 — NEW DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Development Scenario Size Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Total Current Site Trips 26 81 107 86 57 143 Proposed Development Area "A" LUC 220 Multi-Family Housing 86 Units 9 32 41 33 19 52 LUC 820 Shopping Center 1.4 kSF 1 0 1 2 3 5 Total Area "A"Trip Generation 10 32 42 35 22 57 Proposed Development Area "B" LUC 220 Multi-Family Housing 69 Units 8 26 34 26 16 42 LUC 820 Shopping Center 36.2 kSF 21 13 34 66 72 138 Total Area "B"Trip Generation 29 39 68 92 88 180 Proposed Development Area "C" LUC 310 Hotel 60 Rooms 17 11 28 18 18 36 Total Area "C"Trip Generation 17 11 28 18 18 36 Total New Development Trip Generation 56 82 138 145 128 273 TABLE 3 — INTERNAL CAPTURE TRIPS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Development Scenario Size Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Internal Trip Credit with Area "A"Only (AM%/PM%) (0% /0%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal Trip Credit with Area "B"Only (AM%/PM%) (0% /15%) 0 0 0 -14 -13 -27 Internal Trip Credit with Area "C"Only (AM%/PM%) (0% /0%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal Trip Credit with Area "A-FB"Only (AM%/PM%) (2% /15%) -1 -1 -2 -19 -17 -36 Internal Trip Credit with Area "A-FC"Only (AM%/PM%) (0% /2%) 0 0 0 -1 -1 -2 Internal Trip Credit with Area "B-FC"Only (AM%/PM%) (2% /15%) -1 -1 -2 -17 -16 -33 Internal Trip Credit with all New Development (AM%/PM%) (2%/15%) -1 -2 -3 -22 -19 -41 Combining the existing site trips with the trip generation potential of the new development and subtracting the internally captured trips results in the number of new trips external to the site and distributed onto the roadway network. These external trips, which are the trips to be used when considering the improvement requirements of the special use permit, are included in Table 4. It should be noted that this table breaks down the potential new development into several scenarios to allow the design team flexibility in advancing the project, while still defining which of the special use permit improvements are triggered under each possible scenario. Page 4 GPI TABLE 4- ESTIMATED EXTERNAL (NEW) TRIPS FOR EXCELSIOR PARK DEVELOPMENT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Development Scenario Size Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Total External Site Trips with Only Area "A"Added to Existing 36 113 149 121 79 200 Total External Site Trips with Only Area "B"Added to Existing 55 120 175 164 132 296 Total External Site Trips with Only Area "C"Added to Existing 43 92 135 104 75 179 Total External Site Trips with Only Area "A+B"Added to Existing 64 151 215 194 150 344 Total External Site Trips with Only Area "A-FC"Added to Existing 53 124 177 138 96 234 Total External Site Trips with Only Area "B+C"Added to Existing 71 130 201 179 147 326 Total External Site Trips for Full Buildout 81 161 242 209 166 375 Special Use Permit Improvement Requirements The special use permit put in place when Excelsior Park was first approved by the City of Saratoga Springs in 2002 listed several requirements for roadway improvements that would be triggered as different trip generation thresholds were reached by Excelsior Park. Table 5 lists the improvement requirements of the special use permit, the trigger threshold and current status for each improvement and whether a particular improvement is warranted under each of the development scenarios. TABLE 5 -SPECIAL USE PERMIT TRAFFIC MITIGATION IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS Trigger Development Options-Improvement Triggered? Improvement Threshold Current Status Current A B C A+B A+C B+C Full Bld Installation of traffic signal at the 100 Already installed(sometime before IMPROVEMENT IN PLACE Excelsior Ave and East Ave intersection 2007) Extend westbound left turn lane from 100'to Lane is not yet extended. Requirement 200'at the Route 50&Gick Rd/Veterans Way 100 currently waived by Planning Board for Waived YES YES YES YES YES YES YES intersection Phase II development. Construct northbound right turn lane on 150 Lane has not yet been constructed. no YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Veterans Way at its intersection with Route 50 Stop signs already installed. Traffic calming measures at the Excelsior Springs Ave and Victoria Ln/Audrey Ln 200 Some curbing in place,but notfully. no YES YES no YES YES YES YES Crosswalk not yet striped. intersection Concrete pad not yet installed. Installation of a traffic signal at the 250 Currently configured as an All-Way Stop. no no YES no YES no YES YES Excelsior Ave and Marion Ave intersection Additional traffic analysis was conducted Follow-up traffic analysis,which may trigger after Phase II development at Veterans 250 no no YES no YES no YES YES modification to the mitigation requirements Way/ExcelsiorAve intersection and Route 50/Veterans Way Intersection. Intersection is currently Al I-Way Stop, Widen Veterans Way at ExcelisiorAve to 300 but lane widening has not yet been no no no no YES no YES YES provide a southbound right turn only lane done. In Phase II,construct paved ped./bike path 0 Completed YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES from projects main Street to Spring Run Trail Page 5 GPI Summary Upon full build out of the land uses presented in the 02/06/2020 LA Group site plan for Excelsior Park, it's estimated a total of a total of 375 PM peak hour trips would be generated. These 375 peak hour trips do meet volume thresholds for all the traffic mitigation requirements conditions listed in the 2002 special use permit. Given the time since the preparation of special use permit and the recent development in the corridor, it would seem to be appropriate to revisit the 2002 Special Use Permit to see if the traffic mitigation improvements listed are still applicable. If you have any questions or need additional information, please give us a call. Sincerely, GPI/Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. a -011-67a/ Michael R. Wieszchowski, P.E., PTOE Sr. Traffic Engineer Peter Faith, P.E. Vice President Encl. Cc: Dave Carr; LA Group Page 6 GPI The LA GROUP Landscape Architecture&Engineering P.C. People.Purpm.Plata, 40 Long Alley Saratoga Springs NY 12866 r 518-587-8100 f 518-587-0180 www.thelagroup.com LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL L atoga Springs Planning Office DATE: 05/19/2020 JOB NO.: 2016046 y Hall(Recreation Center) Vanderbilt Avenue ATTENTION: Susan Barden atoga Springs,NY 12866 RE:Excelsior Park Special Use Permit SENDING YOU • Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ SWPPP PIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 05/18/2020 Response Letter 04/29/2020 Revised Traffic Letter 02/07/2020 Revised Engineers Report 05/07/2020 Revised SEQRA Long Form 05/18/2020 Development Comparison Table 02/06/2020 Revised Plans 05/18/2020 Cover Letter 05/19/2020 Electronic copy of materials ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval For your records ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution As requested ❑ Return for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints For review and comments ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 20 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US KS: SIGNED: If enclosures are not as noted,kindly notify us at once. The LA GROUP Landscape Architecture&Engineering P People.Purpose.Place. 40 Long Alley Saratoga Springs NY 12866 p:518-587-8100 f 518-587-0180 a vv Uv.thelagroup.com May 18, 2020 Bradley Birge Administrator of Planning & Economic Development City of Saratoga Springs 15 Vanderbilt Avenue (Recreation Center) Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 RE: City Designated Planning Services for Excelsior Park SEQR Review 264 Excelsior Avenue, City of Saratoga Springs, Saratoga County, New York Dear Mr. Birge: The following responses are in response to the comment letter issued by The Chazen Companies, dated February 26, 2019. Pursuant to the receipt of the letter we met with representatives from Chazen, the City Attorney, Susan, and yourself to further clarify the detail required to adequately respond to the comments listed below. It should be noted that the plans have been adjusted slightly since the original application to respond to comments from staff and the Planning Board. The responses are as follows. Additional Information Needed to Complete Review Comment 1: The updated documents do not provide a breakdown, by square footage (SF), of the proposed non- residential uses,which is needed to accurately compare the previously approved and revised proposal. This information to confirm accuracy and consistency between the various documents. Response 1: The following uses are allowed with maximum square footages as indicated on sheet L-02; Office, Service Uses, Financial Institutions& Banks, Retail,and Eating &Drinking Establishments. Those uses could be located in the commercial and mixed-use buildings in phases A, F&G. Additional non-residential uses include Community Space(5,000 sf/Phase D), 6 Short Term Rental Units(Phase D) , Hotel Restaurant(15,000 sf/Phase H), Hotel Spa (14,000 sf/Phase H)and Hotel (60 Rooms/Phase H). The maximum total for all non-residential uses is 147,600 sf. Comment 2: Page 2 of the 2002 FEIS indicates that the 150,000 SF of non-residential uses proposed for Excelsior Park would be 6.36%of the Downtown Business District(DTBD) non-residential space. While the applicant has provided information on the amount of non-residential floor area now being proposed, background existing conditions in the DTBD have changed considerably since 2002. Please provide information on changes in the DTBD and how this, in combination with the revised proposal, affect the conclusions of the 2002 FEIS. Response 2: It is the Statement of Findings,adopted on October 12,2002 which operates as the findings and thresholds for the Project under the SEQRA regulations. Under Land Use and Community Character(Page 22),the Lead Agency's finding was that the Project represented 5% of the available commercial space of"the downtown zone" and it was determined,that due to the "potential"that the Project"may augment"the office and non-residential in that zone, mitigation measures were proposed. Mitigation measures on non-residential development included "the Retail at Excelsior Park is limited to certain convenience-type establishments no larger than 3,000 square feet intended to serve the employees and residents of the immediate neighborhood." lllllllum��,.,. However, it was specifically noted that"the potential effects that a proposed project may have in drawing customers and profits away from established enterprises or in reducing property values in a community may not be considered under SEQR. Potential economic disadvantage caused by competition or speculative economic losses are not environmental factors". However,the Planning Board, consistent with Saratoga Springs zoning,will consider this prior to issuing any Special Use Permit. Therefore,the Planning Board properly determined that economic competition with "downtown" was not an environmental impact as defined under SEQRA for consideration, but would be information considered by the Board under its Special Use Permit criteria,which is recited in the City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Code. During site plan review of any future development within the Project site,the applicant would necessarily discuss the 18 years of background development along the Route 50 corridor,the significant downtown urban infill with condominium development, and the adaptive reuse of many of the existing building stock. There is no question that Saratoga Springs has benefitted from a robust growth,as opposed to the"augmentation" that concerned the Board in 2002. Comment 3: The estimated completion year has changed significantly(from a 10-year buildout beginning in 2004, to a 10-year buildout beginning in 2018), which has implications on background growth and future conditions, as they relate to the various technical areas. Please provide additional documentation on the implications of this change, in combination with the revised proposal, on all EIS technical analyses. Response 3: On October 16,2018,the applicant submitted a letter and table of"changed conditions" to the City of Saratoga Springs. The table has been revised to match the adjusted plan. Comment 4: Please provide a general location map, as required per Section A of the EAF. Response 4: The Location map is located on the cover page of the plan set. Comment 5: Section D.1.e of the 2017 EAF indicates that Phase 1 of the revised proposal will begin construction in June 2018. Please update all documents and analyses, as needed, to reflect the delay in the start of construction. Response 5: The EAF has been adjusted to indicate a commencement date of June 2021 and a completion date of December 2031. Comment 6: Section D.1.g of the 2017 EAF indicates the dimensions of the largest proposed non-residential structure, in addition to the approximate extent of non-residential building space to be heated or cooled. As this information is not included on any of the other plans provided, please provide backup documentation. Response 6: The maximum square footage of the three commercial buildings is 110,500 square feet. The original total included the commercial square footage in the mixed-use buildings. The largest commercial building is the hotel. Comment 7: The values cited in Table E.1.b of the 2017 EAF for the following land uses/cover types cannot be confirmed with the documentation provided: forested; meadows, grasslands, or bushlands; agricultural; surface water features; wetlands; non-vegetated; and other. Please provide supporting documentation. Response 7: The existing survey was utilized to complete area take-offs Comment 8: Please advise how phases A through H in Drawing L-04 of the revised SUP site plans correlate with the numbered phases cited in the other documents. Response 8: The phases have not been numbered, only lettered. There are eight proposed phases; A—H. The proposed Special Use permit would allow them to be developed in any order based on market demand. Geological &Topographical Resources Comment 9: Please provide additional information on the status of the SWPPP for the revised project and advise if the measures incorporated into the SWPPP are consistent with those outlined on Page 11 of the 2002 Statement of Findings. Response 9: A SWPPP will be developed for each project meeting the most current general permit at the time of site plan approval for each individual project. The existing phased construction follows this procedure. Comment 10: Please provide further information to explain whether any updates are needed to the previous construction impact mitigation plan. Response 10: The originally approved construction impact mitigation plan can be provided with the proposed Special Use Permit if requested by the Planning Board. However, many of the requirements are required by the City and NYS DEC by local ordinance and the individual project SWPPP's Comment 11: Please provide further information to explain whether changes to the number of phases of construction affect the conclusions of the construction analyses, as summarized on Page 12 of the 2002 Statement of Findings. Response 11: Additional phases translate to smaller areas of impact and controlled development. Site Plan approval would be required with each phase as with the original project which will include detailed construction plans. Wetlands Comment 12: Section D.2.b indicates that the revised proposal will result in an encroachment into the area for NYSDEC S-16 and that this encroachment was previously permitted by NYSDEC. Please provide additional information on whether, compared to the previously approved proposal,the revised proposal results in any changes to the total encroachment area. Response 12: As stated there is no further encroachment into jurisdictional wetlands. Traffic Comment 13: Page 12 of the 2002 FEIS indicates that the traffic impact study takes into account the two projects that were approved at the time the study was prepared: the proposed expansion to"The Mill" complex located to the west on Excelsior Avenue and the conversion of the former CHP building to a boarding school.The document further indicates that traffic from these two sources were incorporated into the annual growth rate provided by NYSDOT and the Capital District Regional Planning Committee, and that these background growth rates are intended to account for other development expected to take place in the general area. Please provide additional documentation on (1) projects that have subsequently been approved; and (2)changes to background growth for the new 2028 analysis year, and the implication of these changes, in combination with the revised proposal, on the findings of the traffic impact study. Response 13: As discussed with the Planning Staff,the intent is to set up meeting with the staff of the appropriate departments; Planning and Public Safety,to determine the applicability of the original mitigation requirements with respect to the increase in background growth along with an increase in vehicle trips associated with this change and what adjustments may be required to the proposed mitigation. Comment 14: Section D.2.j.ii of the 2017 EAF indicates"Not applicable" in response to the questions about projected daily semi-trailer truck trips for commercial activities, but commercial activities are proposed. Please provide an estimate of the number of daily trick trips. Response 14: The estimated truck trips have been calculated by the traffic consultant based on the maximum build-out. Approximately 75 truck trips are proposed for a 24-hour period. The number has been added to the SEQRA form. Comment 15: Section D.2.j.iii of the 2017 EAF indicates 403 existing spaces, and 522 proposed spaces, for a net increase of 522 spaces. The increment should be updated to reflect the change from existing to proposed. In addition,the 522 proposed spaces cannot be confirmed based on the supplemental information provided. Please provide the relevant backup information to confirm the accuracy of this number. Response 15: The numbers have been revised to indicate the total spaces. The parking spaces are indicated on the masterplan and the breakdown is as follows; 247 surface parking space, 155 parking garage spaces, 113 townhouse garage spaces and 31 individual driveway spaces which totals 546 spaces. Comment 16: Table 4 does not provide a comparison between the total buildout trip generation for the revised proposal and the previously approved project's total buildout trip generation (as presented in the 2002 FEIS). Please provide further information to explain whether the additional trips associated with the revised proposal (above and beyond those projected for the previously approved project), in addition to changes in background and future conditions,would trigger the need to analyze any additional intersections,would result in any new impacts not identified in the 2002 FEIS,or require additional or different mitigation measures. Response 16: As discussed with the Planning Staff,the intent is to set up meeting with the staff of the appropriate departments; Planning and Public Safety,to determine the applicability of the original mitigation requirements and what adjustments may be required. Comment 17: The November 3, 2017 Transportation Study does not account for the 5,000-SF community building proposed (per the site plan). Please explain why this new land use is not accounted for in the report. Response 17: The community building is meant to serve the residents of the neighborhood and not create additional vehicle trips. Comment 18: Page 3 of the November 3, 2017 Transportation Study notes that the 9th edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual is used for trip generation, rather than the more recent 10th edition. Please confirm whether the trip generation rates for any of the proposed land uses have changed and update the analysis accordingly. Response 18: The 10th edition ITE trip Generation manual was utilized for the revised Transportation Study. Comment 19: Page 6 of the November 3, 2017 Transportation Study notes that"it would seem to be appropriate to revisit the 2002 Special Use Permit to see if the traffic mitigation improvements listed are still applicable." Please provide a status update on this work, as the revised proposal would generate more trips than the previously approved project and the report has already confirm that, at a minimum, all of the mitigation required for the previously approved project is needed. Response 19: As discussed with the Planning Staff,the intent is to set up meeting with the staff of the appropriate departments; Planning and Public Safety,to determine the applicability of the original mitigation requirements and what adjustments may be required. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Comment 20: Please provide additional information on how zoning has changed since the previously approved project and the implications of these changes, in combination with the revised proposal,on the findings of the EIS. Response 20: The current zoning for the Project is T-4 and T-5 zoning under the current Saratoga Springs Zoning Ordinance. The T-4 is intended "to accommodate development of neo- traditional neighborhoods with primarily residential uses incorporating a mix of unit types and small-scale commercial uses where appropriate." The T-5 zone is intended "to accommodate a wide variety of residential and non-residential uses, building and frontage types. This district also focuses on providing quality streetscape amenities and civic spaces to enhance pedestrian activity." It is the applicant's position that these zones encompass the original Project scope and uses and is not materially different from the Outer Excelsior Avenue District in place at the time of the Project's approval in 2002. In 2015,the City modified its Comprehensive Plan to include the Project site as "Community Mixed Use"which "designation includes areas of moderate density residential and community- supported commercial uses. These areas are characterized by mixed use neighborhoods that are walkable and connected to adjacent residential neighborhoods. Each area includes a variety of neighborhood-scale businesses and services that meets the needs of the surrounding community." The CMU designation is not materially different from the SDA designation which was part of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan when the Project was originally reviewed and approved. Land Use Comment 21: One of the land use mitigation measures cited on Page 24 of the 2002 Statement of Findings is limiting the hotel to 120 rooms. The revised proposal now proposed 160 rooms (100 already approved, plus 60 new hotel rooms). Please provide additional information on how the revised proposal affects this previous mitigation measure. Response 21: The allowable hotel use can be discussed with the Planning Board if there is a concern. Aesthetic Resources Comment 22: Please provide additional documentation on the implications of the revised proposal on the need for noise attenuation. Specifically, advise whether any new or additional buildings require noise attenuation and/or whether attenuation is no longer needed for any buildings that previously warranted such a measure. Response 22: Noise has been addressed by the project developers on an individual basis and not required on previous projects approved and constructed. The 100 foot no-cut buffer along the Northway will be retained and a large majority of the remaining residential uses are within the interior of the site. However, noise attenuating construction may be desired in the future. Comment 23: Please provide additional documentation on whether the revised proposal would result in any changes to building height or site plan that would affect the findings of the 2002 FEIS's visual resources analysis, and specifically the"Limits of Visibility" discussion cited on Page 25 of the 2002 Statement of Findings. Response 23: The proposed building locations closely match the locations and height of the original 2002 plan. No increased visual impacts are anticipated. Municipal Resources/Community Services Comment 24: Page 18 of the 2002 FEIS indicates that the City had a current(2002)Annual Daily Demand (ADD)of 4.32 Million Gallons per Day(MGD). Please provide updated information on the City's current ADD and provide additional information on the implications of this background conditions change, in combination with the revised demand estimate for the proposal, on the findings of the EIS. Response 24: The City's current ADD is 3.96 MGD as listed in the City's 2019 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report. The applicant will confirm with the City Department of Public Works that they have no issues with the projected demand for this project during the approval process. Comment 25: Page 19 of the 2002 FEIS indicates that the number of emergency calls that could be anticipated to be generated by the proposed development,which was reviewed and approved by DPW. Please indicate the number of emergency calls that could be anticipated under the revised proposal and provide additional documentation on the implications of this change on the findings of the EIS. Response 25: The Department of Public Safety will be contacted to determine if providing emergency services to this development is a concern. Comment 26: Section D.2.k.i estimates an annual electricity demand of 560,000 Kw. Please provide backup documentation substantiating this estimate. Response 26: The number has been revised and included in The SERA form. National Energy Commission reports were utilized to calculate energy consumption based on the maximum square footages of the uses. Comment 27: The November 9, 2017 Engineering Report indicates that the revised proposal would generate a total daily water demand of 107,734 gallons per day (gpd), compared to the 100,400 gpd cited on Page 26 of the 2002 Statement of Findings. Please provide additional documentation explaining whether this change will affect the conclusions of the FEIS. Response 27: The total daily water demand is 101,010 gallons per day with the revised project. The engineering report has been submitted to the City of Saratoga Springs Department of Public Works to determine any impacts on the existing systems. Comment 28: Page 27 of the 2002 Statement of Findings indicates that the previously approved project would impact school enrollment by less than 1%. Please provide an updated estimate of the impact of the revised proposal on school enrollment, in consideration of both the additional units being proposed and the changes in background existing and future conditions. Response 28: At the time of Project review and approval in 2002,the Saratoga Springs City School District had a combined enrollment of 6,905 students and the Findings indicated that number could increase as a result of the Project by less than 70 students (1%). Over the course of the last sixteen years,the total enrollment of the Saratoga Springs City School District has declined to a total June 2018 enrollment of 6,341 students (most current available data), representing a total decline in enrollment of 564 students. The Project currently proposes 100 additional residential units beyond the threshold set in the 2002 Statement of Findings which has a maximum impact of 0.30 students per new residential unit. The nine short term rental units have been removed since these will be offered to visitors of the community only. Applied to the residential units proposed,the impact would be a maximum of 102 students. When added to the current enrollment of 6,341,the total impact would be 6,443 which is below the impact threshold studied in 2002. Therefore,the impact to the Saratoga Springs City School District is less than the impact contemplated in 2002 and does not implicate an exceedance of the original SEQRA Findings.' Socio-Economic Setting Comment 29: Page 28 of the 2002 Statement of Findings indicates that"based on the results of the fiscal impact analysis,each of the project alternatives considered as projected to result in a net gain in revenues to the City." Please provide additional documentation that this statement is still correct, in consideration of both the additional units being proposed and the changes in background existing and future conditions. Response 29: The 2002 Statement of Findings made the fiscal impact determination based upon the following support: "The retail component of the project will be ancillary and is not expected to draw customers beyond the immediate area of the proposed project site. New residents and employees will increase overall spending. The Spring Run Trail connection to Excelsior Park will provide potential customers with a direct link to the downtown area, in particular during the summer months" (page 28). The retail component of the project remains ancillary even with the proposed changes and consumer spending will necessarily increase with new residents and employees. The Spring Run Trail connection has been fully completed2 and operates as intended with the ability for the Project residents to walk or bike to downtown. It is the applicant's position that none of the Project's proposed changes implicate the Findings and, in fact, reinforce the prescient view of the Board in 2002. Cultural Resources Comment 30: Please provide further documentation to explain whether the changes to the site plan and proposal affects the conclusions of OPRHP's previous review, specifically as it relates to the site's archaeological sensitivity. Response 30: The entire development area was previously cleared by OPRHP. The new development remains within that development envelope. Document Inconsistencies/Corrections: Comment 31: Page 3 of the October 16, 2018 Carter Conboy letter indicates that the remaining development will occur in 8 phases,while page 2 of the attached SEQR Compliance Analysis table indicates that remaining development will occur in 7 phases, and Section D.1.e of the 2017 EAF indicates 9 phases. Please provide additional documentation on the number of phases anticipated and update all documents for consistency. Response 31: Eight phases are proposed;A–H.All documents have been revised to reflect this number. Comment 32: The November 9, 2017 Engineering Report indicates that full build-out sanitary flows from the revised proposal would be 107,724 gpd, or 0.11 MGD, an increase of 0.02 MGD compared to the 2002 FEIS (see page 19). However, the Engineering Report indicates that this would be 2,806 gpd less than the original design. Please advise on this inconsistency and update the relevant documents, as needed. Response 32: As stated,the proposal has been adjusted and the new flows have been calculated. As indicated in the revised Engineering Report,the total projected usage would be 101,010 gpd. In the 2002 FEIS,the projected flows are indicated as 100,040 gpd. The proposed project 'Information on the history of enrollment can be found here: https://data.nysed.gov/archive.php?instid=800000038555 2 https://www.saratogaplan.org/explore/public-preserves-trails/spring-run-trail/ — L lit._ represents a slight increase; however, the proposed load will be reviewed by the City of Saratoga Springs Department of Public Works to determine if any infrastructure improvements are required to service the project. Comment 33: Section D.1.b of the 2017 EAF indicates that the total acreage of the proposed action is 34.72 acres and that 9.7 acres will be physically disturbed,while the Development Comparison Table included in the October 16, 2018 Carter Conboy letter indicates that the development area is 21.8 acres. Please advise on this inconsistency and update the relevant documents, as needed. Response 33: All numbers are accurate. The total area of the proposed action is 34.72 acres. The 9.7 acres represents the proposed disturbance and 21.8 acres represents the area of the existing and proposed built area (project footprint). This number was provided at the request of the Planning Board for comparison to earlier masterplan options. Comment 34: There are several inconsistencies in the number of units proposed between the documents: a. Section D.1.f of the 2017 EAF indicates that 46 one-family, 32 two-family, and 85 multi-family units would be constructed, for a total of 163. This is inconsistent with the 169 units indicated on page 2 of the October 16, 2018 Carter Conboy letter(in addition to page 1 of the SEQRA Compliance Analysis table and the Development Comparison table provided with the letter). Please advise on this inconsistency and update the relevant documents, as needed. The values included in Section D.1.f of the EAF are accurate but have been revised based on the new plan. The Carter Conboy letter includes the 6 short term rental units as residential units which do not fit within a category of the EAF table but now have been included. b. Pages 1 and 3 of the November 9, 2017 Engineering Report indicate that the revised proposal consists of 62 three-bedroom townhouses (16 of which would include a one-bedroom apartment that could be sublet)and 76 two-bedroom apartments and that 6 short-term/guest room rentals are also include in this number. This compares to the 62 condos, 102 apartments, and six short-term rentals (for a total of 169 units)cited in the October 16, 2018 Carter Conboy letter. Please advise on this inconsistency and update the relevant documents, as needed. The numbers in the Engineering Report have been revised based on the adjusted plan. c. Page 1 of the November 3, 2017 Transportation Study indicates that the revised proposal will add 147 additional housing units, including townhomes, apartments, and townhomes with attached apartments. The 147 units cited in the report is inconsistent with the 169 units indicated in the October 16, 2018 Carter Conboy letter. In addition, the 6 short-term rental/guest rooms are noted. Please advise on these inconsistencies and update the relevant documents, as needed. As stated in the Transportation Study,the unit counts and commercial square footage values are based on the worst case scenario for traffic impacts;the commercial square footage is maximized and the residential unit count in the mixed-use building is minimized based on the maximum commercial square footage. The residential number in the Carter Conboy letter was based on the maximum residential units. d. The breakdown by"Area" provided on Page 1 and Table 2 of the November 3, 2017 Transportation Study does not include the 5,000-sf community space located in Area"A" (per the revised SUP site plans); and the 61 apartments cited for Area"B" is inconsistent with the 82 units shown for this area on the revised SUP site plans. Please advise on these inconsistencies and update the relevant documents, as needed. The community building was not included in the traffic study since it is meant to serve the community and not outside users. The Transportation Study explained that the analysis is based on a conservative,worst case scenario. The large mixed-use building in Phase F can have a maximum of 52 apartments or a maximum of 27,000 square feet of commercial space depending on market conditions. Maximizing the commercial _ _ — i — ,...61,..„ space in this building is a more conservative approach from a traffic standpoint and will reduce the residential unit total. e. In Figure 1, "Proposed Site Layout with Development Areas Defined for Study Purposes" in the November 3, 2017 Transportation Study,the large mixed-use building in Area B indicates 30 apartments,versus 52 per the revised SUP site plans. As stated above,the apartment total has been reduced to maximize the allowable commercial space to conservatively project traffic. f. Drawing L-02 of the revised SUP site plans indicates that 163 units are proposed, versus the 169 units indicated in the October 16, 2018 Carter Conboy letter. Please advise on this inconsistency and update the relevant documents, as needed. As stated above,the Carter Conboy letter included short-term rental guest rooms as residential units while on Drawing L-02 they are included as commercial,similar to a hotel unit. The numbers will be adjusted for clarity. Comment 35: Section D.1.g of the 2017 EAF indicates that 4 non-residential structures are proposed. It is unclear how this number corresponds to the revised 2017 SUP site plans,which appear to show 3 100% non- residential buildings and 3 mixed-use buildings. Please advise on this inconsistency and update the relevant documents, as needed. Response 35: We included the community building as a non-residential building since it included apartments that would be in a rental pool,similar to hotel units. We have revised the number in the EAF to 3. Comment 36: Section D.2.c and D.2.d of the 2017 EAF, respectively, indicate that the revised proposal will generate a total water usage/demand of 60,020 gpd and a total liquid waste generation of 60,020 gpd. This is inconsistent with the 63,404 gpd cited on page 3 of the November 9, 2017 Engineering Report. Please advise on this inconsistency and update the relevant documents, as needed. Response 36: The revised engineering report and EAF include a usage/demand of 56,680 gpd. Comment 37: Section D.2.c.iii of the 2017 EAF indicates that a line will need to be extended further east along Ormandy Lane, but page 1 of the November 9, 2017 Engineering Report states that this improvement was constructed during phases 1 and 2 of the development. Please advise on this inconsistency and update the relevant documents, as needed. Response 37: Both statements are true. Gravity sewer and a force main was developed as part of phases 1 and 2. These existing facilities will need to be extended to the east to serve the proposed development. No revisions to documents are necessary. Comment 38: Section D.2.d.iii of the 2017 EAF indicates that sanitary mains will be laid west along Whistler Court, east along Ormandy Lane, and north from Ormandy Lane into townhouse developments but page 1 of the November 9, 2017 Engineering Report states that these utilities were constructed during phases 1 and 2 of the development. Please advise on this inconsistency and update the relevant documents, as needed. Response 38: As stated above; a portion of these services were constructed in phases 1 and 2 but need to be further developed and extended for future development. Comment 39: Section D.2.e.i of the 2017 EAF states that 6.1 acres of impervious surfaces will be created,while the Development Comparison table included with the October 16, 2018 Carter Conboy letter indicates that the project will introduce 3.0 acres of building area and 3.0 acres of pavement area (for a total of 6.0 acres of impervious surface area), and Section E.1.b of the 2017 EAF indicates that 5.9 acres. Please advise on this inconsistency and update the relevant documents, as needed. Response 39: The correct value is 5.90 acres of new impervious area. The documents have been adjusted. Comment 40: There are several corrections and inconsistencies in the land use/cover types table included in Section E.1.b of the 2017 EAF. Specifically: a. The 2017 EAF indicates 1.81 acres of existing impervious surfaces and 7.71 of future impervious surfaces,for a total increase of 5.9 acres. In addition to the inconsistency with the incremental 5.9 acres noted in the table (see previous comment): (1)the 1.81 acres is inconsistent with the 2.2 acres of building area and 5.6 acres of pavement(for a total of 7.8 acres) indicated in the Development Comparison table included in the October 16, 2018 Carter llllllum��,. Conboy letter; and (2)the 7.71 acres is inconsistent with the 5.2 acres of building area and 8.6 acres of pavement(for a total of 13.8 acres)indicated in the Development Comparison table. Please advise on this inconsistency and update the relevant documents, as needed. b. The totals of the"current acreage" and"acreage after project completion" columns do not match and are also inconsistent with the values cited in Sections D.1.b and D.2.e of the 2017 EAF: the"current acreage"column totals 36.93, the"acreage after project completion" column totals 36.92,while Sections D.1.b and D.2.e cite 36.23 acres. Please advise on this inconsistency and update the relevant documents, as needed. c. The totals in the"change" column should net zero (since the total project acreage is not changing). Please update this column to correct. d. The total change for the non-vegetated land use cover should read"-0.25" rather than"0.25." Please update this cell to correct. Response 40: The values have been adjusted based on the new plan. The inconsistency between the acreage controlled by the client and the development area was based on the anticipation of a land transfer from the City of Saratoga Springs to the project sponsor which has not happened and has been removed from the project. Also,the development comparison in the original Carter Conboy letter addresses the existing and proposed project combined not only the proposed development. Sincerely, /(2_14/4/ David R. Carr, Jr., RLA,ASLA Director of Residential and Commercial Services Sr.Associate Principal/Landscape Architect dcarr@thelagroup.com G:AProj-2016\2016046 ExcelsiorSpecial Use Permit\2016046Admin\O1CorrespondenceA2.7Review Comments\2019 03-13 Comment_Response Ltr..docx — Li _ Development Comparison Approved and Approved Constructed Unrealized Plan (Including Phase 2A) Development Proposed Plan Total Non-residential Space 130,000 76,000 54,000 147,600 223,600 Residential Units 230 160 70 179 339 Single-Family Residences 3 3 Condominiums 48 73 121 Apartments 109 97 206 Short-term Rental Unit 9 9 Development Area 21.6 AC 21.8 AC Building 5.10 AC 2.20 AC 2.90 AC 2.90 AC 5.10 AC Pavement 8.20 AC 5.60 AC 2.60 AC 3.00 AC 8.60 AC G:\Prof-2016\2016046_Excelsior_Special_Use_Permit\2016046Admin\01Correspondence\2.9Misc_Docs\2016046 Development Comparison.docx The LA GROUP Landscape Architecture 6z Engineering P.C. Peop(a.Purpose.Place. 40 Long Alley Saratoga Springs NY 12866 p:518 587-8100 1 518-587-0180 Engineering Report www.thelagroup.com Water and Sanitary Sewer For EXCELSIOR PARK SPECIAL USE PERMIT EXCELSIOR AVENUE SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK Planning Board #18.056 Prepared For Excelsior Park LLC 563 North Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Contact: John Witt Prepared By The LA Group, P.C. 40 Long Alley Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 4 x L 1 's November 9, 2017 Revised February 7,2020 Engineering Report Excelsior Park Special Use Permit Saratoga Springs, New York 2016046 L Introduction The application is for securing a Special Use Permit for 34.72 acres of land on Excelsior Avenue and Ormandy Lane. The development is commonly referred to as Excelsior Park. The Special Use Permit will include a mix of residential and commercial uses, including a hotel, spa, community center and swimming pool. Municipal water and sewer exist in Excelsior Avenue, Ormandy Lane, Whistler Court and Gibson Court within the boundary of the property. These utilities were constructed during phases one and two of the development. Water will be supplied for domestic and fire protection from the 8-inch main on Excelsior Avenue, Ormandy Avenue and Whistler Court which loops through the development and eventually connects to 12-inch mains owned by the City of Saratoga Springs. For sanitary sewer collection, new gravity sewer networks of pipes and manholes will connect to the existing 8-inch gravity sanitary sewer main in Excelsior Avenue. This existing main flows to a pump station that was designed and installed in phase one to serve the full development. The pump station is located at the intersection of Excelsior Avenue and Ormandy Drive and is owned and maintained by the City of Saratoga Springs. The pump station directs flows from the development through a 6-inch force main along Ormandy Drive to Excelsior Avenue and connects to an existing manhole at the intersection of Excelsior Avenue and Veterans Way. This manhole is owned by Saratoga County Sewer District No. 1. II. Project Description The remaining build-out covered by the Special Use Permit proposes to construct 10 three- bedroom townhouses, 39 two-bedroom townhouses, 24 one-bedroom townhouses, 4 three- bedroom apartment units, 43 two-bedroom apartment units, 38 one-bedroom apartment units, 22,100 square feet of commercial space, a community recreational facility with a swimming pool and a 60-room hotel that includes a 200-seat restaurant, banquet facility for 300 guests, spa and swimming pool. Twelve of the townhouses include a one-bedroom apartment that could be sub- let. Included in the proposal are 9 short-term or guest room rentals. A National Grid overhead electric power line support tower at the southwest corner of the site will need to be protected during construction. Proposed underground utilities will need to maintain a 50-foot minimum setback from the tower. National Grid prefers that water lines be placed outside their permanent easement. 1 Engineering Report Excelsior Park Special Use Permit Saratoga Springs, New York 2016046 III. Existing Water and Sanitary Sewer Utilities Municipal water service is currently provided by the City of Saratoga Springs. According to the Annual Drinking Water Quality Report for 2018, the water system serves approximately 28,000 people through 9,680 service connections. The total water produced in 2018 was 1,530,219,000 gallons. The city's daily average was 4,192,000 gallons. The highest single day consumption was 7,066,000 gallons on July 02, 2018. A 12-inch diameter water main located in Excelsior Avenue tees off to another 12-inch diameter water main located in Ormandy Lane. From the current end of Ormandy Lane, the 12-inch water main continues easterly toward the Adirondack Northway (I-87). This 12-inch water main was tapped for the first phase of the development creating an 8-inch diameter loop from the intersection of Excelsior Avenue and Ormandy Lane to the entrance of the former Federal Express facility on Excelsior Avenue. The first phase included fire hydrants spaced approximately 400 feet apart and several 6-inch water service laterals that were stubbed for future connections. In phases 2 and 2A, the existing 8-inch water main in Excelsior Avenue provided combined fire protection and domestic service laterals to the buildings. Combined fire protection and domestic waterlines were brought to the end of Whistler Court and Gibson Court. A fire hydrant was installed at the end of each branch line to provide fire protection and to allow periodic flushing of the lines. The branch lines are privately owned and maintained. Hydrant flow tests conducted between 1976 and 2014 indicate static pressures in the area of Excelsior Avenue of between 87 and 104 pounds per square inch (psi). During flow tests, hydrants running at approximately 1,200 gallons per minute caused the residual pressure at the test hydrant to drop less than 10 psi giving a theoretical available flow of approximately 4,600 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch (psi). Refer to Attachment A for the Hydrant Fire Flow Test Summary provided by Northeast Fire Protection Systems, Inc. Municipal sanitary sewer service is available from the City of Saratoga Springs at the sanitary sewer main in Excelsior Avenue, Ormandy Lane and Whistler Court. These portions of the municipal collection system were installed as part of original Excelsior Park mixed use development in 2004 and subsequent phases of development. The sewer main runs south on Excelsior Avenue to a municipal pump station near the intersection of Ormandy Lane and Excelsior Avenue. Wastewater is conveyed by this lift station to the Saratoga County Sewer District No. 1 (SCSD) collector at the intersection of Excelsior Avenue and Veteran's Way, and then by gravity to the SCSD Lift Station No. 1 at the intersection of High Rock Avenue and Warren Street. Ultimately the wastewater flows for conveyance and treatment at SCSD's wastewater treatment plant in Mechanicville. 2 Engineering Report Excelsior Park Special Use Permit Saratoga Springs, New York 2016046 IV. Projected Water and Wastewater Flows The table below provides information on the anticipated wastewater flow rates for the entire development: Description Use Rate Total Use (gpd) Existing Condition: Hotel 103 rooms 110 gpd/ea3 11,330 Condominiums-3 BR 30 units 330 gpd/ea3 9,900 Townhouses- 3 BR 18 units 330 gpd/ea3 5,940 Apartments 156 bedrooms 110 gpd/ea3 17.160 Existing Sub-total 44,330 Proposed Condition: Hotel 60 rooms' 110 gpd/ea3 6,600 Restaurant 200 seats' 35 gpd/seat 7,000 Banquet Facility 300 seats' 10 gpd/seat 3,000 Hotel Pool 60 users' 10 gpd/ea2 600 Hotel Spa 60 users' 20 gpd/ea2 1,200 Community Pool 240 users' 10 gpd/ea2 2,400 Community Recreation 160 users' 20 gpd/ea2 3,200 Commercial/Retail 22,100 sf' 0.1 gpd/sf 2,210 Apartments- 1 Bedroom 38 units' 110 gpd/ea3 4,180 Apartments-2 Bedrooms 43 units' 220 gpd/ea3 9,460 Apartments- 3 Bedrooms 4 units' 330 gpd/ea3 1,320 Townhouses- 1 Bedroom 24 units' 110 gpd/ea3 2,640 Townhouses-2 Bedrooms 39 units' 220 gpd/ea3 8,580 Townhouses- 3 Bedrooms 10 units' 330 gpd/ea3 3,300 Short-term Guest Rentals 9 rooms' 110 gpd/ea3 990 Proposed Sub-total 56,680 Grand Total 101,010 1. Room counts,floor areas, restaurant seats,pool users, etc. are estimated based on provided data. 2. From Table B-3,NYSDEC 2014 Design Standards for Wastewater Treatment Systems. 3. From Table 1,NYSDOH Design Standards for Individual Wastewater Treatment Systems. Average daily flow for wastewater is estimated to be 70 gallons per minute (gpm) based on a 24- hour day. Estimated peak hourly flow is 260 gpm (3.71 x average). 3 Engineering Report Excelsior Park Special Use Permit Saratoga Springs, New York 2016046 Average daily demand for water is estimated to be approximately equal to the wastewater flow or 70 gpm. Peak hourly demand is estimated to be approximately equal to the peak hourly wastewater flow or 260 gpm. Peak instantaneous demand is calculated at 1,250 gallons per minute (gpm)based on hotel use of 2 gpm per room, restaurant use of 1 gpm per seat, commercial/retail use of 0.6 gpm per 100 sf, community recreation and swimming pool use of 0.6 gpm per user and residential use based on 293 condos, townhouses and apartments at 1.2 gpm per residence. For the purposes of input into the City of Saratoga Springs water model, we offer the following estimated water demands for the project: • Average Day Demand is 70 gallons per minute (GPM) over the 24-hour period. • Max Day Demand is 140 gallons per minute (GPM)based on twice the average. • Peak Hourly Flow is 260 gallons per minute (GPM)based on 3.71 times the average. • Fire Flow Demand is 1,000 gallons per minute (GPM)per ISO guidelines. V. Proposed Water and Wastewater Utilities Proposed Water Utilities To service the project, the existing 8-inch water mains in Excelsior Avenue and Whistler Court and the existing 12-inch water main in Ormandy Lane will provide combined fire protection and domestic service laterals to the proposed buildings. Most of the new buildings will be served directly from the existing water mains from either stubbed existing service laterals or new services. Two minor water main branches will provide individual water services to the townhouse units. The branch lines will be privately owned and maintained. The water services proposed for the residential buildings are 3/4-inches in diameter. Each privately owned townhouse unit will be metered separately. A fire hydrant will be installed on the Ormandy Lane water main east of the Excelsior Avenue intersection. Needed Fire Flow (NFF) calculations using the ISO Guide for Determination of Needed Fire Flow are presented in Attachment B. The calculation shows a NFF of 750 gallons per minute. This calculation is for a non-sprinklered building. For a building protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system, the ISO states: "The NFF for residential occupancies (such as apartment buildings, lodgings and rooming houses, board and care facilities, hotels, motels and dormitories) protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system installed in accordance with the general criteria of 4 Engineering Report Excelsior Park Special Use Permit Saratoga Springs, New York 2016046 NFPA 13R, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Residential Occupancies up to and including Four-Stories in Height, is the demand at the base of the automatic sprinkler riser". "The minimum NFF is 1,000 gpm at 20 psi for a duration of 2 hours". Using the minimum given by ISO, the NFF for this facility is 1,000 gpm. The hydrant flow test data indicates approximately 4,600 gpm at 20 psi. Based on this information, there is adequate fire protection water supply available at the site. Connections and appurtenances, including tapping sleeves and valves, mechanical joints, tees, isolation valves, fire hydrants, thrust blocks, trenching, bedding, service connections, as well as testing and disinfection will all be specified in accordance with City of Saratoga Springs standards. The applicant will offer the water system to the City of Saratoga Springs for ownership and maintenance. If accepted, utility easements will be provided as required. Proposed Wastewater Utilities Sanitary service will be provided by using existing sewer lateral stubs, installing new 6-inch PVC gravity sewer laterals and installing new 8-inch PVC gravity sewer mains and manholes. The new lines will be installed at a slope to provide adequate cleansing velocity in the pipe. Manholes,pipe, trenching, bedding, service connections, and testing will be specified in accordance with City of Saratoga Springs and Saratoga County Sewer District minimum standards. The applicant will offer the sanitary sewer system to the City of Saratoga Springs for ownership and maintenance. If accepted, utility easements will be provided as required. Existing Pump Station Capacity The City Engineer will be contacted to verify if their system has adequate capacity to accommodate the project's sanitary flow. In addition, the pump station operator is looking into any concerns the City may have with the operation of the existing pump station. The pump station was originally designed to handle design flows of 110,540 gpd. Peak hourly flow which the pump station was designed for is estimated at: (110,540 gpd/ 1,440 minutes per day) x 3.88 peaking factor =297.8 gpm. We will round up to 300 gpm for this analysis. 5 Engineering Report Excelsior Park Special Use Permit Saratoga Springs, New York 2016046 Total existing phase lsanitary flows are estimated to be 21,230 gpd which is approximately 20% of the full build-out design flow. Adding the phase 2 and phase 2A projected flows of 23,100 gpd to the existing estimated flows of 21,230 gpd gives a total of 44,330 gpd after completion of phase 2A. This is approximately 40% of the full build-out design flow. At full build-out, sanitary flows are estimated to be 101,010 gpd which is 970 gpd more than the original design and within a reasonable margin of error considering the broad nature of these flow estimates. Peak hourly flow after completion of the full build-out is estimated to be 260 gpm using a peaking factor of 3.71. The original pump station was designed based on a peak hourly flow of approximately 300 gpm. The pumps that were originally installed (Flygt CP3127 submersible with 484 impellers) discharge at a rate of approximately 300 gpm at a total dynamic head of 48 feet. This rate will provide a force main cleansing velocity of 3.4 feet per second. Pending verification from the City that the existing pump station is operating as originally designed; the additional daily and peak flows generated with the full build-out of Excelsior Park will be within an acceptable range for the municipal pump station. Notes 4. From Table 1,Appendix 75-A Wastewater Treatment Standards-Residential Onsite Systems (110 gallons per day per bedroom) 5. From Figure 1, GLUMRB Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities Q=(18+P'/2) ÷(4 +P'/2) where P=population in thousands 3. From Table XXl, Community Water Systems Source Book,Ameen. Attachments Attachment A Hydrant Flow Test Data Attachment B Needed Fire Flow (NFF) Calculations Attachment C Water Demand Calculations Attachment D Sanitary Sewer Use Calculations 6 ATTACHMENT A HYDRANT FLOW TEST DATA . a. 0 (. a 0-tL (C (0 N o 0 roc, W � Q .C) o) 0) rn CO rn w N co ire a1 U) m t¢ 1"-- CON O)t CJ m ONWN u7N N- (9 CO r W • UN Li. 0 00mm W 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) Cf) O O C] 0 o Q O C7 ZU U) F N- co 11) Lam{) Lm() N.co � CO q, 1— W J — O N0 '0 U7 10 10 LC) Cf) Ln LC) NN LL Z o W r - . N V (0 't 25 O N co , OC 0 2 a X � w � Z Z W z n CL O g LL W o uJ vn ozQ 0a u. ow o N r Z Q To H w¢ � < o � cYo Y Y W Q T ¢ c s=• U Q Z U a F- Z i © 60.6 < L J W W W W W W W QxcLctxrxxxwm 0000000000 (!J Cn U7 U] 55 ( . Cn Cn (7 J ....1 J _J J J J _J J J WWWWWWWWWW 000000u000 XXXXXXXXXX W W W W w W w W W W ATTACHMENT B NEEDED FIRE FLOW(NFF) CALCULATIONS PREPARED BY: CHECKED BY: D. Desjardins DATE DATE 09/20/17 The LA GROUP SUBJECT: Excelsior Park SUP - ISO NFF Calculations Landscape ArchiteciruecxEnyineeiilly Pc. PROJECT NUMBER: 2016046 SHEET 1 OF 1 Assumptions: Building is 2 stories with basement. Wood frame construction. Residential townhomes. Largest townhouse unit is 24'x 40'or 960 SF. Nonsprinklered building. References: 1. Insurance Services Office (ISO) Guide for Determination of Needed Fire Flow Edition 06-2014 Needed Fire Flow Formula: NFF; =(CI)(0I)[1.0 + (X+ P)1] where: NFF =the needed fire flow in gallons per minute C; = a factor related to the type of construction and effective area O; = a factor related to the type of occupancy X = a factor related to the exposure hazard of adjacent buildings P = a factor related to the communication hazard with adjacent buildings CONSTRUCTION TYPE Construction Class 1 (wood frame construction) Construction type coefficient (F) = 1.5 (Chapter 2, Reference 1) Effective area (A) = 1,440 SF (960 +960/2) (50% of each additional floor) C = 18F x A112 C = 1,024.58 gpm C = 1,000 gpm (rounded to nearest 250 gpm) OCCUPANCY TYPE Residential (townhomes) Occupancy combustibility class C-2 (Limited Combustibility) Occupancy Factor(0) = 0.85 (Chapter 3, Reference 1) EXPOSURES AND COMMUNICATION Exposure Factor (X) = none (Chapter 4, Reference 1, exception for habitational and sprinklered) Exposure and Communication Factor (X + P) = 0.00 CALCULATION NFF = (C)(0)(1+(X+P)) NFF = 850.00 gpm NFF = 750 gpm (rounded to nearest 250 gpm) G:\Proj-2016\2016046_Excelsior_Special_Use_Permit\2016046Engineering_Data\00Water\2016046 ISO NFF Worksheet ATTACHMENT C WATER DEMAND CALCULATIONS EXCELSIOR PARK SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2/7/2020 SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY CALCULATIONS FOR FULL BUILD-OUT WATER DEMANE DETERMINE DAILY AVERAGE AND PEAK HOURLY DEMANE EXISTING CONDITION: HOTEL: NO. OF ROOMS 103 EA DESIGN FLOW = 110 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qa = 11,330 GPD CONDOMINIUMS: NO. OF 3-BR UNITS 30 EA DESIGN FLOW = 330 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qb = 9, 900 GPD APARTMENTS: NO. OF BEDROOMS 156 EA DESIGN FLOW = 110 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qc = 17, 160 GPD TOWNHOUSES: NO. OF 3-BR UNITS 18 EA DESIGN FLOW = 330 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qd = 5, 940 GPD EXISTING SUBTOTAL 44,330 GPD (Qa thru Qd) PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: HOTEL: NO. OF ROOMS 60 EA DESIGN FLOW = 110 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qe = 6, 600 GPD RESTAURANT: NO. OF SEATS 200 EA DESIGN FLOW = 35 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qf = 7,000 GPD BANQUET (WEDDING) : NO. OF SEATS 300 EA DESIGN FLOW = 10 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qg = 3,000 GPD HOTEL POOL: NO. OF USERS 60 EA (1 PER ROOM) DESIGN FLOW = 10 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qh = 600 GPD 1 Attachment C EXCELSIOR PARK SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2/7/2020 SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY HOTEL SPA: NO. OF USERS 60 EA (1 PER ROOM) DESIGN FLOW = 20 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qi = 1,200 GPD COMMUNITY POOL: NO. OF USERS 240 EA (80 USERS x 3) DESIGN FLOW = 10 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qj = 2,400 GPD COMMUNITY RECREATION: NO. OF USERS 160 EA (1/2 PER DWELLING) DESIGN FLOW = 20 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qk = 3,200 GPD COMMERCIAL/RETAIL: BUILDING AREA 22, 100 SF DESIGN FLOW = 0.1 GPD/SF (NYSDEC) * Q1 = 2,210 GPD APARTMENTS: NO. OF 1-BR UNITS 38 EA DESIGN FLOW = 110 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qm1 = 4, 180 GPD NO. OF 2-BR UNITS 43 EA DESIGN FLOW = 220 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qm2 = 9,460 GPD NO. OF 3-BR UNITS 4 EA DESIGN FLOW = 330 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qm3 = 1,320 GPD TOWNHOUSES: NO. OF 1-BR UNITS 24 EA DESIGN FLOW = 110 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qn1 = 2, 640 GPD NO. OF 2-BR UNITS 39 EA DESIGN FLOW = 220 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qn2 = 8,580 GPD NO. OF 3-BR UNITS 10 EA DESIGN FLOW = 330 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qn3 = 3,300 GPD SHORT-TERM GUEST RENTALS: NO. OF ROOMS 9 EA DESIGN FLOW = 110 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qo = 990 GPD PROPOSED SUBTOTAL 56, 680 GPD (Qe thru Qo) GRAND TOTAL 101,010 GPD (Qa thru Qo) 2 Attachment C EXCELSIOR PARK SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2/7/2020 SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY AVG. DAILY DAMAND, Qav = 70 GPM (24 HRS) MAX. DAILY DAMAND, Qmax = 140 GPM (TWICE THE AVG. ) POPULATION 1,350 EA (10-STATE STDS. PAGE PEAKING FACTOR, Qp/Qav 3.71 10-5, FIG. 1, BASED ON PEAK HOURLY FLOW, Qp = 260.2 GPM 75 GPD/PERSON) * NYSDEC 2014 DESIGN STANDARDS TABLE B-3 "Typical Per-Unit Loading Rates' 3 Attachment C EXCELSIOR PARK SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2/7/2020 SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY DETERMINE INSTANTANEOUS DEMAND HOTELS: NO. OF ROOMS 163 EA DESIGN FLOW = 2 GPM/UNIT (AMEEN TABLE XV) ** Qa = 326 GPM RESTAURANT: NO. OF SEATS 200 EA DESIGN FLOW = 1 GPM/SEAT (AMEEN TABLE XV) ** Qb = 200 GPM COMMERCIAL/RETAIL: BUILDING AREA 22, 100 SF DESIGN FLOW = 0.6 GPM/100 SF (AMEEN TABLE XV) ** Qc = 133 GPM COMMUNITY RECREATION: NO. OF USERS 160 EA DESIGN FLOW = 0.6 GPM/MEMBER (AMEEN TABLE XV) ** Qd = 96 GPM COMMUNITY POOL: NO. OF USERS 240 EA DESIGN FLOW = 0.6 GPM/MEMBER (AMEEN TABLE XV) ** Qe = 144 GPM RESIDENTIAL: NO. OF RESIDENCES 293 EA INSTANTANEOUS DEMAND = 1.2 GPM/RESIDENCE*** Qf = 352 GPM TOTAL INSTANTANEOUS 1,250 GPM (Qa thru Qf) ** AMEEN TABLE XV "Instantaneous Water Demands for Commercial Areas" *** AMEEN TABLE XIV "Instantaneous Water Demands for Residential Areas" 4 Attachment C ATTACHMENT D SANITARY SEWER USE CALCULATIONS EXCELSIOR PARK SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1/13/2020 SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY CALCULATIONS FOR SANITARY SEWAGE CAPACITY DETERMINE DAILY AVERAGE AND PEAK HOURLY FLOWS EXISTING CONDITION: HOTEL: NO. OF ROOMS 103 EA DESIGN FLOW = 110 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) Qa = 11, 330 GPD CONDOMINIUMS: NO. OF 3-BR UNITS 30 EA DESIGN FLOW = 330 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) Qb = 9, 900 GPD APARTMENTS: NO. OF BEDROOMS 156 EA DESIGN FLOW = 110 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) Qc = 17, 160 GPD TOWNHOUSES: NO. OF 3-BR UNITS 18 EA DESIGN FLOW = 330 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) Qd = 5, 940 GPD EXISTING SUBTOTAL 44, 330 GPD (Qa thru Qd) PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: HOTEL: NO. OF ROOMS 60 EA DESIGN FLOW = 110 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) Qe = 6, 600 GPD RESTAURANT: NO. OF SEATS 200 EA DESIGN FLOW = 35 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) Qf = 7,000 GPD BANQUET (WEDDING) : NO. OF SEATS 300 EA DESIGN FLOW = 10 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) Qg = 3,000 GPD HOTEL POOL: NO. OF USERS 60 EA (1 PER ROOM) DESIGN FLOW = 10 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) Qh = 600 GPD 1 Attachment D EXCELSIOR PARK SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1/13/2020 SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY HOTEL SPA: NO. OF USERS 60 EA (1 PER ROOM) DESIGN FLOW = 20 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) Qi = 1,200 GPD COMMUNITY POOL: NO. OF USERS 240 EA (80 USERS x 3) DESIGN FLOW = 10 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) Qj = 2,400 GPD COMMUNITY RECREATION: NO. OF USERS 160 EA (1/2 PER DWELLING) DESIGN FLOW = 20 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) Qk = 3,200 GPD COMMERCIAL/RETAIL: BUILDING AREA 22, 100 SF DESIGN FLOW = 0.1 GPD/SF (NYSDEC) Q1 = 2,210 GPD APARTMENTS: NO. OF 1-BR UNITS 38 EA DESIGN FLOW = 110 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qm1 = 4, 180 GPD NO. OF 2-BR UNITS 43 EA DESIGN FLOW = 220 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qm2 = 9,460 GPD NO. OF 3-BR UNITS 4 EA DESIGN FLOW = 330 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qm3 = 1,320 GPD TOWNHOUSES: NO. OF 1-BR UNITS 24 EA DESIGN FLOW = 110 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qn1 = 2, 640 GPD NO. OF 2-BR UNITS 39 EA DESIGN FLOW = 220 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qn2 = 8,580 GPD NO. OF 3-BR UNITS 10 EA DESIGN FLOW = 330 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) * Qn3 = 3,300 GPD SHORT-TERM GUEST RENTALS: NO. OF ROOMS 9 EA DESIGN FLOW = 110 GPD/EA (NYSDEC) Qo = 990 GPD PROPOSED SUBTOTAL 56, 680 GPD (Qe thru Qo) 2 Attachment D EXCELSIOR PARK SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1/13/2020 SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY GRAND TOTAL 101,010 GPD (Qa thru Qo) MAX. DAILY FLOW, Q = 110,540 GPD (Original Design) AVG. DAILY FLOW, Qav = 70 GPM (24 HRS) POPULATION 1, 350 EA (10-STATE STDS. PAGE PEAKING FACTOR, Qp/Qav 3.71 10-5, FIG. 1, BASED ON 75 GPD/PERSON) PEAK HOURLY FLOW, Qp = 260.2 GPM 3 Attachment D EXCELSIOR PARK SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1/13/2020 SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY WET WELL SIZING CALCULATIONS MINIMUM VOLUME: TWO MINUTE PUMP RUN TIME WITH 2 MIN FM VELOCITY > 2.0 FPS 175 GPM 350 GAL OR THREE MINUTE MINIMUM REST BETWEEN 3 MIN PUMP STARTS AT PEAK FLOW 260 GPM 781 GAL MAXIMUM VOLUME: THIRTY MINUTE DETENTION TIME AT 30 MIN AVERAGE INFLOW 70 GPM 2103 GAL WET WELL INSIDE DIAMETER = 6 FT NO. OF PUMP STARTS PER DAY = 260. 1 GALLONS PER PUMP START = 425 HEIGHT BETWEEN ON-OFF LEVEL WITH 6 FT. DIA. WET WELL : 425 GAL/START/ 211.5 GAL/VLF = 2.01 FT HEAD LOSS CALCULATIONS TOTAL MINOR LOSSES: EQUIV EQUIV. QTY DESCRIPTION SIZE LNGTH LENGTH (IN) (LF) (LF) 1 GATE VALVE 4 2.40 2.40 1 CHECK VALVE 4 31.00 31.00 1 TEE (THROUGH) 4 2.20 2.20 0 TEE (SIDE) 4 10.00 0.00 4 90 DEG. ELBOW 4 4.80 19.20 4 45 DEG. ELBOW 4 2.90 11.60 0 22.5 DEG. ELBOW 4 2.00 0.00 0 11.25 DEG. ELBOW 4 1.00 0.00 1 COUPLING/UNION 4 0.50 0.50 SUB-TOTAL 66.90 PIPE FRICTION LOSSES: 6 - INCH HDPE DR-11 PIPE 2,373 TOTAL PIPE LENGTH 2,440 SAY 2,440 LF 4 Attachment D EXCELSIOR PARK SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1/13/2020 SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY SYSTEM HEAD LOSS TABLE PIPE SIZE (I.D. )= 6 IN. "C" = 120 "C" = 100 FLOW STC HEAD FR HEAD FR HEAD T.D.H. T.D.H. (GPM) (FT. ) * (FT. ) ** (FT) *** (FT) ** (FT) *** 0 28.0 0.0 0.0 28.0 28.0 100 28.0 3.0 4.2 31.0 32.2 200 28.0 10.8 15.2 38.8 43.2 300 28.0 22.9 32.1 50.9 60.1 400 28.0 39.0 54.6 67.0 82.6 500 28.0 58.9 82.6 86.9 110. 6 600 28.0 82.6 115.7 110. 6 143.7 700 28.0 109.8 153. 9 137.8 181. 9 800 28.0 140. 6 197.0 168. 6 225.0 900 28.0 174.8 244. 9 202.8 272. 9 1000 28.0 212.4 297. 6 240.4 325. 6 1100 28.0 253.4 355.0 281.4 383.0 1200 28.0 297. 6 417. 1 325. 6 445. 1 *DISCHARGE ELEVATION = 280 +/- (HIGH POINT) PUMP ELEVATION = 252 +/- ** BASED ON "C" = 120 & 6 " I.D. HDPE DR-11 PIPE *** BASED ON "C" = 100 & 6 " I.D. HDPE DR-11 PIPE USE FLYGT SUBMERSIBLE SEWAGE PUMP, MODEL NO. NP 3102 MT, 5 HP, THREE PHASE, 460 VAC, 60 HZ. , 1745 RPM. PROGRAM THE VFD TO OPERATE THE PUMP AT 55HZ. PUMP DELIVERY : 300 GPM @ TDH= 48 FT. NOTE: FLYGT SYSTEM SPECIFIED PER SARATOGA CO. SEWER DISTRICT STANDARDS. 5 Attachment D EXCELSIOR PARK SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1/13/2020 SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY CHECK TOTAL TIME BETWEEN PUMP STARTS AT AVG. FLOW: t = V/ (D-Qav) + V/Qav where: t = (TOTAL TIME BTWN STARTS, MIN. ) V = 425 GAL (VOLUME BTWN "OFF AND ON") Qav = 70.1 GPM (AVG. DAILY FLOW) D = 300 GPM (PUMP DELIVERY) t = 7.9 MIN. < 30 MIN. ? CHECK MINIMUM PUMP RUN TIME AT PEAK INFLOW: t = V/ (D-Qp) where: t = (PUMP RUN TIME, MIN. ) V = 425 GAL (VOLUME BTWN "OFF AND ON") Qp = 260.2 GPM (PEAK INFLOW) D = 300 GPM (PUMP DELIVERY) t = 10.7 MIN. >/= 2 MIN. ? CHECK VELOCITY IN FORCE MAIN: Velocity = (D/A) /448.8 GPM where: A = 0.20 SF (PIPE X-SECT AREA) D = 300 GPM (PUMP DELIVERY) Velocity = 3.4 FPS > 2.0 FPS ? 6 Attachment D Q EH 0 Z O W N X C) g EH EH g 0 0 LO 0 - o 1n W C n O o V ax C a 11‘ G Q I N � n O a c/ CL Z:7) U N I O >1 M MI o x W N V) O � O -- in HI: III : o N N 2 2 l O i 1 I 1 1,, O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LID N o 00 LID N i-1 .-1 c-1 r-1 (13)aV3H -, (.0 N 0 CC ,_ coon Q NCV a i o W H 0 D - > a) O LL u, U) •CO) z0 Q Q WV/ z z H f _ (/) (/) 0_ j a s CO o v UvJ vJ o o = 'LI P. _ a. (� o cn cn 0_ - - - _ _ - = W O =�oo� o o °p = Y4 ,owv o 0 s� to j�4-1 lH - _ ,, - _s H7 ->_ ' 4a W >11(710-0"<(2 < o _ _ ,-, owl ad OxaCtS !6 - - _- py 1€ C5 z CD H A l (I) v s _1_1 _1_1 D AC W L O W U X Wwwwww o R' aaaaa N 0 2 X XQ.. . X Q Q 2 Qc O O g, g ,,.Y.,-,?,-,,.Y.,-,?,-,,.Y.,-,?,-ri in r Q rm e ,, U U F oro,u, 6 '' N w w 2 U U U Q Q 6¢¢ m =r. ¢ 2 a _ Nm r g�N a TO Q ti Q `,1.3-z r I J � Q = C7 , W 00 - s 0 U HCO Ni u - 4 U O Eg KU di dz U p P ii :,., lt,) ozzi `t mm owm (na �??� o z 12,,',,,m,',12,,',,,m,',2 w �sa _ � � �,l'Ap, W o z(H Ff �oa _ ZAR2 a rc 3 , tit . , . ...:3-1krtt., i 1 '2m.4 , yi ' S��J r I � III i.i x r am, o _3c; t JD O) i 2 "�`K"¢. z a O 1 p p o- w _ - O , .. w o c0 aid W z= 0' U co `° W a >� wLU (/) r $ L. Josm a a -c3 -! v v o egi <'E E w w 11 I / w \ / _moo I I I ___J----- J ii s `�� a1; al I / i _ 1_ —} �--- —�. --- I — 1 I ` \ ; \ z x-,i t—-- i ---___' . 1v 1 n1 1 (r Myr 4") \ \ // / i '; ft i' 'IN Fi . ill . i ,.\I 4 I col WAR \I I I ' _ \ \ -_— I� a' ---- ,, s --- " v \ ,€ � i: • 1 1 -:- z id \1. L ; i 'i ' \ / \ ` I 1 S I I p^qI= I 1' r W i J i' j �l\ �1 ly I \ o f tl l 6 14;.8ry.� .I I I N� / / ]� '`a is I / 1�1 — I \'!ilii i i / 1 ` -„_` —————--)__ _ 1 1 I , \ 9Ilik — --_�1._\ --I ----;-:------- --- '. 1 _ 1 '� "rear`\ ,1 12.L-- W_ 7 ,-,..,,<c„..,...z,,-\ , \ I \\ " 1. ilI C I/�_�v III \ \ I I \ l` `. \. ,.,\, I\ 1 I . 1 77 — 1 \ j I �'' — \ AA \\ ', SXv , \ \\ \\ I , \ Aj VI \ \ \ \\ m$Ja6li J QQQQ �d �z t� _ `6 _ v _ N 3 O v a _ O ao .tt , „. ,o s , , oil =ra — — _-1tsJF, ; /� ,,� di ', Ell I , ill t�r) ��: ` ��; i . - _ _ir ,,,..-- . 6 -) Lj A, / i / 1 — ■ 1 , a3 / J I ( \ 1 .',',\T 0.410111 7,_____, __, \ -fit.a. imj Ago , i 7,!,!.,, , -, ( _1 , ( ---=,OL--i --:- -,,,,,,, O ��al LEL.J ASFAisoLi 4.-- _ _ - El _,-------\\;-"ma `. \ 1� Nog , \ 5 `? \• •� \ N,// ' -- lir \\'`,.. ' . / \ \\ di gill "111 h \\'\ ) k :-\;, )\\, ys zo ^max , \ 1721 1 \ ' i \ I , z« `n \o j; 7V\-----70, - z MMMM,?,,7, \ II 9 N Ngo =Y — N ,y 4O d G Oi Lo H O p Oi g=m F 2 ? w0 O U _ 0 ` - H 0 U U O — y 6 yHHY ? 2E1 Vs' Lt,', 13 9 O��O UJ�C9� O W vai zaa� L,0' z Vaar w Lffin O o - 0 a rc z gOIPI [4 u [g u . u [g ,-, .4, [VI _,g - , c°D I Es^n 7 •2' ao y, '2' . 0—2' ioo --)...--)-- __[_------ -,„_ Zg \ L-[ \\\\\\ _____,L__,)______, ______\ OL c, , , / „ li _ — • t .,_ ,, , , , ,,,, , K1, c , . 1 ' • 1 m ' Ili 1 .g ------------• 1 -i— , \ A\ ( 'IRO , I I, , \ \A •11—•-' •=3•2•M"M. . ' ik ,E7-___—_---_----_ i 11 '' r= Wnr -,....-.ne—now"1r .•.—W—w,—, L_ ,—— I I LW o I / \ \\ \\ EXCELSIOR 4/ENUE 7D E,r O' 7 414,.... .... .....='= ft- • 8 ) 1 ------- ° .1 s olb;_ ,m,„,w_ ogivict.F.A...-,7_ L,j so =_=_= ._. .1 . n.,n iim L- 2 8' IIM ) WI ) L2' . i I P ' 10 NM . 1)"' -- •'/ \ h ..... , ' . - • ' IP V! t1 ' • I --- 11 6 , s,,-- , i 1 . 1 gro / / ///// 1 Id' in h - . - , ...,_, \ • i . H I 8 III 22 S H II : 1 i d ..4 il AW IN . ,i,:i (I-, _ 5 ) ' ) ;oo i m 0 j — .‘° 1 MI 1 —ooTo;1 liP C. .,./---- ,-, / LTJ I yu-4 )i// 1 1 .Ed ,_ ,-,— : i k, ,-..- m 1 I 0, 2`A) _ 1 -1 [ 1 \ ,Jill ___, 2 )\/ /)`). 4 \\ 1 I it .-,E,i 'IP 0 m. .• 1 n 0 ,• . 1 1 - p„ A 11 Pr' I I. 1 I 1 P - DI E ,1 , ll 1 ' IN i = I 0 1 • 1 • . = 1 NI 1[[[ °[ i - [ El tali: = 1 I. . I 1 , \ i -1 1 i - = EMI ' II 1 IS 1 - ,i \ ^ II .1 // eil •00 i 1 ( 141 -Y t i .fluti / v. -[[-,---•//[ —[% \\L\ -- . --- 1) — \ '\--A \--/gli ' 1 r'•' / . 0 k,___-- - -,'M>4,-ik --0 - - ° \ '0_ — ----. -------- / --- -12 o L- ----7-1 ----------_-----------*1 )//4",,, [.- 1 •) ,,,i-g-:.-v--_L_--__LL Lg.-_____.-'LL\=---__---7----__..[''- ......---._ ,9 N i a ! ((r)gg-------[____.:[-- ) \ 'k , 7 '. // (• H ,- / --- .gziJ)%. -=)- '-;`'L [,[ .am \g------ .! P'Eco L'oo, oo82888 foos000,o o, ,.... _______ o____,o5.,. . —/ O.i / • 4/elk g 4 IE \ 46\2\il 21t. 17 1 ill 2 / co \ 4-_--4 I\4 4 100116r lk F, 1 `[. 11 )g 2 'a ifc Li lcA -27 l'g'2 ) Y\ C 1 lg i L'' il H Ej \ .____-------, \ \ \ \ \ \ • Pm nk ;6'3 NIE'LM \ \ s I . .. $ Josml J Zmil" grgl .! a v v ¢ .1- ' .4,,. v i __ .LTi -- \� �, ,� I • IlI■i. i\\\\\ m o g ,�\ �� '� _ .r. INT �� I vvvvvx 0r 8 1,)„,, , iti, (.. , i . /7 li . rj NEI •IN I IV 0 [ \\\ \\.E1 \-\ \\4\\ - It Ty/E.- '1 o L .'\E_Ej RIMI mill. '' 1,‘,\\ \ \\,,? \\ IF 4r • Ai ! ® kIi1t �• vvvy�' r - ...\\\\\\\\\\ L: ii o 0 11 i k k k k 1 Ilk k 1 ' \\ 1 �Y - G4,• 111 I V L• I ■ 7 : `I,` I• Al or aim ' I ® Q jill imL201.1 ,„.„ ,,. ,,,, 1, .. 1 1 t/ 1 Mr2 1 oi 1 •• • • mmmmm •• lk / '401 116 ,1 .3= , , I Li - 101.1 . 7.101.1 1 : IMn it , ill _=:' II -= IMI E1-1 IL ,• , „ „\ wasir,... ,,, ;\ ;\k\\\ 11 1.1 ■ 1� — II I ' ;Vvvvvv vvv — ----4"..1.10.11---.1-11 ■ • vV\\\V\A\\ ■a...r�i� s , \\\VA\\ \ - L (/ ' t o 'I---- ^_; � \ --***C\\,• \7\\\\\'-'). t _0 sm — _ \ __ - :7... -_ ' �=--- I ■ \ 0 PIA \N \-1 if \ \ NMI' z , ..„„4, , \ _ .1.4-04 -2,; , ‘\ st. a s p a a p a \ \ r�NO.♦.. Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I -Project and Setting Instructions for Completing Part I Part I is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part I based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item,please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information; indicate whether missing information does not exist, or is not reasonably available to the sponsor; and,when possible,generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to update or fully develop that information. Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A& B. In Sections C,D& E,most items contain an initial question that must be answered either"Yes"or"No". If the answer to the initial question is"Yes",complete the sub-questions that follow. If the answer to the initial question is"No",proceed to the next question. Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the project sponsor to verify that the information contained in Part I is accurate and complete. A.Project and Sponsor Information. Name of Action or Project: Excelsior Park Project Location(describe,and attach a general location map): Excelsior Avenue&Ormandy Lane, Saratoga Springs Brief Description of Proposed Action (include purpose or need): The proposed action involves securing a Special Use Permit for 34.72 acres of land on Excelsior Avenue and Ormandy Lane.The project includes a mix of residential and commercial uses. Name of Applicant/Sponsor: Telephone:518.587.4113 Excelsior Park,LLC E-Mail: jwitt@wittconstruciton.com Address:563 N Broadway City/PO:Saratoga Springs State:New York Zip Code:12866 Project Contact(if not same as sponsor;give name and title/role): Telephone:518.587.4113 John Witt, President E-Mail: twitt@wittconstruciton.com Address: 563 N Broadway City/PO: State: Zip Code: Saratoga Springs New York 12866 Property Owner (if not same as sponsor): Telephone: Same E-Mail: Address: City/PO: State: Zip Code: Page 1 of 13 B. Government Approvals B. Government Approvals, Funding,or Sponsorship. ("Funding"includes grants, loans,tax relief,and any other forms of financial assistance.) Government Entity If Yes: Identify Agency and Approval(s) Application Date Required (Actual or projected) a.City Council,Town Board. ❑Yes®No or Village Board of Trustees b.City,Town or Village ®Yes❑No City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board November 9,2017 Planning Board or Commission c.City Council,Town or ❑Yes®No Village Zoning Board of Appeals d.Other local agencies ❑Yes®No e. County agencies ®Yes❑No Saratoga County Planning,Advisory Opinion f.Regional agencies ❑Yes®No g. State agencies ❑YesONo h. Federal agencies []Yes®No i. Coastal Resources. i. Is the project site within a Coastal Area, or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway? ❑Yes Q1No ii. Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program? ❑Yes❑No iii. Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area? E Yes0No C.Planning and Zoning C.I. Planning and zoning actions. Will administrative or legislative adoption,or amendment of a plan, local law,ordinance,rule or regulation be the ❑Yes®No only approval(s)which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed? • If Yes,complete sections C,F and G. • If No,proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part 1 C.2. Adopted land use plans. a. Do any municipally-adopted (city,town,village or county)comprehensive land use plan(s) include the site ®Yes❑No where the proposed action would be located? If Yes, does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action ®Yes❑No would be located? b. Is the site of the proposed action within any local or regional special planning district(for example: Greenway ®Yes❑No Brownfield Opportunity Area(BOA);designated State or Federal heritage area;watershed management plan; or other?) If Yes. identify the plan(s): NYS Heritage Areas: Mohawk Valley Heritage Corridor,Saratoga e. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan, ®Yes❑No or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan? If Yes,identify the plan(s): Comprehensive Plan Country Overlay Page 2 of 13 C.3. Zoning a. Is the site of the proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance. ®Yes❑No If Yes,what is the zoning classification(s)including any applicable overlay district? 1-5,Transect-5;1-4,Transect-4. Comprehensive Plan Country Overlay b. Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit? ®Yes❑No c. Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action? ❑Yes ONo If Yes, 1. What is the proposed new zoning for the site? C.4. Existing community services. a. In what school district is the project site located?Saratoga Springs b. What police or other public protection forces serve the project site? City of Saratoga Springs Police c. Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site? City of Saratoga Springs Fire Department d. What parks serve the project site? Spring Run Trail boarders the site.A connection to the trail exists from Ormandy Lane. D. Project Details D.I. Proposed and Potential Development a. What is the general nature of the proposed action(e.g.,residential,industrial,commercial,recreational; if mixed. include all components)? Residential, Commercial b. a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? 34.72 acres b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed? 9.7 acres c. Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? 36.07 acres c. Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use? ❑Yes0 No i. If Yes,what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units(e.g.,acres,miles,housing units, square feet)? % Units: d. Is the proposed action a subdivision,or does it include a subdivision? ❑Yes 6Z]No If Yes, i. Purpose or type of subdivision?(e.g.,residential, industrial,commercial;if mixed,specify types) Commercial, Residential Subdivision ii. Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed? ❑Yes®No iii. Number of lots proposed? iv. Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum Maximum e. Will proposed action be constructed in multiple phases? ®Yes❑No i. If No,anticipated period of construction: months ii. If Yes: • Total number of phases anticipated 8 • Anticipated commencement date of phase 1 (including demolition) 6 month2021 year • Anticipated completion date of final phase 12 month 2031 year • Generally describe connections or relationships among phases, including any contingencies where progress of one phase may determine timing or duration of future phases: Each phase is distinct in proposed uses and density.the timing of each_phase will be dependant on market conditions. Page 3 of 13 f. Does the project include new residential uses? ®Yes❑No If Yes,show numbers of units proposed. One Family Two Family Three Family Multiple Family(four or more) Initial Phase 0 0 0 31 Apartments At completion of all phases 73 T-Homes 0 0 106 Apartments g. Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction(including expansions)? ®Yes❑No If Yes, i. Total number of structures 3 ii. Dimensions(in feet)of largest proposed structure: 50' height; 250 width; and 160 length iii. Approximate extent of building space to be heated or cooled: 110,500 square feet h.Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any ❑Yes®No liquids, such as creation of a water supply,reservoir,pond, lake,waste lagoon or other storage? If Yes, i, Purpose of the impoundment: ii. If a water impoundment,the principal source of the water: ❑Ground water®Surface water streams ❑Other specify: iii. If other than water, identify the type of impounded/contained liquids and their source. iv. Approximate size of the proposed impoundment. Volume: million gallons; surface area: acres v. Dimensions of the proposed dam or impounding structure: height; length vi. Construction method/materials for the proposed dam or impounding structure(e.g.,earth fill,rock,wood,concrete): D.2. Project Operations a. Does the proposed action include any excavation,mining,or dredging,during construction,operations, or both? ❑Ycsz/No (Not including general site preparation,grading or installation of utilities or foundations where all excavated materials will remain onsite) If Yes: i.What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? ii. How much material (including rock,earth,sediments,etc.) is proposed to be removed from the site? • Volume(specify tons or cubic yards): • Over what duration of time? iii. Describe nature and characteristics of materials to be excavated or dredged,and plans to use,manage or dispose of them. iv. Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials? ❑Yes❑No If yes,describe. v. What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? acres vi. What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? acres vii. What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? feet viii. Will the excavation require blasting? ❑YesLNo ix. Summarize site reclamation goals and plan: b. Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of, increase or decrease in size of,or encroachment ®Yes[]No into any existing wetland,waterbody, shoreline, beach or adjacent area? If Yes: i. Identify the wetland or waterbody which would be affected(by name,water index number,wetland map number or geographic description):The proposed action would result in an encroachment into the adjacent area for NYSDEC S-16 and this encroachment was previously permitted by NYS DEC. Page 4 of 13 ii. Describe how the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland,e.g. excavation,fill,placement of structures. or alteration of channels,banks and shorelines. Indicate extent of activities, alterations and additions in square feet or acres: Some fill and placement of structures would occur within the wetland adjacent area. iii. Will proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments? D Yes®No If Yes,describe: iv. Will proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation? ❑Yes®No If Yes: • acres of aquatic vegetation proposed to be removed: • expected acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project completion: • purpose of proposed removal(e.g. beach clearing, invasive species control,boat access): • proposed method of plant removal: • if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used,specify product(s): v. Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance: c. Will the proposed action use,or create a new demand for water? Yes❑No If Yes: i. Total anticipated water usage/demand per day: t 56,680 gallons/day ii. Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply? ZYes❑No If Yes: • Name of district or service area: Saratoga Springs • Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal? Q]Yes❑No • Is the project site in the existing district? Ycsl No • Is expansion of the district needed? ❑Yes No • Do existing lines serve the project site? ❑Yes No iii. Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project? ®Ycs No If Yes: • Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: Anew main will be extended from the existing main along Excelsior Ave,westerly into Gibson Court. • Source(s)of supply for the district: Louqhberry Lake iv. Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site? ❑ Yes®No If,Yes: • Applicant/sponsor for new district: • Date application submitted or anticipated: • Proposed source(s)of supply for new district: v. If a public water supply will not be used,describe plans to provide water supply for the project: vi. If water supply will be from wells(public or private),maximum pumping capacity: gallons/minute. d. Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes? ®Yes❑No If Yes: i. Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day: _ ± 56,680 gallons/day ii. Nature of liquid wastes to be generated(e.g.,sanitary wastewater,industrial; if combination,describe all components and approximate volumes or proportions of each): Sanitary waste from commercial and residential uses. iii. Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities? ®Yes❑No If Yes: • Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used: Saratoga County Waste Water Treatment Plant in Mechanicville,NY • Name of district: Saratoga County Sewer District#1 • Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project? ®Yes❑No • Is the project site in the existing district? ®Yes❑No • Is expansion of the district needed? ❑YesIZINo Page 5 of 13 • Do existing sewer tines serve the project site? ®Yes❑No • Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project? ®Yes❑No If Yes: • Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: Sanitary Mains will be constructed east along Ormandy Lane from the existing manhole at the Excelsior Avenue intersection and west along Gibson Court from the existing stub on the Excelsior Avenue line. iv, Will a new wastewater(sewage)treatment district be formed to serve the project site? ❑Yes®No If Yes: • Applicant/sponsor for new district: • Date application submitted or anticipated: • What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge? v. If public facilities will not be used,describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project,including specifying proposed receiving water(name and classification if surface discharge,or describe subsurface disposal plans): vi. Describe any plans or designs to capture, recycle or reuse liquid waste: Not Applicable e. Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stonnwater runoff,either from new point ®Yes❑No sources(i.e. ditches,pipes,swales,curbs,gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater)or non-point source(i.e. sheet flow)during construction or post construction? If Yes: 1. How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size of project parcel? Square feet or 5.90 acres(impervious surface) Square feet or 34.72 acres (parcel size) ii. Describe types of new point sources.Commercial,recreation,multi-family and townhouse buildings,sidewalks,roads&parking lots iii. Where will the stormwater runoff be directed(i.e.on-site stormwater management facility/structures,adjacent properties, groundwater,on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)? On-site stormwater management facilities via underground stormwater chambers • If to surface waters, identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: • Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties? ❑Yes®No iv. Does proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces, use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater? ®Yes❑No f. Does the proposed action include, or will it use on-site,one or more sources of air emissions, including fuel ❑Yes®No combustion,waste incineration,or other processes or operations? If Yes, identify: i.Mobile sources during project operations(e.g.,heavy equipment, fleet or delivery vehicles) ii. Stationary sources during construction(e.g.,power generation,structural heating,batch plant,crushers) iii. Stationary sources during operations(e.g.,process emissions, large boilers,electric generation) g. Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f(above),require a NY State Air Registration,Air Facility Permit, ❑Yes®No or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit? If Yes: I. Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area? (Area routinely or periodically fails to meet ❑Yes❑No ambient air quality standards for all or some parts of the year) ii. In addition to emissions as calculated in the application,the project will generate: • Tons/year(short tons)of Carbon Dioxide(CO2) • Tons/year(short tons)of Nitrous Oxide(N20) • Tons/year(short tons)of Perfluorocarbons(PFCs) • Tons/year(short tons) of Sulfur Hexafluoride(SF6) • Tons/year(short tons)of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflourocarbons(HFCs) • Tons/year(short tons)of Hazardous Air Pollutants(HAPS) Page 6 of 13 h. Will the proposed action generate or emit methane(including,but not limited to,sewage treatment plants, ❑YestaNo landfills,composting facilities)? If Yes: r. Estimate methane generation in tons/year(metric): ii. Describe any methane capture.. control or elimination measures included in project design (e.g.,combustion to generate heat or electricity, flaring): i. Will the proposed action result in the release of air pollutants from open-air operations or processes,such as ❑Yes®No quarry or landfill operations? If Yes: Describe operations and nature of emissions(e.g.,diesel exhaust,rock particulates/dust): j. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial ®Yes❑No new demand for transportation facilities or services? If Yes: i. When is the peak traffic expected(Check all that apply): 0 Morning ® Evening ❑Weekend 0 Randomly between hours of 4 pm to 6 pm ii. For commercial activities only,projected number of semi-trailer truck trips/day: 75 iii. Parking spaces: Existing 403(prev.proj) Proposed 949 Net increase/decrease +546 iv. Does the proposed action include any shared use parking? ®Yes❑No v. If the proposed action includes any modification of existing roads,creation of new roads or change in existing access,describe: Ormandy Lane will be extended.The western end or Whistler Court will be extended and turn south to intersect with Ormandy Lane.The western end of Gibson Court will extend and turn north to intersect Excelsior Avenue. vi. Are public/private transportation service(s)or facilities available within I/2 mile of the proposed site? ®Yes❑No vii Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid,electric ❑Yes®No or other alternative fueled vehicles? viii. Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing ®Yes❑No pedestrian or bicycle routes? k. Will the proposed action(for commercial or industrial projects only)generate new or additional demand ®Yes❑No for energy? If Yes: i. Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: 3,001,940 Kw ii. Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project(e.g.,on-site combustion, on-site renewable, via grid/local utility,or other): Via Grid iii. Will the proposed action require a new,or an upgrade to,an existing substation? ❑Yes®No 1. Hours of operation. Answer all items which apply. i. During Construction: ii. During Operations: • Monday- Friday: 7am-7pm • Monday- Friday: 24 Hours • Saturday: 8am-7pm • Saturday: 24 Hours • Sunday: Sam-7pm • Sunday: 24 Hours • Holidays: - • Holidays: 24 Hours Page 7 of 13 m. Will the proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction, 0 Yes No operation,or both? If yes: 1. Provide details including sources,time of day and duration: ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen? ❑Yes ONo Describe: n.. Will the proposed action have outdoor lighting? Yes 0-No If yes: i. Describe source(s), location(s),height of fixture(s),direction/aim, and proximity to nearest occupied structures: Pedestrian level street lights along sidewalks.Free standing light fixtures will be provided in proposed parking lots. ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen? ❑YesElNo Describe: o. Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day? ❑Yes®No If Yes,describe possible sources,potential frequency and duration of odor emissions,and proximity to nearest occupied structures: p. Will the proposed action include any bulk storage of petroleum(combined capacity of over 1,100 gallons) ❑Yes No or chemical products 185 gallons in above ground storage or any amount in underground storage? If Yes: i. Product(s)to be stored ii. Volume(s) per unit time (e.g_,month,year) iii. Generally describe proposed storage facilities: q. Will the proposed action(commercial,industrial and recreational projects only)use pesticides(Le.,herbicides, ®Yes [No insecticides)during construction or operation? If Yes: i. Describe proposed treatment(s): Typical pesticides and herbicides will be used on landscape and lawn areas. ii. Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices? ❑ Yes ❑No r. Will the proposed action(commercial or industrial projects only) involve or require the management or disposal m Yes ❑No of solid waste(excluding hazardous materials)? If Yes: i. Describe any solid waste(s)to be generated during construction or operation of the facility: • Construction: varies tons per (unit of time) • Operation : 20 tons per month (unit of time) ii. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization,recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste: • Construction: Unkown • Operation: Recyclable materials such as paper,cardboard,grass and plastic will be removed from the waste stream. iii. Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site: • Construction: Construction waste will be removed by a licensed hauler and transported to a facility permitted to accept construction debris. • Operation: Solid waste will be removed by a licensed hauler. Page 8 of 13 s. Does the proposed action include construction or modification of a solid waste management facility? ❑ Yes j No If Yes: 1. Type of management or handling of waste proposed for the site(e.g.,recycling or transfer station,composting,landfill,or other disposal activities): ii. Anticipated rate of disposallprocessing: • Tons/month, if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment,or • Tons/hour, if combustion or thermal treatment iii. If landfill,anticipated site life: years t. Will proposed action at the site involve the commercial generation,treatment,storage, or disposal of hazardous 0Yes0No waste? If Yes: i. Name(s)of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated,handled or managed at facility: ii. Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: iii. Specify amount to be handled or generated tons/month iv. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization,recycling or reuse of hazardous constituents: v. Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility? ❑YesfNo If Yes:provide name and location of facility: If No:describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility: E.Site and Setting of Proposed Action E.1. Land uses on and surrounding the project site a. Existing land uses. i. Check all uses that occur on,adjoining and near the project site. ❑ Urban ® Industrial ® Commercial ® Residential(suburban) 0 Rural(non-farm) 0 Forest ❑ Agriculture ❑ Aquatic 0 Other(specify): _ ii. If mix of uses,generally describe: A mix of uses currently occupy adjacent properties including a hotel,condos,apartments,townhouses,a warehouse and woodlands. b.Land uses and covertypes on the project site. Land use or Current Acreage After Change Covertype Acreage Project Completion (Acres+/-) • Roads.buildings,and other paved or impervious surfaces 0.35 6.25 +5,90 • Forested 16.56 10.72 -5.84 • Meadows,grasslands or brushlands(non- agricultural, including abandoned agricultural) 4.00 0.77 3.23 • Agricultural 0 0 0 (includes active orchards,field,greenhouse etc.) • Surface water features (lakes,ponds,streams,rivers, etc.) 1.17 1.17 0 • Wetlands(freshwater or tidal) 11.29 11.29 0 • Non-vegetated(bare rock,earth or fill) 0.35 0.10 -0.25 • Other Describe:Landscaped areas including planting and lawn 1.00 4.42 +3.42 Page 9 of 13 c. Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation? ®Yes❑No i. If Yes:explain: a walking and biking path extends from the intersection of Crmandv and Excelsior down to Spring Run Trail. d. Are there any facilities serving children,the elderly,people with disabilities(e.g..schools,hospitals, licensed ❑YesIZINo day care centers,or group homes)within 1500 feet of the project site? If Yes, i. Identify Facilities: e. Does the project site contain an existing dam? ❑Yes®No If Yes: i. Dimensions of the dam and impoundment: • Dam height: feet • Dam length: feet • Surface area: acres • Volume impounded: gallons OR acre-feet ii. Dam's existing hazard classification: Provide date and summarize results of last inspection: f. Has the project site ever been used as a municipal,commercial or industrial solid waste management facility, ❑Yes®No or does the project site adjoin property which is now,or was at one time, used as a solid waste management facility? If Yes: i. Has the facility been formally closed? ❑Yes)] No • If yes,cite sources/documentation: ii. Describe the location of the project site relative to the boundaries of the solid waste management facility: Describe any development constraints due to the prior solid waste activities: g.Have hazardous wastes been generated,treated and/or disposed of at the site,or does the project site adjoin ❑Yes®No property which is now or was at one time used to commercially treat, store and/or dispose of hazardous waste? If Yes: r. Describe waste(s)handled and waste management activities, including approximate time when activities occurred: h. Potential contamination history. Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site,or have any ®Yes❑ No remedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site? If Yes: i. Is any portion of the site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site ®Yes❑No Remediation database? Check all that apply: [] Yes—Spills Incidents database Provide DEC ID number(s): Yes—Environmental Site Remediation database Provide DEC ID number(s): 546015 0 Neither database ii. If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities,describe control measures: Coal Tar from Niagara Mohawk site. Remedial action along Spring Run and associated wetlands completed in 2004. iii. Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Remediation database? ®YesDNo If yes,provide DEC ID number(s):546008 iv. If yes to(i),(ii)or(iii)above,describe current status of site(s): City Landfill,Weibel Ave.the site has been capped and potential impacts have been reduced. Page 10 of 13 v. Is the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses? ❑Yes0No • If yes, DEC site ID number: • Describe the type of institutional control(e.g.,deed restriction or easement): • Describe any use limitations: • Describe any engineering controls: • Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place? ❑Yes❑No • Explain: E.2. Natural Resources On or Near Project Site a. What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site? >6.5 feet b.Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site? ❑Yes®No If Yes,what proportion of the site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings? N.A.% c. Predominant soil type(s)present on project site: Fluvaqvents frequently flooded 32 % Windsor loamy sand(15-25%slope) 30 % Windsor loamy sand(3-8%slope) 38 % d. What is the average depth to the water table on the project site? Average: 8.5 feet e. Drainage status of project site soils:® Well Drained: 68%of site 0 Moderately Well Drained: %of site Z Poorly Drained 32%of site f.Approximate proportion of proposed action site with slopes: ® 0-10%: 75 %of site ® 10-15%: 5 %ofsite 15%or greater: 20 %of site g.Are there any unique geologic features on the project site? ❑'Yes®No If Yes,describe: h. Surface water features. i. Does any portion of the project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies(including streams,rivers, ®Yes❑No ponds or lakes)? ii. Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site? ®Yes❑No If Yes to either i or ii,continue. If No,skip to E.2.i. iii. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal, ®Yes❑No state or local agency? iv. For each identified regulated wetland and waterbody on the project site,provide the following information: • Streams: Name 941-130(Spring Run) Classification c • Lakes or Ponds: Name Classification • Wetlands: Name FWW S-16 Approximate Size 14.6 ac • Wetland No.(if regulated by DEC) S-16 v. Are any of the above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation of NYS water quality-impaired 21Yes No waterbodies? If yes,name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired: _ Spring Run,tributary to Lake Lonely/Phosphorus and Pathogens i. Is the project site in a designated Floodway? iYes❑No j. Is the project site in the 100 year Floodplain? 121Yes❑No k. Is the project site in the 500 year Floodplain? 12f Yes❑No 1. Is the project site located over,or immediately adjoining,a primary,principal or sole source aquifer? ®Yes❑No If Yes: i.Name of aquifer: Principal Aquifer Page 11 of 13 m. Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: Deer Birds Rodents n. Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community? ❑YesZNo If Yes: i. Describe the habitat/community(composition, function,and basis for designation): ii. Source(s)of description or evaluation: iii. Extent of community/habitat: • Currently: acres • Following completion of project as proposed: acres • Gain or loss(indicate+or-): acres o.Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as ❑Yes®No endangered or threatened,or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species? p. Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare,or as a species of ❑Yes®No special concern? q. Is the project site or adjoining area currently used for hunting,trapping, fishing or shell fishing? ❑Yes®No If yes,give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use: E.3. Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site a. Is the project site,or any portion of it, located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to [Dies ON° Agriculture and Markets Law,Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? If Yes, provide county plus district name/number: b.Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present? ❑Yes®No i. If Yes: acreage(s)on project site? ii. Source(s)of soil rating(s): c. Does the project site contain all or part of,or is it substantially contiguous to,a registered National ❑YcsIZNo Natural Landmark? If Yes: i. Nature of the natural landmark: ❑ Biological Community ❑ Geological Feature ii. Provide brief description of landmark, including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: d.Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area? ❑Yes0No If Yes: 1. CEA name: ii. Basis for designation: iii. Designating agency and date: Page 12 of 13 e. Does the project site contain,or is it substantially contiguous to,a building,archaeological site,or district 0 Yes No which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places,or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places? If Yes: i. Nature of historic/archaeological resource: DArchaeological Site ❑Historic Building or District ii. Name: Brief description of attributes on which listing is based: f Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for ®YesONo archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO)archaeological site inventory? g.Have additional archaeological or historic site(s)or resources been identified on the project site? DiesONoIf Yes: i. Describe possible resource(s): ii. Basis for identification: h. Is the project site within fives miles of any officially designated and publicly accessible federal,state,or local ❑YesONo scenic or aesthetic resource? If Yes: i.Identify resource: ii. Nature of,or basis for,designation(e.g.,established highway overlook,state or local park,state historic trail or scenic byway, etc.): iii Distance between project and resource: miles. i. Is the project site located within a designated river corridor under the Wild,Scenic and Recreational Rivers QYesiZNo Program 6 NYCRR 666? If Yes: i. Identify the name of the river and its designation: ii. Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666? DYesEINo F.Additional Information Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project. If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal,please describe those impacts plus any measures which you propose to avoid or minimize them. G. Verification I certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge. r�f Applicant/Sponsor Name John Witt,Exceisipr Park.LLC Date J (7 722) Signature Title President • PRINT FORM Page 13 of 13