Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20181047 EP SUP Chazen Comments 12-22-20 The LA GROUP Landscape Architecture&Engineering P.C. No/4..Purpefe.PGaae. 40 Long Alley Saratoga Springs NY 12866 p:518-587-8100 f 518-587-0180 www.thelagroup.corn LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL L toga Springs Planning Office DATE: 12/22/2020 JOB NO.:2016046 Hall Broadway ATTENTION: Susan Barden toga 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 IES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 12/18/2020 Response to Chairman's comments with attachments 12/14/2020 Chazen response letter 12/18/2020 Masterplan with environmental overlay 12/22/2020 Electronic Copy (CD of PDF's) RE TRANSMITTED as checked below: or 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 S: SIGNED: If enclosures are not as noted,kindly notify us at once. w°4 The A GROUP L:resc i�r .n_I•_i-r t _ ri chi r . c P_C December 18, 2020 Mr. Mark Torpey, Chairman City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 RE: Excelsior Park Special Use Permit Response to verbal comments of the Planning Board (11/19/20) Dear Mr. Torpey: The following are responses to additional information requested at the November 19 Planning Board meeting and further enumerated in an email sent by Susan Barden on December 1St 1. Clarify the area of Preserve from 27 acres indicated in the findings Statement and the 20 acres that exist. • Statement of Findings adopted October 16, 2002, states. o Section B. Summary references an Approximately 27 acres will be established as a Preserve, and... o Section C. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ■ 7. Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology, references • Reserving in perpetuity(through some as-yet-unnamed vehicle) the southern 27 acres of the site (with the exception of the Slots at the end of Eureka) as undevelopable open space. • Permitting development of the Spring Run trail across the southern end of the site, and • Construction and maintenance of public parking area, viewing area, and trail connector from the proposed new development through the preserve and to an existing public street at the southern edge of the site. • Special Use Permit granted October 16, 2002 (public hearing on October 2nd and 16th), states. o Page 5, Phase 1 , Spring Run Preserve: Phase 1 site plan review shall include a determination of the methods and devices, which may include a conservation easement, to secure and preserve that portion of the project referred to as "Spring Run Preserve." The applicant shall work in collaboration with the Planning Board, the City Council, the Open Space Project and Urban Heritage Area program to ensure the most appropriate development of the "Ten Springs Wood"corridor and the Spring Run Trail. • The filed subdivision plan includes a preserve area conservation easement of 20.17 acres. • Management Plan was completed in December Of 2004 which included the draft conservation easement and includes a Preserve Boundary figure showing the 20-acre area. We do not have any specific information with respect to the change in area between the Statement of Finding and the Special Use Permit only that this reduction occurred with the subdivision approval for phase 1 and the management plan that was completed. An assumption may be that the original preserve contemplated development areas such as parking and the Eureka Avenue Subdivision which were subsequently removed with the development of the management plan and conservation easement. The minutes from the April 30, 2003 Planning Board meeting include the following statements from the public hearing. Management Plan: Jeff Pfeil said there would be a conservation easement for the preserve. Nancy Butcher felt that the Board really needed a management plan for the 27 acres preserve because it includes mud baths and other landmarks. Jeff Pfeil said the mud baths are not part of the preserve, but they are part of the path and there would be a management plan for the path. Dave Carr said that a management plan could be constructed, and access could be limited via signs, etc. Bob Israel said that the White Sulfur Springs should be part of the management plan. Jeff Pfeil said they would prefer to give the preserved land to the City because they have no desire for long term management. He said the City DPW has said they do not want to incur the liability associated with the preserve. He said he believed that at the last meeting he made it clear that this would-be passive recreation only. Lew Benton said the concept for the preservation of Spring Run preserve was required in the special use permit and that the special use permit requires it this to be done in Phase 1. Although nothing was originally submitted by the applicant, on April 28, 2003 the applicant submitted a proposal to set aside about 20 acres for a preserve that would be owned by the applicants or the HOA and a conservation easement would be given to the City. He concluded that only recreational structures would be permitted, and the area would require low maintenance. 2. What specific traffic calming measures along Excelsior spring Avenue would be recommended and considered. The traffic study produced by GPI dated, October 20, 2020 concludes that the remaining traffic calming measures at the Excelsior Spring Ave., Victoria lane and Audrey Lane intersection should be completed once 50 additional peak hour trips are generated. The original Special Use Permit required, narrowing of the travel lanes with the installation of curbing, the installation of stop signs and the addition of a crosswalk and concrete pad for a bus stop. The four-way stop has been installed along with curbing at the Excelsior Spring Ave, Audrey Lane intersection. Our proposal would be to coordinate with the City DPW on any further required improvements during site plan approval when this threshold is met. I do not believe the crosswalk, or the concrete pad makes sense at this time since there are no sidewalks in this area and Excelsior Spring Avenue is fairly narrow. There is no bus stop for children at this location and those locations move year to year based on school-aged population. 3. When would the traffic mitigation improvements be completed as part of the project(s), at issuance of building permit, C.O.? All mitigation measures including traffic mitigation are detailed during site plan review. The on-site and off-site improvements are secured in the required letter-of-credit to be submitted at the filing of the site plans and prior to issuance of a building permit. All required improvements are required to be completed prior to the issuance of a final C.O. and release of the letter-of-credit. This fact is also referenced in the minutes of Site Plan review for Phase 1A, dated April 2, 2003; Lew Benton said that as far as traffic mitigation measures, the applicant would not be able to obtain a certificate of occupancy unless traffic measures are complete. Lew Benton was the Chairman of the Planning Board. There is also reference to; the Board working a new fair share plan for the corridor and that some preliminary recommendations should be developed in a month...with respect to off-site traffic improvements. 4. How would a cost-sharing of traffic mitigation measures be structured and implemented? The 2002 Excelsior Park Statement of Findings made determinations about the impacts to the traffic corridor at Veterans Way and Route 50, among others. It determined a mix of on-site and off-site traffic improvements which would be necessary at future threshold exceedance to be confirmed or modified during updated traffic information at the time of site plan applications for each phase. In accordance the NYS SEQRA Handbook(2010), "mitigation on the project site may not be feasible or would not adequately address an identified impact. In such circumstances, some form of off-site (or compensatory) mitigation may be offered. Off-site mitigation may address a shared impact, or may be an environmental benefit not directly associated with the proposed project that serves as a trade-off for unavoidable impacts on-site." (p. 129) It should be noted that cost-sharing is referenced in the original special use permit, to wit: "If any of the above traffic improvements are required by the City to be made by any other development project in the vicinity of the site prior to the requirement being made by the owner/developer of the project, those improvements will not have to be made by the owner/developer of this project. In addition, if any other development in the area is required to make such improvements at or about the same time, the City may assign a fair share cost to each development for such improvements." In the minutes of the April 2, 2003 Planning Board meeting for Phase 1 of the development with respect to Off-site traffic improvements; "Lew Benton (chairman) noted that in accord with the conditions of the special use permit the applicant would be required to install a traffic signal at the intersection of East Avenue and Excelsior Avenue and extend the westbound turning lane on Route 50 at the Veterans Way intersection, because the trips exceed 100. He also noted that the Board is working on a new fair share plan for the corridor and that some preliminary recommendations should be developed within a month. Mike Ingersoll agreed to have these traffic improvements designed and secured as part of this approval but noted that they would like this to be part of the fair share traffic mitigation. The Board agreed that the design would be subject to the chair's approval after consultation with the Department of Public Works and the Department of Public Safety."The cost share approach is also included in the City Planners notes for discussion at the April 2, 2003 meeting. As such, the applicant proposes the creation of a City escrow account for the applicant's portion of the "shared impact" and related traffic mitigation within the Excelsior Avenue corridor. Moreover, the City has precedent for this type of shared impact mitigation such as the traffic signal at the corner of NYS Route 9P and Crescent Avenue and for the East Avenue/Excelsior Ave traffic signal. In those two instances, projects that contributed to the degradation of those intersections were required to pay into a fund that was held by the city, to be used for the future improvement. If the funds were not utilized, then they were to be returned to the developer. A written agreement would establish the creation of the fund; the basis for determining the cost of the improvement; the proportionate share of cost to be paid by the applicant; and the timing of the payment or payments. Any such agreement would necessarily require a resolution of the City Council authorizing the Mayor enter into the agreement, establish the account and the limits for expenditure of the funds. Any resolution by the Planning Board as lead agent could properly make such City Council action a condition of its approval. By way of structure, the escrow account would be based on the total estimated cost of future improvements in the corridor which would include but not limited to. • The extension of the left turn lane from 100'to 325' • Construct a northbound left turn lane on Veterans Way at Route 50 • Installation of a traffic signal at the Marion Ave/Excelsior Ave intersection • Traffic calming measures at the Excelsior Spring Ave and Audrey lane intersection • Any additional perceived requirements in the Excelsior Avenue corridor. The total cost of theses improvements would be calculated by the applicant's traffic consultant and reviewed by the City's consultant. Once the full value is agreed upon then proposed projects in the corridor would contribute to the account, at the time of approval based on future peak hour vehicle trips. The fees would be based on current value but may be adjusted each year to account for inflation. This adjustment would be necessary so that sufficient funds are available to pay for future improvements. 5. How was the 45% contribution indicated in the traffic study derived? The 45% contribution proposed in the GPI letter is in reference to the extension of the left-bound turn lane on Route 50 and the improvement of the Veterans Way and the northbound, right-turn lane on Veterans Way. The original Special Use Permit required an extension from 100'to 200'. The revised traffic study shows that 250' is currently needed and that 325'will be required in the 2030 build condition, which includes contributing background traffic not associated with Excelsior Park. The 100' extension originally proposed to accommodate site traffic represents 45% of the additional 225' needed to accommodate all future year traffic. 6. Revisit/update the fiscal impact analysis. In the original Excelsior Park DEIS, the project sponsor set forth a variety of potential impacts related to the socio-economics which were then further clarified by the Planning Board, its consultants and the public during the public comment period for the development of the FEIS (6 NYCRR 617.9, 617.10). The ultimate determination of"the relevant environmental impacts presented in an EIS"was the Statement of Findings which "weighs and balances [impacts]with social, economic and other essential considerations, [and] provides a rationale for the agency's decision and certifies that the SEQR requirements have been met." (See 6 NYCRR 617.11) For the Excelsior Park Statement of Findings, Section 9 represents the conclusions reached by the Planning Board in the original SEQRA process and no potential adverse environmental impacts were identified. Therefore, no mitigation was required. As the Project has required an examination under SEQRA of the "changed circumstances" presented by both the passage of time and the proposed modifications beginning in 2017, the City's review consultant, Chazen, issued the following comment as part of their comment letter dated February 26, 2019 related to the Socio-Economic setting as derived from the original scope of the EIS and the 2002 Statement of Findings. Socio-Economic Setting 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. On October 10 2019, the applicant's team met with representatives from Chazen and City Staff to determine the level analysis required to respond to comments since the level of concern over this type of mixed-use development has changed significantly since 2002. The reason for the meeting was to assess "the importance and relevance of the information" (6 NYCRR 617.9) given the elapsing of eighteen (18) years and whether the same concerns of fiscal impact were germane. In particular, the meeting sought to assess whether a full, updated fiscal analysis was required for the revised project to respond to this particular comment and other comments with respect to impacts on the City of Saratoga Springs, given many factors which are now self-evident (i.e., Spring Run Trail, Fresh Market complex, etc.). It was determined that a full analysis was not required, and the following comparison was submitted. 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 completedoi 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. Chazen issued an additional comment letter on July 8th of this year and it was determined that the comment was sufficiently addressed. 7. Provide details about affordable units — proposed income levels for the beacon project (58 units) and for any other affordable units envisioned. Below is correspondence from Paul Kruger, Development Director for Beacon Communities which explains their concept for the affordable project. The remainder of the residential portion of the project is proposed to be market-rate housing. Paul writes, "The Beacon at Excelsior Park is a new Workforce Housing project comprised of fifty-eight 1, 2, and 3-bedroom apartments. The project is located within the Excelsior Park mixed use community in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY and will consist of two building styles: a multifamily building with a total of forty-eight units, and two blocks of townhomes with a total of ten units. The multifamily building would include approximately 4,000 sq. ft. of ground floor commercial space to be leased to an agency providing pre-K childcare services. This property will primarily house low to moderate income residents who work in the city of Saratoga Springs but are unable to find affordable apartments in the city's costly housing market. Rents would be regulated by NYS so that residents would pay no more than 30% of their income to rent. For example, one-bedroom apartments would be targeted to households earning between $20,249 and $54,000,with rent ranging between$859 and$1,315. Rents on the two-and three-bedroom apartments would range between $1,036 and $1,783 and similarly be affordable to the household's income. The buildings will be designed to far exceed the energy efficiency and green building measures called for by the NYS Energy Code. The project will be certified to NYSERDA's Low Rise New Construction Program and performance as well as to the Silver level under ICC/ASHRAE 700 National Green Building Standard. Beacon has also formed a partnership with Wellspring, a local nonprofit serving victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse and will set-aside ten of the project's fifty-eight apartments for Wellspring's clients. Under this partnership, Wellspring will receive rental and supportive service subsidy from the NYS Empire State Supportive Housing Initiative. We will submit a funding application to NYS HCR in January 2021, and anticipate construction start prior to the end of 2021." 8. Explain the HCR letter The letter from Homes and Community Renewal (HCR), dated October 6, 2020 was in response to the standard request for SEQRA Lead Agency. They are an involved agency because Beacon Communities, the applicant for the 58-unit affordable housing project is planning on applying for funding from their agency. The letter details the requirements of Beacon's submission for funding which are standard requirements. Their requirements in the letter are listed below and this case, Beacon Communities is the project sponsor. a. The project sponsor would be required to submit a copy of a final impact determination letter from the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. The determination is attached. b. The project sponsor would be required to submit copies of a SPDES General Stormwater Permit if the project would disturb more than one acre. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) has been submitted with the site plan application. If the project is approved this will be submitted to HCR along with the signed NOI and the NYS DEC project registration. c. The project sponsor would be required to submit copies of a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment (ESA) report which must meet, at a minimum, the ASTM standard for site assessment and include a Vapor Encroachment Screen. Any recognized environmental conditions or environmental concern would need to be resolved per HCR RFP requirements. The project sponsor has completed a Phase 1 including a Vapor Encroachment Screen. A Vapor encroachment Screen is an analysis of the presence of chemicals in the soil that concern vapors in the subsurface caused by the release of vapors from contaminated soils and/or ground water. No evidence of any recognized environmental conditions where found at the site. d. The project sponsor would be required to submit a copy of all wetland and flood plain permits. No wetland or floodplain permits are required for this project since there will be no encroachment on wetlands, wetland buffers or floodplains. e. The project sponsor would be required to submit evidence to support compliance with the NYS Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act. The NYS Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act was signed into law in August of this year as an amendment to the Environmental Conservation Law. There is a form that is required if a project is seeking Environmental Facilities Corporation funding which I do not believe this project is seeking. The form is attached, f. The project sponsor would be required to submit a site suitability analysis per HCR requirements. This includes an impact analysis of flood hazards presented by upstream dams. In this case the flood mapping included in the Loughberry Dam studies would need to be consulted. Beacon Communities received a Site Suitability study from C.T. Male associates dated October 30, 2020. The study found that while there was one bulk storage facility and two manufacturing facilities within 1,320 feet of the property, they did not anticipate that any of these features would adversely impact the health and well-being of the future tenants. Also, with respect to the dam, the City owns Loughberry Dam and are responsible for maintaining a safe dam as required by New York Codified Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) and enforced by NYS DEC. In 2016 the City hired Schnabel Engineering to study the Loughberry Lake Dam. An analysis of the dam study with respect to the project is attached and concludes the site will not be subject to flooding with a dam failure (which is not anticipated). The above items included in the letter were submitted to HCR reviewed with representatives of the agency by conference call on December 14 2020. The agency was satisfied with the studies provided and had no further environmental comments. 9. Provide data to support the 135% increase in the parking spots (546 spaces) and as it relates to increase in impervious surfaces. The parking space total is based on the maximum square footage and unit count of the proposed uses. Parking can be reduced with shared parking scenarios and waivers during site plan review for each project however, the plan indicates the maximum required to show the maximum amount of impervious area and site disturbance associated with the parking. The increase in parking doesn't lead to a significant increase in impervious area and the development envelope has not been expanded. This is due to the fact that 55% of the proposed parking spaces are within buildings and an additional 27% of the surface parking spaces exist as part of the phase 1 construction. The breakdown is as follows. Enclosed Garage Spaces 155 Covered Spaces (under building footprint) 30 Townhouse Garage Spaces 113 Subtotal 298 On-street Parking 98 (68 exist) Townhouse driveway spaces 23 Surface parking lots 127 Subtotal 248 Total 546 10. In addition to bike/pedestrian accommodations, what public transportation/transit stops are considered. A CDTA bus stop was considered as part of the Excelsior Avenue apartments project along Excelsior Avenue across from the proposed building. Beacon Communities continues to have discussions on siting a bus stop within the neighborhood. I hope this answers your questions and we look forward to continuing our dialogue with the Board with the goal of achieving a Special Use Permit for the project Best Regards, Aj /*A/ David R. Carr, Jr., RLA, ASLA Associate Principal dcarr©thelagroup.com ritMEw©oRK Parks, Recreation, STATE OPPORTUNITY and Historic Preservation ANDREW M. CUOMO ERIK KULLESEID Governor Commissioner August 04, 2020 Paul Kruger Development Director Beacon Communities Development 54 State Street Suite 802 Albany, NY 12207 Re: NYSHCR The Beacon at Excelsior Park Excelsior Avenue, City of Saratoga Springs, Saratoga County, NY 20PR04647 Dear Paul Kruger: Thank you for requesting the comments of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). We have reviewed the project in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. These comments are those of the SHPO and relate only to Historic/Cultural resources. They do not include potential environmental impacts to New York State Parkland that may be involved in or near your project. Such impacts must be considered as part of the environmental review of the project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and/or the State Environmental Quality Review Act (New York Environmental Conservation Law Article 8). Based upon this review, it is the opinion of the New York SHPO that no historic properties, including archaeological and/or historic resources, will be affected by this undertaking. If further correspondence is required regarding this project, please be sure to refer to the OPRHP Project Review (PR) number noted above. Sincerely, CWr R. Daniel Mackay Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Division for Historic Preservation Division for Historic Preservation P.O. Box 189,Waterford, New York 1 21 88-01 89•(518)237-8643•parks.ny.gov NEWYSTATE 6EORK Department Environmental OPPORTUNITY of Health Facilities Corporation Smart Growth Assessment Form This form should be completed by an authorized representative of the applicant, preferably the project engineer or other design professional.' Section 1 — General Applicant and Project Information Applicant: BCREI Project No.: n/a Project Name: Beacon at Excelsior Park Is project construction complete? ❑ Yes, date: ® No Please provide a brief project summary in plain language including the location of the area the project serves: The project is a new 58 unit Workforce Housing Project located within the City of Saratoga Springs, NY. The project will service the Saratoga Springs community. The project is located within the Excelsior Park mixed use development and all utilities are currently available at the site. Section 2 — Screening Questions A. Prior Approvals 1. Has the project been previously approved for Environmental Facilities ❑ Yes ® No Corporation (EFC) financial assistance? 2. If yes to A(1), what is the project number(s) for the Project No.: prior approval(s)? 3. If yes to A(1), is the scope of the previously-approved project ❑ Yes ❑ No substantially the same as the current project? If your responses to A(1) and A(3) are both yes, please proceed to Section 5, Signature. B. New or Expanded Infrastructure 1. Does the project involve the construction or reconstruction of new or ❑ Yes ® No expanded infrastructure? Examples of new or expanded infrastructure include, but are not limited to: (i) The addition of new wastewater collection/new water mains or a new wastewater treatment system/water treatment plant where none existed previously; (ii) An increase of the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permitted flow capacity for an existing wastewater treatment system; and OR 1 If project construction is complete and the project was not previously financed through EFC, an authorized municipal representative may complete and sign this assessment. Page 1 Effective October 1, 2020 (iii) An increase of the permitted water withdrawal or the permitted flow capacity for the water treatment system such that a Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) water withdrawal permit will need to be obtained or modified, or result in the Department of Health (DOH) approving an increase in the capacity of the water treatment plant. If your response to B(1) is no, please proceed to Section 5, Signature. Section 3 —Smart Growth Criteria Your project must be consistent will all relevant Smart Growth criteria. For each question below please provide a response and explanation. 1. Does the project use, maintain, or improve existing infrastructure? ❑ Yes ❑ No Explain your response: 2. Is the project located in a (1) municipal center, (2) area adjacent to a municipal center, or (3) area designated as a future municipal center, as such terms are defined herein (please select one response)? ❑ Yes, my project is located in a municipal center, which is an area of concentrated and mixed land uses that serves as a center for various activities, including but not limited to: central business districts, main streets, downtown areas, brownfield opportunity areas (see fvww.dos.nv.go, for more information), downtown areas of local waterfront revitalization program areas (see www.dos.ny.gov for more information), areas of transit-oriented development, environmental justice areas (see www.dec.ny.gov/public/899.html for more information), and hardship areas (projects that primarily serve census tracts or block numbering areas with a poverty rate of at least twenty percent according to the latest census data). ❑ Yes, my project is located in an area adjacent to a municipal center which has clearly defined borders, is designated for concentrated development in the future in a municipal or regional comprehensive plan, and exhibits strong land use, transportation, infrastructure, and economic connections to an existing municipal center. ❑ Yes, my project is located in an area designated as a future municipal center in a municipal or comprehensive plan and is appropriately zoned in a municipal zoning ordinance ❑ No, my project is not located in a (1) municipal center, (2) area adjacent to a municipal center, or (3) area designated as a future municipal center. Explain your response and reference any applicable plans: 2 of 4 Effective October 1, 2020 3. Is the project located in a developed area or an area designated for concentrated infill development in a municipally-approved comprehensive land use plan, local waterfront revitalization plan, and/or brownfield opportunity area plan? ❑Yes ❑No Explain your response and reference any applicable plans: 4. Does the project protect, preserve, and enhance the State's resources, including surface and groundwater, agricultural land, forests, air quality, recreation and open space, scenic areas, and significant historic and archaeological resources? ❑Yes ❑No Explain your response: 5. Does the project foster mixed land uses and compact development, downtown revitalization, brownfield redevelopment, the enhancement of beauty in public spaces, the diversity and affordability of housing in proximity to places of employment, recreation and commercial development, and the integration of all income and age groups? ❑Yes ❑No Explain your response: 6. Does the project provide mobility through transportation choices including improved public transportation and reduced automobile dependency? ❑Yes ❑No ❑N/A Explain your response: 7. Does the project involve coordination between State and local government, intermunicipal planning, or regional planning? ❑Yes ❑No Explain your response and reference any applicable plans: 3 of 4 Effective October 1, 2020 8. Does the project involve community-based planning and collaboration? ❑Yes ❑No Explain your response and reference any applicable plans: 9. Does the project support predictability in building and land use codes? ❑Yes ❑No ❑N/A Explain your response: 10. Does the project promote sustainability by adopting measures such as green infrastructure techniques, decentralized infrastructure techniques, or energy efficiency measures? ❑Yes ❑No Explain your response and reference any applicable plans: 11. Does the project mitigate future physical climate risk due to sea-level rise, storm surges, and/or flooding, based on available data predicting the likelihood of future extreme weather events, including hazard risk analysis data, if applicable? ❑Yes ❑No Explain your response and reference any applicable plans: Section 4 — Miscellaneous 1. Is the project expressly required by a court or administrative consent ❑ Yes ❑ No order? If yes, and you have not previously provided the applicable order to EFC/DOH, please submit it with this form. Section 5 — Signature By signing below, you agree that you are authorized to act on behalf of the applicant and that the information contained in this Smart Growth Assessment is true, correct and complete to the best of your knowledge and belief. Applicant: BCREI Phone Number: 518-331-5069 Name and Title of Signatory: Paul Kruger, Development Director Signature: Date: 4 of 4 Effective October 1, 2020 eiSchnabel T 518.348.8575 ENGINEERING 28 Corporate Drive,Suite 204 / Clifton Park,NY 12065 schnabel-eng.com November 19, 2020 Mr. Paul Kruger Development Director Beacon Communities, LLC 54 State Street, Suite 802 Albany, NY 12207 Subject: Excelsior Park Project, Saratoga Springs, NY (Schnabel Reference 20C25013.00) Dear Mr. Kruger: SCHNABEL ENGINEERING OF NEW YORK (Schnabel) is pleased to provide this summary of our prior work performed related to Beacon Communities (Beacon) proposed Excelsior Park Project site development at Excelsior Avenue and Ormandy Lane Saratoga Springs, New York. Since 2016, Schnabel has been engaged by the City of Saratoga Springs (City) to perform various dam safety evaluations for the Loughberry Lake Dam which is located approximately one half mile west of the proposed Excelsior Park Project site. In the course of the our evaluations, Schnabel has developed a detailed hydraulic model of the surface flows in the vicinity along the dam embankment including New York State (NYS) Route 50, nearby properties, and properties adjacent to and including Spring Run to its crossing beneath Interstate 87. The proposed Excelsior Park Project is located just south of Route 50, west of Interstate 87 and north of Spring Run. This letter report puts our prior work in context, describes its intent, and provides an opinion of the potential impact of the Loughberry Lake Dam on the proposed Excelsior Park Project development. All of our work done to date indicates that the proposed Excelsior Park Project is well above (in elevation) and outside of any potentially dam related inundation area or floodplain based on the 100-year design storm. The 100-year design storm is the storm utilized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to map the regulated flood zones to inform development as administered by the local authority. BACKGROUND The City is the owner of Loughberry Lake Dam, located approximately one half mile west of the proposed Excelsior Park Project site. They are responsible for maintaining a safe dam and for performing certain activities as required by the New York Codified Rules and Regulation (NYCRR), Part 673 and enforced by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC). Loughberry Lake Dam is classified as a Class C, high hazard dam and is therefore held to the state's highest standard in regards to dam safety. Schnabel was initially engaged to perform the necessary activities to bring the dam into compliance with the regulatory requirements. Three of our major activities included: developing an Emergency Action Plan Beacon Communities, LLC Excelsior Park Project (EAP), performing a hazard classification study, and completing a comprehensive Engineering Assessment (EA). The EAP and the hazard class study required developing and utilizing a detailed hydraulic model to map the potential downstream inundation area (including Spring Run to Interstate 87) assuming the dam were to fail at its maximum section. This dam failure assumption is required to identify potentially inundated areas to evacuate (for the EAP) and to assess the potential impacts of a dam failure on downstream lives, transportation networks, and utilities (for the hazard class study). It is important to note that this inundation mapping is required for these analyses and is independent of the condition of the dam or its likelihood of failure. Similar mapping would be required if the dam were new or old, concrete or earthen, maintained or in disrepair. The presence of the inundation mapping developed for the dam is not an indicator of the risk or likelihood of its failure. The third activity we completed was the EA. The work was performed in accordance with the NYS DEC Guidance Document TOGS 3.1.4 which generally requires that the dam be evaluated for embankment stability and spillway capacity. Because the dam is regulated at New York's highest standard, it is required to store or safely pass the runoff from a storm significantly exceeding the 100-year event. The EA concluded that the dam needed spillway capacity improvements, a new low level outlet, and upstream slope stability improvements. The City subsequently retained Schnabel to design the necessary improvements to bring the dam into regulatory compliance. One of the advancements made during the detailed design was the refinement and expansion of the HEC-RAS (Version 5.0.7) 2-Dimensional (2D) hydraulic model which confirmed that the dam would not overtop even under the extreme spillway design flood. Rather, flow would overtop Route 50 at a sag point located approximately 1000 feet (ft) east of the dam near the intersection with Veterans Way. This low point in Route 50 would effectively serve as a second armored auxiliary spillway, safely discharging most flow from this extreme storm event away from the primary dam embankment. For context, Route 50 was constructed to its current configuration in 1967 and has never overtopped due to Loughberry Lake flooding. The refined modeling and the concepts for the proposed improvements have been discussed with the NYS DEC and detailed design drawings for all project element will be submitted in the fall of 2020 for their approval to construct. It is anticipated the construction will occur in 2022 after which the dam will be in full compliance with the state's highest dam safety standards. Hydraulic Modeling related to the Excelsior Park Project Schnabel was retained by Beacon to review the 2D hydraulic modeling results previously developed to assess the potential impacts on the proposed Excelsior Park Project. The prior modeling and mapping was developed to support design decisions for the City's dam rehabilitation project and to develop inundation mapping for their Emergency Action Plan. The Emergency Action Plan, and the inundation mapping, identifies potentially inundated areas in the event of a pending or ongoing dam emergency. The hydraulic model predicts the resulting flood depths and velocities within the flood limits. An overview of the 2D hydraulic model mesh is provided in Figure 1 below. The mesh extends from approximately three (3) miles upstream of Lougberry Lake Dam to approximately 1.5 miles downstream from the Dam and includes the extents of the properties comprising the Excelsior Park Project. The mesh contains approximately 54,000 computation cells with an overall average cell size of 50 ft by 50 ft. The model geometry also includes hydraulic structures representing road/railroad crossings as well as the principal and auxiliary spillways at Loughberry Lake Dam. 20025013.00/November 19, 2020 Page 2 Schnabel Engineering of New York Beacon Communities, LLC Excelsior Park Project x 1w tri. ,. o- q r r ffi "a ® � i ip,IDjr ols Fasd Stale Forest e '` � 7 I .Ta � i IIJi : ear s i ; -dLlduk_ SC'I r'.. ' drlriierI- law,t, - itik I!!J P�r�mid f irte f 5 - Moble FIVYIe` a x L}u�j' � Suf,. L r L. �'.� �.. 1 L�'Itrcn 1;1,1 `�, Sq viae " if �"�! r "3 Jy close 1 �.Ji Skidrric re """'°'iy " r Frig. 'r MI0 .�7s.,, s'.: ... . .. _ ixcehior Awe tb'vsuh-hasm 3� _ - (13=11171 gli Figure 1 —Overview of 2D Hydraulic Model Geometry Elevation data used in the model geometry is based on a 2-meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data derived from a LiDAR bare earth point cloud. Manning's n-value roughness coefficients were set based upon the 2011 National Land Classification Dataset (NLCD). 2D Area Manning N-Value Regions were used to refine the n-values for major roadways, the stream channel, as well as for buildings. The 2D hydraulic model includes, an inflow boundary condition at the northern limit of the model geometry to represent storm induced runoff hydrographs upstream of the large railroad embankment to the north of Loughberry Lake, a second inflow hydrograph boundary condition to Loughberry Lake downstream of the railroad embankment, a third inflow hydrograph boundary condition for Spring Run downstream of Loughberry Lake Dam, and a fourth inflow hydrograph boundary condition representing local runoff between the dam and Interstate 1-87. Flow hydrographs for the boundary conditions were extracted from an HEC-HMS hydrologic model that was developed by Schnabel for the Engineering Assessment of Loughberry Lake Dam. 20025013.00/November 19, 2020 Page 3 Schnabel Engineering of New York Beacon Communities, LLC Excelsior Park Project The site plan for the proposed Excelsior Park Project site was provided by Beacon (as prepared by the LA Group) and is provided as Figure 2. a„ The LAGROUT r e , I a p� � .510,1 LhdJiPLxµu[] GOMI/IAICM ! a,� ••••,•. _ BUPA • •a i 9 4. a*, ` a tf. Ie'`�a rnmm,.net uc FyY`r -} '141414 , 1 'dV'... .yyi' 1�� ..E.,9 Y 4 1 6 t a �f r.�•^ 1. Y � �R" PE6iA6RaM umrv. rami 4 s! y a m ms l., rP,a4uaKF. Excelsior Park 9nPE�MNR ProjectSitle a y4"P 4 P �' h d^ '.'x.• " anirNtxl9 .p A. •-e.' - G.NrS-141LNIS .111C1-,-3 efn «a[cncn � I I` 5[R\4.[ uvic Foe,-11C, Lie,6 rltt �». , s SME r., sroraanc HE MO. 1J'f.. APirtmarn6 LL P a D[;[ L4A411L, xr.. rvlaI ; vP9 c!t)cEs <41141€H..S ♦ _0,1I 1[4 IINITL.. - r Neighbotood%an xESl3[r [IGFPCPiGGe PROW,.101.0140`. ,Icy 1.4 11 w1v ti FF:.. '." wm I L_1 Figure 2—Proposed Excelsior Park Project Site As referenced earlier, Schnabel's hydraulic model confirmed that under the extreme spillway design flood event (significantly greater than the 100-year event)flow would overtop Route 50 at a sag point located approximately 1000 ft east of the dam near the intersection with Veterans Way. This low point in Route 50 would effectively serve as a second armored auxiliary spillway, safely discharging most flow from this extreme storm event away from the primary dam embankment. Under these circumstances, these overtopping flows are expected to impact areas west of Veterans Way prior to returning to the main Spring Run drainage way. Figure 3 illustrates the inundation area resulting from this event. The figure shows the limits and depth of inundation downstream of, and adjacent to, Loughberry Lake Dam. As clearly shown, no dam or Spring Run related flooding is predicted to occur on the proposed Excelsior Park Project site. 20025013.00/November 19, 2020 Page 4 Schnabel Engineering of New York Beacon Communities, LLC Excelsior Park Project .. / L13.IAn2m181 1 00 as= "eqrfri *Iti. it ` Ex ,. I '' x1 w Loughberry p Lake J� / . IV QV., { < - -IN'„"i�J ��. a I ' re- Fr� � w.�. 1 i < ;i". rg k , 2.59 Legend: Z09 -, Depth of ,00 Flooding 5.9 Figure 3—Loughberry Lake Dam Inundation Mapping Closing In closing, it is our opinion that the proposed Excelsior Park Project site development at Excelsior Avenue and Ormandy Lane in Saratoga Springs, NY will not be subjected to flooding related to discharges from or failure of the Loughberry Lake Dam or from related elevated levels of Spring Run. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 518-348-8580, or via email at gdaviero©schnabel-eng.com, should you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, SCHNABEL ENGINEERING OF NEW YORK I Gregory J. Daviero, PhD, PE Principal GJD:scc 20025013.00/November 19, 2020 Page 5 Schnabel Engineering of New York LEGEND kg The LA GROUP / i�1 r \\ e i r Pa k,uc a aF�ooPw� �..® 41k 1 -. - dYr Y R5a6 ireil ill :\ ,/ __Og nnnnn�ee�u+s m ■I_ I a'� _ 'I / p"� ii " /, t , tt rtuill wl— I!AU # __.�F. Nttowi „o , ip77.,..w.,,!...E. 11 _huR.----- -: L. (--/ e- dim ��n� � 111 i�Elio_. - 1111111 .,.( l - �r �:.:::�.4 g 1104. Excelsor Park, '�� r\ Speaal We Permit • T'"fE j „1xn, ��� �� / ‘,\ /, \/, L� } '' , J f 4, N� / // % rC',( ;/Lo....: 'M m . ' ; ---. ---=----5'---- ----' I)1 ———71-7 )-- ',,, , ,—.,,,... ,,„;.,, ���o„ m - ...u— Proposed Masterplan ;.= GRAPHIC SCALE L-02 The LA GROUP Landscape Architecture&Engineering P.C- Pe,p/e.Purpose.Place. 40 Long Alley Saratoga Springs NY 12866 p:518-587-8100 f 518-587-0180 www.thelagroup.com December 14, 2020 Bradley Birge Administrator of Planning & Economic Development City of Saratoga Springs 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 RE: City Designated Planning Services for Excelsior Park SEQR Review 264 Excelsior Avenue City of Saratoga Springs, Saratoga County, NY Dear Mr. Birge: The comment responses to the November 18, 2020 comment letter issued by Chazen Companies are as follows. Comment 1: The site generated traffic estimates and trip distribution patterns are acceptable. It is estimated that the project will generate 135 external trips in the weekday AM peak hour and 226 external trips in the weekday PM peak hour. The PM peak hour generates more traffic than the AM peak due to the retail portion of the project. Retail components typically generate more traffic in the afternoon than in the morning. Response 1: Comment noted. No response required. Comment 2: The level of service analysis highlights the need for similar improvements as presented in the original special use permit application, namely: a. Extend the westbound left-turn lane on Route 50 at Veterans Way; b. Construct a northbound right-turn lane on Veterans Way at Route 50; c. Install traffic calming measures at the Excelsior Spring Avenue and Victoria Lane/Audrey Lane intersection; and d. Install a traffic signal at the Excelsior Avenue and Marion Avenue intersection. These improvements are included as recommendations in the study and Chazen concurs with the need for these improvements. Response 2: Comment noted. No response required. Comment 3: The level of service analysis shows that construction of a southbound right-turn lane on Veterans Way at Excelsior Avenue is not needed and it is not included as a recommendation. Chazen concurs with this assessment. Response 3: Comment noted. No response required. Comment 4: The study recommends conducting a follow-up traffic analysis if project is not completed by 2030. Chazen concurs with this assessment. Response 4: Comment noted. No response required. Comment 5: The study identifies thresholds when the recommended improvements would be needed. The turn lanes at Route 50 and Veterans Way are needed with any new development trips; traffic calming measures at Excelsior Spring Avenue and Victoria Lane/Audrey Lane are needed with 50 new trips; and the signal at Excelsior Avenue and Marion Avenue are needed with 75 new trips.The Excelsior Park project is expected to add 135 and 226 trips in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively; thereby, exceeding the thresholds identified above.All improvements should be constructed and operational before this next phase of Excelsior Park is opened. lllllllum��,.,. Response 5: Comment noted. No response required. Comment 6: The study presents a fair-share analysis for construction of the improvements, noting that the project should be responsible for only 40%-45%of the construction costs.Absent a fair-share policy between the City and developers in the corridor, the Excelsior Park applicant should be responsible for 100%of the construction costs. Response 6: Comment noted. Comment 7: The study states that construction of the paved pedestrian/bike path from the site to the Spring Run Trail is complete. However, only a short portion of the path is paved, and the rest of the path is a gravel surface with filter fabric exposed that poses a tripping hazard.Additionally, the connection points of the path to both ends of the bridge through the wetland and to the Spring Run Trail are not ADA compliant. Response 7: The path and boardwalk referenced were approved with the Phase 2 project which was completed by Saratoga Excelsior, LLC (Burns Management). The project has been completed and the as-built filed. The path was permitted and approved as compacted stone dust which is a type of pavement. The trail and connection points have been recently inspected and maintenance should occur to repair the exposed filter fabric and gaps in the ends of the bridge sections. Sincerely, 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\01CorrespondenceA2.7ReviewComments\2020 12-08 Comment Response Ltr\2020 12-08 Comment Response Ltr..docx — Li _