HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021083 Saratoga Hospital Mogan Street Campus Sketch Plan Review Saratoga Hospital
Morgan Street Sketch Plan Review
Issues and Responses
April 14, 2021
Kevin Ronayne
Vice President, Operations & Facilities
The Saratoga Hospital
211 Church Street
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
Matthew J. Jones, Esq. C. Michael Ingersoll
Jones Steves, LLP The LA Group Landscape
68 West Avenue Architecture & Engineering P.C.
P.O. Box 4400 40 Long Alley
Saratoga Springs, Saratoga Springs,
New York 12866 New York 12866
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
L Background 1
II. Development Process 2
a. Use of PUD amendment to achieve a better plan 2
b. Will the Hospital seek a variance to regain building height 3
c. Use of UDO or existing ordinance 3
III. Long Term Planning 3
a. Evaluation of census data 3
b. Development history 4
IV. Impacts 4
a. Parking 4
b. Increase density at site by constructing parking structures,possibly
underground 5
c. Lighting 5
d. Blasting 5
e. Traffic (2015 study) 6
f. Traffic (2021 study) 6
g. Shuttle service for doctors 6
h. Need for eight stormwater basins 7
V. Site Amenities 7
a. Community farm 7
b. Water features 7
VI. Wildlife on Site 7
VII. Site Plan 8
a. Alternate configurations 8
b. Markey Estate 9
c. Collection of water on site for possible use by the Saratoga Golf and
Polo Club 9
d. Need for connection to Park Place 9
VIII. Neighborhood Outreach 9
a. Communications with neighbors commencing July 2, 2015 9
IX. A Little History 10
a. Previous Planning Board review 10
Exhibit A 11
Exhibit B 13
V:\MAIN FILES\Saratoga Care\2021 Morgan Street Site Plan\Sketch Plan Review\Table of Contents v2.docx
Introduction: Following up on our February 25, 2021 presentation to the Planning Board, our
development team has prepared the within "Issues and Responses" designed to more fully
answer some of the inquiries raised by Planning Board members. To this end, we have grouped
the issues and answers into the nine areas set forth below with an eye toward providing responses
to the individual issues within each category. If we have done this correctly, the time spent
before the Planning Board on April 22, 2021 can be focused on the changes to the LA Group's
plans which accompany this submission, rather than the technical issues which will be advanced
during a forthcoming site plan application.
L Background: This second sketch plan review is the continuation of the Hospital's
efforts to build medical office facilities on the three parcels it owns along (i)Myrtle
Street(the "Markey Estate") and (ii)Morgan Street(the two vacant parcels acquired
from D.A. Collins in 2019 consisting of the "large Collins parcel" — 14.12 acres and
the "small Collins parcel" —2.0 acres)(see attached Exhibit A depicting the three
parcels in yellow). That process began in August 2015 when the Hospital filed a
PDD amendment petition with the City Council. The amendment petition arose out
of the City Council's adoption of amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan by
resolution on June 16, 2015. Among the changes to the Comprehensive Plan was the
re-designation of the land use map for this area to "Institutional." This change
allowed the Hospital to seek an amendment to its PUD incorporating the three parcels
into its PUD and providing for, among other things, a 75,000 square foot medical
office building.
In August 2015, the City Council determined the Hospital's PUD Amendment
petition to have merit for review and referred it to the City Planning Board for an
advisory opinion. The Council also deferred SEQRA lead agency to the Planning
Board.
The Planning Board heard a presentation from the Hospital on the objectives of the
PDD amendment. It also received public comment from (i) Jack Despart of Morgan
Street, (ii) Joann Novella of Seward Street, (iii)Marcie Taylor of 49 Doten Avenue,
and (iv) Dean Higgins, individually and as president of Birch Run HOA II, Board of
Directors.
The Planning Board heard a second presentation from representatives of the Hospital
on October 14, 2015. Included in the Hospital's presentation was a slideshow from
Mark Nadolny of Creighton Manning Engineering. Mr. Nadolny's presentation
discussed the impact of the proposed 75,000 square foot medical office building on
neighborhood traffic. The presentation included a series of recommendations for
mitigation which are discussed later in this submission. During public comment
period, Mr. Higgins was the only individual offering comment.
1
V:\MAIN FILES\Saratoga Care\2021 Morgan Street Site Plan\Sketch Plan Review\Saratoga Hospital—Morgan Street Sketch Plan Application
Issues and Responses v2.docx
Following the presentation, the Planning Board (i)unanimously adopted a SEQRA
negative declaration and (ii) unanimously adopted a resolution stating as follows:
positive advisory opinion for the addition of two parcels to the Saratoga Hospital
PUD +/- 8.45 acres for the construction of a 75,000 square foot medical office
building with a height of 52 feet with appropriate parking as presented on October
14, 2015. This proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and not contrary
to the general purposes and intent of the Saratoga Springs Zoning Ordinance.
The PUD amendment petition did not receive a vote from the City Council following
(i)the filing of a protest petition triggering a supermajority vote and(ii)the recusal of
two members of the City Council. The combination of those two actions deprived the
City Council of the necessary four members to adopt the PUD amendment petition.
The Saratoga Springs City Council did adopt a series of map amendments on
December 23, 2019 which, among other things, re-designated the "Markey Estate"
parcel and the large Collins parcel to OMBD-2. The remaining small Collins parcel
was not part of the Council's action and it remains UR-1.
After a year of intermittent study by the Hospital, whose resources have been taxed
heavily beginning in March 2020 and continuing through this date, the development
team was able to assemble some new drawings depicting the full build out of the
entire 19 acres comprising the three parcels owned by the Hospital. Those plans were
reviewed by the Planning Board during sketch plan review on February 25, 2021.
II. Development Process
a. Use of PUD amendment to achieve a better plan: A question arose as to
whether the broad range of development tools available under a PUD Amendment
might enhance the development plans for the three parcels by, among other
things, increasing the density of construction on the parcels as well as increasing
the building height to the level shown on the 2015 plan.
Response: By the time the Hospital's 2015 amendment application was
effectively defeated in early 2016, the City had embarked on the development of a
Unified Development Ordinance. This new UDO was envisioned, among other
things, to bring the City's Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the 2015
Comprehensive Plan amendments. The Hospital decided to await City action on
the UDO with the expectation that the amendments to the City Zoning Map would
reflect the adopted Comprehensive Plan land use map by amending the zoning
designations from UR-1 to OMBD-2. Indeed, the City took this very action on
December 23, 2019 in a resolution that included 18 parcels, including the Markey
Estate and the large Collins parcel.
2
V:\MAIN FILES\Saratoga Care\2021 Morgan Street Site Plan\Sketch Plan Review\Saratoga Hospital—Morgan Street Sketch Plan Application
Issues and Responses v2.docx
Inasmuch as the City Council took the proactive approach to rezoning these two
parcels in a manner sufficient to accommodate the objectives sought by the
Hospital there was no need (or desire)to pursue a further legislative act by the
City Council that would be required for a PDD amendment. Moreover, although
the Morgan Street lands are the last, significant vacant parcels in close proximity
to the Hospital, the long-term planning needs of the Hospital can be
accommodated with the medical office space shown on the submitted sketch plan.
Succinctly put, the Hospital's internal studies suggest that the Morgan Street lands
with the current zoning are adequate to meet the needs of the Hospital and the
patients it serves for the foreseeable future.
b. Will the Hospital seek a variance to regain building height: As reflected on
the sketch plan presented to the Planning Board of February 25, 2021, the 75,000
square foot MOB will be several feet shorter than the 2015 version in order to
achieve compliance with the 40 foot building height requirement of the Zoning
Ordinance. To achieve compliance, the ground floor of the building will be
lowered as reflected on the February 25, 2021 drawings. The result is that the
building will sit lower into the ground. Correspondingly, the building height will
be reduced to 40 feet under the height rules established by the Zoning Ordinance.
c. Use of UDO or existing Ordinance: The timing of the adoption of the Unified
Development Ordinance remains uncertain. Best estimates seem to point to a
vote by the City Council in the latter part of the third quarter. The Hospital
intends to submit a fully engineered, zoning compliant site plan well before then.
As such, the rules of the current Ordinance will govern the site plan application.
This is true even if the final vote on the site plan application were to occur after
the UDO was adopted since the Hospital will have filed a"complete application"
in advance of the adoption (and effective date) of the UDO.
III. Long Term Planning
a. Evaluation of census data: To assess its long-term physical plant needs, the
Hospital closely follows census data within the Hospital's primary service area.
Within the overall census data, the Hospital is particularly interested in the rate of
growth for the age 65 and older population since it is this group that requires the
highest level of medical services. Based upon our studies, we are confident that
the 75,000 square foot medical office building, together with the additional
30,000 square feet from Phases II and III,will adequately address our current and
future needs taking into account the projected growth. As with all census
projections, there are certain assumptions associated with the demographics.
Nevertheless,we believe we have the most conservative plan to meet the needs of
those current and future patients from our primary service area.
3
V:\MAIN FILES\Saratoga Care\2021 Morgan Street Site Plan\Sketch Plan Review\Saratoga Hospital—Morgan Street Sketch Plan Application
Issues and Responses v2.docx
b. Development history: As reflected in the slides from our February 25, 2021
presentation to the Planning Board, the Hospital has expanded significantly over
the last 75 years. The expansion has occurred on our main campus at 211 Church
Street along with major facilities in nearby towns (most notably Wilton and
Malta) and into adjoining counties. The Hospital has been able to achieve this
against the trend of mergers and consolidations in the healthcare field.
In response to our growth it has been necessary for the Hospital to lease more
than 45,000 square feet from private building owners in close proximity to the
Hospital, including space on Church Street, Care Lane, and West Avenue. The
leases are particularly expensive for the Hospital because in virtually all cases, we
are required to incur the fit-up costs under DOH standards, then pay market rate
lease prices. These leases will expire at varying times over the next 6 years
allowing us to move medical practices to the new MOB. The savings to the
Hospital will be substantial and it will allow the Hospital to use those resources to
more directly serve the patients in our charge.
IV. Impacts
a. Parking: The City's Zoning Ordinance requires one space for each 200 feet of
floor area(ZC 6.2.6 "Medical Offices/Clinics"). In practice, experience tells us
that the demand for parking varies among medical practices, but on average
experience tells us that the 1:200 ratio is a proven planning tool.
The Zoning Code makes provision for"experience driven" of parking demands.
Section 6.2.2(B) grants unto the Planning Board authority to waive the minimum
number of required parking spaces in any Commercial ("OMBD-2")...district,
provided (i)the applicant can demonstrate that sufficient parking
accommodations can be provided and(ii)the applicant can demonstrate that the
waiver will not result in any adverse impacts on the subject site or within the
district.
The flexibility provided under the Zoning Code may well allow the Hospital to
seek regulation of its parking during the initial fit-up of the MOB. The Hospital
contemplates initial fit-up is likely to be in the range of 30,000-50,000 square feet.
The Hospital would sub-phase the building in a way that would allow it to occupy
this level of square footage, leaving the remaining square footage to be fit up at a
later time. Correspondingly, the Hospital would work with the Planning Board
making use of the above cited provisions to build the parking necessary to
accommodate the practices that have relocated to the new MOB. This would
allow us the flexibility to build parking as the demand requires rather than
construct all of the parking depicted on Phase I when a portion of that parking
will not be needed until a later date.
4
V:\MAIN FILES\Saratoga Care\2021 Morgan Street Site Plan\Sketch Plan Review\Saratoga Hospital—Morgan Street Sketch Plan Application
Issues and Responses v2.docx
b. Increase density at site by constructing parking structures,possibly
underground: This inquiry posits the initial question of whether the Hospital
would have a desire to increase density at the site, at all. We certainly recognize
that the 19 acres that comprise the three sites are the last readily available (and
sizeable) sites within close proximity to the Hospital. Nevertheless,the Hospital
does not desire to make efforts to fully maximize the development potential of the
three lots. Indeed, the plan we have developed presents, in our view, a modest
development that respects the adjoining apartments, townhouses, and single-
family homes across Morgan Street.
As is discussed below, we also have much familiarity with the rock formations in
this area(see "Blasting" section (d)below). Above-ground parking structures are
expensive and underground structures would be prohibitively expensive. On
balance, we think the MOB along with the possible expansion of three additional
10,000 square foot buildings in the future strikes the right balance for the site.
c. Lighting: Lighting would be designed to minimize the total number of the lights
and reduce the height to the light fixtures. As of this writing, we contemplate
lights with a mounting height of 20' utilizing LED lighting in the fixtures and
taking advantage of their ability to reduce lighting levels as the evening
progresses. The lighting relay panels now used for lighting designs allow the
flexibility to minimize light intensity through the evening hours. Our objective
for this lighting design is to reduce lighting levels to full moon intensity from a
set hour(perhaps 7 p.m.)until dawn. The lights proposed would not emit light in
an upward direction into the night sky. All the lighting diodes would be housed
inside the fixture head allowing the light only to shine down in a cone shape
pattern.
d. Blasting: Blasting during site preparation is a fairly common occurrence in our
City particularly, but not exclusively, in the northwest areas of our community.
Blasting for site preparation has occurred in the downtown area, in areas along
North Broadway, as well as in close proximity to the Morgan Street parcels the
Hospital proposes to develop. Here are some examples of projects where blasting
for site preparation occurred:
i. Park Place Apartments —immediately adjacent to Birch Run and the lands
the Hospital proposes to develop in this project.
ii. The City Center
iii. Forno
iv. The Pfiel Building
v. Congress Park Center
vi. Multiple buildings at Skidmore College
vii. 254 Church Street
5
V:\MAIN FILES\Saratoga Care\2021 Morgan Street Site Plan\Sketch Plan Review\Saratoga Hospital—Morgan Street Sketch Plan Application
Issues and Responses v2.docx
viii. Saratoga Hospital parcel known as "the Hill" located on the west side of
Myrtle Street and adjacent to the Markey Estate. This area is home to (i)
pulmonary and OB/GYN practices, (ii)the Rubin Dialysis Center, (iii)the
Hospital's administrative building, and (iv)the helipad
Residents of Birch Run and Morgan Street have the benefit of understanding the
impacts of blasting during site preparation since blasting was used during the
construction of the Park Place Apartments, adjacent to Birch Run and down the
street from the single-family homes on Morgan Street.
The City of Saratoga Springs has adopted strict protocols for blasting. Those
protocols are included in the"Application for Blasting Permit" available on the
City's website, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
e. Traffic (2015 Study): During its SEQRA review of the PUD amendment on
October 14, 2015, the Planning Board reviewed a traffic study from Creighton
Manning prepare and submitted on behalf of the Hospital. That study focused its
analysis of four intersections for which traffic counts were undertaken by CME.
The analysis was summarized by CME Traffic Engineer Mark Nadolny. CME
recommended the following mitigation measures— summarized below—that
became part of the record upon which the Planning Board issued its negative
SEQRA declaration:
i. Church and Seward intersection—no mitigation recommended
ii. Seward and Morgan intersection—no mitigation recommended
iii. Morgan and Myrtle intersection—recommend all way stop
iv. Church and Myrtle intersection—alter traffic signal green-time to increase
by 5 seconds on the southbound approach from Myrtle Street and to
reduce by 5 seconds the east-west approaches on Church Street.
v. Sidewalks connections to be installed on Morgan and Myrtle Street.
f. Traffic (2021 Study): The Hospital has engaged CME for an updated traffic
study. As of this writing,the study has not yet been completed. The updated
study will accompany our full site plan application to be filed in the near future.
g. Shuttle service for doctors: Shuttle service to/from the MOB to the Hospital
will certainly be considered as the date approaches for occupancy of the new
building. As of this writing, the demand for such a service is not clear, although
experience may provide us with peak demand hours which may correspond with
weather conditions or time of year. With the installation of sidewalks fully
extending along Myrtle Street to the site, we can envision many days when staff
would enjoy the short walk to/from the Hospital. We can also envision times of
the year when a shuttle would be a welcomed amenity for staff.
6
V:\MAIN FILES\Saratoga Care\2021 Morgan Street Site Plan\Sketch Plan Review\Saratoga Hospital—Morgan Street Sketch Plan Application
Issues and Responses v2.docx
h. Need for eight stormwater basins: The Planning Board and its staff are familiar
with City and State (DEC) requirements for the attenuation and treatment of
proposed stormwater. Additional soil testing to determine suitability for
infiltration and porous pavement, along with proposed site disturbance and
grading will be necessary to determine the chosen practices along with sizing and
locations. This work would take place as fully engineered site plan drawings are
prepared. At sketch plan, the size and location of the proposed facilities
represents our best estimate of a stormwater system that would be compliant with
current regulations.
V. Site Amenities
a. Community garden: The Hospital is enthusiastic about incorporating a
community garden into Phase I of the site plan. In the first sketch plan we located
the community garden toward the easterly side of the property in proximity to a
group of townhouses of Birch Run residents. At the request of residents, we have
now shown the community garden in an area around the Markey Estate. The
Hospital has not settled on the location, but we are interested in the views of the
Planning Board. At present, we contemplate a relationship with an outside
provider akin to the model at Pitney Meadow Farms. It is very early in the
process, but we note The LA Group was the landscape architectural firm that
designed the Pitney Meadow Farms on West Avenue and we trust that existing
relationship together with the experience gained in the development of Pitney
Meadow Farms may work to the benefit of all parties.
b. Water features: A question arose as to whether our site plan could
accommodate water features (ponds for example) on the site. Amenities of this
nature would undoubtedly add to the visual appeal of the project. The
development team is studying the addition of water features that may include
fountains in one or more locations on the site. The team will be providing further
information on this during formal site plan review.
VI. Wildlife on Site
a. One of the advantages of being able to acquire 16 additional undeveloped acres in
close proximity to the Hospital is the presence of wildlife at the site. Our Phase I
development—the MOB —closest to Morgan Street will certainly impact wildlife
in the southeasterly portion of the site. For the foreseeable future, we expect
much of the wildlife in the areas nearest the Saratoga Golf and Polo Club and
along the northerly boundary line with Birch Run to continue—to a degree—in
much the same fashion as is currently the case. The presence of wildlife on our
7
V:\MAIN FILES\Saratoga Care\2021 Morgan Street Site Plan\Sketch Plan Review\Saratoga Hospital—Morgan Street Sketch Plan Application
Issues and Responses v2.docx
site would be a somewhat unique benefit for a newly constructed medical office
building. We feel fortunate in this regard.
VII. Site Plan
a. Alternate configurations: Since the Hospital began working on designs for the
site in July 2015,we recognized an important limitation on the location of the
MOB. Specifically, the MOB needed to be sited within 250 yards of the physical
plant of the Hospital.
The 250-yard rule arises out of the complicated Medicare reimbursement rates
that distinguish hospitals from other medical providers. Succinctly put,Medicare
has long recognized the unique role hospitals play in their
communities. Hospitals are required to accept and treat all those who seek
treatment regardless of their ability to pay. Oftentimes, the emergency room
serves as primary care for many in the community who have nowhere else to
turn. There is a different rate of reimbursement for medical providers who are
part of a hospital system vs. those who operate as independent providers.
Currently, the 11 off-site medical offices with Hospital based practices benefit
from the higher Medicare reimbursement rates due to "grandfathering"
clauses. The Hospital would lose the benefit of those grandfathering clauses (and
the improved Medicare reimbursement rates) for any practice that moved to a new
location, unless that new location is within 250 yards of the Hospital's main
building. Put another way,the Hospital desires to move its off-site practices to a
new MOB within 250 yards of the main hospital both for the savings to be
achieved in the elimination of office leases, and also to retain the enhanced
Medicare reimbursement rates. Even relocating those practices to new suites
within their existing buildings would cause a loss of the grandfathered rate
structure.
This 250-yard Medicare rule significantly limits the placement of the medical
office building on the site. Specifically, the building must be located in close
proximity to Morgan Street to be within the 250-yard limitation. Even if the
Hospital desired to do so, it could not site the MOB to the interior of the property
without forfeiting substantial sums in Medicare reimbursement.
The Medicare reimbursement issue aside, our team would be very hesitant to
relocate the building away from Morgan Street. For a considerable number of
years, city policy has urged planners to locate buildings with a physical presence
at or near the street, even in circumstances where the primary entrance to the
building is from the rear adjacent to a parking lot. Examples of such buildings
include 254 Church Street and One West Medical.
8
V:\MAIN FILES\Saratoga Care\2021 Morgan Street Site Plan\Sketch Plan Review\Saratoga Hospital—Morgan Street Sketch Plan Application
Issues and Responses v2.docx
For the reasons set forth above, our development team has consistently
maintained its desire to relocate hospital medical practices to a new MOB which
fronts on Morgan Street and is located within 250 yards of the Hospital's main
building.
b. Markey Estate: The Hospital has a strong desire to maintain the Markey
Estate. We think it can be adaptively reused as offices for the Saratoga Hospital
Foundation, a contemplated family practice residency program, and/or as
conference space when otherwise needed by the Hospital. Apart from the
significant benefits from this adaptive reuse (freeing up needed office space in the
main hospital building for other higher priority uses)the Hospital recognizes the
significant gift component of the conveyance of the building from the DiCresce
family in 2014. From a pure policy standpoint our view is that if we can put the
gifted asset to an important use, we wish to honor the donor by doing so. For
these reasons we remain committed to keeping the Markey Estate as part of the
Hospital campus.
c. Collection of water on site for possible use by the Saratoga Golf and Polo
Club: We recently explored with the leadership at SGPC a plan to collect water
on our site to be used for purposes at SGPC. The response from SGPC was
succinct, i.e. they are not interested in any transfer of water from our site to theirs.
This is consistent with the position taken by SGPC when we made a similar
inquiry in 2015.
d. Need for connection to Park Place: Our sketch plan shows a connection to Park
Place Apartments. Connections among adjoining projects have long been favored
by the Planning Board which has sought, where feasible, connections between
adjoining parcels. That said, we recognize that Park Place is a private apartment
community and we would, of course, need to communicate with the property
owners on the desire for a connector. Among other things, connectors can serve
the function of emergency access (both ways) or provide limited (one way)
access. Further study and communications with Park Place is needed in advance
of site plan review.
VIII. Neighborhood Outreach
a. Communications with neighbors commencing July 2,2015: Among the
reasons the Hospital has been able to be responsive to site plan issues (particularly
from Birch Run residents) is the extensive communication that has existed
between the Hospital, the two Birch Run HOAs, and individual Birch Run
homeowners in close proximity to the site. Initial outreach to Birch Run residents
occurred on July 2, 2015 in an email exchange with HOA II President Dean
9
V:\MAIN FILES\Saratoga Care\2021 Morgan Street Site Plan\Sketch Plan Review\Saratoga Hospital—Morgan Street Sketch Plan Application
Issues and Responses v2.docx
Higgins scheduling a meeting among members of his Board and the Hospital
development team to discuss our project and its impact on HOA II. Email
exchanges between Mr. Jones and Mr. Higgins continued through the summer of
2015 and through Mr. Higgins appearances before the Planning Board on
September 24, 2015 and October 14, 2015.
On August 28, 2015 Mr. Jones, Mr. Ingersoll, and Hospital Vice President Kevin
Ronayne met with the Board of Directors of HOA I and HOA II. The following
week(September 3, 2015)Mayor Yepsen hosted a meeting in the City Council
chambers of Hospital representatives and interested neighbors to review the
Hospital proposal. An extensive Q&A period followed during which we received
input from neighbors and answered questions about the proposal.
Dialog between the parties continued in September with the receipt by the
Hospital of written comments (9/15/15) from the Birch Run HOA. By the time
the Planning Board issued its negative SEQRA declaration and positive advisory
opinion on October 14, 2015, the Hospital was keenly aware of the concerns
being raised by representatives of Birch Run and individuals in the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Meetings with representatives of Birch Run HOA I, HOA II and individual Birch
Run homeowners have continued since our presentation to the the Planning Board
on February 25, 2021. Those discussions have resulted in a revised sketch plan.
We fully expect to continue dialog with Birch Run and other neighbors
throughout the site plan review process, although we believe we have a full
understanding of the desires of those offering input, even if we can't
accommodate all of their requests.
IX. A Little History
a. Previous Planning Board review: As we pointed out during out sketch plan
presentation of February 25, 2021, Chairman Torpey is familiar with the various
objections by neighbors dating to the Planning Board presentations of September
24, 2015 and October 14, 2015. In addition to Chairman Torpey, three other
members (Members Horton, Fabozzi, and Boivin, the latter being the author of
that portion of the advisory opinion dealing with the Hospital parcels) heard
complaints and objections from neighbors during the Planning Board's advisory
opinion review culminating in the June 24, 2019 resolution of the Planning Board
adopting its advisory opinion to the City Council.
10
V:\MAIN FILES\Saratoga Care\2021 Morgan Street Site Plan\Sketch Plan Review\Saratoga Hospital—Morgan Street Sketch Plan Application
Issues and Responses v2.docx
Exhibit A
___
't' '2,4.4..t 7" :44^'•'-'•i:' - litiff ' r. '.. -,1: -
JP
., if • _ . t. Saratoga
v , ,
iii.
f -3; " ,
• 44,„ .„.
.4tg_ ,r Saratoga 11"1"1".."Nr-l.wi,o' „v .'- 11".11111br: / 7-- .
ite .,,,,,,,,,
dr -. . --; I -- 4.).......-4-',.:t a r,:7,1Z; ,.„-i.. Hospital
4" .1 _
k.
.. i _ .1 Main Campus
--f,
12
Exhibit B
City of Saratoga Springs
;•y BUILDING DEPARTMENT
• CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY-SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866
PHONE 518-587-3550 EXT. 2511
kathleen.farone@saratoga-springs.org
APPLICATION FOR BLASTING PERMIT
APPLICATION MUST BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY. Signatures of property owner, applicant (if different than owner)and
contractor are required. Check payable to: Commissioner of Finance.
FEE: RESIDENTIAL: $220.00 COMMERCIAL: $400.00
Location Information
JOB SITE ADDRESS TAX MAP ID#
ZONING DISTRICT REASON FOR BLASTING
CONSTRUCTION TYPE USE OF BUILDING(S)
FIRST FLOOR OCCUPANCY No. OF STORIES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DISTRICT YES NO
D.R.C. DECISION DATE
HISTORIC REVIEW DISTRICT YES NO (PLEASE ATTACH COPY OF DECISION)
IS JOB SITE IN A FLOOD PLAIN? YES NO H.O.A.APPROVAL DATE(IF ANY)
(PLEASE ATTACH COPY OF APPROVAL)
IS PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL REQUIRED? YES NO P.B. DECISION DATE
(PLEASE ATTACH COPY OF APPROVAL)
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
CID#
OWNER'S NAME PHONE
ADDRESS EMAIL
OWNER'S SIGNATURE DATE
APPLICANT INFORMATION (IF APPLICABLE)
APPLICANT PHONE
ADDRESS EMAIL
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
CONTRACTOR INFORMATION
CID#
COMPANY NAME PHONE
ADDRESS EMAIL
CONTRACTOR'S SIGNATURE DATE
FOR STAFF USE ONLY:
FILE# DATE/TIME APPLIED RECEIVED BY
APPLICATION# PERMIT# DATE ISSUED
PAID$ INSURANCE
14
Your application for a blasting permit must contain the following attachments including this
original and four (4) copies:
(Attached?)
YES NO Evidence your firm is duly licensed pursuant to Section 458 of the Labor Law in the State of New
York and the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
YES NO Precise location of the intended detonation of explosives, as well as the size charges intended to
be detonated and the proposed schedule for detonation of explosives.
YES NO Naming the City as an Additional Insured on Commercial General Liability including completed
products and operations and personal injury liability insurance in the amount of One Million Dollars
($1,000,000) per occurrence and Two Million Dollars Aggregate ($2,000,000) AND Excess Liability
Insurance in the amount of Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000) per occurrence aggregate. All
applicants must provide proof of NYS Statutory Workers Compensation, Employers Liability and
Disability Insurance.
YES NO Written evidence that the person intending to detonate has obtained permission to do so from all
utilities within the blasting area including gas, electric, communications, cable and water and sewer.
YES NO Description of all structures, including residential dwellings, located within 250 feet of the blast site
and a list of the names and the addresses of the owner or owners of any parcel of property
immediately adjoining or abutting the parcel of property from which the blasting is to take place, as
shown on the most recent tax rolls of the City of Saratoga Springs.
HOLD HARMLESS:
The Individual filing this application, to the fullest extent provided by law, shall indemnify and
save harmless the City of Saratoga Springs, its Agents and Employees (hereinafter referred to
as "City"), from and against all claims, damages, losses and expense (including, but not limited
to, attorneys' fees), arising out of or resulting from the performance of the work covered by
this building permit application, sustained by any person or persons, provided that any such
claim, damage, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death, or to
injury to or destruction of property caused by the tortious act or negligent act or omission of
Applicant, its contractor or its employees or anyone for whom the Contractor is legally liable
or Subcontractors. INITIAL
Required Approvals/Dates:
City Engineer/Date: Approval/Reject
Dept of Public Safety/Date: Approval/Reject
Dept of Public Works/Date: Approval/Reject
Risk &Safety Mgmt/Date: Approval/ Reject
Permit Issued/Date:
Rejected/Date:
Rejecting Dept:
Reasons for Rejection:
Notification to Applicant Date:
15
CHAPTER 81
BLASTING
81-1 Permit required; blasting defined
A. No person, firm, corporation or legal entity shall engage in the activity of blasting anywhere •
in the City of Saratoga Springs without first obtaining a blasting permit from the Building Inspector as
provided in this Chapter.
B. No person, firm,corporation or legal entity shall purchase,own,possess,use, transport,deal
in,manufacture,or sell explosives or any substance used to provide explosion or force for the purpose
of blasting anywhere in the City of Saratoga Springs without first obtaining a license from the United
States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the State of New York,Department of Labor. A
copy of such license in effect shall be submitted to the Building Inspector along with any application
for a blasting permit as provided in this Chapter.
C. For purposes of this Chapter, the term "blasting" shall mean any act of exploding or
detonating a substance for any lawful purpose of construction,demolition,renovation or conservation.
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation permitted mining operations are excluded from this
definition.
81-2 Insurance; fees
A, A person or corporation applying for such permit is required to have a valid New York State
explosive license issued by the State Department of Labor or other appropriate state department and
shall provide a Certificate of Insurance:
1. Naming the City as an additional Insured on Commercial General Liability including
completed products and operations and personal injury liability insurance in the amount
of One Million Dollars($1,000,000)per occurrence and Two Million Dollars Aggregate
($2,000,000) AND Excess Liability Insurance in the amount of Four Million Dollars
($4,000,000) per occurrence aggregate.
2. Evidence of Statutory Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance or a
waiver of same as permitted by law.
B. Execute a Hold Harmless Agreement, in a form satisfactory to the City, by which the
applicant shall indemnify and save harmless the City of Saratoga Springs, its Agents and Employees
(hereinafter referred to as"City"), from and against all claims, damages, losses and expense(including,
but not limited to, attorneys' fees), arising out of or resulting from the performance of the work or
purchase of the services,sustained by any person or persons,provided that any such claim,damage,loss
or expense is attributable to bodily injury,sickness,disease, or death, or to injury to or destruction of
property caused by the tortious act or negligent act or omission of Person or Contractor, its employer,
agents or subcontractors.
Chapter 81:Blasting Adopted by City Council 081605 1 08/29105
16
81-3 Incorporation of State Provisions
The provisions of Article 16 of the Labor Law of the State of New York,as well as the Industrial
Code Rules contained in Title 12, Part 39 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, are
recognized as applicable to the possession,handling, storage,and transportation of explosives within
the jurisdiction of the City of Saratoga Springs and shall be complied with by all persons engaging in
the activity of blasting.
81-4 Application for permit
The application for a blasting permit shall be on a form approved by the Building Inspector and
contain the original and four(4)copies of all such information as is required by the Building Inspector,
including the following:
(1) The name of the owner of the property upon which the detonation of explosives is intended
to occur.
(2) The business address of the person, firm or corporation proposing to detonate explosives on
the subject property.
(3) Evidence of the fact that the person, firm or corporation intending to detonate explosives is
duly licensed pursuant to Section 458 of the Labor Law in the State of New York and the
United States Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms.
(4) The precise location of the intended detonation of explosives, as well as the size charges
intended to be detonated and the proposed schedule for detonation of explosives.
(5) Evidence that the person intending to detonate explosives has sufficient financial security
or insurance coverage to provide payment for damages to any person suffering damages by
virtue of the detonation of the explosives.
(6) Evidence that the person intending to detonate has obtained permission to do so from alt
utilities within the blasting area including gas, electric, communications,cable and water
and sewer. Evidence shall be submitted in written form and attached to the application for
blasting.
(7) A description of all structures, including residential dwellings,located within 250 feet of the
blast site and a list of the names and the addresses of the owner or owners of any parcel of
property immediately adjoining or abutting the parcel of property from which the blasting
is to take place, as shown on the most recent tax rolls of the City of Saratoga Springs.
81-5 Referral to City departments
Upon receipt of an application for a blasting permit,the Building Inspector shall forward copies
of the submitted application to the following city offices for review:
Chapter 81;Blasting Adopted by City Council 081605 2 08/29105
17
Ill
(a) the Office of the City Engineer;
(b) the Department of Public Safety;
(c) Risk and Safety Management;
(d) the Department of Public Works.
8l-6 Notice to public
The person, firm, corporation or legal entity conducting or causing any blasting operation within
the City of Saratoga Springs shall cause notice of such blasting to be mailed to all property owners
within 250 feet of the blasting site. Such mailing shall be by certified mail not less than ten (10)
calendar days prior to the blasting activity. Said notice shall include a description of the blasting
activity, a description of all signals to be used during the blasting operation and an address and
telephone number where property owners may request further information.
81-7 Issuance of permit
Upon determining that all requirements have been met and the required fee paid, the Building
Inspector shall have the authority to issue a permit for blasting activity as provided herein.
81-8 Fees
A fee of One Hundred Dollars($100.00)shall be paid for each permit issued under this Chapter.
A permit shall be valid for one(1) year from the date of issuance, unless specified as being valid for
some other time period.
81.9 Additional restrictions
Upon receipt of a permit,each Permitee shall provide to the Building Inspector a written statement
that copies of all pre-blast surveys done in connection with the permit placed on file and retained at a
specified location for a period of not less than three(3)years after the blasting activity is completed.
81-10 Penalties
Any person, firm, corporation or legal entity engaging in blasting activities in violation of this
Chapter shall be subject to the penalties set forth in Chapter 1, General Provisions, Article III of the
Code.
81-11 Enforcement
It shall be the duty of the Code Administrator to enforce the provisions of this chapter. In addition
to and not in limitation to any power otherwise granted by law, the Code Administrator is hereby
authorized to issue appearance tickets in violation of this chapter.
11:1281word10RD,REs\Qlasting Ord Chapter 81.doc
Chapter 81:Blasting Adopted by City Council 081605 3 08129/05
18