The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20180226 18.013 SaratogaPetResort_SUP_Comments Submission_5-25-18studioA Landscape Architecture, D.P.C. Saratoga Pet Resort May 25, 2018 Following are responses to comments pertaining to the Special Use Permit application for the Saratoga Pet Resort that were made by members of the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board and Public at the May 3, 2018 Planning Board Meeting and Public Hearing. Comment No. 1—The project site appears to be in the FEMA mapped 100 and 500 year floodplains. Response No. 1 — The project site where development of the; Pet Resort building, parking and other amenities are proposed is not in either the 100 or 500 year floodplains. Thompson and Fleming, Licensed Land Surveyors, plotted the floodplain limits of the Kayderosserass Creek on the site survey (See Attachment A —Thompson and Fleming Survey). The Kayderosserass Creek does have a 100 and 500 year floodplain, however, it is proximate to the steep bank on the north and west side of the creek and is within the limits of the easement granted to the State of New York and has no impact on the proposed project. Conversely, the floodplain on the south and east side of the creek (Northway side) is rather extensive. This land, however, is inaccessible and no use or construction on it is proposed. Comment No. 2 — The City water main in Kaydeross Avenue West is in poor condition and may not be able to be tapped. The main is corroded in many places and is planned to be replaced within the next three years. Therefore, public water service may not be available in time for the project. Response No. 2 — The proposed maximum daily water usage for the Pet Resort is estimated to be 1,900 gallons per day. A facility of this nature must always have a source of water. Therefore, even if public water service were available, a back-up water storage tank in the building would be installed in case of a pipe break or other service interruption. As such, the applicant will install a well on the site which can supply the needed water. This well and storage tank will be a permanent 480 Broadway, Suite 324 P.O. Box 272 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 518.832.4005 installation. It will be used to initially service the Pet Resort until such time that the water main can be safely tapped. It will remain on-line in case of any future public water service interruption. A well that yields 5 gallons per minute is a normal supply for a single family house. A well of this capacity would yield, therefore, 300 gallons per hour. The required daily usage of 1900 gallons would take 6 hours and 20 minutes to fill a 1900 gallon storage tank. Therefore, a well capable of servicing a single family residence is all that is necessary. The probability of successfully installing a well with this yield is very high. If a lower yield is only achieved, a larger storage tank or pumping for more than 6 hours and 20 minutes daily could be considered. Comment No. 3 — Will the building be equipped with a fire sprinkler system? If so, what will be the source of water? Response No. 3 — No, the building is defined as a B (Business) occupancy. This building occupancy type is not required to be sprinklered based on the ICC 2015 Code. According to Table 506.2 of the International Building Code, the allowable square footage for a B occupancy, Type Vb construction without a sprinkler is 9,000 sf. The building will be subdivided into fire areas between the administrative portion of 3,750 sf and the kennels of +1- 5,800 sf. The fire area will be segregated by a fire wall with a 2 -hour fire rating to avoid the spread of fire. Additionally, animal care is best served through limited combustible construction, early warning fire alarm, and enhanced protection in accordance with NFPA 150. Comment No. 4—The site appears to have a high ground water condition. The soil test pits indicate the presence of cobbles which leads one to believe that a stream bed existed on the site, possibly related to the Kayderosserass Creek relocation. Response No. 4 — The three exploratory soil test pits were conducted to get a general indication of soil conditions in the area of the site proposed for development. Of these three soil test pits, TP #1 indicated mottling at 30 inches below grade. This depicts seasonal high ground water at that location. TP #1 is in the vicinity of the proposed building. The building will be a slab -on -grade structure. Groundwater will have no effect or impact on this construction. TP# 2 was advanced to 72 inches below grade and TP #3 to 60 inches below grade. No mottling, bedrock, or ground water was observed. The soil profile in TP #2 and #3 indicates that granular sand/gravelly "fill" material was placed over native soil at some time (most likely when the Northway was constructed and the creek relocated). These "fill" materials appear to be suitable for the installation of an on-site septic system and stormwater management practices. It should be noted that once a site plan is agreed upon and the septic system and stormwater practices are finally located, new soil test pits, percolation tests and falling head tests will be conducted and will be used for final engineering. They will be available for the City to review during Site Plan Approval. The three exploratory soil test pits were observed by Matthew Huntington, PE, who is employed by Schoder Rivers Consulting Engineers, who will be responsible for the design and engineering of the septic system, water supply and stormwater management plan. Test pit logs were originally presented in the attachment to the Environmental Assessment Form which was submitted to the city. They are also included in Attachment B — Soil Test Pit Logs. As to the comment that there is evidence that the creek may have existed on the north and west portions of the site (due to the presence of cobbles in test pits), this is not the case. The C.T. Male Survey clearly indicates the historic channel of Kayderosserass Creek and the relocated channel location. The historic channel location was closer to the south bound lane of the Northway. It was relocated to the north and west. (See Attachment C— C.T. Male Survey). Comment No. 5 — Will the proposed on-site septic system have an effect on the Kayderosserass Creek? Will effluent migrate to the Creek? Response No. 5 — Soils in the vicinity of the proposed on-site septic system are suitable for in -ground treatment of both human and pet waste. Soil Test Pit #2 and #3 indicated no presence of mottling, and therefore, no high groundwater table. No bedrock was encountered. The soils, as logged, are sandy loams and conducive to the design and operation of an on- site septic disposal system. The location of the proposed on-site septic system is more than 100 feet from the Kayderosserass Creek. New York State regulations require such systems to be setback 100 feet from waterbodies. Comment No. 6— How will the noise of barking dogs be controlled? Will it be a problem to neighbors? Response No. 6 — Noise in animal care facilities remains one of the greatest concerns of animal care facility owners and neighboring property owners alike. It is also one of the least understood aspects of building design and operation. Design: From the design standpoint overall, animal care facilities should be conceived with transitions from the loudest locations to the rear to the quietest in the front. Noise transmission is very dependent on design and construction. Animal facility floor plans should be designed such that the bulk of common caging is separated from other portions of the building with intervening corridors. The exterior egress doors from the kennel should be acoustically sealed. The doors from the front of the building through the corridor to the kennels should include a double set of doors, similar to a vestibule. Note that these particular design elements also provide excellent air borne pathogen control in properly pressurized facilities. The floor planning in this facility will be specifically designed to create separate zones of noise limited construction. Ideally every animal area will be accessible without walking through adjacent animal areas. Wall and floor construction is designed to include mass, such as layers of cement board and gypsum wallboard, in a manner that creates high STC (Sound Transmission Class) levels of 50 to 60. Barking is greatly reduced or eliminated when dogs have limited olfactory and auditory stimulation. For that reason, all dog kennel zones are on independent HVAC systems and all kennels are acoustically isolated on all walls, doors and ceilings. In addition, each kennel zone will contain one row of kennels — as opposed to two rows facing each other. Doing this prevents dogs from seeing each other and becoming stressed which could result in barking. Reverberation Control: Kennel barking noise control can be different from noise control in other types of buildings for a variety of reasons. Internal noise control from reverberation frequently relies on porous surfaces. Kennel surfaces must be washable and are typically hard. This precludes the use of many commonly used acoustic products. There are, however, products that will be specified which are effective and well known in the animal care industry for noise control, including certain noise abating sprayed -on masonry products, anti -microbial wall treatments suitable for wet environments, and polypropylene type materials specifically made for this environment. Exterior Noise: There is no doubt that it is healthy and normal for dogs to be outside. Outside air is generally cleaner and being outside gives dogs the opportunity to socialize using their normal behaviors. Public safety and dog security are also legitimate considerations and, therefore, for many decades kennels have accommodated the outside exposure requirement by confining dogs individually to small, outside runs or cages. This creates tremendous stress and incessant barking. A dog's natural desire to play and socialize is exacerbated by the confinement and leads to significant barking and presumably stress in some dogs. Some dogs clearly exhibit anxiety and persistence as they attempt to get out of the confinement to see and smell other dogs. For these reasons, this facility will not have any individual cages on the exterior of the building. The best protocol is to provide multiple, smaller, separated play yards that can accommodate 6 to 12 dogs that are grouped according to size, age, behavior, temperament and condition. The groupings are very important. Dogs that are outside will bark less when they are with other dogs and are supervised. The only time that dogs will be outside at this facility will be when they are in one of the play yards. Further, dogs will only be in play yards during one of the following scenarios; when they are being walked on -leash for bathroom breaks, during group play (daycare participants — weather permitting) or for individual play sessions. A handler will be present in all scenarios while dogs are in the play yards. Comment No. 7— Will the Pet Resort produce odors from animal waste? How will it be controlled? Response No. 7 — We design for odor -free environments. This is accomplished through specialized plumbing systems, cleaning protocols, excellent lighting in dog areas and advanced HVAC systems. The best plumbing design practice is to separate trench drain and dog tub waste from the sanitary waste. The proper design combines all of the sanitary and solid waste in one lateral, while all of the trench drains and dog bathing fixtures are sent through a hair trap prior to being introduced to the sewage system. The drainage lines will be designed to exit the building in a manner such that they can be easily cleaned independently. The trench drains have an automatic warm water flushing system to keep urine from wetting the drain surface and drying there. This is a big source of odor. Trench drainage is the superior method of liquid waste removal. Flush fixtures are used for solid dog waste removal and are located in every kennel zone. Kennel HVAC systems are entirely different from those designed for human occupancy, including medical buildings. There should be many smaller zones rather than a few large zones. Air flows are significantly higher than those of human occupied buildings, but not as high as for animal research facilities with outside air systems. Supply air systems must employ vertical air flows, moderate velocity and distribution opposite to that of a typical office or retail space. Fresh air flow rates are based on the number of animals and caging type. Properly designed, odor free animal care HVAC systems have multiple, smaller, independent zones, ducted return air with animal specific ionizers, encapsulating exhaust at sources of odor and moisture, and significant fresh air dilution. These systems are designed to reduce animal stress, permit a wide range of temperature and humidity control simultaneously in multiple areas of the facility, and create a disease and odor mitigated environment. Animals often identify their environments through olfactory stimulation first, followed by auditory and then visual stimulation. Creating multiple, small mechanical zones that are entirely independent greatly help to eliminate olfactory and, to an extent, auditory stimulation from one animal area to another; smells and sounds from one animal zone are never introduced to other animal zones. Ionization systems that are specifically designed for animal care are included in the mechanical ductwork to kill airborne bacteria such as Bordetella. These systems are also proven to mitigate specific airborne animal viral disease and breakdown airborne volatile organic compounds. Finally, all mechanical equipment is designed to operate in a dehumidification mode. Humidity in the air is strongly correlated with increased bacterial virulence. Humidity also correlates with surface moisture on walls and floors, which can encourage fungal and bacterial colonies. Comment No. 8 — What will be the impact from pets urinating in the outdoor play areas? Will this affect water quality in Kayderosserass Creek? Response No. 8 — There is very little impact from animal urination and urine will never reach Kayderosserass Creek. Factually urine is extremely minimal; a single rain storm would have a tremendous amount of water compared to the tiny amount of urine fluid that occurs. The urine settles on the surface and evaporates immediately from the top layer of soil. In fact this is why the smell of urine is noticeable at close proximity. We are very familiar with this concern and frequently have outdoor dog areas in our designs. We always design this as outside drainage and recommend outside dog area drainage to be discharged to storm systems or surface runoff. A properly designed outside dog area will have solid waste removed manually such that the only effluent is merely the urine. The amount of urine the dogs release compared to the amount of typical rainwater is a fraction of a percent. It is negligible. Even with daily cleaning, the amount of water used is miniscule compared to one rainstorm. Comment No. 9 — Visual simulations of the proposed project were presented driving westward on Kaydeross Avenue West. Please present additional visual simulations driving eastward. Are the simulations accurate? Response No. 9 — The attached images offer street views for the preferred proposed site plan option that orients the building at an angle to the street. The building fits better into the site and is nestled into the site where it will not appear as dominant. The attached simulations indicate the site orientation, the location of the views and visibility of the building from both east and west directions as requested (See Attachment D — Visual Simulations for Preferred Site Plan Option). Also, included is another site plan option that orients the building facing perpendicular to the street. (See attachment E — Visual Simulations for Alternate Site Plan). Comment No. 10 — What mitigation measures are proposed to buffer or screen views from Kaydeross Avenue West to the Pet Resort building and parking lot? Response No. 10 — Earth berms (3+/- feet tall) are proposed between the parking lot and Kaydeross Avenue West. These earth berms (mounds) will be planted with evergreen shrubs and evergreen trees which will reduce and/or totally eliminate visibility of cars in the parking lot and Pet Play Yards from Kaydeross Avenue West. (See Attachment F — Revised Site Plan). Comment No. 11 —Some residents of the neighborhood, as well as planning board members, questioned the proximity of the Pet Resort to residential structures. What is the context of the neighborhood in which the Pet Resort is being proposed? How close are neighbors? Is the scale of the overall project in character with the neighborhood? Response No. 11 — Context of neighborhood and the proximity of the Pet Resort to residential structures: The neighborhood context in the immediate vicinity of 1/2 mile includes a small private kindergarten, a barn, individual single family houses, and a residential subdivision. The site is located adjacent to the Kayderosserass Creek, the Adirondack Northway and along Kaydeross Avenue West. The proximity to other residential structures in the subdivision is 1,000 feet (approximately 1/4 mile) from the proposed site (See Attachment — Distance Map). Scale of the overall project in character with the neighborhood: The overall size of the building for Phase 1 is 9,750 sf with the port cochere at approximately 1,000 sf. For comparison, this is shown in the following attachments that illustrate the proposed project relative to other similar animal facilities and buildings in the vicinity. (See Attachment H — Relative Size of Proposed Pet Resort Building). Image 1 illustrates the Pet Resort in relation to the Burnt Hills Vet Hospital. The size of Burnt Hills Vet hospital is 10,700 sf and is also located in a rural residential area adjacent to residential homes. Image 2 illustrates the size of the Pet Resort (10,700 sf) in relation to the Saratoga County Animal Shelter. (25,000 sf, thus it is significantly smaller). Image 3 illustrates the Pet Resort in contrast to the cul-de-sac in the residential neighborhood. As shown, it is about the same size as the cul-de-sac. Image 4 illustrates the proposed Pet Resort in relation to BBQSA and the Best Western Hotel (38,000 sf) — both buildings are within a mile of the site. These are all to scale based on Google Maps and Cadd generated imagery. Scale and Architectural Compatibility: Architectural compatibility is based on various factors including the overall size, exterior materials, overall massing, rooflines, and visibility from the street. The 3D images in Attachment D — Visual Simulations for Preferred Site Plan Option, illustrate the impact of the project as viewed from the street. The overall size of the building is well below the allowable size prescribed in the zoning law. Zoning permits 15% lot coverage and the proposed footprint is 3.08%. The allowable height is 35' and the peak of the highest roofline is 34'. The size is relative to other structures both in the vicinity and adjoining properties as indicated in the previous attachments. The overall massing and scale is architecturally diminished by using a variety of rooflines and shed dormers to help "break down" the building's overall volume. The entry features a natural timber -frame port-cochere to provide a functional welcoming entry point. Materials on the exterior of the building include natural stone, wood timbers, and residential siding with board and batten in the gables which reflect a rural residential character. The visibility from the street is further diminished with the proposed diagonal location as it nestles into a natural barrier of trees. Comment No. 12 — Several members of the public stated that traffic is a problem in the area. Their comments specifically include the following: A. Comment No. 12-A — The NY Route 9/Kaydeross Avenue West intersection is dangerous and results in accidents. A. Response No. 12-A— As noted in the traffic evaluation prepared by VHB, a worst-case estimate of peak hour trips to the site will result in the generation of 52 vehicle trips (26 entering and 26 exiting) on a weekday. This magnitude of traffic results in the addition of less than one vehicle trip every minute during the peak hours, a magnitude of traffic that will be accommodated for by the existing roadway network. The traffic evaluation further indicates that the distribution of traffic in and out of the site will result in a worst case peak hour increase of approximately 28 vehicle trips at the US Route 9/Kaydersoss Avenue West intersection. The 28 site related vehicles will represent less than 2% of the peak hour traffic on US Route 9, which carries between 1,500 and 1,800 peak hour trips, further confirming the minimal impact and increase that the site generated traffic will have on the surrounding roadway network and at the noted intersection. It is noted that at Kaydeross Avenue West, US Route 9 is a five -lane roadway with two travel lanes in each direction and a center two-way left -turn median that helps to facilitate left -turn maneuvers in and out of Kaydeross Avenue West and will also service the additional traffic generated by the site. B. Comment No. 12-B — The sharp curve at the east end of the site is dangerous. B. Response No. 12-B — The referenced curve to the east of the site is posted with curve warning signs with 15 mph speed placards and has chevron arrow signs posted within the curve to warn drivers of the horizontal curve in the road. There are other curve warning and intersection warning signs along Kaydeross Avenue West indicating that in general the roadway is winding in character. The site access driveway was placed along the western portion of the site to maximize the spacing between the driveway and the noted sharp curve to the east. C. Comment No. 12-C — Traffic volumes on Kaydeross Avenue West and speed is a problem. It is dangerous for people walking on Kaydeross Avenue West. C. Response No. 12-C —Twenty-four hour traffic volumes measured on Kaydeross Avenue West indicated that it is considered a low volume roadway by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) with approximately 330 vehicles traveling by the project site a day with about 25 vehicles during both the AM and PM peak hours. Roadway mid -block capacity thresholds established by the Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC) indicate that a two-lane local roadway can accommodate 625 vehicles in each direction to maintain level of service D operations and 800 vehicles in each direction to maintain level of service E operations. The existing and future traffic volumes on Kaydeross Avenue West are significantly less than the CDTC directional capacity thresholds indicating that good roadway operations and ample roadway capacity will continue to exist after the development of the site. Kaydeross Avenue West does not have shoulders so pedestrians do share the roadway with vehicles; however, as noted the project is a low traffic generator and there is ample capacity on the roadway to handle the additional traffic. D. Comment No. 12-D — A boulevard entry is being proposed since the developer anticipates traffic and site access will be a problem. A boulevard entry is also confusing to drivers and is not conducive to the residential character of the neighborhood. D. Response No. 12-D — Boulevard entrances are typically proposed to provide aesthetics to the entrance of a site and are also used to provide separate entry and exit lanes for sites with a single access point for emergency access since the separation provided by the boulevard increases the probability that both travel lanes won't be blocked in the event of an incident. The statement that a boulevard is proposed because access to the site is anticipated to be an issue is incorrect. E. Comment No. 12-E — Will there be cars backed up on Kaydeross Avenue West waiting to drop off their pets? Is there sufficient space on the site for cars to stack while waiting to drop off pets? E. Response No. 12-E — No, vehicles will not be backed up on Kaydeross Avenue West waiting to drop off their pets. The site provides ample parking for patrons to park on the site. As noted, the peak site operations anticipate 26 trips entering and 26 trips exiting the site over the hour. The 27 parking spaces proposed for the site provides adequate parking spaces for employees and patrons to park while dropping off or picking up pets with additional capacity for vehicle turnover. Comment No. 13 — Operational Concerns. What are the hours of operation of the Pet Resort? How many pets are normally expected to be boarded at any one time? Is there anyone on site overnight to attend to the pets? If a problem occurs at night how will anyone know? What will the protocol be to respond to any nighttime problems if no one is on duty? Will the project be phased? Response No. 13 — Operational Concerns: Hours of Operation — M -F 7-7, Sat 8-5, Sun 9-4 Staff Hours — M -F 6-9, Sat 7-9, Sun 7-9 After 9 pm there will not be a staff member on site unless there is a special circumstance requiring a staff member to stay. The industry standard for both pet boarding facilities and Veterinary offices is not to have staff present overnight. This being said, the owner and management staff will have access to cameras throughout the facility and will be assigned "late night check in duty" whereby the animals are looked in on to make sure that they are resting comfortably. In case of emergency, the pet will be brought to their Veterinarian of record or to one of the 24-hour Veterinary offices in the area. Project Phasing: Phase 1 of the project is what Saratoga Pet Resort's Business Plan is based on and for what funding has been secured. This phase of the project will be built once all necessary approvals are in place from the City. Phase 1 Daily Non -Peak (10.5 months) Occupancy Daily Peak (1.5 months) Occupancy Estimated Dogs/Day 78 106 Phase 2 of the project would not be built for at least three years from completion of Phase 1 and may never be built. Phase 2 would only be built if: - Demand warrants an expansion - Funding for Phase 2 is secured Phase 2 Daily Non -Peak (10.5 months) Occupancy Daily Peak (1.5 months) Occupancy Estimated Dogs/Day 104 142 Attachment F, Revised Site Plan, illustrated the Phase 1 and Phase 2 building. Attachment A Thompson and Fleming Survey Unauthorized alteration or addition to a survey map bearing a licensed Land Surveyor's Seal is a violation of Section 7209 subdivision 2 of the New York State Education Law. P:\Studio A S18-121\dwg\S18-121 Studio A.dwg Only apparent easements (if any) are shown on this survey. No abstract of title was available. 210.42 TBM BONNET NUT ON HYDRANT ELEV=236.40 2 236.18 230.97 228.78 225.42 221.87 Kaydeross Ave. e• West 2 ��1 M N cv M lJ� 5.46 N 1 • • 1 1 N N X 232.38 CO M N 231. 3 N `1O X 229.53 228.66 CVN N —mac,--1a"M� 1 _ / 6"ASH�18'"(ELLOI�ND � ( I C� N / / / / 12"YWWD / OWWD� 230.03 7 / / JELLO D i / / I / / it 7/( ('\ / 1 I / ` 225.45 ) / / \ I \225— / / / ///CG / w' 228 30 —228� 22 85 ZZX56� MAGNAIL —vs —1 �"C�T SCE '� � `° ..+, ��' x.112"CHY 12"YELLL `. 12"YELLOWB 2—BOLE / LLOWWD TBM BONNET NUT ON HYDRANT ELEV=228.79 CO N 227 42 I // / /w / X— / / / / -2A A-- I / / 1 / / 1 / I / 1 / 1 / / / / / / / 7 / 7 / 12"YELLOWD \ i 227. INV=223.21 CO CO N 27� ox MAGNAIL 22 O � OL 1▪ 4"PO 2 INV=222.91 12.ASH12"CHY /DITCH) �\ 0, ,;15\ 22A 223 INV=219.71 22_ 14 30" CULVERT / 227 X220 INV=219.38 360"WILLOW a a°s //// / I i , / / / ' ,II s 4 POND\II I47111OW % 7 / �/° 217.11 7 i2/° / / / 29/ 218.87 /221.21 / // � // / /7,<2106/ 1/7 ;oe,/ / \ GRANITE MON. / / FOUND / / sow isso. SIMS 500 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN Creel' �,/ Map Legend o marker found, labeled O water valve • test pit stone wall —°—O—O— chain—link fence —215— "X21277- J11 / i / Notes: ♦ Elevations are based on NGVD 1929 datum. ♦ / / GRANITE FOUND 2. The location of underground utilities shown on this plan are for information only, and all utilities may not be shown. The owner or contractor shall contract U.F.P.O. (1-800-962-7962) and the proper local authorities or respective utility company having jurisdiction to confirm the location of all existing utilities before commencing work. Any costs incurred by the owner or contractor due to the failure to contact the proper authorities shall become the responsibility of the owner or contractor. --/ / / ♦ MON. / / / -- / / -- / / / / / 1 / Map Reference: Boundary Survey Lands Now or Formerly of Peter Lopatka & Jennifer Lopatka dated Feb. 22, 2017 by C.T. Male Associates. 0 z a) (1) O a) O 00 CP 0 0 0- 0 0 q) O m 0 Vl z CO Ici ✓ -- co oo co U N r -- co co 5/8/18 500 -YEAR FLOOD PLAIN DATE DESCRIPTION REVISIONS DATE: April 23, 2018 JOB NO.: S18-121.24 DRAWN BY: DES CHKD.BY: WMT SCALE: 1" = 50' 25 0 25 50 S18-121.24 Attachment B Soil Test Pit Logs TEST PIT LOG Project Description: Learned Animal Care Facility Job Number: 17-335 Date: 1/4/2018* * test pits witnessed and evaluated by Matthew Huntington, PE on 12/19/17 Test Pit #1 Soil Profile 0-10" Topsoil 10"-24" Reddish Brown Sandy Loam w/cobbles 24"-72" Greyish Brown Silty Loam Mottling @ +30" No Bedrock Encountered No Groundwater Encountered Test Pit #2 Soil Profile 0-8" Topsoil 8"-24" Reddish Brown Sandy Loam w/cobbles 24"-72" Brown Granular Sand/Gravelly Fill Greyish Brown Silty Loam @ 72" No Groundwater Encountered No Bedrock Encountered Test Pit #3 Soil Profile 0-8" Topsoil 8"-30" Reddish Brown Sandy Loam w/cobbles 30"-60" Brown Granular Sand/Gravelly Fill Greyish Brown Silty Loam @ 60" No Groundwater Encountered No Bedrock Encountered 'WV WV SITE LOCATION MAP (NOT 70 SCALE) APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION, TYP. S86054102"E 254.71' N 75°50'0$" E C=418.87' L=423.23' R=850.00' APPARENT ENCROACHMENT • UP N64°34"14"E 379.53' N 55°42' 22"E 34.60' GMON 3' NIGH INDOD FB/CE REMAINS 11P 12 REMAINS elMt UP WiENTR POLE EARN WOOD FENCE REMAINS • • W000 FENCE REMAINS • ES ES EARN W/NEEll SCREENING OT1 SIPES 3' WIC/ DITCH %ACM ON LINE 'TERLOPATKA JENI NIIFER LOPATKA Lands Now or Formerly of Instrument No. 2016040738 Tax Parcel ID. 192.00-1-35 WOOD COVER TOTAL AR.rA=8.77± ACRES AREA EXCLUDING PERMANENT EASEMENTS=5.92k ACRES Lands Now or Formerly of DONALD L. GOBLE & EMILY1 GOBLE HUSBAND AND WIFE Instrument No. 2013013453 Tax Parcel ID. 191.00-2-10.2 PERMANEN-r EASEMENT MAP NO. 514 PARCEL NO. 842 (SEE MAP REFERENCE NO. 3) 6' HIGH CHAIN LINTS FENCE 111 1)4.444 WC. -00 FENCE REMAINS .00 6' HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE • 6' HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE • • goe, EDGE OF PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR STREAM CHANNEL MAP NO. 223 PARCEL NO. 410 (SEE 1\1AP REFERENCE NO. 2) ORIGINAL CENTERLINE OF CREEK & APPROPRIATION LINE GMON • • WEUL 0.00/1.1.°°.°6°11.1.wa°..°000'.11ti;.14 • .00 .00 REMAINS OP ROW MON HIGHWAY APPROPRIATION MAP NO. 224 PARCEL NO, an (SEE MAP RVERENCE NO. 1) ORIGINAL CENTERLINE OF CREEK (SEE MAP REFERENCE NO. 1) • PERMANENT EASEMENT MAP NO. 225 PARCEL NO. 410 Lands Now or Formerly of JOHN P. MASTROPIETRO Tax Parcel iD. 191.00-2-52 (See Map Reference No. 4) PONLY COPIES OP THIS MAP SIGNED RED INK AND EMBOSSED WITH THE SEAL OF AN OFFICER OF C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES OR A DESIGNATED REPRESEWATIVE SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VALID TRUE COPY". HIGHWAY APPROPRIATION LINE MAP NO. 224 PARCEL NO. an (SEE MAP REFERENCE NO. 1) DONALD E. ALBRECHT P.L.S. NO. 50302 DATE EAR SCALE 1 inch 30 ft. REVISIONS RECORD/DESCRIPTION CHAIN LINK FENCE DRAFTER CHECK A\ 61 HIGH •CHAIN LINK FENCE HIGHWAY APPROPRIATION LINE MAP NO. 225 PARCEL NO. 389 (SEE MAP REFERENCE NO. 2) MAP NOTES: 6' HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE 1, Boundary Information shown hereon was complied from an actual field survey conducted during the month of February, 2017. 2. North orientation Is magnetic north as observed by the field crew in February 2317. B. Objects shown on this drawing with a distance indicating how far that object Is from a particular line, lie on the same side of the line that the offset distance is vvritten, 4. survey WRIS prepared without the benefit of an up to date aOstrect of tftle or title report and is therefore subject to any easements, covenants, restrictions or any statement of fact that such documents may disclose. 5. Subject to arid together with any riparian rights the surveyed parcel may have to those lands lying within the bed of the existing re -located Kayacierosseras Creek as sflown hereon and es depicted or map reference no. 2. S. No attempt was made bo locate underground utilities. 7. Field evidence used to establish the boundary shown hereon also Includes additional mcnumentetion not shown due to the scale of the drawing MAP REFERENCES: 1. "New York State Deparbrnent of Public Works Description and Map for The Appropriation of Property Interstate Route 502-2-3, Saratoga County, P.I.S.H. No. (Malta - Saratoga Springs), from Nina E. Russell (Reputed Ovvner)," designated as Map 224, dated June 22, 1960 filed in the Region 1 Office of the New York State Department of Transportation in Albany, NY. 2, "New York State Department of Public Works Description and Map for The Appropriation of Property Interstate Route 502-2-3, Saratoga County, No. (Meta - Saratoga Springs), from Frank L. Wiewall (Reputed Owner)," designated as Map 225., dated August 30, 1960 flied in the Region 1 Office of the New York State Department of Transportation in Albany, NY. 3. '`New York State Department of Public Works Description and Map for The Appropriation of Property Interstate R.oute 502-2-3, Saratoga County, F.I.S.H. No. (Malta - Saratoga Springs), from Frank L. Wlswell (Reputed Oviner),fl designated as Map 314, dated August 1, 1961 filed In the Region 1 Office of the New York State Department of Transportation in Albany, NY. 4. "Major Subdivision Ironwood Stables Subdivision Amendment Kayderose Avenue," City of Saratoga Springs, County of Saratoga, State of New York, pmpared by ABD Engineers & Surveyors, dated March 5, 1999 filed in the Saratoga County Clerk's Office on January 3, 2000 as Map I -145A Rev. LINAUTHOREZED ALTERATION OR ADDITICP1 TO Tins cocu ENT IS A VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW, ID 2017 C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES APPROVED: WM EMIR -A GV HYD Drainage End Section Electric Meter Gas Marker Gee Valve Granite Monument Guy Wire Hydrant Sign lUP Utility Pole wso Water Shut Off WV 0 Water Valve Overhead Wires BOUNDARY SURVEY LANDS NOW OR FORMERLY OF PETER LOPATKA & JENNIFER LOPATKA KAYDEROSS AVE, WEST DRAFTED SMW CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS SARATOGA COUNTY, NEW YORK CHECKED TCB PROJ. NO : 17.7121 AL 46 C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES 50 CENTURY HILL DRIVE, LATHAM, NY 12110 S18.786.7400 FAX 513.786.7239 1MIN -K SHEET 1 OF 1 DWG. NO: 17-184 Attachment C C.T. Male Survey SITE LOCATION MAP (NOT TO SCALE) WV _ 0 WV HYD UP 12 Lands Now or Formerly of DONALD L. GOBLE & EMILY J. GOBLE HUSBAND AND WIFE Instrument No. 2016013453 Tax Parcel ID. 191.00-2-10.2 BOX WIRE FENCE REMAINS "ONLY COPIES OF THIS MAP SIGNED IN RED INK AND EMBOSSED WITH THE SEAL OF AN OFFICER OF C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES OR A DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VALID TRUE COPY". 1 1 UP 13 NYT 16 HYD `0' DOUBLE YELLOW LINE 0 S86°54'02"E 254.71' N78°50'06"E C=418.87' L=423.23' R=850.00' 6' HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE / GMON g(/ / WELL / KAYDEROSS AVE. WEST (50' RIGHT OF WAY) WIDTH OF PAVEMENT=23'± UP 14 1 ImM• 41=M1 APPARENT ENCROACHMENT UP N64°34' 14"E 379.53' - UP 15 Lands Now or Formerly of PETER LOPATKA & JENNIFER LOPATKA Instrument No. 2016040758 Tax Parcel ID. 192.00-1-35 TOTAL AREA=8.77± ACRES AREA EXCLUDING PERMANENT EASEMENTS=5.92± ACRES PERMANENT EASEMENT MAP NO. 514 PARCEL NO. 842 (SEE MAP REFERENCE NO. 3) 6' HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE / / o g) Oct yP�, CPQ / / / / WOOD FENCE REMAINS EDGE OF CREEK GE OF CREEK PERMANENT EASEMENT UP W/EMTR POLE BARN \rte 0 GF OF ,)),ES ES v A NFNT \ � FgSF17 FNT \\ \ i UP 3' WIDE DITCH FOR STREAM CHANNEL MAP NO. 225 PARCEL NO. 410 (SEE MAP REFERENCE NO. 2) ORIGINAL CENTERLINE OF CREEK & APPROPRIATION LINE i PP REFERS S16 � IPER M z PERMANENT EASEMENT MAP NO. 225 PARCEL NO. 410 Lands Now or Formerly of JOHN P. MASTROPIETRO & RORIE A. MASTROPIETRO Instrument No. 2011024522 Tax Parcel ID. 191.00-2-52 (See Map Reference No. 4) HIGHWAY APPROPRIATION MAP NO. 224 PARCEL NO. 379 (SEE MAP REFERENCE NO. 1) ORIGINAL CENTERLINE OF CREEK (SEE MAP REFERENCE NO. 1) REMAINS OF ROW MON 44' HIGHWAY APPROPRIATION LINE MAP NO. 224 PARCEL NO. 378 (SEE MAP REFERENCE NO. 1) BARN W/MESH SCREENING ON SIDES WOOD W/POSSIBLECOVER WELL WOOD FENCE REMAINS 6' HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE •s< BAR SCALE 50 0 25 50 100 1 inch = 50 ft. \v..— WOOD FENCE REMAINS // 6' HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE WOOD FENCE REMAINS GMON ON LINE N55°42'22"E 34.60' GMON 6' HIGH CHAIN / LINK FENCE 0 5' HIGH WOOD FENCE REMAINS A Q. J oz<5.c-.9 0)- 6' HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE A O' HIGHWAY APPROPRIATION LINE MAP NO. 225 PARCEL NO. 389 (SEE MAP REFERENCE NO. 2) MAP NOTES: 1. Boundary information shown hereon was compiled from an actual field survey conducted during the month of February, 2017. 2. North orientation is magnetic north as observed by the field crew in February 2017. 3. Objects shown on this drawing with a distance indicating how far that object is from a particular line, lie on the same side of the line that the offset distance is written. 4. This survey was prepared without the benefit of an up to date abstract of title or title report and is therefore subject to any easements, covenants, restrictions or any statement of fact that such documents may disclose. 5. Subject to and together with any riparian rights the surveyed parcel may have to those lands lying within the bed of the existing re -located Kayaderosseras Creek as shown hereon and as depicted on map reference no. 2. 6. No attempt was made to locate underground utilities. 7. Field evidence used to establish the boundary shown hereon also includes additional monumentation not shown due to the scale of the drawing MAP REFERENCES: 1. "New York State Department of Public Works Description and Map for The Appropriation of Property Interstate Route 502-2-3, Saratoga County, F.I.S.H. No. (Malta - Saratoga Springs), from Nina E. Russell (Reputed Owner)," designated as Map 224, dated June 22, 1960 filed in the Region 1 Office of the New York State Department of Transportation in Albany, NY. 2. "New York State Department of Public Works Description and Map for The Appropriation of Property Interstate Route 502-2-3, Saratoga County, F.I.S.H. No. (Malta - Saratoga Springs), from Frank L. Wiswall (Reputed Owner)," designated as Map 225, dated August 30, 1960 filed in the Region 1 Office of the New York State Department of Transportation in Albany, NY. 3. "New York State Department of Public Works Description and Map for The Appropriation of Property Interstate Route 502-2-3, Saratoga County, F.I.S.H. No. (Malta - Saratoga Springs), from Frank L. Wiswall (Reputed Owner)," designated as Map 514, dated August 1, 1961 filed in the Region 1 Office of the New York State Department of Transportation in Albany, NY. 4. "Major Subdivision Ironwood Stables Subdivision Amendment Kaydeross Avenue," City of Saratoga Springs, County of Saratoga, State of New York, prepared by ABD Engineers & Surveyors, dated March 5, 1999 filed in the Saratoga County Clerk's Office on January 3, 2000 as Map I -145A Rev. ES ( EMTR 0 GM 0 GV 0 GMON HYD UP fy WSO 0 WV 0 LEGEND: Drainage End Section Electric Meter Gas Marker Gas Valve Granite Monument Guy Wire Hydrant Sign Utility Pole Water Shut Off Water Valve Overhead Wires DONALD E. ALBRECHT P.L.S. NO. 50302 DATE REVISIONS RECORD/DESCRIPTION DRAFTER CHECK APPR. UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS DOCUMENT IS A VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW. Q 2017 C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES APPROVED: WJN DRAFTED : SMW CHECKED TCB PROJ. NO : 17.7121 SCALE : 1"=50' DATE : FEB. 22, 2017 BOUNDARY SURVEY LANDS NOW OR FORMERLY OF PETER LOPATKA & JENNIFER LOPATKA KAYDEROSS AVE. WEST CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES Engineering, Surveying, Architecture & Landscape Architecture, D.P.C. 50 CENTURY HILL DRIVE, LATHAM, NY 12110 518.786.7400 * FAX 518.786.7299 LEE SARATOGA COUNTY, NEW YORK SHEET 1 OF 1 DWG. NO: 17-184 Attachment D Visual Simulations for Preferred Site Plan Option Attachment D Landscape Architecture, D.P.C. Visual Simulations for Preferred Site Plan Option Attachment D Visual Simulations for Preferred Site Plan Option Street View A: Preferred Option studioA Landscape Architecture, D.P.C. Attachment D Visual Simulations for Preferred Site Plan Option Street View B: Preferred Option studioA Landscape Architecture, D.P.C. Attachment D Visual Simulations for Preferred Site Plan Option studioA Landscape Architecture, D.P.C. Attachment E Visual Simulations for Alternate Site Plan Attachment E Landscape Architecture, D.P.C. Visual Simulations for Alternate Site Plan Option Attachment E Visual Simulations for Alternate Site Plan Option Street View A: Front Facing Option studioA Landscape Architecture, D.P.C. Attachment E Visual Simulations for Alternate Site Plan Option Street View B: Front Facing Option studioA Landscape Architecture, D.P.C. Attachment E Visual Simulations for Alternate Site Plan Option studioA Landscape Architecture, D.P.C. Attachment F Revised Site Plan studio STUDIO A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, DPC MAILING: PO BOX 272 SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 OFFICE LOCATION: 480 BROADWAY, SUITE 324 SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 (518) 832-4005 IT 1S A VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STAT: EDUCATION LAW FOR ANY PERSON. UNLES THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER ARCHITECT. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LANI SURVEYOR, TO ALTER ANY ITEM IN ANY WAY IF AN ITEM BEARING THE STAMP OF LICENSED PROFESSIONAL IS ALTERED. TH ALTERING LICENSED PROFESSIONAL SHAL STAMP THE DOCUMENT AND INCLUDE TH NOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY THEE' SIGNATURE, THE DATE OF SUCH ALTERNATION AND SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF TH: ALTERATION. DRAWING NO. C-101 U Lil 0 a c DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DESCRIPTION UJ a PREPARED FOR: SCOTT LEARNED a LU LLJ Z j CC EyQ LLJ Cf] Z Z 0 < (!] T o ` NORWICH, CT 06360 DRAWING TITLE LAYOUT PLAN DATE: 3/12/2018 PROJECT NO. 18001 CHECKED BY: a DRAWN BY: DESIGN BY / / / GMON ON LINE A PROPOSED AREA FOR ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEM / SETBACK F DISPOSAL SYSTEMS ST R ON-SITE SEWAGE ENIS FROG STREAM OF- RN4, r EASE_ / / / 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 PER NENT EASEMENT �?` MAP NO 14 PARCEL NO. 842' A / (SEE AP REFERENCE 3) f` f / 1/1/ f Y ARS A� 100' REINR ,/ PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR STREAM CHANNEL MAP NO. 225 PARCEL NO. 410 (SEE MAP REFERENCE NO. 2) 1 1 1 I 1 1 I / 1 1 1 / pR�� SPRp,"C°GP� P CVO °F� -0A \N w LI; as z >w R N Li PERMANENT EASEMENT MAP NO. 225 PARCEL NO. 410 — HIGHWAY APPROPRIATION MAP NO. 224 PARCEL NO. 379 (SEE MAP REFERENCE NO. 1) REMAINS OF ROW MON - HIGHWAY APPROPRIATION LINE MAP NO. 224 PARCEL NO. 378 (SEE MAP REFERENCE NO. 1) cb f 0 A a� �P KAYDEROSS AVE WEST SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY ZONING DISTRICT: RR — RURAL RESIDENTIAL TAX MAP #: 192.00-1-35 HIGHWAY APPROPRIATION LIf MAP NO. 225 PARCEL NO. 38S (SEE MAP REFERENCE NO. 2) AREA REQUIREMENTS MIN. LOT SIZE SF MIN AVERAGE WIDTH (FT.) MINIMUM SETBACKS % MAX BLDG COVERPERMEABLE MAX. BLDG HT.REMAIN MIN 3o TO FRONT REAR EACH SIDE TAL TSSIDE REQUIRED 2 200 60 100 30 100 15 35 80 PROPOSED 8.77 1092 108 228 30 429 3.08% NO TALLER THAN 35' 94.8 PARKING REQUIREMENTS TOTAL BUILDING: 11,761 SF TOTAL FLOOR AREA: TOTAL EMPLOYEES: 12 ANIMAL KENNEL REQUIRED PARKING: - I SPACE PER 200 SF OF FLOOR AREA - I SPACE/2 EMPLOYEES PROPOSED PARKING: - 27 SPACES INCLUDING 2 HANDICAP SPACES LEGEND: PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS 100' SETBACK FROM STREAM FOR SEPTIC PERMANENT EASEMENT MAP REFERENCE: "MAP OF A BOUNDARY SURVEY" BY C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, DATED FEBRUARY 22, 2017. 1. 0 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20 80 I INCH = 44 FEET 1DWG 1 OF I Attachment G Distance Map Attachment G Distance Map studioA Landscape Architecture, D.P.C. Attachment H Relative Size of Proposed Pet Resort Building Attachment H Landscape Architecture, D.P.C. Relative Size of Proposed Pet Resort Building r '�11L_ Size Comparison: Burnt HiIs Veterinary Hospital Attachment H Relative Size of Proposed Pet Resort Building studioA Landscape Architecture, D.P.C. 0 Attachment H Landscape Architecture, D.P.C. Relative Size of Proposed Pet Resort Building 1 3 1 • 1: �I.r'1� -670 __ ._- raw 40111 CUP - x3.7P Size Comparison: Saratoga Animal Shelter Attachment H Relative Size of Proposed Pet Resort Building studioA Landscape Architecture, D.P.C.