HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210755 269 Broadway Site Plan Correspondance Engineering and 1533 Crescent Road
/��� Land Surveying, P.C. Clifton Park, NY 12065
.J Phone: 518.371 .0799
mjelspc@mjels.com
October 14, 2021 mjels.com
Susan B. Barden,AICP
Principal Planner
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, NY
518-587-3550 ext. 2493
Re: 20210755—269 Broadway Review for Planning Board
CHA Project No. 58389-1003
Dear Ms. Barden,
MJ Engineering is in receipt of comments dated September 15, 2021 from CHA Consulting, Inc. (CHA) and comments
via email dated September 24, 2021 from the City of Saratoga Springs Dept. of Public Works regarding the 269
Broadway Project. We offer the following, displayed in .; ; f:..; in response to comments listed below:
CHA Consultin�Comments
A. Sufficiency of documentation submitted for the purposes of a SEQR Determination of Significance by the
Planning Board. The application includes a completed FEAF Part 1.
1. FEAF Section D.2.c and d indicate a water/sewer demand of 4,000 GPD, while the Water/Sewer Report
indicates 10,000 GPD. Please clarify.
t�es�Qnse: �eE°Er�clased���t�°� _ �tr'�
2. FEAF Section D.2.j indicates one truck trip per day for deliveries and trash removal.This seems low even for
just the restaurant, without the retail and office uses. Please clarify and provide backup.
3. FEAF Section D.2.1 indicates TBD for hours of operation. Please clarify.
4. FEAF Section D.2.r indicates no solid waste will be generated by the project,which is incorrect. Please
provide solid waste generation estimates during construction and for all proposed operations and uses.
These estimates should be used to determine if the amount of space provided for trash and recyclables
storage is adequate.
5. FEAF Section E.2.a indicates depth to bedrock is 25 to 33 feet. Has any geotechnical exploration been
conducted to verify this and to determine if blasting will be required for the excavation of foundations for the
underground garage?
6. FEAF Section E.3.f indicates that archaeological sensitivity is present. Please obtain and provide a No-Effect
Letter from the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.
Response: Letter has b�en provided to thc- t��iy. 5ee airaened copy ana corresponding email from Weston
Davey explaining the extent of the review.
8. Site Plans—General Comments:
1. The plans provided are stamped "DRAFT". Plans should be finalized and stamped/signed by a professional
engineer prior to action by the Planning Board.
9��s,. . �s�: �c �:, � °�n�,, "e�' �.,�. �fc��� �:��.�� � 'inalized/stamped once aIl comments are a�;., . , <.
2. The Existing Conditions Plan does not include the map notes and references that are referred to in individual
callouts. These should be included, in addition to the identification of the surveyor, survey date, horizontal
Fishkill, NY • Long Island, NY • Sewell, NJ • Melbourne, FL
269 Broadway Comment Response
���`� October 14, 2021
�� Page 2 of 10
and vertical datum, etc...
_ . �.�r1���ed. See rev�sed Ex�stin�C�n�it�ons r?Icrn f�r survey�notes& referenc� ,.
3. There appears to be an encroachment of Spa Catholic's existing parking lot along the southerly property
boundary. An easement appears to be provided for this, but the specifics are unclear. More detail is
required.
�.. .
,.:, ,. . , . ;. �
, ; ,
_. �
„ ,
, � . � _� _ . �< ,
4. There appears to be work proposed beyond the property line on the north side (Saratoga Hospital property)
associated with removal and replacement of encroaching electric and gas lines and a sidewalk. A narrative
should be provided to explain how this is being addressed with the adjacent property owner.
f?��s... �� �_ �������n! c�.�- � �f� �,. �' � ����c��,���,� ���� ° r�n✓rth ���,., � �'9
,_., ,�. a.. � _. ��t�� c� _ .��> v����c,� _, ,����c��,� property to
r`r��
C. Conformance with zoning, neighborhood tie in design form, civic space elements,screening, buffering,site&
public space lighting:
1. The site is situated in the T-6 Urban Core district. The plans incorporate civic space elements as required,
which will be reviewed in detail by the Planning Board.
2. There appears to be a gap in the existing pedestrian scale street lighting along the South Broadway site
frontage. An existing cobra-style streetlight exists at the approximate midpoint. The architectural renderings
have omitted the existing fixture and show a pedestrian scale fixture in its place; however, the plans do not
show this. The Planning Board should discuss its requirements on this matter with the applicant, and either
the plan or rendering should be corrected.
�z- b _ _ � =pr+�. - � r� .
D. Pedestrian, bicycle, auto, emergency vehicle, truck accessibility&maneuvering space:
1. Vehicle access to the underground parking garage is from Hamilton Street. A parking garage layout included
with the architectural drawings indicates 70 spaces on two levels. An AutoTurn diagram showing the vehicle
path through the garage is needed to verify adequate maneuverability is provided, as turning space inside
the garage appears very tight.
� , �.
„_„� � „ . . ,
,
-- ,... , ; a . �y c . ,.� ✓ .,._� r .a'! ,e , . ; ;�`:� �_ � x;r_ ._�'.r ::�.� ,,,, _ . .,. . �� a�.. f .5'G`>
. .. .._ . �,`.i.
2. Deliveries and trash are also located in an enclosed, covered area accessed from Hamilton Street. A 40-foot
long pull off lane has been provided along the Hamilton Street curb line, which will accommodate a city
delivery truck, but not a tractor trailer. The plan for accommodating larger trucks should be discussed in the
context of what deliveries are expected at the site.
Response: Tractar trailers are not anticipated at '�� v_ ., , _ , . _ , �� +'�r
F_,' hY
�� r���;�,.,_ . �.�,F���..,. 'Y�t�r� s ... .> 'S1�Y .. _..
3. The plans show what appear to be two tip-up style dumpsters in the covered trash/loading area. The sizes
are not indicated. It does not appear that there will be adequate maneuvering room for the garbage truck to
access the dumpsters where they are shown. Additionally, there does not appear to be sufficient overhead
clearance to tip them up into the truck inside the enclosure area. A workable trash removal plan should be
submitted.
Respanse:See�r��P�sed Co��,r l�tter��i;fc.h�rc�vi��es Irfi�rrr..., . , � _�, ,., _ . �.°��<.� _ �e,= � . ,. _
.:_�ulfed out ca f t��e loading area priot�tc�being tipped up,
4. The plans include provisions for bicycle parking near the main entrance.
�`;��sponse: Corrurrent acicnowledged
E. ADA compliance—site&public space, accessible parking and accessible routes:
269 Broadway Comment Response
���`� October 14, 2021
�� Page 3 of 10
1. It appears the intent is to provide an accessible route to the main building entrance from the Hamilton Street
Sidewalk at the rear of the building. A walkway with a ramp is also provided from the South Broadway
sidewalk at the front of the building to the main entrance on the south fa�ade. The section of sidewalk
between the bottom of the ramp and the entrance plaza is sloped at 4.5%. This is less than 5%, so railings
are not code-required, but it exceeds 2%, so this walk is not an accessible route. An opportunity exists to
provide accessibility to the main entrance from South Broadway by extending the ramp. This should be
considered. It is strongly suggested that accessibility be considered from South Broadway, as it experiences
heavier pedestrian traffic.
�-:: � '�'� ,5.,,°�, ,+. .,.A'.� C�..3 �� )_ x ;.✓i 1. %.; `:°'�,n `.'!l�t ✓W„. . . ir i _. .�... ..,�<<.-ra .. ,e ..... `��, . . . ,�_ s.
'' _,� � .._ ,�,. _ _ . td017 ]7C'!. .
2. The plans include new radiant heated sidewalks along the Hamilton Street frontage and part of the South
Broadway frontage. The existing sidewalk along the southern portion of the South Broadway frontage will
not be replaced, and radiant heating is not proposed for this section or for the new ramp mentioned above.
Consideration should be given to whether these areas should be heated, or if at a minimum the building
mechanicals should be sized to allow continuation of the radiant heating in the future to include the
remainder of the South Broadway sidewalk.
�,.� . ti � �.
3. The parking garage includes three accessible spaces which meets the requirements of ADAAG.
;r��;rC'/��::': �';�Yp'.f�?F�Y^t�/C(<Y1 C3lrv'�C't�{�E';.�
F. Site layout—property/building setbacks, traffic/pedestrian circulation, layout, dimensions, deliveries, trash
storage&pickup,fire apparatus access, generator placement, transformer placement, gas meter placement,
mechanical equipment placement:
1. The layout appears to generally conform to the requirements of the T-6 district. No deviations from the bulk
and area requirements are evident.
r�e_s��c�-. ..: �'����� �. `��F r .d.�
2. Dimensions should be added to the Layout Plan to identify sidewalk and driveway widths.
r;`esponse: Comrrfent acknowledged. D�tr;�-r�sr�r�s 4�uv�-ta�eri c�a��,� ta �i;-L ��:,�c��� -��:n.
3. The hardscape width between the south side of the main entrance seat wall/planter and the existing Spa
Catholic parking lot appears to be only 2 feet. Is this intentional?
_.
� - -_ � . . . �.�. ,_� _ „ _ . _ . ._� ,�. _ ., t �.
4. Transformer placement is shown along the south side of the building. Access to the transformers is assumed
to be from Spa Catholic. National Grid's verification and acceptance of this plan is required.
�4.� .t._ ._ ,� . �. , v. ..., , a.... . �_ ,. ._ . ..__ ci ...
5. The building plans show a generator in the northwest corner of the parking garage lower level. No
information on the generator was provided (diesel/natural gas,venting/exhaust locations, sound attenuation
proposed). This information should be submitted for Planning Board review.
6. As noted, dumpsters are shown in an enclosed, covered area on the west side of the building. In addition to
the comments above related to accessing and emptying the dumpsters, the applicant should also verify that
they are sized correctly for the anticipated waste generation. Additionally, and particularly with respect to
the restaurant operation, locations for storage of recyclables, cardboard, grease cubes and other
exchangeable items should be identified on the plan and discussed in narrative.
�`�eC.f3�rE. �.��tlPi� ? C e;�;�15/..J.,"�s ., .i. : � ,)(�fre,��p'L-' ����, . �.,�_r't,tUt %`i;S r(iJ:Jr`Y�!L±tii31!.
7. The plans do not show the size and location of the multiple gas meters that will be required on this building.
The applicant should provide this information.
• _,
<;,�� .., r, _. ,.,�ny.. ,
8. Building mechanicals are shown on the roof of the building. We assume there is no ground mounted
mechanical equipment. The applicant should confirm this.
269 Broadway Comment Response
���`� October 14, 2021
�� Page 4 of 10
__ . �., � � . . ,. r ��, , , ,,�, ,�� � �.
G. Site grading—min/max slopes, appropriate collection&conveyance,maintenance of existing drainage
patterns:
1. Proposed contour labels on the Grading Plan are too small to read.
� � , � �_ .� . . „ ,� _i�> L ,_ ,� � _ �
2. On the north side of the building in the area where sidewalk is being replaced on Saratoga Hospital property,
the Grading Plan calls out proposed top/bottom of curb elevations, but the curb is not being replaced. It
appears the intent is to replace only the sidewalk. The plans should convey how that will be done and how
positive drainage will be controlled.
l�t�s�a��s:��.� `�..������r�� �cl;,�o��l��'�:�, �'��� _,�7s have been updated for clarity in saving the existing concrete curb.
3. It is unclear how precipitation that falls/blows onto the surface of the open-air community space on the east
and south sides of the building will drain. More grade control is required in this area, and it appears that
drainage structures will be required. This area requires careful attention to ensure proper drainage and to
minimize freezing concerns.
4. We would also recommend a closed drainage system for the entry plaza and the South Broadway ramp. The
current design appears to concentrate runoff coming from the east at the bottom of the ramp and spreads it
across the entry plaza. This creates several concerns, including the potential for freezing at the building
entrance.
.
_,,, _,.� , -- � � �<. � ��.. , - a
�n �, .
5. It appears stormwater will be trapped between the two transformer pads. Additional grading detail is
needed in this area.
�, - �. . w._ a r.._ ��_-,
6. We recommend a curb be added between the Catholic Central parking lot and the new sidewalk on the south
side of the building to contain and collect runoff that currently flows toward the project site from the existing
parking lot and to keep vehicles from parking on the sidewalk.
�-,�_����t1��':
7. New drainage structures appear to be needed along Hamilton Street on either side of the access to the
parking garage. The design appears to create a ponding issue there.
-• �
,� - . ,; �
„�_:�_ .. ,_r 5 .., , _ . � ,_. ��.�_ �- , _ �r�� r�r�, . -__ .,
H. Stormwater management design&SWPPP:
1. The SWPPP and design plans have proposed to use Green Roof and Stormwater Planters practices to treat
water quality volume and runoff reduction volume (WQv and RRv). However,the stormwater design
calculations provided in Appendix J of the SWPPP are labeled as "Bioretention".
2. The calculations provided in Appendix J have indicated a minimum required filter area of 498 square feet to
treat the WQv for Catchment#2. But the actual area provided is only 363.75 square feet. There appears to be
insufficient filter area provided to treat the required WQv for this drainage area.
,
�: , . . ;_ , .. �, ,. .. .,, , ,.. ..-„ :- �.,v; �. , _. _,._ �.
3. The post-development condition HydroCAD model utilized an exfiltration rate of 240 inches per hour through
the gravel layer of the stormwater planters. Please provide backup information to support this infiltration
rate.
� _� f
�: � _ ��
_ �, , � r
,.V
, ,
. . .
�__, ., s__ �_.. �_ . � � . ,. u_ , �� _ �,., ,
4. The HydroCAD model indicated the primary outflow for the stormwater planters was calculated based on
routing runoff through the gravel layer(device#3) before the soil media layer(device#2). However, based
on the elevations listed in the model, runoff drains thru the 18" soil media layer before the 12"gravel layer.
.. .... .. . „� ._ nUf.. ,. . :.. . .... . , ,._>
269 Broadway Comment Response
���`� October 14, 2021
�� Page 5 of 10
5. The HydroCAD model indicated an available storage volume of 1,455 CF for 3'Wx194'Lx0.5'H stormwater
planters. However,the Grading and Drainage Plan Sheet C-130 does not appear to show a total of 194 linear
feet of stormwater planters. Please revise WQv calculations, HydroCAD model, and/or design plans for the
stormwater planters accordingly.
�. . _ : � � _�, � , ..
� � .�. s1 �f,�� � � ��,J. � . v�_�ly _.. _ ,. Y , ,�r�lur�., ,.
��rs.
6. Detail#1 on plan Sheet C-04 for the proposed Green Roof section should include specifications for the 2-
inch"Drainage Layer" and 6 to 8-inch layer of"Membrane Protection and Root Barrier Structural Support". In
addition, the detail should show the 8-inch outlet to roof drain and include an invert elevation for it.
t?.-t� -., >,r.J -: r`== (..,
.. v . �. �. '' � . �.,
7. The two proposed light fixture relocations shown on the design plans appear to be in very close proximity to
the Subsurface Storm Detention System. Please verify any underground electrical conduit crossings and/or
connections for the light fixtures will not impact the structural integrity and available storage volume of the
Subsurface Storm Detention System.
8. Please provide a post development Operation and Maintenance Manual for the proposed Green Roof,
Stormwater Planters, and Subsurface Storm Detention System. Include any special instructions and
guidelines during the winter months for the plants and vegetations.
�'�4�)�r+�F'; 1�!? `i,'�C'VEAL?,t7�"Y�€'r' �',�'?h�Y??17�t,f7f ic ^;�t�1 �.�rr��l?!��'C���1!tfliYr tf�� o'_,, :-.
1. Work in ROW—curb&sidewalk replacement, curb ramps,pavement repair, maintenance/protection of traffic:
1. Sidewalk/driveway crossing plan and details do not match City standards. Concrete sidewalk should be
continuous through the driveway crossing. Heavy duty concrete sidewalk section is required (4"thick is not
adequate for vehicle traffic). Refer to and incorporate City of Saratoga Springs standard details.
2. Use of"E100" (mountable)granite curb (sheet C500) along Hamilton Street should be verified with DPW.
Typically a standard profile granite curb would be used.
;':�'_4��JC�r��:�': � ,. ,s`a„ _ i.l.,t%Jr . .�s�+, tC,. t,� z� ,� � �a, 3' �;i��x;f`�ar� ,. lrt;IttrltCC':'�5.t�:! �lJf;r:(�4��r(�r':
3. City of Saratoga Springs standard details are provided at the end of the plan set, but some details are in
conflict with other details in the plan set. Plan callouts should clarify where City details are required.
4. In light of the site work and building coverage proposed right to the street lines in an urban environment,
plans and narrative are required to address construction staging, crane operation, laydown areas, road/lane
closures and work zone traffic control measures that will be required during construction.
ReS�an;?�E'.' Ple��s��E'� ,;.rtt��'hE'�J�t�t�F r'(,.Qttet'.
J. Water&sewer service connections:
1. A Water/Sewer Engineering Report has been provided with the application. The project description section
of the report should present a more detailed breakdown of uses and areas on each floor with totals for each
floor and each use. It is difficult to determine if all floor area has been assigned a use, and therefore a
water/sewer demand.
,
�{E:_`;.. ,�� �'7"f1 f'i- r, ;, �" . . "`S ,t, v3'cF� .,'p`:_.,�._ �_ � ..i�;'✓:- ' ��;� �. ��:� .�.?e . ,.. � , � ._,� Ci;_:�-..
r�j t�he buildin�;.
2. The estimate provided in the report of 100 seats in a 14,318 SF restaurant seems low. More detail should be
provided to back up that estimate.
3. The report states "the domestic water service will be placed on individual water meters and with a backflow
prevent device." Please clarify this statement.
... . , ._ � .. ����,
269 Broadway Comment Response
���`� October 14, 2021
�� Page 6 of 10
4. The design calls for a new 6-inch water service connected to an existing 6-inch main on Hamilton Street.
There are multiple existing mains available. DPW should verify that this is the preferred option.
!�->; � sr�° ��r�,f7,�nP c�i�Y%�;�a�ledq�f,'.
5. The detail (9/C505) provided for the water service is for a small diameter copper line and is not appropriate
to this installation. The plans should be revised with the correct detail and should indicate whether a wet tap
is proposed.
6. Grease trap sizing calculations should be included in the report.
� f . . � �..
�>: . ,.
�_ . 1 v f , �.� , _�� �'� , . ,�,:'�
K. Landscaping&site lighting:
1. No new street trees have been proposed along South Broadway or Hamilton Street. The plans call for
removal of an existing 12" maple on Hamilton Street. The Planning Board may wish to require its
replacement and improvement of the streetscape along the South Broadway frontage.
�:��. '�'ts . . � �.
L. Site details—pavement& trench sections, misc. details:
1. Sidewalk detail shows a haunch and dowels along edge of proposed building. Is the intent to use this detail
at the doors? Typically we would see a frost wall detail there. Please verify with building designer.
�SC 4fJC'i/���': ���C�ti,°r€e�X:��.4*�1�P'�i+a�e.�(:�'vta t"�����.t`��#"�i:�� �l`;� C:�YCd71��?'�. ,� €:F'�:�'�C;�ti t;� i�#�t7C�CJl.
2. We recommend venting for grease traps extending to the building roof. The detail provided does not appear
to include venting and may create an odor issue.
�� .. ,:�� :c� . . �:5.
M. Traffic Impact Study comments are broken down by report section, as follows:
1. Comments on Existing and No Build Conditions Section:
a. As per TIS, an adjustment factor of 1.75 was developed to calibrate the traffic volumes to pre-pandemic
levels.TIS did not provide any substantial document to support calculations, please provide supporting
documentations.
d � t
b. As per TIS,traffic volumes were calibrated to match pre-pandemic levels. It is recommended to calibrate
existing conditions level of service (LOS) (Table 2 of TIS) to match pre-pandemic level of service. Please
clarify if there were any adjustments made to existing condition analysis to account for the 2021
Saratoga Racing Calendar that ran from July 15 through September 6.
Response: Traffic data is c.ollected when school is in session, �a major events, without the impact of
holidays, and during good weather per the ITE Traffic Engineering Handbook and NYSDOT HDM 5.2.1.2.C.
The turning movement counts were collected in May 2021 to follow these standards. No adjustments
. �t. ,�;. _',7� � `. _. �,�„ .
c. TIS did not provide any information on track season traffic estimates, it is recommended to study
Summer Peak Period.
� . ,�C�,���,;2: !�Y`�U'j.?'��'r;�tt'"�'r72�f 1,t�?�l'''? �(?i"7i��IIIG'r1�fS ��.C�b'. i"2;�)_F ti_:Pi� ? �1�t �;`v`�e year. Traffic data is
collected when school is in session, no major events, without the impact of holidays, and during good
weather per the ITE Traffic Engineering Handbook and NYSDOT HDM 5.2.1.2.C. The turning movement
counts were collected in May 2021 to follow these standards. The track uses a special event plan for
traffic control to maintain traffic in the area adjacent to the track. While track season brings additional
visitors to the City of Saratoga Springs, analysis of the summer track season would not account for traffic
� , A_ A , ��
.._ 4f, .1. ��, . 1 <-., ��' _ �fl i..Y':, i'i�l"' , . . ,. .
d. Because the intersection of Hamilton Street and Ballston Avenue is in coordination with the intersections
of Broadway with Circular Street/Ballston Avenue and Broadway with Lincoln Avenue, it is recommended
269 Broadway Comment Response
���`� October 14, 2021
�� Page 7 of 10
to study the intersections of Broadway with Circular Street/Ballston Avenue and Broadway with Lincoln
Avenue to study queuing impacts from closely spaced inter-coordinated intersections.
Response. The minirnal irnpact an level of service �ambined with the proposed mitigatian to limit exiting
vehicles to only turn right onto Hamilton Street, the review of the additional intersections is not
warranted. The coordination of the signals is utilized to allow these intersections to function under typical
peak hour traffic conditions. It is anticipated that our project could add seven (7) vehicles to the
eroadway/eallston Avenue intersection in the volumes used in the TIS analysis. With the proposed
mitigation to restrict left turns out of the proposed on-site parking, this volume would be eliminated.
Without additional traffic being added to the intersections in the coordinntPr!�„stPm; th�e��stinn
��,�d,�tions vvnsal�!remain and an�lysis ns an,rt�f r,h;4�rQiecr;s n�r r��,rrrt.r„�. }
e. For Existing and No Build LOS table (Table 2 of TIS), for movements with exclusive turn bay, please
provide comparison of average queue length result vs. available storage length. If average queue length
exceeds available storage length, appropriate capacity adjustments should be made to affected
movements.
_. . �.,. � � , , ,r��r �" �, , ... . . �-sF��� �
. _ ,�.. �a , ,. ..._:
StuciY.��r LI;�.:
Queue Length —Storage Length Comparison Table
From Synchro SimTraffic
Existing Avg No-Build Avg
Intersection Movement Storage Queue Queue
Length
AM PM AM PM
Ballston Avenue EB Left 150 19 33 23 29
Congress Street EB Left 35 5 29 15 14
W B Left 70 36 24 39 43
I N B Left 100 33 78 39 85
SB Left 55 4 21 4 8
f. For SYNCHRO traffic analysis, for PHF and percent heavy vehicles, it is recommended to use calculated
values from turning movement counts instead of default values.
Res�e�, .t ��;� �;�y�ci�ro rrrc�dels hc�v�� fa��r� ,��+c�a�t�c�����, ., :`f7�- ,` � z,:� . , �,, ;�, �_� �; ;; � , � �
���ta colleetlar�. See revised Tr�af�ic lmpac�i Stcrdv.
g. Please confirm that SYNCHRO traffic analysis is based on ideal unadjusted saturated flow of 1,900
passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl).
h. Because proposed development would be in Central Business District(CBD) settings, the analysis should
be performed such a way to account for extra miscellaneous friction or relative inefficiency such as
narrow street right-of-way, frequent parking maneuvers, double parking/vehicle blockages, taxi drop-off
and pick-ups, bus activity, high pedestrian activity et. Please confirm that traffic analysis was performed
with CBD option is checked.
�
���,c� __. . _� , � v_, ,. ,.
2. Comments Proposed Conditions Section:
a. Any changes to Existing or No Build Conditions traffic analysis based on above comments should be
applied to Build condition traffic analysis also.
t. . �. . , � �,, '� �;' � `� ,
269 Broadway Comment Response
���`� October 14, 2021
�� Page 8 of 10
b. Proposed trip generation (Table 3 of TIS) for Shopping Center should be based on Gross Leasable Area
(GLA), and Quality Restaurant and General Office Building should be based on Gross Floor Area (GFA) as
per Institute of Transportation Engineer(ITE)Trip Generation Handbook instead of usable space of the
building as per TIS. It is recommended to revise trip generation.
� ,, tm
�. � � ';'` � ,
_ �. __ . �. � , , . t . �
c. It is recommended to clarify what credits were taken for walking, biking, and transit to develop proposed
trips. Please clarify what trip rates were used -average rate or fitted curve rate, and what peak hour time
was chosen - peak hour of adjacent street traffic or peak hour of generator(Table 3 of TIS).
_ ��sr�r,; .���yE:as z�.�:�.., �. �
LUC 710—Office—Fitted curve for peak hour of adjacent street traffic for AM& PM
LUC 820—Shopping Center—Average rate for for peak hour of adjacent street traffic for AM& PM
LUC 9�.Z —F3estaurant—Average rate j�r for pealc hour of adjacent street traffic for AM� PM
d. Please provide trip reduction percentages for each land use and for each sub-category along with back-
up data (Table 4 of TIS).
� ..
,. .; ,. . � � �- -_ � : , _
, r
� � ,,,
� . , � � �
,.e.. � � _,_� -. , , „ _
e. Please clarify why it was assumed that pass-by traffic would park offsite (Section 4.2 of TIS).
F� �.<. , . , ,; , . . .� �� _�.,
. ,.... ,_, � ,-�., ������;,�
f. It is recommended to provide documentation to show how Build Trip distribution percentages were
determined for AM peak and PM peak hours (Appendix C).
Response: The turninq movement cc�unts were used to �_ - f � . ` , f =
a,-,. ��
_ . _ _ � : _ , . �
g. The site plan shows relocation of"SCHOOL BUS ONLY 7 AM—4 PM" sign. Please clarify where would
school bus parking sign shifted during and after construction and how it will affect student pick-up/drop-
off.The relocation of sign would also reduce School Bus staging area, please provide alternatives.
� _, ,„
. , _. .. �� .�,�_ . .�� v , Prr � . . � �r����.. � . .,._�m . _ _ _ ..� � _-���
with the schooi on the pfacerrrent of the sign in the proposed condition to ensure it meets the school's
expectations. There will be minimal, if any, reduction in the staginq area.
3. Comments on Conclusions/Recommendations Section:
a. According to City code, there is no requirement for off street parking in the current T-6 Urban Core zone
where the proposed development is located, please provide link and specific text.
, � �
.,� ,� �, ,. .. -
e,..��,�.�.,�.�, e �, e,����,,�„ �.�._ , �, L ..,�y� .�, .,�„ �,.�.y,� ��,�. .���� .,,� ,.,w, „�„��,
"6.2 PARK/NG AND OFF-STREET LOADING REQU/REMENTS
6.2.1 INTENT
This Article sets minimum standards for off-street parking and loading for new
construction and for the expansion or change to existing uses. The purpose of this
Article is to ensure that uses have a minimum level of off-street parking to avoid
congestion on surrounding streets while avoiding excessive parking.
6.2.2 APPLICABILITY
A. The parking and loading requirements shall apply to all zoning districts with the
following exception: there are no minimum off-street parking requirements in the
TrcrnseCt-6 t�i5trict.,,
http://www.saratoqa-sprinqs.orq/DocumentCenter/View/247/60-Supplemental-Requlations-PDF
b. It is recommended to provide parking accumulation analysis to determine peak parking demand and to
make sure that there is no parking shortfall.
v �. - _ ��! _
c. Based on latest census data for Saratoga Springs City, approximately 81%of residents would drive to
work while approximately 85%workers who work in Saratoga Springs City would arrive via auto.
Therefore, it is recommended to review data from latest census to determine proper mode share.
v ,, ,w �=���; w�i_. v_ �, �n��� � ?: ��1��< � y , ��, � �.
269 Broadway Comment Response
���`� October 14, 2021
�� Page 9 of 10
�u, . � � :�� �. . . > e�� . .,� _, . ., �%�' _ _ , ,
d. Please provide data supporting following statement from TIS: Approximately 90%of their employees live
in the City and use alternate forms of transportation to passenger vehicles, like walking and bicycle,to
get to work.
�,�. . . _�. . ���. , ��:°
N. Cost estimate for letter of credit:
1. The Off-Site estimate indicates concrete curbing will be used. Plans call for granite curbing. Please clarify.
~%:_ .
2. All of the unit costs are either at the low end of the current cost range or are significantly low. Those that are
significantly low are addressed below. Some of these appear to only include a material cost.
a. HARDSCAPE: Retaining wall would be in the$450/If range. Adds $24,000.
b. SITE LIGHTING: Drawings show 2 new lights adds$6,000.
c. UTILITY STRUCTURES: MH/CB would be$2,500 ea... adding$9,000.
d. UNDERGORUND DETENTION: I would expect this to be closer to$65,000 adding$15,000.
e. SANITARY LINES: $/If is low...Adds $2,500.
f. WATER LINES: $/If is low...Adds $2,000.
r3'�;, � � ' __ . �ir�.�',� ..5'r;�/'. ,.��_�d �'. �.'�p,� Z��� ��t�r;J;�tf.
3. The following items are missing from the estimate:
a. PLANTINGS: Missing 6 trees. Adds $4,500
b. SITE IMPROVEMENTS: Stairs & Handrails
c. SANITARY: Grease trap. $7,500
d. WATER CONNECTION:Tap at street...Adds$5,000
�'_ � - -_ . . _. , . . _ _ . ___
Sarato�a Sprin�s DPW Comments
1. Show size of water main on Broadway.
�','_4��;C�d�4�, {.f7 '.�ri'",E".�ClCtr L.,�:v'l�t�.("�(F,.�. :)_, 1c:LrtS..0 ,�:';`�:r;'7y �Cr, t�tt:`C7 .� 51iF'�t.
2. Show note on survey for easement 1 along with all other typical notes.
�c���e: �. t_ ,.� �. � , . . . , � „ � _�_.
3. On sheet C-110, there are light poles that are to be removed and relocated on the adjacent property.They are
not shown on any subsequent sheet as being reinstalled.
,:��_ �. t. _ ���..��. �, .,:,�. �. _� .
4. There is not 10' of separation between the water line and the sanitary line going to the grease interceptor.
Response: Corrament ackno�rl�dg�r�'.11'.��{ac���tr'c�r�maintc�in���.r'ah ra���r��e�t�^r��. �',���r��cztir?r��czir���i�r��
jNith line to grease inceptor.
5. Water on Hamilton St will not be shut down a wet tap must be made.
,._. �� . � _ ��s�tQ�,,. , .r. _, . . �. .. . `� � ,
6. On sheet C-130, show all utilities. Is the new MH on Hamilton St to be a doghouse?The 4" water main appears
to be in the way but I do not think the 4" is live. Storm pipe may also be A.C.P.
,.__ �. _� �_ � . . , .
7. There are two types of curbing on the detail but are not label on the drawing as to which type of curb is to be
used.
;,`£'�r�1C)i�SE': l :t�rii;,>>s r,t ea''",�1 . J�`'�rs?i;fC�j"tt�. �r``�'C l�SE'F7 Lt:;t�i,iil'S11E£:�.
8. The removal of the sidewalk on Broadway will compromise the 30" tree on Broadway please consult with the
City Arborist.
�., �.
.. .s.. . _ ..,a, , t,i?x .,, �_4r� ,..
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (518) 371-0799.
269 Broadway Comment Response
���`� October 14, 2021
�� Page 10 of 10
Sincerely,
� r �
�
Alison Yovine
Project Manager