Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210755 269 Broadway Site Plan Supplemental Information (2) 1 Au %. I November 5, 2021 Deborah LaBreche, PE City Engineer City of Saratoga Springs 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 RE: 20210755—269 Broadway Review for Planning Board—Second Review CHA Project No. 58389-1003 Dear Ms. LaBreche: On September 15, 2021 CHA Consulting, Inc. completed an independent engineering review of the referenced project on behalf of the Saratoga Springs Planning Board. The project includes a six-story mixed-use building on a 0.75-acre parcel at 269 Broadway. The Applicant is represented by MJ Engineering (MJE). CHA's 9/15/2021 review letter considered the following materials submitted by the Applicant: • Site Plan Application Forms • FEAF Part 1 prepared by MJ Engineering, dated 7/23/2021 • Site Plans prepared by MJ Engineering, dated 7/26/2021 • Floor Plans, Elevations and Renderings prepared by C2-Design Group, dated 5/12/2021 • Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by MJ Engineering, dated 7/19/2021 • Water and Sewer Report prepared by MJ Engineering, dated July 2021 • Letter of Credit (LOC) Cost Estimate prepared by MJ engineering, dated 7/23/2021 • Traffic Impact Study prepared by MJ engineering, dated 9/10/2021 On October 14, 2021 the Applicant provided the following additional or revised materials in a second submission: • Comment Response Letter prepared by MJ Engineering, dated 10/14/2021 • Project Narrative prepared by MJ Engineering, dated 10/14/2021 • FEAF Part 1 prepared by MJ Engineering, dated 10/8/2021 • Site Plans prepared by MJ Engineering, dated 10/14/2021 • Floor Plans prepared by C2-Design Group, dated 9/23/2021 • Building Elevations prepared by C2-Design Group, dated 10/12/2021 • Renderings prepared by C2-Design Group, dated 10/14/2021 • Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by MJ Engineering, dated 10/14/2021 • Water and Sewer Report prepared by MJ Engineering, dated October 2021 • Letter of Credit (LOC) Cost Estimate prepared by MJ engineering, dated 10/5/2021 • Traffic Impact Study prepared by MJ engineering, dated 10/13/2021 • 150 kW Caterpillar Natural Gas Generator Cut Sheets • NYSOPRHP letter of No Adverse Impact dated 5/25/2021 • Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared byTerracon, dated 9/5/2015 "Satisfying Our Clients with III Winners Circle, P.O. Box 5269,Albany, NY 12205-0269 Dedicated People Committed to Total Quality" T 518.453.4500 • F 515.458.1735 • www.chacompanies.com Deborah LaBreche, PE November 5, 2021 City Engineer Page 2 The elements of CHA's review are outlined below,and our numbered comments from our first review are included for each. Below each comment we have provided in bold italics our additional notes based on the Applicant's second submission. A. Sufficiency of documentation submitted for the purposes of a SEAR 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 3. FEAF Section D.2.l indicates TBD for hours of operation. Please clarify. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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? Comment has been addressed with the second submission. The geotechnical report suggests that no bedrock will be encountered within the excavation zone. 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. NYOPRHP Letter of No Adverse Impact was submitted. B. 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. Comment has been acknowledged in the second submission response letter, but stamped plans have not yet been provided. 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 and vertical datum, etc... Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. Applicant has indicated this is in progress. 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. Applicant has indicated this is in progress. C. Conformance with zoning, neighborhood tie in design form, civic space elements, screening, buffering, site & public space lighting: Deborah LaBreche, PE November 5, 2021 City Engineer Page 3 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. For further review 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. Comment has been acknowledged in the second submission response letter,but no change to the site plans or rendering appears to have been made. 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. An AutoTurn diagram has been provided with the second submission. It demonstrates that a passenger car is able to maneuver through the garage to a parking space. A concern remains regarding how a vehicle might turn around at the dead ends within the garage if no empty spaces are available. 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. Applicant's response indicates no tractor trailer deliveries will be made. The Planning Board should determine if they require additional information to support this. 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. The solid waste generation rate indicated in the LEAF(4 T/week) appears to be low for the amount of development proposed. More detail should be submitted to support that calculation. The solid waste management plan submitted does not appear to be sufficient for even that amount of waste generation. The project narrative indicates that the dumpsters will be pulled to the street and then tipped up into the garbage truck. The Applicant should demonstrate specifically how this will be accomplished. From the description provided, it does not appear feasible or desirable. Note that transformers have been relocated to the trash/loading area, which further limits space for trash/recyclables storage and maneuvering. 4. The plans include provisions for bicycle parking near the main entrance. E. ADA compliance—site & public space, accessible parking and accessible routes: 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 façade. 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. Deborah LaBreche, PE November 5, 2021 City Engineer Page 4 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. Applicant's response requests clarification of the comment. Our opinion is that the accessible route from South Broadway could be improved upon. The 4.5%slope on the sidewalk at the bottom of the ramp, while technically compliant,feels out of place here. Additional landings will also be required at the top and bottom of the ramp, and when added they will push that slope even steeper. Consideration should be given to using three flatter ramp segments with equally spaced intermediate landings and not exceeding a 2%running slope on the connecting sidewalk. 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. Comment has been acknowledged in the second submission response letter. Further consideration by the Planning Board is suggested. 3. The parking garage includes three accessible spaces which meets the requirements of ADAAG. 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. 2. Dimensions should be added to the Layout Plan to identify sidewalk and driveway widths. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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? Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. Transformers have been relocated to the trash/delivery area with the second submission. National Grid may have some concerns with the layout shown. Their acceptance of the plan is required. 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. Catalog cut sheets for a 150 kW natural gas generator have been provided. 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 of recyclables, cardboard,grease cubes and other exchangeable items should be identified on the plan and discussed in narrative. As noted above, more detailed documentation is required to quantify solid waste and recycling generation rates, required container sizes and a workable plan to empty waste and recycling containers. .i in Deborah LaBreche, PE November 5, 2021 City Engineer Page 5 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. Applicant's response indicates this has yet to be determined. 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. A trench drain has been added along the exterior edge of this area, except at the northern end where a drainage issue still appears to be present in the design. 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. Applicant's response indicates drainage structures have been added. However, our original comment/concern has not been addressed. 5. It appears stormwater will be trapped between the two transformer pads. Additional grading detail is needed in this area. This comment has been addressed by removing the transformers from this area. 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. The second submission did not include a response to this comment. Our comment remains. 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. The second submission shows drainage structures as recommended. However, there is still a potential ponding issue where the curb line transitions into the delivery lane. 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". Comment has been addressed with the second submission. C Deborah LaBreche, PE November 5, 2021 City Engineer Page 6 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. The HydroCAD model in the second submission indicated an available storage volume of 1,795 CF for the storm water planters. However, this volume calculation is based on 3.70'Wx194'Lx2.5'H of storage. The stormwater planters only allow for 0.5 feet of ponding. The available storage volume should be±359 CF. This needs to be corrected. 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. I. 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. The second submission references the City detail at the parking entrance. However the service driveway shows asphalt pavement crossing the sidewalk and no curb ramps. This needs to be corrected. 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. Deborah LaBreche, PE November 5, 2021 City Engineer Page 7 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. Comment has been partially addressed with the second submission. The Planning Board may want to discuss any need for temporary road and sidewalk closures with the Applicant. 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. Comment has been acknowledged in the second submission response letter. Follow up with DPW is required. 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. The water service detail (9/C504) is still not appropriate for the size/type of connection proposed. 6. Grease trap sizing calculations should be included in the report. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. Comment has been acknowledged in the second submission response letter. Further consideration by the Planning Board is suggested. 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. Applicant's response indicates architect's detail at building entrance has been referenced, but the original detail remains. This is confusing. 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. Applicant's response indicates a note has been added to the plan. We did not observe a note, and the grease trap detail does not show a vent. C Deborah LaBreche, PE November 5, 2021 City Engineer Page 8 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. c. TIS did not provide any information on track season traffic estimates, it is recommended to study Summer Peak Period. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. g. Please confirm that SYNCHRO traffic analysis is based on ideal unadjusted saturated flow of 1,900 passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl). Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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 Deborah LaBreche, PE November 5, 2021 City Engineer Page 9 Handbook instead of usable space of the building as per TIS. It is recommended to revise trip generation. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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). Comment has been addressed with the second submission. d. Please provide trip reduction percentages for each land use and for each sub-category along with back-up data (Table 4 of TIS). Comment noted, please refer to new comments section below for additional information. e. Please clarify why it was assumed that pass-by traffic would park offsite (Section 4.2 of TIS). Comment noted,please refer to new comments section below for additional information. 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). Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. Comment noted, please refer to new comments section below for additional information. 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. Comment noted,please refer to new comments section below for additional information. b. It is recommended to provide parking accumulation analysis to determine peak parking demand and to make sure that there is no parking shortfall. Comment noted,please refer to new comments section below for additional information. 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. Comment noted, please refer to new comments section below for additional information. 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 4. The following are new comments based on review of revised Traffic Impact Study dated October 13, 2021. Deborah LaBreche, PE November 5, 2021 City Engineer Page 10 Section 4.0 Proposed Conditions a. How baseline vehicle mode share of 85% was determined for Shopping Center (Land Use Code 820). Please note that auto mode share of 85% (from CHA's comments memo dated September 15, 2021) is for workers who work in Saratoga Springs City which cannot be applied to Shopping Center use because of different land use. b. Please clarify why Clinic land use was considered to determine credit for existing parking lot usage. c. At the intersection of 269 Broadway Garage and Hamilton Street, the pass-by trips should be removed from through movement and added to entry/exit movements. d. Please clarify which scenario is preferred one — Standard Distribution or Modified Distribution. Please clarify how left turn out of 269 Broadway Garage will be restricted as it is not clear from Layout Plan (C-120). e. Please provide signing and striping plan including AutoTURN analysis for intersection of Hamilton Street and West Circular Street,where addition of striped right turn lane on southbound approach is recommended. Section 5.0 Parking a. As per Section 5 for parking - paragraph 4 "There are an average of 83 available spaces within 1,000 feet of the proposed property throughout the day with a maximum of 109 available spaces during the AM peak hour. Within 1,700 feet, there are an average of 168 available spaces with a maximum of 285 available spaces during the AM peak hour." Please list parking lot/garages included to determine available parking spaces. b. As per Section 5 for parking- paragraph 4 "Within 1,000 feet of the property, there is an average shortfall of 239 spaces and a minimum of 213. Within 1,700 feet of the property, there is an average shortfall of 154 spaces and a minimum of 37". Please explain how shortfall of parking will be addressed even after considering area within 1,700 feet of property (approximately one-third mile within property). Section 6.0 Conclusions/Recommendations a. The text in Paragraph 5 shown below conflicts with Section 5.0 Parking as new parking data was collected in September 2021. Please revise text. o "An analysis of existing parking usage would not accurately represent pre-pandemic conditions as with the recent surge in COVID 19 cases in the area, the habits of citizens and visitors are not typically back to pre-pandemic levels. Additionally, the recently completed track season would have had an impact on any usage data collected." 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. CHV Deborah LaBreche, PE November 5, 2021 City Engineer Page 11 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: $111 is low...Adds$2,500. f. WATER LINES: $111 is low...Adds $2,000. 3. The following items are missing from the estimate: Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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 If you have any questions, please call me at 518-453-3927. Sincerely, An or P. tellatoJr., P.E. Vice-' -sid nt cc: Matt Zeno Susan Barden MJ Engineering (ayovine@mjels.com) 269 Broadway LLC (gerard.moser@goprimegroup.com) V:\Projects\ANY\K5\058389.000\Corres\1003 269 South Broadway\58389 1003_letter2.docx