The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20210755 269 Broadway Site Plan Correspondence-Response from MJ Engineering 2.25.22 Engineering and 1533 Crescent Road /�� Land Surveying, P.C. Clifton Park, NY 12065 .J Phone: 518.371 .0799 mjelspc@mjels.com February 25, 2022 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 February 11, 2022 and February 18, 2022 from CHA Consulting, Inc. (CHA) and an email from Matt Zeno on February 3, 2022 regarding the 269 Broadway Project. We offer the following, displayed in b(i;, ° > in response to open comments listed below: 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. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 2. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 3. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 4. 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. This hps been verified by the 2/1/2022 geotechnical engineering report included with the third submission. Based on this revised report, it appears that bedrock is approximately five feet below the mat foundation. _ _��: Corv�r� >��ackr�c��rvl�dgE>�,� rr� c�e�ion r. , <„� 6. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. B. Site Plans—General Comments: 1. The plans provided are stamped "DRAFT". Plans should be finalized and stamped/signed by a professional engineer priorto action bythe Planning Board. Commenthasbeen acknowledged in thesecondsubmission response letter, but stamped plans have not yet been provided. The third submission does not pddress this comment. A PE stamp on the plans is necessary to tell us the design engineer has verified the design is accurate and complete and ready for our final review. 2. 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 requi red. Applicant has indicated this is in progress. The third submission does not address this comment. Resp�nse: An�c�reemerrt fo c�reaz�� Per�manenf�asem�o�z�:�n tf��Scf��IjC:�r�arch,�rnp�rfyf to the�c�uth of the Applicants property exists and has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The existing parking within the easement area will remain in place and will be used exclusively by the Church/School. Fishkill, NY • Long Island, NY • Sewell, NJ • Melbourne, FL 1f269 Broadway Comment Response Letter �` `� February 25, 2022 �� Page 2 of 1 1 The wording within the easement will, permanently, not allow a building to be constructed on the area of the easement. 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. The third submission does not pddress this comment. ,_ . : } _ . _ , e,� . . ��,Y`Xi� .,_ ,-. ,Anr � U �r' f4d �.� �. _ .�,b > �F . .> l��v�'{^P are two commercial neighbors to the north of the site. The Broadway property(165.75-1-4.1)is owned by City National Bank& Trust Company, the Hamilton Street property(165.75-1-4.21)is owned by The Saratoga Hospital. In the design of the building the existing sidewalk and lighting will be replaced by a new radiant heated sidewalk with lighting on the north wall of the building. This will be done at the Applicants expense and be maintained and heated at the Applicants expense.A Construction Easement for the building, with the details of the sidewalk replacement, is being obtained from both ��. _ ,�.,��,.. ..+�- .,r�l ,;�� 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. For further review by the Plpnning Boprd. Note that with the third submission the "open air community space"along the eroadway fa�ade has been eliminated, resulting in a significant reduction in civic space from the previous submissions. , , �,_ � ��.. . , -r� �_ t. _. �.��e . �, c . _�, _. � �. �_ -. y s��u,j =� �;� _ �._� � ., „ � � � � � ��ermar�enfi easement to fihe south of the building, it has shiftecy �=�� . , _ , .- � �� :ntry. This has resulted in crp,�roximately 4,500 sf of Civic Space 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. The third submission included a revised rendering that shows both the existing cobra light as well as proposed pedestrian scale lighting. The proposed lighting on the revised rendering appears consistent with the City standard, however the site plans do not show this proposed lighting in either plan view or detail. Site plans need to be revised to include this. _ _ _. ��: , . . , _,. , .�;�. 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. The third submission does not pddress this comment. 1f269 Broadway Comment Response Letter �` `� February 25, 2022 �� Page 3 of 1 1 Response: The lower level of parking will have assigned parking to specific employees. There will not be an instance where there are more vehicles than parking spaces. Additionally, an internal gate with keypad will be installed at the ramp to the lower level, to not allow unauthorized cars into the lower level. The upper level parking drive aisles are wide enough for a vehicle to make a k-turn if no open spaces are a�r� ��<; ,`:��. 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. Applicpnt's response indicptes no trpctor trpiler deliveries will be made. The Planning eoard should determine if they require additional information to support this. _ �� .. , . ,� . �.. iC. , � � , �rJt7 C�' _ . 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. The third submission includes a revised dumpster, loading and transformer area layout along with a narrative describing the trash generation and removal operation. Trash generation rates still appear low(311bs/day for the restaurant seems significantly IowJ. The Applicant's estimate of two pickups per week may be understated, but the removal operation seems workable provided the trash hauler agrees to roll the full dumpsters by hand out to the truck parked on the street. This will be a two-person operation, as a full container, even if it is plastic, will weigh more than 1,000 Ibs, and there is a slight downgrade from the dumpster area to the street. Additionally, only one 4 CY recycling dumpster is shown. It is not clear if the intent is to collect cardboard with other recyclables in this dumpster. We would expect a significant amount of cardboard generated by these uses, to the extent that separation of cardboard may be warranted. Finally, there is no receptacle for used fryer grease. The narrative does not address how this kitchen waste will be stored and disposed of. Generally, the third submission does a better job of addressing trash generation and removal,but we feel there are still some concerns to be worked through with the Planning eoard as well as potential issues to be resolved with National Grid, as transformers are also located in this area. ,�w_�..i:..tdw. I'�,� 4..,.., p.. L�`ir ..,,,....,,,,'fy G.,i� .,�+„�J�..., ,v, .n,e., ,,.�.. ,..,.e., ,...dt3ei�' „��C.i ..,� �Y ,6v� yb�„ C.. ,,..,�� .i� placed on the exterior of the building. As a result, there is ample room for an additional dumpster for r�cycling and for an additional garbage dumpster if needed. Additionally, the applicant can increase the <°c�qupncy of r��rhaqe picl<up if warranted. A receptacle has been added far used fryer grease. 4. Comment has been addressed. 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 fa�ade. The section of 1f269 Broadway Comment Response Letter �` `� February 25, 2022 �� Page 4 of 1 1 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. 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. The third submission shows a three-segment ramp, which addresses the previous comment. Handrails as shown on the site plan should be extended past the bottom of the ramp,per the detail provided. The retaining wall along the north side of the ramp should be called out and detailed. ,.��, .,. : ,,,� , ;� _ . _ . �. ,.., .. . _ , = . t �., . _ � x:: ��> a. t.� .�� ,�. 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 eoard is suggested. , _, „ � �Y r� � 1 �.�; -. r. -�� i' � � � � "e� '�, -�� ,1... , _, _ ,. +, , ,., .. . > ..,_ � , _. : , . ,_a.. . _ _ . ., _ '_ _ „ ., , , . __, , . ,..,_ � _ , u� . � � x. r�,t :��e Broaclway sidewalk as well. 3. Comment has been addressed. 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. Comment has been addressed. 2. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 3. 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. Applicant notes with the third submission that review by National Grid is not proposed until after site plan approval. This is not advised. When transformer siting does not comply with National Grid standard practice as is the case here, our experience with them in Saratoga Springs is that they will meet with the Applicant to review the proposed siting prior to Planning eoard approval. ,,... ,.:: � . t<, . �;.��.�.�'=.'.Ca` �t'�r< ' ,"::ti" �P'��t`'� .%(1�14...=}IE.�, i�"7? ..,;,;: „ .;r.<- �,�.�>,.-�� revised based on a site meeting . _, . . . . �.t L� r a��r�a, �:rtd d�sr�ner�. � trr�- , r�7� „��„ � �� .. .. � . :a�r .mg area ut e accessi e y :��:�� on th� r�orth side of the buildinc�. 5. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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 1f269 Broadway Comment Response Letter �` `� February 25, 2022 �� Page 5 of 1 1 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. See D-3 pbove. �_ �: .� f _ 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. The third submission does not address this comment. Proper planning for gas meter placement at the site plan development stage is critical to ensure adequate visual screening,since a large bank of ineters will be required,and the project build-out extends to the property lines in all directions. Respor�tie: T�<_ �r��e�t �va�`?�E•�uire tl��rcF: � c� rr;e�ers onrhich wili�Ic�c�d�.nrith;n th�lc�c�dr'r7g, ., 7,;:�s „ -;,xe:a. 8. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. G. Site grading — min/max slopes, appropriate collection & conveyance, maintenance of existing drainage patterns: 1. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 2. 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. Comment hps been addressed with the third submission. Open air area has been eliminated. 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. The third submission does not pddress this comment. Grading/drainage of the entry plaza remains a concern. ,,U �.�:� � � 5. This comment has been addressed. 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. The third submission does not pddress this comment. a , , A �., , ,.. ,��3t,�i�w, , �.� .,, hi..,,,a�_i� ,d .,, :y� ,,,.d,_..�...� �.,,, .,, ��..�C ...iy :J� .�,._ d..,,v'�.7ii C rd r�;'�""�.b :ie,d a�e,.,, .��,vw.,. �v provide separation from the parking and the sidewalk. The runoff from the existing parking lot will be directed into the plantings between the parking and sidewalk. Additionally, a stone seat wall is proposed to provide an extension to the civic space and to provide a hcrrr)er be�-ween the par!<inca !ot and the south :uilding entry. 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. The third submission incorporates a revised garage entrance design. Grading and drainage in this area needs work. Also DC81 TF elevation is incorrect. �r�� , _ v . , r� _ _. 1f269 Broadway Comment Response Letter �` `� February 25, 2022 �� Page 6 of 1 1 H. Stormwater management design &SWPPP: 1. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 2. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 3. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 4. 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 stormwater 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. The third submission incorporptes revised/additional planters. Applicant should provide calculations demonstrating the required storage volume is met. ._ . , _. . _ �, v. 6. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 7. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 8. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. I. Work in ROW—curb &sidewalk replacement, curb ramps, pavement repair, maintenance/protection of traffic: 1. Comment has been addressed with the third submission. 2. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 3. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 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. The third submission does not address this comment. �' ;,�: , , . �� s .._ , E ,. . � .. . �_ _ ,_ _ .. _ �. J. Water&sewer service connections: 1. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 2. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 3. 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. The third submission does not address this comment. 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 1f269 Broadway Comment Response Letter �` `� February 25, 2022 �� Page 7 of 1 1 proposed. A tapping sleeve& valve detail has been provided with the third submission, but the copper service detail has not been deleted, and the utility plan still calls out the wrong detail. fiE'��7CJ . . ''i {' ar>C;I1� �.�i;'Ciif? �iC7� il"EY] Ct'_;i i f�Cft'tij S'� 'i`�'lf/7t_'CN' (:lfpW117g5. 6. 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. The third submission does not address this comment. While site landscaping is shown, there are no proposed landscape improvements to the public streetscape. �t�s�7i;,,��e ;�o.7F,+,�,,,� ,o..�'v..�.,._ti,� 1t_Y��ti�' �., 5,�,�� ,� ,j��'v`Lt',��,_„�� U .,,.�t'�YOpL�WC9)/S�Y2@rriu"��C. �t�� LC'"S"�ll�g trees will be replaced with large specimen trees and pending NYSDOT approval, the cobra light will be rpnlnra�/i,n�ith tlt� (�jfie,r ctnn�{Xr�(,iryH¢fiytr,�ro 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. Applicpnt's response with the third submission is thpt the building drawings will address these details. The site plans should be corrected then to indicate this. �, �__ , . _F�.: . 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. The third submission includes a note on the plan about grease trap venting, but the detail does not show how this will be done. Also, the grease trap configuration has been modified such that the inlet and outlet are at the same end of the tank This is incorrect. _ _ � �.'�: _ �_, . . . �_.� .. M. Traffic Impact Study comments are broken down by report section, as follows: 1. Comments on Existing and No Build Conditions Section: a. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. b. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. c. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. d. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. e. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. f. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. g. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. h. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 2. Comments Proposed Conditions Section: a. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. b. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 1f269 Broadway Comment Response Letter �` `� February 25, 2022 �� Page 8 of 1 1 c. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. d. Comment has been addressed with third submission. e. Comment has been addressed with third submission. f. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. g. Comment has been addressed with third submission. 3. Comments on Conclusions/Recommendations Section: a. Comment has been addressed with third submission. b. Comment has been addressed with third submission. c. Comment has been addressed with third submission. 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. Section 4.0 Proposed Conditions a. Comment has been addressed with third submission. b. Comment has been addressed with third submission. c. Comment has been addressed with third submission. d. Comment has been addressed with third submission. 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. eecause school buses and trucks utilize Hamilton Street, please perform turning maneuvers using SU-30 as design vehicle. Please specify lane width. What are proposed parking regulations along west curb of Hamilton Street, north of W Circular Street? Rc. < ,�;r. �f�� ,F_ . . .k�c�, �:.�.r v�C1-�:'..,'r�s;%, , ;�;�l�fc :. �� .,.t. ��,��:`ca`be 11'for both the right turn and through lanes. On Hamilton Street, parking would be prohibited within the proposed striping shown (100 feet in length). On W Circular Street, parking is currently prohibited within 50 feet of the existing crosswalk and this would remain in the future condition. 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. eecause available parking spaces from on-street parking, nearby parking lot, and nearby parking garage were planned to offset shortfall of parking spaces by proposed project, it is recommended to include parking survey data details (day, date, time period of survey, map of surveyJ which was performed to determine available spaces within 1,000 feet and 1,700 feet of proposed property within TIS.Please disclose parking shortfall for weekday PM peak hour as well. Time Start: 7:30 AM 9:45 AM 11:00 AM 12:10 PM 1:45 PM 3:15 PM 4:25 PM 5:40 PM Time End: 9:15 AM 10:45 AM 12:00 PM 1:10 PM 2:50 PM 4:15 PM 5:30 PM 6:30 PM ...d .�.�.�., r .,i �:.., �,.,d.,�.�..,..ti y':�.... The maximum number of available spaces for the PM peak hour are 104 within 1,000 feet and 204 within 1,700 feet. 1f269 Broadway Comment Response Letter �` `� February 25, 2022 �� Page 9 of 1 1 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). The third submission does not address this comment. It is possible because of parking shortfall, there may be vehicles cruising for parking which may add congestion to area. r�es��r�se: irTis�c�rruriu cvrrsiuers crrc�i�;ir�urr<rrtc�spates care r;c°eU�a at irt�strrr�e rin�e. uviirt irl� building being multi-use with offices, service, and retail businesses, the parking need will be spread out over the course of a day. See table below for breakdown of arrivals and departures.Since a vast majority of lunch patrons in the City of Saratoga walk to get their lunch, the demand during lunchtime hours is not as much as anticipated. The dinner hour for restaurants is after most of the office personnel leave for the day due to the staggered shifts of employees at the current location that will continue at the new location which will provide more parking within the area for the peak dinner hnr�r, Time Demand Notes 7:00 AM 190 Office Arrives (minus 70 on-site spaces) 9:30 AM 10 Retail Employees 11:00 AM 15 Retail Patrons & Restaurant Employees 12:30 PM 5 Retail Patrons 1:30 PM 5 Retail Patrons 3:30 PM -60 65 office leave, 5 retail arrive 4:30 PM -55 65 office leave, 10 retail arrive 5:30 PM -50 65 office leave, 15 retail arrive 6:30 PM -40 65 office leave, 10 retail arrive, 15 restaurant arrive Section 6.0 Conclusions/Recommendations a. Comment has been addressed with third submission. N. Cost estimate for letter of credit: 1. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 2. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 3. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. O. Email from Tony Stellato,January 3, 2022: I received a phone call today from David Biggs of Biggs Engineering who represented that he is a structural engineer who was retained by an adjacent building owner to perform an independent review of the plans for 269 Broadway. Mr. Biggs brought the following observations to my attention: 1. Comment has been addressed with the second submission. 1f269 Broadway Comment Response Letter �` `� February 25, 2022 �� Page 10 of 1 1 2. Mr. Biggs pointed out that the project description in the geotechnical report states that the basement parking level will be at about elevation 295, which is not consistent with the building plans submitted. Mr. Biggs feels that the geotechnical report should be revised to address this inconsistency, particularly in regard to the depth of excavation required to construct the underground parking and the protection of adjacent buildings and utilities. CHA has reviewed this concern, and we recommend that the applicant be asked to address it. Response: Applicant will submit the revised geotechnical report once complete. The third submission includes a revised geotechnical report which appears consistent with the building plans submitted. The geotechnical report indicates that substantial temporary excavation support will be required to facilitate construction of the foundation and basement parking,but that design of the temporary support systems have not yet been advanced. The report recommends a review of the final design by the geotechnical engineer to verify that the geotechnical engineering recommendations were understood and implemented. CHA concurs with this recommendation. IiE'S�JC7'P.`iE': {.:1tililC;it .aLo'i�iUv^J;tLdi,J�Gi; iii.7 (aCilt.;"; t eefil'£=�:. P. Email from Matt Zeno, February 3, 2022 1. Has there been any coordination or conversation with National Grid about the relocation and installation of there utilities. This will have to be done before we a approve the plans. Response: National Grid reviewed the site conditions on February 15, 2022 to provide feedback on the propQsed c��sic�n, The p(c�r,s +nrere reviser�tc r:�f.fect thrs rrr�e�t;rrr�. See�ncic�sed letter from National Grid. 2. On sheet C-110, there are light poles that are to be removed. The lights that are being installed do not seem to provide enough light compared to what was there. Susan can you take a look at this? _ _ �,_>.,. � s. , ��z�r_ � � __ ��. _ , ��%-._ ..`s t. _ �.. _ _�>�� ;xtv�. �. 3. The grease trap that is shown on sheet C-140 does not match the detail 7/C-502. Not only does the grease interceptor not scale correctly the inlet and outlet do not correspond to the detail. ,:,r� _ � _ �d � � _ . _, 4. The water details for the water connection are incorrect. Detail 3/C502 should be an open right valve. Detail 9/C-504 is a detail for a 3/4 or1'water service not a 6" water main. ? I >44 .a ._ . . , � _. . , .- . .. 5. 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. l�es�vf�s�. r i;�n�ar�Y�o�e on I--Ia�niltoi� wir�be a�ognouse. �i�e su�vey�naicates t��e szorm to be eitirer NCP or HDPE. Q. CHA Letter dated February 18, 2022 ,, , . ;-, E , �� ., �, -, " � �� . > � � � � , t � �. �. .� .., , ,,, ,-,. _ r ��._.:, .,,._ , . u .�_,. w �r �.. . . .r __a �.� _.__e e � �-� ��.�:� . that is consistent with the proposed plans being submitted. Mr. Biggs does present valid points of concern with a project of this size in this area. The design team has acknowledged from the start of the project process, the concerns with developing a project with two underground parking levels and have had extensive communication with shoring teams to develop a plan for the foundation system to best address those concerns. While the project is still in the early phases of design, special attention to the foundation system has been in the forefront of the design at this point. The design team and owner have been working on the shoring 1f269 Broadway Comment Response Letter �` `� February 25, 2022 �� Page 1 1 of 1 1 system design with Terracon, who did the geotechnical analysis, to develop the best solution to address concerns brought up by Mr. Biggs and other members of the city and community. The design discussion with Terracon has included developing a secant wall system for the full depth of the parking levels down to bedrock and secured in.A mat foundation/slab will be provided at basement level, with steel structural framing and metal decking with concrete for upper levels. Internal bracing will be provided as an alternative to external tie-backs. Permanent drilled-in tiedown anchors are also being looked at in the shoring/foundation design to counteract the buoyancy concern at the groundwater table. With the shoring and foundation system still in the early design phases,specific detailing or drawings have not been provided/developed. Full shoring drawings can be provided at the time of building permit for review by the City. Please let us know if there are any questions or comments at this time. Sincerely, � � �� Alison Yovine, PLA Project Manager