Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210755 269 Broadway Site Plan Public Comment (25) Date: March, 2022 To: Planning Board of Saratoga Springs, New York Re: Proposed Development of 269 Broadway PB #: 20210755 The Plannin�Board (PB) and the Desi�n Review Committee (DRC) have been reviewing the application and related documents for the above site development for almost two years. This is a very complex project which impacts a plethora of concerns including those from municipal agencies, expert consultants and community members. The purpose of this email submission to the public archives is to bring together many of the issues which get lost and convoluted in the various approval processes over time. From a Public Persnective: 1. The undertaking of the reviews by Land Use Committees was not orderly. 2. The thresholds for progress to next steps were disjointed. 3. Initial project documents were inaccurate and incomplete and SEQRA approval was based upon flawed data. 4. Scores, if not hundreds, of documents have been made part of the archives. The system to identify these materials is a navigational challenge. 5. PB membership is not likely to review all the documents and are generally exposed to only those documents advanced to them by PB staff. 6. Public commentary was restricted while presentations by the developer were given a full hearing. 7. The timelines and sequence of progress to next steps were drawn out and it is likely that few PB members are able to embrace the entire process. This is especially true now that three new members were recently appointed. What follows below highlights many of the unresolved concerns and calls to the attention of the Planning Board those items for consideration and resolution prior to any decision being entertained. Each item/issue below is supported by documentation already archived and can be recovered as necessary. They are outlined into the following themes: 1. Engineering 2. Traffic 3. Safety 4. Parking 5. Mass/Scale/Setbacks 6. Historic Considerations 7. General Comments 1 Engineering — Existing Buildings, Water Table, Citv Sewers and Utilities The original Geotechnical Report was based upon a 5-Story buildin�with no under r� ound arp kin� This report was recently revised, but not in its entirety. The revision came in letters to the PB by MJ Engineering and others. This type of fragmentation can be misleading and obfuscate what needs to be performed in order to build the structure as well as the impacts there may be on the environment and neighboring properties. Many of these items have not been adequately and forthrightly addressed. The original SEQRA (based on an incorrect Geotechnical Report)was incomplete and did not address the project to be built. It did not consider the property sitting on a principal aquifer and that excavation will be approximately 18-20 feet below the water table. There are several considerations regarding this. They include the need for dewatering, stabilization of neighboring properties, and truckloads of materials being taken from the site through city streets. It is estimated there will be 1.700 —2.000 truckloads of material to be excavated and removed. This is based upon the developer's estimates of close to 20,000 cubic yards of"total excavated material". This material is wet and will leak onto the city streets. Dewatering alone consists of muddy water. There were no plans submitted for ensuring the sewer system is protected. Internal bracing will be required for the project as the excavation will be 30 feet below grade at its deepest level. Heavy machinery may be brought onto neighboring properties. Vibration (drilling into bedrock) will impact nearby structures which includes city streets, sewers, utilities, a school, the NBT Bank, commercial buildings, residential apartments, a health care facility and the Visitors' Center which has been designated on the National Register of Historic Places and a Saratoga City Landmark. It is not a coincidence no other structure on the proposed development property or on adjacent properties has ever been built so deep below the water table. The above is not intended to be an exhaustive or even expert commentary on the engineering challenges, but rather a"heads up" to the PB. City Departments should be consulted prior to any determination by PB members. Traffic A revised Traffic Study January 19. 2022 Re�ort was delivered to the Planning Board and is now contained in the archives. This is a very detailed report replete with statistics, assumptions and adjustment factors. It is a 104-page report. The revision was submitted as the original report was performed on May 19, 2021 which was during the pandemic and was not representative of normal traffic patterns. The complexity of the report precludes rational independent analysis and reliance on a single page of recommendations/conclusions may lead to improper decisions. There is a grading system used to assess the impact of traffic on intersections. The grades are A through F. The NYS-DOT guidelines state. "Although LOS D is acceptable in urban environments, LOS C is the nreferred minimum for overall approach LOS. LOS D is acceptable for specific low volume movements or approaches within an intersection". The sentence in bold is significant. An LOS grade of D is "acceptable" for low volume intersections, yet an LOS of "C" is the preferred minimum for overall approach LOS. Four of the six measurements obtained a �rade of D or worse. The intersections contained in the report are NOT low volume. 2 Surely, we strive for better than the bare minimum. A critical issue has never received the attention it deserves. The aforementioned Traf�c Study was conducted onlv on Hamilton St. It did not take into account any of the activity or impact on Broadway. 269 Broadway is the address of the proposed building. Despite what the developer presented, Broadway will be a primary point of ingress and egress for individuals and services utilizing the structure. Delivery trucks will be directed to the Broadway entrance by their mobile device apps (e.g. Google Maps, Waze, Apple Car Play, etc.). Broadway is the major thoroughfare through Saratoga Springs and encompasses Routes 50 and 9. The portion of Broadway between Congress and Circular Streets is the onlv portion of Broadway in the entire city which is one-lane in each direction. This poses many safety and transit problems. Safetv Public safety will be impacted by traffic, deliveries, services and general utilization of the proposed project. Adjacent properties include a school, the senior citizens center, a health care facility, a bank and residential properties. The developer indicates there will be no left turn from the building's garage onto Hamilton St. Compliance will not likely be honored given the extra amount of time it will take to go around the block if one is traveling south. The school will be immediately impacted. Heavy equipment for the proposed project will be staged across the street from the development site on Hamilton Street. School will be in session and there are drop-off and pick-up spots proximate to the staging area. Moreover, buses line up twice daily for similar activities (there are photos in the archives showing this). Despite the developer's promoting Hamilton Street to be the primary concern for traffic and safety, 269 Broadway is the address of the building. Broadway is a one-lane in each direction thoroughfare. Delivery trucks will be brought to the Broadway side of the building by internet- based apps (e.g. Google Maps, Waze, etc.) and will double park Apart from the traf�c scenario (see above), cars and trucks will divert into oncoming traffic to transit through the area(there are photos in archives showing this). Pedestrians, cyclists and motorists will be endangered by this proposal. Parking Parking is currently lacking in the area and will be r� ossly inadec�uate with the new building even though the developer proposes underground parking for 70 vehicles. There are certain assumptions that most of the demand for parking will be by employees arriving at 7am. The proposal ignores the industry standard of one parking spot per 150-300�oss sq. ft. The developer used net sq. ft. instead of r�oss sq. ft. There are 24 cars already parked on the lot. That equates to 46 "new" spots. The proposal also inadequately addresses the fact that there are current limits and restrictions for parking on most of Hamilton St. and Broadway. 3 There is acknowledgement that parking is not required to develop a T-6 Transect Zone. However, Planning Board Regulations State: B. The Planning Board shall have the authority to waive the minimum number of required parking spaces in any Commercial, Transect, Neighborhood Complementary Use or Urban Resedential-4-A District,provided: 1. The applicant can demonstrate that sufficient parking accommodations can be provided; and 2. The applicant can demonstrate that the waiver will not result in any adverse impacts on the subject site or within the district If the PB has the right to grant waivers, they must have the right to insist upon providing necessary parking where lacking. The PB has exercised this authority on a previous project and should do so again. In general, land use committees should take into consideration the impact of parking on the neighborhood along with other considerations (see below for Site Review Procedure and Guidelinesl. Mass/Scale/Setbacks Over the course of this project from initial presentation by the developer to the present time, there has been much discussion about mass/scale/setbacks. The process has been fragmented and it would appear there were concessions by the developer to address mass/scale/setback concerns. It is a challenge to go back in the archives and see what actually was changed. A detailed and careful review shows that little was remedied. The structure will still be built to the property line and the changes were minor alterations to the original renderings. A "tweak" here and a"tweak" there did not address the fundamental issues. This is a beautiful building, but"It is in the wrong place" (quote from the Vice-Chair of the DRC during a recent meeting). Significant setbacks, along with a host of other changes, could make this structure more appropriate for the proposed location. These should be considered even though the proposal meets technical requirements for T-6 Zoning. There are architectural renderings which were submitted by the developer for the DRC/PB to review and examine. They are somewhat misleading and actual photographs would clarify any illusions the renderings may create. Historic Considerations The Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation has expressed similar concerns about mass/scale/setbacks and compatibility in their written objections to the proposaL They found the development did NOT meet historic guidelines and presented their findings in a letter to the DRC on June 19, 2020. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) signed off on this project in their "no impact letter" of May 25, 2021, yet they did not consult with the Preservation Foundation. If they had, they would have known the of the Foundation's criticism of the 269 Broadway project. 4 The city of Saratoga Springs has a "Workin�Plan for Historic Preservation in Sarato a�S�rin�s. This was mentioned at the February 17�'PB meeting by the City Historic Preservation Of�cer, Tina Carton. This has great import for Land Use Committees and these committees have given this much credence. The Working Plan asks for the Preservation Foundation to assist in the historic maintenance of the City, yet they have been largely ignored to date in regard to this project. The Working Plan requires Training and Education as follows: Obiective 2.2 Ensure Compliance with Certified Local Government(CLG) Requirements Action 2.2.1 Appoint persons to the Historic Preservation and Design Review Commission who meet CLG requirements and are committed to attend training sessions on an ongoing basis. Action 2.2.2 Require members of the DRC to attend refi�esher courses with the City Attorney, or an independent expert in land use and preservation law, to address the issues of equal protection, due process and conflict of interest. Action 2.2.3 Provide special training sessions for DRC members by the New York State Office ofParks, Recreation and Historic Preservation/State Historic Preservation Office or other appropriate preservation professionals experienced with the Secretary oflnterior Standards for Rehabilitation Projects. Action 2.2.4 Adopt specific language that requires the Zoning Board ofAppeals to make findings of hardship on appeals for DRC decisions, and provide special training for ZBA members who conduct such appeals. Action 2.2.5 Review and update the Working Plan for Historic Preservation in Saratoga Springs every five years. The Planning board must right a wrong decision by the DRC. General Comments Community Concerns; Approximately 800 Sarato ia� ns si n� ed a�etition objecting to the proposed development. While this petition has been in the archives it seems to be of little consequence. It gives the appearance the process is skewed towards the developer and the voice of the community is given short-shrift. One DRC member stated on the record it is likelv none of the�etitioners knew what they were si�ning. This is an inappropriate way to value public input. DRC In stark contrast to usual voting patterns of land use committees, the DRC voted to advance this project by a vote of 4 to 3. The typical decisions are overwhelmin iv unanimous. In fact, when it came time to propose a motion to vote on the proposal, both the Chair and the Vice-Chair refused to bring it forward. One other member of the committee also voted not to approve. 5 SEQRA The original Geotechnical Report was completed by the former owner of the property (Roohan) in anticipation of selling the site for future development. The project, at that time, was a 5-story structure without underground parking. For approximately two years this project advanced based on this inaccurate Geotechnical Report for a building other than what was being planned (6-story and underground parking). This report was incorporated into the SEQRA. It wasn't until recent times the flaws in these reports were addressed, and they were addressed in a piecemeal fashion. A new and formal SEQRA should be called for along with a complete review of the updated Geotechnical Report in order to make proper assessments of the proposal's impact. This can then be reviewed "in toto"by PB members, city experts as well as outside consultants to gain a�rm understanding of the development. Land Use Committee Charter and Authorizations Contrary to conventional wisdom, the guidelines for Site Development Committees' charter extends beyond the proposal's adherence to technical requirements (e.g. height, zoning compliance, etc.). A recent publication from the Division of Local Government Services of the State of New York lends additional information. This is contained in the Site Plan Review under Site Review Procedure and Guidelines. Some excerpts which are not taken out of context follow: "Site development plans have two functions. First, they illustrate the intended design, arrangements and uses of the land to be improved. Second, they describe the proposal's physical, social and economic effects on the community. Information on factors such as the following may be the subject of concern in the site development review process: means of access, parking, landscaping, buffers, architectural features, location of structures, impact on adjacent land uses and othe�elements related to the he�lth, safety and gene�al welfc��e of the community." Clearly, this charter enables the PB to take into consideration much of what is being communicated herein. Information "Overload" Since the time of the �rst of�cial noti�cation of this proposed development there have been innumerable submissions, renderings, letters, responses, reports, photographs, etc. submitted to the Land Use Committees. Committee staff, DRC/PB members and community voices have all commented on the challenges in �nding certain documents/materials in a sequence intended for the reader to assess a complete and proper process. What we have is an inabilitv to identifX appropriate information which either raises issues or answers concerns. Even when correspondence is identified, the responses may be inadequate or even absent, yet the process rolls on. The storage of these �les, as they are archived, is still evolving to meet the needs of those who require these reviews. It is not yet there. 6 CHA Consulting, Inc. (previously known as Clough, Harbour & Associates LLP) is one example of the difficulty in �nding information. In CHA's reviews they have asked for certain clarifications and information. It is difficult to identify responses from the developer. To our knowledge, many CHA requests for data/clarification are incomplete or the responses have not yet been vetted by CHA. Pro�er Sequencin� of A�rovals There are City Departments which must review and analyze these proposals prior to giving them the "green light" from technical and expert perspectives. They are the appropriate advisory bodies to the land use committees. Their determinations must be made nrior to the PB making its decision. Too often the PB grants approval "pending approval" by one or another of the City's agencies. This is placing the cart before the horse. It puts undo pressure on said departments and perverts the process. Nei h� borin�pro�erties There will be significant impact on neighboring properties and City facilities including streets and utilities (see "Engineering" section above). The PB should know how these neighbors will react to having heavy equipment on or adjacent to their property. The PB should be aware that the process of excavation (up to 30 feet below grade) will potentially destabilize these properties and should have, in advance, a plan from the developer on how to address these concerns. The use of bracing techniques, the removal of waste, the staging of equipment, etc. all have impacts that have not been adequately addressed. A �fty-foot tall tree, belonging to Saratoga Springs and on city property, will likely be destroyed based upon the current site development proposal. Architectural Renderin�s These are just renderings. They are photo-shopped and may not represent the reality of the issue as photographs might. The renderings archived by the developer mislead the reviewer about the setbacks in order to be compatible with neighboring buildings (there are photos in archives showing this). Setbacks of adjacent and nearby buildings are si�nificantiv greater than those contained in the proposed project There have been several public submissions offering a "rebuttal" to these renderings, and they may have become "lost" in an ocean of documents. The developer has a fulltime commitment to this proposal with many individuals and technical entities contributing to this effort. The public opposition is not represented in the same way and opportunity to present its case to the land use boards is dissimilar. Process This proposal is extremely complex and will affect the character of Saratoga Springs, transit through the area, parking, quality of life, and safety. The impact on local neighbors will be felt for many years to come. The decisions to advance or retard this development should be deliberate and circumspect. Time should be allowed to assess all issues/concerns to ensure decision-makers have all the data necessary. This communication highlights many of the issues which are currently spread out in poorly catalogued archives. You, the PB/DRC members, have an opportunity to pause for thought and digest the varied contingencies. 7 "DON'T LET ADVERSE FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF A GOOD DECISION"—Colin Powell circa 1992 Common sense for a project of this size and scope should prevail, not the razzle- dazzle of statistics, assumptions, factor adjustments and professional presentations by the development team. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully Submitted, Maree Fox Myles Gombert, MD G. Larson Carol Obloy Kathleen Sonnabend Robert Sponzo, MD 8