HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210755 269 Broadway SPR CHA letter - supplement to March 8, 2022 review letter SUPPLEMENT TO CHA REVIEW LETTER DATED MARCH 8,2022 FOR 20210755—269 BROADWAY
At the March 17, 2022 Planning Board Workshop, Chairperson Mark Torpey asked that the outstanding
engineering review comments be organized to follow the evaluation criteria for site plan review outlined in Section
7.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. This summary is provided in accordance with that request.
7.2.4 EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
To ensure that the development of a proposed site will not adversely impact surrounding properties, community
character or the general health, safety and welfare of the community,the Planning Board's evaluation of Site Plan
Review applications shall include the following:
1. Location,arrangement,size, design and general site compatibility of buildings and sign structures.
� See Section e:Site Plans—General Comments
o See Comments 83& 84 pertaining to easements needed for off-site work
� See Section 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
o See Comment F4 pertaining to the placement of the transformer and switchgear, and the need for
National Grid acceptance of what is proposed
� See Section L:Site details—pavement&trench sections, misc. details
o See Comment L1 pertaining to potential for frost heave of the sidewalks at the building entrances.
� See Sections O& P: Neighbor comments on Geotechnical Report
o See Comments 02 and P pertaining to the need for an expanded Geotechnical Engineering Study
• Also See Section Q:Additional fourth submission comments from City of Saratoga Springs Engineering and
Planning Departments
o See Comments 1-10
2. Adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation including intersections, road widths,
pavement surfaces,dividers and traffic controls.
� See Section D:Pedestrian, bicycle, auto, emergency vehicle, truck accessibility& maneuvering space
o See Comment D2 pertaining to the length of the on-street loading space provided
� See Section 1: Work in ROIN — curb & sidewalk replacement, curb ramps, pavement repair,
maintenance/protection of traffic
o See Comment 14 pertaining to maintenance and protection of traffic
3. location,arrangement,appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
� See Section D:Pedestrian, bicycle, auto, emergency vehicle, truck accessibility& maneuvering space
o See Comment D3 pertaining to the trash/recycling area and trash pickup
Engineering Review—269 Broadway 1 March 21, 2022
� See Section 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
o See Comment F7 pertaining to the location of gas meters and verifying that there is adequate
room in the dumpster area
� See Section M: Traffic Impact Study comments
o See Comments 4-5.0-a and b pertaining to the public parking availability study
4. Adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of
intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
• No outstanding comments
5. Adequacy of storm water and drainage facilities with attention to impact of structures, roadways and
landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding,flooding and/or erosion.
� See Section G: Site grading — min/max slopes, appropriate collection & conveyance, maintenance of
existing drainage patterns
o See Comment G6 pertaining to runoff from the Spa Catholic site
6.Adequacy of water supply including pressure and quantity.
� See Section J: INater&sewer service connections
o See Comment J4 pertaining to the routing of the water service under the transformer
7. Adequacy of sanitary sewer including size and inverts, or adequacy of sewerage disposal facilities including
soil borings, percolation tests,soil characteristics and professional certification of system adequacy.
� See Section L:Site details—pavement& trench sections, misc. details
o See Comment L2 pertaining to the configuration of the grease trap.
8.Adequacy and arrangement of on-site and off-site illumination.
� See Section C:Conformance with zoning, neighborhood tie in design form, civic space elements,screening,
buffering, site&public space lighting
o See Comment C2 pertaining to ownership of lighting on private property
9. Adequacy, type, size, and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other landscaping. Parking, service areas, and
loading and maneuvering areas shall be reasonably landscaped and screened from neighboring areas.
� See Section K:Landscaping&site lighting
o See Comment K1 pertaining to approval of the street tree species proposed by the City Arborist
10.Adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones; location and arrangement of fire hydrants,stand pipes,
and other fire safety facilities.
• No outstanding comments
Engineering Review—269 Broadway 2 March 21, 2022
For reference,the full text of CHA's review comments from our letter dated March 8, 2022 follows. Shaded
comments have been addressed:
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. 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.2.1 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 reportsuggests that no bedrock will be encountered within the excavation zone. This has
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.
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.
6. 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. The third
submission does not address 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. The fourth
submission includes signed and sealed site plans.
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. The third submission does not address
this comment. The fourth submission indicates an easement agreement allowing Spa Catholic's
continued use of the encroaching parking lot exists and has been approved by the City Attorney.
The Planning Board may wish to confirm with the City Attorney's office that the easement is
acceptable.
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
Engineering Review—269 Broadway 3 March 21, 2022
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 address
this comment. The fourth submission indicates that a construction easement for the work on the
neighboring properties is still in progress. It should be noted that the revised site plan now shows
the National Grid electrical switchgear for the new building located on Saratoga Hospital's property.
More information regarding how this will be accomplished is required. It does not seem like a
construction easement, which would be temporary, would suffice.
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 Planning
Board. Note that with the third submission the "open air community space"along the Broadway
fa�ade has been eliminated, resulting in a significant reduction in civic space from the previous
submissions. The fourth submission indicates 4,500 SF of civic space is provided. The site plans do
not delineate this,but perhaps the Planning eoard will consider the pedestrian connection between
eroadway and Hamilton Street in weighing this objective.
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. The site plans with
the fourth submission have been revised to show historic lighting standards along eroadway and
along the pedestrian walkway between eroadway and Hamilton Street. The plans indicate that all
lights will be turned over to the City. The Applicant should confirm if this is the intent for the lights
along the pedestrian walkway.
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
address this comment. The fourth submission indicates the lower parking level will not be accessible
to the public,and therefore any vehicle entering that level will have a designated space to park and
turn around in. It also indicates that a k-turn can be made on the upper level if no parking spaces
are available. This addresses our previous comment.
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
Engineering Review—269 Broadway 4 March 21, 2022
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 eoard 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. 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 (31 Ibs/day for
the restaurant seems significantly low). 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 lbs, 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. INe 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. The fourth submission adds a second recyclables container
and a fry grease receptacle. As noted in the third submission comments, trash and recyclables
pickup will be a two-person,manual operation that will likely occur multiple times per week. Access
to the recyclables containers will be impeded by the trash containers, requiring at least one of the
trash containers to be rolled into the street to get the recyclables containers out.
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 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. Applicant's response requests
clarification of the comment. Our opinion is that the accessible route from South eroadway could be
improved upon. The 4.5°o slope on the sidewalk at the bottom of the ramp, while technically
Engineering Review—269 Broadway 5 March 21, 2022
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°0
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. Comment has been addressed with the fourth submission.
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.
The site plans included with fourth submission indicate that all sidewalks will incorporate radiant
heat(eroadway, Hamilton Street and the two walks connecting eroadway and Hamilton Street to
the north and south of the building). Comment has been addressed.
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.
Applicant notes with the third submission that review by National Grid is not proposed until after site
plan approval. This is not advised. VI/hen 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. The fourth
submission site plans show a new switch gear located external to the building on Saratoga Hospital
property. In addition to the concern raised previously about the Applicant's/National Grid's ability
to/ocate the switchgear off-site on private property, there are aesthetic concerns to be addressed
with this as well. The Applicant should provide the dimensions(including height)of the switch gear,
and screening should be added to the site plan to address the visual impact. The site plans show
the transformer located inside the trash delivery area. A letter from National Grid indicates that in
order to/ocate the transformer inside as shown, the Applicant must demonstrate that it meets the
requirements of National Grid Electric Standards Bulletin 754. Specifically, the Applicant must
demonstrate and confirm with National Grid that the space designated for the transformer complies
with National Grid's requirements for size, setbacks, access and overhead clearance. Additionally,
Engineering Review—269 Broadway 6 March 21, 2022
the site plans show the proposed water service routed beneath the transformer, which is not
advisable.
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 kIN 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 recyclables, cardboard,
grease cubes and other exchangeable items should be identified on the plan and discussed in
na rrative. 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 above.
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. The fourth submission indicates three gas meters will be located within the dumpster
area,but locations are not shown. Applicant should verify there is room for these meters.
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. Comment has 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
address this comment. Grading/drainage of the entry plaza remains a concern. Applicant has
Engineering Review—269 Broadway 7 March 21, 2022
addressed this comment with the fourth submission by adding radiant heat and a drainage
structure.
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. The third submission
does not address this comment. Applicant's response with the fourth submission is that the Spa
Catholic parking lot runoff will be directed to a planting strip between it and the new sidewalk. Our
concerns with this are twofo/d. First, grading of the new sidewalk shows no cross slope,so parking
lot runoff will travel across it. Second,from there, concentrated runoff will flow toward Hamilton
Street, over the public sidewalk and onto the street. We recommend changing the cross slope of
the new sidewalk between the building entry and Hamilton Street so it pitches toward the parking
lot, and moving DMH3 to the northwest corner of the parking lot to intercept the runoff before it
gets to the street.
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 DCB1 TF elevation is incorrect. This
comment has been addressed with the fourth submission.
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.
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 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 incorporates
Engineering Review—269 Broadway 8 March 21, 2022
revised/additional planters. Applicant should provide calculations demonstrating the required storage
volume is met. This comment has been addressed with the fourth submission.
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. Comment has been addressed with the third submission.
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.
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 eoard
may want to discuss any need for temporary road and sidewalk closures with the Applicant. The third
submission does not address this comment. A typical MPT plan has been included with the fourth
submission. It does not specifically address road/sidewalk closures that will be required during
construction. We recommend the project narrative be expanded to include this discussion.
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.
Engineering Review—269 Broadway 9 March 21, 2022
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 DPVI/is
required. The third submission does not address this comment. The fourth submission indicates the
water service tap /ocation has been coordinated with DPW. As noted above, the routing of the
water service beneath the transformer appears problematic.
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. 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. Comment has been addressed with the fourth submission.
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. The third submission does not address this comment. While site landscaping is
shown, there are no proposed landscape improvements to the public streetscape. The fourth
submission shows new street trees on Broadway. Applicant proposes Tilia Americana "Greenspire"
Linden for street trees. The City Arborist should review and approve this selection. We believe the
City Arborist has specific requirements for street trees aimed at eliminating weak-wooded species
and those that pose issues such as excessive droppings or sap.
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. Applicant's response with the third submission is
that the building drawings will address these details. The site plans should be corrected then to
indicate this. The fourth submission does not address this comment. The concern about potential
frost heave of sidewalks blocking building exits remains.
2. We recommend venting for grease traps extending to the building roof. The detail provided does not
a ppea r to i ncl ude venti ng a nd may create a n odor issue. Applicant's response indicates a note has
been added to the plan. VI/e 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
Engineering Review—269 Broadway 10 March 21, 2022
and outlet are at the same end of the tank. This is incorrect. The fourth submission addresses the
venting detail, but the plan still shows the inlet and outlet at the same end of the grease trap. The
inlet and outlet should be at opposite ends of the tank for it to function properly.
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.
Engineering Review—269 Broadway 11 March 21, 2022
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. 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. Comment has been addressed with third submission.
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.
Comment has been addressed with third submission.
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. Comment has been addressed with third submission.
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.
Comment has been addressed with third submission.
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. Comment has been addressed with
third submission.
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. Comment has been addressed with third submission.
d. Please provide data supporting following statement from TIS:
Approximately 90°0 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.
Engineering Review—269 Broadway 12 March 21, 2022
4. The following are new comments based on review of revised Traffic Impact Study dated October 13,
2021.
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. Comment has been addressed with third submission.
b. Please clarify why Clinic land use was considered to determine credit for existing parking lot usage.
Comment has been addressed with third submission.
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. Comment has been
addressed with third submission.
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). 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. VI/hat are proposed parking
regulations along west curb of Hamilton Street, north of W Circular Street? Comment has been
addressed with fourth submission.
Section 5.0 Parking
a. As per Section 5 for pa rki ng - pa ragra ph 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
i ncl uded to determ i ne ava i la ble pa rki ng 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 survey) 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. This comment has not been addressed with fourth submission.
As per comment response letter(third submission), office patrons arrive by 7:00 am while the
parking occupancy data collection start time was 7:30 am, which is after office patrons'morning
arrival peak of 7:00 am.lt is possible that less on-street parking is available before 7 am because
residents are at home and parked on-street. The on-street parking and off-street parking
utilization data collection peak periods must coincide with proposed project parking peak. The
map showing survey areas for parking should include legends. Additionally, the TIS does not
address the time restrictions that apply to public parking. Within downtown public parking is
restricted for a maximum of two or three hours. These restrictions also apply to parking
lots/garages. Time restricted parking is not suitable for all-day use by office workers. Please
Engineering Review—269 Broadway 13 March 21, 2022
exclude all streets/lots/garages with time restricted parking to account for available parking
within 1,000 feet and 1,700 feet.
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. VI/ithin 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.
This comment has not been addressed with fourth submission. Even though a majority of
patrons may walk to get their lunch,weekday MD peak hour shows the highest parking shortfall
(225 parking spaces at 1:30 pm). To help the reader better understand the parking
shortfall/surplus, it is recommended to include a table showing -number of spaces(capacity),
number of occupied parking spaces (utilization), proposed project demand (excluding 70
parking spaces within proposed project parking garage),and shortfall/surplus of parking spaces
for AM/MD/PM peak hours. The parking analysis should also account for any No-Build project
that may affect parking availability significantly.
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."
Comment has been addressed with third submission.
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.
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.SAN ITARY LI N ES: $/If is low...Adds$2,500.
f. WATER LI N ES: $/If 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.SAN ITARY: G rease tra p. $7,500
Engineering Review—269 Broadway 14 March 21, 2022
d.WATER CONNECTION:Tap at street...Adds$5,000
0. 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. CHA's second review letter dated 11/5/2021 acknowledges receipt of a geotechnical report from
Terracon dated 9/5/2015. The date of the report is actually 9/5/2019. Response: Comment
acknowledged.
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
re po rt o n ce co m p l ete. 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.
P. CHA letter dated February 18, 2022:
In reference to the correspondence received by the City dated 2/16/2022 from David Biggs,CHA provided a letter dated
2/18/2022 indicating we have reviewed this information with you and Susan Barden. Mr. Biggs raised numerous
concerns relative to the feasibility and impact of the excavation that will be necessary to construct the building. We
also acknowledged Mr. Biggs is a structural engineer with the credentials to raise these comments, and we agree with
his concerns. As such, it was our recommendation that Mr. Biggs' comments be addressed in an expanded
geotechnical/structural engineering study that should be provided prior to action by the Planning Board. The revised
engineering study should evaluate the feasibility of engineering alternatives and provide specific design
recommendations that mitigate potential impacts on neighboring properties. The fourth submission did not include
the study we recommended. The Applicant's response is that these concerns will be addressed with the building
permit submission. Our recommendation acknowledges that detailed design drawings for the building foundation
will come later, but we believe the feasibility concerns can and should be addressed in an engineering report and
provided to the City for review prior to Planning Board action.
Q. Additional fourth submission comments from City of Saratoga Springs Engineering and Planning Departments:
1. Verify flow into the City storm sewer during and after construction.Show hydraulic calculations that verify
the 15" pipe will be sufficient.
2. Will the dewatering be temporary or permanent? A formal submittal will be required and possibly a PE
sta m p.
3. Show how suspended particles will be settled/filtered out or this will be a violation of SWPPP.
4. Show how excavation support will be installed without impacting adjacent properties.
Engineering Review—269 Broadway 15 March 21, 2022
5. Applicant needs to research original springs and potential impacts to the foundation
6. Still need to provide a blow up plan of the utilities on the building corner at Hamilton St. with grease trap
and all utilities shown to scale.
7. A"pre-blast" type survey will be required to confirm no negative impacts to adjacent properties.
8. Need to show how spoils from the site will be safely and cleanly trucked away and avoid negative traffic
impacts.
9. What is the status of the school property easement? Has it been filed? Show what is proposed for the
switch gear on the plans? Matt suggested it may make sense to leave as is and get permission from the
Bank and Hospital.
10. Need permission from north property owner to remove their lights and traffic signs.
11. The last submission did not include the updated geotech report which addresses the 2 levels of u/g parking
12. Detail 8/C502 needs to specify OPEN RIGHT as Matt requested.
13. Is the runoff from the north parking lot addressed in the SWPPP? Is a curb needed?
Engineering Review—269 Broadway 16 March 21, 2022