Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210755 269 Broadway Site Plan Draft 269 Broadway Planning Board Discussion Topics Planning Board Discussion Topics—269 Broadway Mixed Use Commercial Bldg.Site Plan Meeting Date:4/14/22 The objective of this document is to assist the Planning Board in its Site Plan review for the 269 Broadway mixed-use commercial project. The topics listed below will be discussed to determine compliance with the Planning Board's Site Plan Evaluation Criteria. The Planning Board will lead the discussion and ask questions as required to address/reveal any outstanding issues or concerns. The Planning Board will direct comments and questions to the appropriate individual(s). The Planning Board requests that both the city engineer, and the city's engineering consultant(CHA) attend the meeting to answer technical questions and provide guidance on outstanding data/information. Public comment will be allowed for each individual topic after the Planning Board has asked all of their questions. Project Timeline First Sketch Plan Review—Joint PB and DRC Meeting: 3/10/20 Second Sketch Plan Review:4/8/21 Site Plan Application Submittal: 7/19/21 (6-story building with 2 levels of underground parking) DRC Advisory Opinion to Planning Board:8/30/21 Planning Board SEQRA Review: Negative Declaration issued 11/18/21 DRC Historic Review:Approved 1/12/22 Discussion Topics Front Entrance • Does the modified portico design satisfy DRCs recommendations for a safe and pedestrian friendly main entrance? • The Applicant should explain the current layout/design so that all Planning Board members understand the latest concept. • Is the main entrance facing west towards Broadway or south towards the Spa Catholic school? Bike Path Connector The Complete Streets Committee identified the importance of a bike connector link from Congress Park to the Railroad Run trail. The civic space area may be a good location to accommodate this bike path. • How can the civic space be designed to safely accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists? • Is there a specific bike path layout that works for both the city and the project owner? Lighting • Does the current Site Plan satisfy the city's standards for historic lighting and include the triple Sternberg lights on Broadway that have been requested? • Is historic lighting proposed on private property along the path between Broadway and Hamilton. If so,will this lighting be owned/operated by the city? What agreement needs to be executed between the city and the site owner? • Is lighting proposed for Hamilton St? • Has a photometric analysis been completed that shows no spillover of light beyond the property line? This has been a requirement for all development projects in the city. • Is it acceptable for lights to be installed on the north side of the proposed building to illuminate the sidewalk(Saratoga Hospital, NBT Bank) beyond the property line? This does not seem to comport with the requirement to eliminate all light spillover. Deliveries • How does the site owner ensure that all deliveries will occur on Hamilton Street and not on Broadway? • Is there a way to incorporate a combination of both signage and road stripping to ensure deliveries are made to the right location? • Can the city impose fines on trucks double parked on Broadway? • What would be required to increase the length of the Hamilton Street loading zone to accommodate tractor trailers? • How does the site owner ensure that tractor trailers will not deliver supplies? Size and Design The DRC has approved the project for mass and scale as part of its historic review. The Planning Board also maintains jurisdiction over"size and design" as part of its evaluation criteria. • Is a 6-story building with 2 levels of underground parking—in this location—compatible with the neighborhood? • The T6 zone extends all the way south on Broadway to Circular Street so the project site is not located at a boundary line transition to a lower density T5 zone along Broadway. • How should existing building precedents be considered in the context of this project? 268 Broadway is a 6-story building with underground parking. The extended fa�ade of the NBT Bank sits at the zero-setback line. Parking The SEQRA analysis that was conducted by the Planning Board included consideration of a 6-story building with 2 levels of underground parking. • The T6 zone does not require any off-street parking and the site owner is to be commended for attempting to accommodate it as part of the project. • Even with the provision of 70 parking spots in the garage,there is still a substantial shortfall of parking within a radius of 1,700 feet. How should this shortfall be addressed? • Time restricted parking (e.g. 2 or 3 hour time limit)was assumed to be an available option for commercial office building tenants, but this does not present a viable option for those working an 8 hour day. • Should a revised parking analysis/table be provided that excludes time restricted parking and provides greater clarity as to neighboring parking capacity, utilization, parking demand and temporal shortfall/surplus for AM/MD/PM hours? • The City Center parking garage lies outside of the 1,700 ft radius. Would the site owner be willing to provide a daily shuttle service that stops at multiple parking areas throughout the city as a benefit to its tenants and visiting clients so that they can take advantage of a broader range of citywide parking? This would be a great amenity for attracting tenants and assisting potential business clients especially during the winter months. Traffic The city has no standard methodology, policy or regulation that addresses traffic impacts associated with development projects. Traffic mitigation measures are handled on a project-by-project basis without the benefit of a consistent and equitable framework to use as a guide for site owners or Planning Board members. • Should traffic impacts be considered on Broadway? • Does the city have a current level of service (LOS)grade for each major intersection that can be used as a benchmark reference? There are many intersections in town with LOS ratings of D, E and F. • How will road/sidewalk closures be handled during construction? How will the hauling/removal of 17,000 cubic yards (approximately 20,000 tons) of excavated material be coordinated with the city? • The traffic study incorporated data used during the height of the Covid pandemic. Is this baseline appropriate? Is additional information needed? Easements • Have all of the requisite easements been reviewed/approved by the city legal department? • Has the Spa Catholic easement been completed, and does it include a provision that secures access to the property in perpetuity? • Has a temporary easement been established with Saratoga Hospital to allow for construction work on their property? • Has a permanent easement been developed that allows for the utility electric switchgear to reside on Saratoga Hospital's property? Utilities • How will the switchgear be buffered from view? Are there any noise issues to be addressed through proper soundproofing? • Has National Grid granted approval for the proposed location of the transformers? This is an issue that is better addressed ASAP. National Grid was very cooperative in working towards a transformer enclosure design for the Rip Van Dam Hotel. • Is it acceptable to install the main water supply line for the project underneath the transformer location? • Where will the gas meters be installed? Is there sufficient room? Will more than three gas meters be required if additional tenants occupy the space? Engineering • Is the path connecting Broadway to Hamilton properly sloped for optimum drainage? • Frost walls are not proposed to connect the sidewalk to building entrances. Does this present a heaving issue and impact safe ingress/egress access? • Are the grease trap inlet and discharge points properly aligned? Foundation At the last Planning Board meeting,the site owner presented a foundation design that includes the axial linkage of vertical concrete pilings. This design was proposed to safely secure the perimeter of the property during excavation and to provide support for the building structural components. • Has this concept been reviewed by the geotechnical contractor to ensure that it's appropriate for the site? • Is the city familiar with this building concept? Has this type of foundational support been used with other development projects in the city? • Do these vertical pilings need to sit upon/within bedrock to provide adequate support? • Will any blasting be required into bedrock? If so, what is needed in the pre-blast survey? • Are there any other options/alternatives for securing the integrity of the site perimeter that would have lower impacts on the surrounding property owners? Water It was acknowledged at the last meeting that continuous removal of groundwater may be required to prevent the underground garage from water infiltration. The LEAF Part 1 states the following Excavation Depth: 20 feet Depth to Bedrock: 25 to 33 feet Average Depth to Water Table: 12 feet The original Geotechnical report also states that the depth to water table can vary with season and that the average depth to water table may lie between 5 to 10 feet. • What experience has 268 Broadway had dealing with groundwater infiltration? • What impact has 268 Broadway had on the natural springs in Congress Park? • Is there a hydraulic connection between 269 Broadway and both the principal aquifer and the springs in Congress Park? • If groundwater is to be continuously removed,where is it discharged? Stormwater system via Geyser Brook? • What is the worst-case scenario for potential groundwater flow into the storm water system? • Is it acceptable to help address a parking shortfall issue by providing two levels of underground parking if it results in continuous discharge of groundwater into the stormwater system? Is this an appropriate precedent to set? • Is a more detailed groundwater analysis warranted?