HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210755 269 Broadway Site Plan Review Comment Response Letter Fourth Submission 4.6.22 Engineering and 1533 Crescent Road
/\�� Land Surveying, P.C. Clifton Park, NY 12065
.J Phone: 518.371.0799
mjelspc@mjels.com
April 5, 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 March 8, 2022 from CHA Consulting, Inc. (CHA) which
includes the City of Saratoga Springs Engineering and Planning comments regarding the 269 Broadway
Project. We offer the following, displayed in .. ..: ;:,, 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. Comment has been addressed with the third submission.
6. Comment has been addressed with the second submission.
B. Site Plans-General Comments:
1. Comment has been addressed with the fourth submission.
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 required. Applicant has indicated this is in progress. The third submission does not
address this comment. The fourfh submission indicafes an easemenf agreemenf allowing Spa
Cafholic's confinued use of fhe encroaching parking lof exisfs and has been approved by fhe Cify
Afforney. The Planning Board may wish fo confirm wifh fhe Cify Afforney's office fhaf fhe easemenf
is accepfable.
�,`7+�+`SF�.' ;' ;�'t"di`t7�'P77 't:KP�v1"+ii�'Q°C,�c'("a', '�..1"i]��'�l�'i t;C>r,i� ti-,�i11�:%E:� �}("C.'.a✓t'C�t�� J.? r'�"D�' l�'ir`y'`�
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 address
this comment. The fourfh submission indicafes fhaf a consfrucfion easemenf for fhe work on fhe
neighboring properfies is sfill in progress. If should be nofed fhaf fhe revised sife plan now shows
fhe Nafional Grid elecfrical swifchgear for fhe new building locafed on Sarafoga Hospifal's
properfy. More informafion regarding how fhis will be accomplished is required. If does nof seem
like a consfrucfion easemenf, which would be femporary, would suffice.
Response: That's correc#. A construction easemen#will be necessary to ��nstruct the i�uilding,
but a utifrty easement will be needed with Nationat Grid for the primary lines from the pole to the
switch gear and transformer.
Fishkill, NY • Long Island, NY • Sewell, NJ • Melbourne, FL
269 Broadway Comment Response Letter
� \ April 5, 2022
°-� Page 2 of 1 1
C. Conformance with zoning, neighborhood tie in design form, civic space elements, screening, buffering,
site & public space lighting:
l. 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. Forfurfherreview by fhe Planning
Board. Nofe fhaf wifh fhe fhird submission fhe "open air communify space" along fhe Broadway
fa�ade has been eliminafed, resulfing in a significanf reducfion in civic space from fhe previous
submissions. . The fourfh submission indicafes 4,500 SF of civic space is provided. The sife plans do
nof delineafe fhis, buf perhaps fhe Planning Board will consider fhe pedesfrian connecfion befween
Broadway and Hamilfon Sfreef in weighing fhis objecfive.
. _
�, ,,. , ,, , „u �,- � � r.
. .��F..}G�.i Ji�'t. :�`#'.;Sp..a._;`�.v.F• dS lL.�'lS:�.�{�-r is��R}: r.,.a:e..r;�..`{t.;' .:C.���!�..:�.: �'.n"�:�....t.,-'tff}iin„tss��I Jj.JG#C�'�,::� .,
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 sife plans wifh fhe fourfh submission have been revised fo show hisforic lighfing
sfandards along Broadway and along fhe pedesfrian walkway befween Broadway and Hamilfon
Sfreef. The plans indicafe fhaf all lighfs will be furned over fo fhe Cify. The Applicanf should confirm
if fhis is fhe infenf for fhe lighfs along fhe pedesfrian walkway.
Response: The plans are showing the connection of all Iights �,esides Broadway to be connected
to the buildings power.
D. Pedestrian, bicycle, auto, emergency vehicle, truck accessibility & maneuvering space:
l. 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 fourfh submission indicafes fhe lower
parking level will nof be accessible fo fhe public, and fherefore any vehicle enfering fhaf level will
have a designafed space fo park and furn around in. If also indicafes fhaf a k-furn can be made
on fhe upper level if no parking spaces are available. This addresses our previous commenf.
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. Applicanf's
response indicafes no fracfor frailer deliveries will be made. The Planning Board should defermine
if fhey require addifional informafion fo supporf fhis.
. .. . , .� . �� .» .. . . . . _ � �;� ��.. ., �� �� . _. . , � _. � .
the site. The owner will be able to control the timing of deliveries and the location in which these
deliveries occur. All deliveries and trash pick-up will be directed and occur within the pull off
provided on Hamilton Street.
269 Broadway Comment Response Letter
� \ April 5, 2022
°-� Page 3 of 1 1
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/weekJ 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 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 Board as well as potential issues to be resolved with National Grid, as transformers are also
located in this area. The fourfh submission adds a second recyclables confainer and a fry grease
recepfacle. As nofed in fhe fhird submission commenfs, frash and recyclables pickup will be a
fwo-person, manual operafion fhaf will likely occur mulfiple fimes per week. Access fo fhe
recyclables confainers will be impeded by fhe frash confainers, requiring af leasf one of fhe frash
confainers fo be rolled info fhe sfreef fo gef fhe recyclables confainers ouf.
Response: The trash containers will be placed over the grease interceptor, a� t�i�at is underground.
This wil! allow ful� c�ccess to the recyclable containers withaut maving any of the regular trash
4. Comment has been addressed.
E. ADA compliance-site & public space, accessible parking and accessible routes:
1. Comment has been addressed with the fourth submission.
2. Comment has been addressed with the fourth submission.
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
269 Broadway Comment Response Letter
� \ April 5, 2022
°-� Page 4 of 1 1
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 Board
approval. The fourfh submission sife plans show a new swifch gear locafed exfernal fo fhe building
on Sarafoga Hospifal properfy. In addifion fo fhe concern raised previously abouf fhe
Applicanf's/Nafional Grid's abilify fo locafe fhe swifchgear off-sife on privafe properfy, fhere are
aesfhefic concerns fo be addressed wifh fhis as well. The Applicanf should provide fhe dimensions
(including heighf) of fhe swifch gear, and screening should be added fo fhe sife plan fo address
fhe visual impacf. The sife plans show fhe fransformer locafed inside fhe frash delivery area. A
leffer from Nafional Grid indicafes fhaf in order fo locafe fhe fransformer inside as shown, fhe
Applicanf musf demonsfrafe fhaf if ineefs fhe requiremenfs of Nafional Grid Elecfric Sfandards
Bullefin 754. Specifically, fhe Applicanf musf demonsfrafe and confirm wifh Nafional Grid fhaf fhe
space designafed for fhe fransformer complies wifh Nafional Grid's requiremenfs for size, sefbacks,
access and overhead clearance. Addifionally, fhe sife plans show fhe proposed wafer service
roufed beneafh fhe fransformer, which is nof advisable.
Response: See revised utility plan which shows the water rerouted to avoid fihe firansformer. i�he
landscaping plan has been updated to provide screening along Hamilton. Based on the letter
from National Grid (see attachedJ, they are in acceptance of the proposed switchgear location
�SIC�f�12 C�2SIgC7 �`�'nm ic 3,r,rr�r(�yr3r�ta,rith Rlrstrr;r-x,wf f`rjr-�$r�r3cf�r�tha�frtyr-zr�Fr-�rr-s�r lrrs�,rnp ff ic in i`tr»r?rr-jrsr�r�
�rith ESD 754.
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 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 above.
��e . � _ � �"-. � _� _.
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 fourfh submission indicafes fhree gas mefers will be locafed
wifhin fhe dumpsfer area, buf locafions are nof shown. Applicanf should verify fhere is room for
fhese mefers.
� � e . , _ t a
s�.����7fainer�. B�IPards have been prc�vide� f�or pro�tectic�n.
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. Comment has been addressed with the third submission.
4. Comment has been addressed with the fourth submission.
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
269 Broadway Comment Response Letter
� \ April 5, 2022
°-� Page 5 of 1 1
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. Applicanf's response wifh fhe fourfh submission is fhaf
fhe Spa Cafholic parking lof runoff will be direcfed fo a planfing sfrip befween if and fhe new
sidewalk. Our concerns wifh fhis are fwofold. Firsf, grading of fhe new sidewalk shows no cross
slope, so parking lof runoff will fravel across if. Second, from fhere, concenfrafed runoff will flow
foward Hamilfon Sfreef, over fhe public sidewalk and onfo fhe sfreef. We recommend changing
fhe cross slope of fhe new sidewalk befween fhe building enfry and Hamilfon Sfreef so if pifches
foward fhe parking lof, and moving DMH3 fo fhe norfhwesf corner of fhe parking lof fo infercepf fhe
runoff before if gefs fo fhe sfreef.
,
�:���3 =r �. : , � .. �� �rt ,;c '
r,a�it` ,Ls;'rC)� t t::;C.r ;t;;:� . .0 �tt�` 4 C.`,;..
7. Comment has been addressed with the fourth submission.
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. Comment has been addressed with the fourth submission.
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. A fypical MPT plan has been
included wifh fhe fourfh submission. If does nof specifically address road/sidewalk closures fhaf
will be required during consfrucfion. We recommend fhe projecf narrafive be expanded fo include
fhis discussion.
�'�. _ -� "�,�� � �. ,
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. The fourfh submission
indicafes fhe wafer service fap locafion has been coordinafed wifh DPW. As nofed above, fhe
roufing of fhe wafer service beneafh fhe fransformer appears problemafic.
269 Broadway Comment Response Letter
� \ April 5, 2022
°-� Page 6 of 1 1
'�s�!�nsP; SQe rQvi.sec� utility plan for relocated water s�rvi��.
5. Comment has been addressed with the fourth submission.
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. The fourfh submission shows new sfreef frees on Broadway. Applicanf
proposes Tilia Americana "Greenspire"Linden for sfreef frees. The Cify Arborisf should review and
approve fhis selecfion. We believe fhe Cify Arborisf has specific requiremenfs for sfreef frees aimed
af eliminafing weak-wooded species and fhose fhaf pose issues such as excessive droppings or
sa p.
_ , .. , _ _. ���� , _ ...�� �
„<���'..., �'�. :` ., _ .,.`; _ . . a+�.
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 fourfh submission does nof address fhis commenf. The concern
abouf pofenfial frosf heave of sidewalks blocking building exifs remains.
�;'�or sit on the foundation of the building, fh�r� wNl not be any cc��=� -_ . � �.;;�frost heavrng.
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. The fourfh
submission addresses fhe venfing defail, buf fhe plan sfill shows fhe inlef and ouflef af fhe same
end of fhe grease frap. The inlef and ouflef should be af opposife ends of fhe fank for if fo funcfion
properly.
R�s.�W�:�=s>=: See revised utility plan and detail. See the proposed Fort Miller grease interceptor
configuration. The baffle is along the bottom so the inlet comes into the tank circulates around
the tank to the outlet side.
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.
269 Broadway Comment Response Letter
� \ April 5, 2022
°-� Page 7 of 1 1
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.
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. Comment has been addressed with fourth submission.
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 of285 available spaces during the AM peak hour." Please list parking
lot/garages included to determine available parking spaces. Because 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. This commenf has nof been
addressed wifh fourfh submission. As per commenf response leffer (fhird submission), office
pafrons arrive by 7:00 am while fhe parking occupancy dafa collecfion sfarf fime was 7:30 am,
which is affer office pafrons' morning arrival peak of 7:00 am. If is possible fhaf less on-sfreef
parking is available before 7 am because residenfs are af home and parked on-sfreef.The on-
sfreef parking and off-sfreef parking ufilizafion dafa collecfion peak periods musf coincide wifh
proposed projecf parking peak. The map showing survey areas for parking should include
legends.Addifionally, fhe TIS does nof address fhe fime resfricfions fhaf apply fo public parking.
Wifhin downfown public parking is resfricfed for a maximum of fwo or fhree hours. These
resfricfions also apply fo parking lofs/garages.Time resfricfed parking is nof suifable for all-day
use by office workers. Please exclude all sfreefs/lofs/garages wifh fime resfricfed parking fo
accounf for available parking wifhin 1,000 feef and 1,700 feef.
i�es�c�r�s� ��,L �ffice employ��.s �rrlvi��� c�ad ;� �,;; csrru vvrii u�rirz� r��r� �vc�ii�uie s��c�s or� sr�e,
therefore we are not counting against the available on street parking. This small number of
269 Broadway Comment Response Letter
� \ April 5, 2022
°-� Page 8 of 1 1
employees is estimated to be 49 using the data provided in the ITE Parking Generation Manual
Sth Edition. See Appendix F of updated Traffic Study for this information. The data collection
times do coincide with the anticipated parking peak. The Parking Study Location Map has
been updated and included in Appendix F of the updated Traffic Study. The time restrictions
have been addressed in the updated Traffic Study. Most roadways are restricted to two or
three hour parking to allow for parking turnover. This does not apply to all levels of the parking
structures. See list below for parking allowance in the two parking structures included in the
study.
• Woodlawn Garage-Ground floor is restricted to 2 hours. Levels 1, 2, & 3 allow 24 hour
parking.
• Putnam Street Garage - Ground floor is restricted to 2 hours. Level 1 is unrestricted
except for the line on the west side closest to the businesses.
Although parking is restricted and not ideal for all-day use by business employees, it does occur
with employees moving their car as often as required. This is based on a poll of current Prime
employees. The parking analysis has been updated to exclude all restricted parking. Long term
parking for the general office users is available on Hamilton Street, Federal Street, Railroad
Place, Putnam Garage (top floorJ, Spring Street lot, Congress park Centre lot and Woodlawn
Garage (Floors 1-3J.
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. This commenf has nof been addressed wifh fourfh submission.Even fhough
a majorify of pafrons may walk fo gef fheir lunch, weekday MD peak hour shows fhe highesf
parking shorffall (225 parking spaces af 1:30 pm). To help fhe reader beffer undersfand fhe
parking shorffall/surplus, if is recommended fo include a fable showing - number of spaces
(capacify), number of occupied parking spaces (ufilizafion), proposed projecf demand
(excluding 70 parking spaces wifhin proposed projecf parking garage), and shorffall/surplus
of parking spaces for AM/MD/PM peak hours.The parking analysis should also accounf for any
No-Build projecf fhaf may affecf parking availabilify significanfly.
.F,d �� ut., „1...> �..+�u.e,€ls�'..,�.es,..a� s,,.R,� r...�,d..,.,, �i.i�„-��u<,�.�,..+ �u..,,.... a.�.�..,. .�. u...._a�.2....f+.e.� .:.N,J�,F...,..-.a s�� w.�:�L.:
Woodlawn Garage and Congress Park Centre surface lot. See updated Traffic Study for table
requested and discussion of other projects within the study area.
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:
269 Broadway Comment Response Letter
� \ April 5, 2022
°-� Page 9 of 1 1
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.
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 fhird submission
includes a revised geofechnical reporf which appears consisfenf wifh fhe building plans
submiffed. The geofechnical reporf indicafes fhaf subsfanfial femporary excavafion supporf will
be required fo facilifafe consfrucfion of fhe foundafion and basemenf parking, buf fhaf design of
fhe femporary supporf sysfems have nof yef been advanced. The reporf recommends a review
of fhe final design by fhe geofechnical engineer fo verify fhaf fhe geofechnical engineering
recommendafions were undersfood and implemenfed. CHA concurs wifh fhis recommendafion.
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 fourfh submission did nof include fhe sfudy we recommended. The Applicanf's response is fhaf
fhese concerns will be addressed wifh fhe building permif submission. Our recommendafion
acknowledges fhaf defailed design drawings for fhe building foundafion will come lafer, buf we
believe fhe feasibilify concerns can and should be addressed in an engineering reporf and provided
fo fhe Cify for review prior fo Planning Board acfion.
�;�., � _. . �-� � .� �f�� 4.. . ``.' v�:°. ��r.�� . .
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.
Response: Per the Pre/Post flow r'a�iies fram the SWPPP, propasea con�itions from fihe construcr'ion of
the 269
Broadway site will reduce flows to the 15" pipe below Broadway. Currently there aren't any issues
with the existing 15" pipe (DP 1 J flooding structures on Broadway, and the project is red ucing flows to
this system therefore there shouldn't be any capacity issues within the existing system.
269 Broadway Comment Response Letter
� \ April 5, 2022
°-� Page 10 of 1 1
Design 1-year 24 Hour 10-year 24 Hour 100-year 24 Hour
Points Description Event Event Event
(DP) Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post-
� Unnamed 0.26 0.17 1.33 1.12 3.65 3.34
Strea m
2 Unnamed 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.21 0.21
Strea m
2. Will the dewatering be temporary or permanent? A formal submittal will be required and possibly a PE
stamp.
���_, z z ihe dewatering will be temporary during the construction of the building. It is
� ,�:�,.;;ed if a permanent dewatering system will be needed, however this will be worked into
� �. , _. r ,
�. .... � , ��,� .�� r , e. _... �. ..,..
3. Show how suspended particles will be settled/filtered out or this will be a violation of SWPPP.
,-•.:.�. f � ,'..�. . r5, , ^ :- -`�F" C,;,' "`
i;=ajJ2Cf(Ot',.`;
4. Show how excavation support will be installed without impacting adjacent properties.
� � � � . „ �t�� _ 4.. _, °�rI f�:cat�,"3.
5. Applicant needs to research original springs and potential impacts to the foundation
.,,. z-, � �..- � .,a.� ,�.� � �
'. .` �i � . ,. ,� ,.'1 !3: k :�.. .+<F'"A GSt"fY�"j
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.
� _.. _ u� �. ��
7. A "pre-blast" type survey will be required to confirm no negative impacts to adjacent properties.
, _ � ,... , . .w ., � _ .t . , �. .. ,, .. . . .� , � � . . , , ..
�_<;:,�plicatic,;:.
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.
,`�`�j..)C.i7i�t:. t`{�i��i..r"iCii?r"f..}d'LJ�.3t.—'d'iY`E:°Ca$E.—:i�d`d�.'P'�3� �`di�s �.�W. .�.. ' ;:, ,,; ,,;�. ' ���>" .. . .. , .� . ...
����itch gear is shown on the plans, located on The s..;er _. . � t�� , , .. . ; _ � _..t
-= needed from the Hospital-letter is pending.
10. Need permission from north property owner to remove their lights and traffic signs.
'���a�aons�: We have recachec� c��#to the kaank�raperty�uvner c�nc� hP wiA ka����- �� � .
1 1. The last submission did not include the updated geotech report which addresses the 2 levels of u/g
parking
��s�onse; ihe upc�ated �ec�tech re�art was suk�miti�ed digir _ � ..
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?
Sincerely,
269 Broadway Comment Response Letter
� \ April 5, 2022
°-� Page 11 of 11
Walter F. Lippmann, PE