Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20260708 269 Broadway Site Plan Review Response to Comment Letter - Planning Board SPR Rev 1Cannie Law PLLC 4 Roberts Ln. Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 518-350-4137 cannielawfirm@gmail.com October 30, 2026 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Attn.: Susan Barden 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs NY 12866 Via email RE: Site Plan Review Application: 269 Broadway, Saratoga Springs - Tax Parcel: 165.75-1-7 Proposed Use- Mixed Use: Multi-family Residential and Ground Floor Commercial Response to Planning Board Comments Hello Susan: As the Board is aware, this office represents 269 Broadway Saratoga, LLC, (the “Applicant”) with respect to Site Plan Review Application (the “Application”) for Tax Parcel: 165.75-1-7 located at 269 Broadway in Saratoga Springs New York (the “Property”). The Applicant appreciated the Board’s comments on the Application at the Planning Board Meeting on September 23, 2026. Below are the Applicant’s responses to those comments, with various additional supporting materials attached, as follows: 1) Revised Narrative 2) Revised Site Plan Set from Studio A, D.P.C. dated 10-30-26 3) Revised Site Rendering from Studio A, D.P.C. dated 10-28-26 4) Revised Architectural Renderings and Floor Plans from RAMSA dated 10-29-26 5) Revised Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, from Studio A, D.P.C. dated 10-28-26 6) City Engineer’s Memorandum, dated October 16, 2026, confirming Two 11-foot curb cuts on Hamilton Street 7) Waste Management Narrative, from the Applicant dated 10-27-26 8) School Traffic Logistics Plan, from the Applicant dated 10-27-26 9) A Construction Sequencing Plan, from the Applicant dated 10-30-26 10) Foundation and Groundwater Narrative, from Christopher Snyder P.E., of Spring Line Design dated 10-28-26 11) No Mow Lawn Seed Fact Sheet Below are the Board’s Comments and the Applicant’s Responses. All comments are in bold and the responses are in italics. 1) Provide an Amended Narrative and submit new 6th floor layout and materials reflecting any other building modifications. Submitted herewith is an updated narrative, based on additional information and the minor building and site plan alterations since the original submission from August 14, 2026. The site plan and building revisions are necessitated by reason of modifications to the sixth floor plan and ground floor plan, due to the relocation of all residential amenity space to the ground floor and the addition of two residential units to the sixth floor – raising the unit count from the original 34 to 36. As a result, the building footprint changes slightly by removing the small northern courtyard, expanding the larger courtyard to the south and the sixth floor has an increase in the enclosed floor area by approximately 1,615 square feet. Further, the roof plan has been amended to reflect the addition of mechanical equipment and necessary screening. 2) Provide Confirmation from Code Enforcement that the Roof Plan is permissible under building height limitations The Applicant has met with and corresponded with Code Enforcement regarding the Roof Plan to conform to the UDO height limitations. Maximum Building Height for this project is 70 feet. UDO Section 21.4(D)(3) provides an exception to maximum building height for areas that includer architectural design elements and mechanical equipment, which is limited to 25% of the total roof area. As part of the current packet submitted is a revised roof plan, that fully details the size and location of any building elements above the maximum height within the permitted exception. These are identified in red on the roof plan. In blue are the two Optional Height Exemption Elements - one on each of the street-facing facades - as allowed in Table 4-C of the UDO. As discussed, these are considered separate and apart from the roof height exception in UDO Section 21.4(D)(3) and do not need to be counted towards the 25% maximum. Based upon multiple email exchanges and conversations with Code Enforcement, the Applicant anticipates Code Enforcement’s approval of the roof plan as proposed and submitted herewith as part of RAMSA’s revised rendering and floor plan package. 3) Provide Analysis of Parking Requirement Under UDO for UC Zoning District. Section 10.6(A)(2) of the UDO provides that the UC District is exempt from minimum vehicle parking requirements. But further indicates, “[w]here parking is provided, property is still subject to basic requirements of the chapter.” With respect to the Application, the Applicant is proposing parking as an additional amenity to its multi- family residential users. Dwelling – Multi-Family necessitates required minimum parking generally at two per dwelling unit, but that is reduced to 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit in the higher intensity zoning districts of UR-4, NC and UN. See Table 10-C of the UDO. The Applicant asserts that the “basic requirements” of the chapter with respect to multi-family dwelling parking would require compliance with the parking requirement in the most comparable zoning district to the UC zoning. The UC District is identified to “accommodate[s] the highest intensity and diversity of nonresidential and upper floor”. UDO Section 4.1(B)(2). The NC District is identified to “accommodate a wide variety of residential and nonresidential uses in a moderate intensity mixed-use environment.” UDO Section 4.1(B)(2). Based on the purposes statements quoted above for these two districts, compliance with the parking standard most closely associated for the higher intensity zoning makes the most sense for projects that propose parking within the UC district. In applying the 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit minimum, it would require 54 parking spots for the 36 proposed units. The updated parking plan shows 54 spots on the garage level, with three (3) ADA compliant spaces and four (4) electrical charging spaces – meeting the standards as applied in the NC District. This is shown on site plan sheet C-1.13. 4) Provide additional, more robust lighting at the crosswalk on Hamilton. The lighting plan has been updated to include a three-headed Sternberg light fixture at the crosswalk on Hamilton Street, as shown on sheet C-4.20 of the Site Plan. 5) Provide more than minimal street trees, with specifics as to species. The proposed street trees, one Maidenhair Tree on Broadway, and three Flowering Dogwoods on Hamilton Steet have been increased from 4” cal. To 5” cal. at install. Additionally, the original proposal included two Flowering Dogwoods on Hamilton which has been revised to propose three Flowering Dogwoods – one more than required by the UDO. All are shown on sheet C-4.10 of the Site Plan set. 6) Provide additional landscaping within the right of way of Broadway, with additional plantings around trees. As shown on Overall Planting Plan at Site Plan sheet C-4.10, the Applicant is proposing a robust planting scheme in the right of way between the current, preserved street tree and the new one to be added during construction. 7) Provide heated sidewalks within the City right of ways and in easement areas to the north and south of the Property. The Applicant will provide heated sidewalks within both easements and the right of ways on both Hamilton Street and Broadway, subject only to a limitation on the Broadway sidewalk if it is determined during construction that the heated sidewalk would damage the root system of the existing tree that is to be preserved. The Applicant is in negotiations with all property owners to the north and south, for finalization of the revised easements, due to the changes in form and timing of the current project versus the prior. The Applicant proposes that the Board approve the plans for the easement modifications as submitted, with a condition that the easements, once finalized, will be reviewed and approved for compliance by Code Enforcement. 8) Provide staging plan with allowance for school use, street closure and crane plan. Submitted herewith are a Construction Sequencing Plan and a School Traffic Logistics Plan from the Applicant. Pedestrian access around the site while under construction will be accommodated at all times. At least one lane of Hamilton will be available at all times, for alternating traffic, during daytime hours. Roadwork will be completed at night to minimize disruption. During school pick-up and drop-off periods, construction vehicle movements will be stopped and there will be spotters at construction entrances and exits at all times. 9) Provide explanation of possibility of bicycle connectivity between Hamilton and Broadway The Applicant is proposing a widened multi-use path along southern easement through the lands of the Saratoga Central Catholic that will allow for bicycle connection. This is shown on site plan sheet C-1.10. 10) Provide location of required Civic Space. Due to the site constraints, the Applicant has discussed off-site civic space with the City Department of Public Works, as permitted by UDO Section 9.3(D)(8.). City DPW has acknowledged that the Spirit of Life Fountain in Congress Park is in need of restoration and repair and can serve as the in lieu of on-site civic space for the Application. It is the position of the Applicant that combining the civic space requirement for this Application with the existing civic space in the Congress Park creates something that is of a higher public benefit than providing for civic space on site The Applicant anticipates receiving a letter confirming this restoration project as off- site civic prior to the Board’s next meeting. 11) Provide detail as to lighting on building on North side for pedestrian walkway. Sheet C-4.20 illustrates the proposed lighting fixtures and locations. On the north side of the building, four Ashberry wall mount lights are proposed to replace the four post light which currently exist along the sidewalk between Broadway and Hamilton Street. 12) Provide landscape plan and identification of final improvements in easement on south side of the Property. Sheet C-4.10 of the revised site plan provides detail as to the restoration of the 38 foot easement on the land of Saratoga Central Catholic, and it is further shown in the colorized site rendering. The Applicant is in negotiations with Saratoga Central Catholic as to revisions to the current easement language. However, there is no intention to modify the language to allow for any building installations in the easement – namely as it is in the setbacks of the school’s property. The easement area will generally be returned to its current condition as green space, with No Mow Lawn Seed Mix, a fact sheet of which is submitted here. 13) Provide updated plans showing gas and electric meter location As shown on the updated ground floor plan from RAMSA, the proposed location for the gas meters will be on the southwest corner of the building. This area will be buffered with tall grass plantings as shown on Site Plan page C-4.10. The proposed location of the electrical meters will be in the garage area. Both are subject to acceptance of location by National Grid. 14) Provide trash truck diagram for entering and exiting parking garage. The Applicant has consulted with Casella Waste Management on trash pick-up. Due to the discontinuance of the smaller-sized trash trucks in the area, the Applicant is no longer able to proposed trash pick-up from the interior of the Building. Instead, there will be two (2) four cubic yard dumpsters utilized by both the residential and commercial occupants that will be brought via an electric dolly to Hamilton Street curb on trash pick-up days. See the attached Waste Management Narrative, drafted by the Applicant in concert with Casella for a full explanation of the process and timing. A similar process is utilized for the trash pick up at the Adelphi along its secondary frontage on Washington Street. 15) Provide calculation for square footage of trash room The revised garage floor plan provides approximately 227 SF for refuse and recycling storage for the Condominium units and 225 SF for the retail and amenity spaces. These are split up into two separate trash rooms as shown on the Waste Management Narrative and C-1.13 of the site plan. 16) Provide engineering analysis for groundwater conditions and foundation construction. Christopher Snyder P.E., of Spring Line Design the Structural Engineers for the Project, has provided a Foundation Narrative, copy enclosed, based upon his prior work and field studies conducted for a prior application for this site. Terracon Consultant, Inc. has been retained by the Applicant to provide further geotechnical recommendations. In coordination with Terracon, Christopher Snyder concludes that a mat foundation and rock-socketed secant pile wall is the best foundation system for this site. Further, Terracon is actively coordinating a date to visit the site and recheck groundwater levels using the well points installed a few years ago. The Applicant will confirm that date and provide the results of those levels as soon as received. 17) Provide confirmation that the proposed two curb cuts on Hamilton Street are acceptable to City Engineer By memorandum dated October 16, 2026, City Engineer James Salaway has acknowledged his acceptance of the proposed curb cuts of 11 feet on Hamilton Street, a copy of which is enclosed. 18) Identify transformer location on Plans Transformer location is proposed on the lands to the north belonging to Saratoga Hospital, as identified on Site Plan Sheet C-3.10. The Applicant is within negotiations with Saratoga Hospital as to the exact location and restructuring the existing easement on their site to accommodate the proposed Project. This suggested location is subject to final approval from National Grid. 19) Treatment of motor court for pedestrians with Motor Court Use diagram. The motor court is designed to provide a clear pedestrian connection between the building entrance and surrounding sidewalks, with paving, bollards, and landscape treatments intended to distinguish pedestrian areas from vehicular circulation. Traffic calming configurations such as raised pavement for pedestrian crossing, and safety bollards are now proposed, as detailed on the ground floor plan. 20) Provide a Mirror at exit curb cut. A detail for this has been submitted herewith by RAMSA on the ground floor and motorcourt plans. 21) Personal delivery logistics (i.e. Amazon, food deliveries) The Applicant is working with the City Engineering Office and City Assessor’s office to establish the street addresses for the residential units to be associated with Hamilton Street instead of Broadway. This will aid delivery, ride share and other drivers in accessing the site in non-disruptive manner to the higher capacity street of Broadway. 22) Provide pedestrian lighting in southern easement Low level path lighting is proposed to follow the existing walkway from Broadway to Hamilton Street. The proposed light fixtures will be dark sky compliant and no higher than 42” tall. The intent of this lighting is to provide a subtle yet safe illuminated walk between the two main streets without drawing too much attention visually to the space. Additionally, the low-level lighting is provided to not interfere with the adjacent residential units. Lighting details on page C-4.20 of the Site Plan. 23) Provide additional tree protection plan for current Broadway street tree. The tree protection detail has been updated to reflect a more robust protection plan. The previous detail included construction fencing surrounding the tree while the proposed now includes chain link fence and specific details to avoid and potential impacts to the tree, roots, and/or dripline during construction. See tree protection detail at page C-5.10 of the Site Plan. 24) Provide explanation as to whether a green roof on actual roof is feasible Due to the planned screening, necessary mechanical installations and proposed solar installations on the roof, a green roof is not feasible on site. 25) Provide explanation as to whether geothermal or solar on roof would be feasible As identified on the modified roof plan submitted herewith, the Applicant is proposing approximately 4000sf of solar arrays, which will be utilized to offset on site electrical power consumption. This is shown on the Roof Plan submitted by RAMSA. Huston Engineering, who is performing the mechanical engineering work also studied the potential for geothermal and concluded geothermal at the site is not be feasible for the site square footage available. On behalf of the Applicant, I request the Application be placed on the next available Planning Board Agenda to review and discuss these responses. As always, please feel free to contact me directly with any questions. Very truly yours, /s/ John B. Cannie John B. Cannie, Esq.