HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190084 Regatta View Phase 3 Correspondance ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
113CIDPARTNERSHIP, LLP. 900 Route 146 Clifton Park,NY 12065
(P)518.371.7621 (F)518.371.9540 edpllp.corn
Shaping the physical environment
March 15, 2019
Mr. Timothy Wales, PE
City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
Regarding: 3rd Submittal/ Response to The Chazen Companies Technical Review
Regatta View—Area B— Phase 3
City Project No. PB# 16.018
Dear Mr.Wales:
The Environmental Design Partnership, LLP (EDP) is in receipt of The Chazen Companies technical review
letter, dated February 18, 2019, and we offer the following comments, additional information and enclosed
revised plan set. For your convenience the relevant text of the original The Chazen Companies comment is
included followed by EDP's response in bold.
General:
2. Please submit the original survey for this project, as required in the Site Plan Review Submittal
Checklist. Please add a note on the plans and survey that the topography is based on the NGVD 1929
Elevation datum. An existing conditions plan has been submitted with notation indicating that the
topography is based on the 1929 NGVD elevation datum. The original signed and sealed survey has
not been submitted and should be provided to the City.
The applicant indicated that the original signed and sealed survey will be included with the final plan
set.
EDP Response: Comment Noted
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan:
26. The SWPPP indicates that ownership and maintenance of the SWM practices will be by Regatta
View LLC. A formal inspection and maintenance agreement, acceptable to the City and in
accordance with City Code Chapter 242, must be in place to assure that the practices will be
properly operated and maintained in accordance with the long-term operation and maintenance
plans included in the SWPPP. Please submit an agreement for the City's review. A sample
agreement is available in City Code Chapter 242.
EDP indicated in their response letter that ownership and maintenance will be the responsibility of a
homeowner's association (HOA) and that HOA documents will be submitted to the City for review.
a. Please submit this documentation in order to address this comment.
b. Also, the NOI and MS4 SWPPP acceptance Form needs to be updated to reflect the actual
name of the Home Owners Associate before the SWPPP can be approved.
EDP indicated in their response letter that HOA documents will be provided for review upon
completion, and that the NOI and MS4 SWPPP Acceptance forms will be updated with the actual
name of the HOA.
EDP Response: Comment Noted.
29. The delineation of easement to the City and Saratoga County Sewer District shown on Sheet 4 are
incomplete.
a. Please ensure both easements are clearly delineated, bounded, and labeled.
b. Please submit proposed legal descriptions for the easements.
Mr. Timothy Wales ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LLP,
March 15, 2019 Shaping the physical environment
The applicant has updated the easement boundaries on the plans and indicated that proposed legal
descriptions will be submitted with the final plans.
EDP Response: Comment Noted.
33. The HydroCAD model includes subcatchments 10S— 14S which drain to practices 12P and 15P. It
is apparent that these subcatchments and practices are intended to model building roofs and porous
pavement driveways. However, these subcatchments and practices are not shown on the post-
construction watershed delineation map.
a. The watershed delineation map and HydroCAD model should be revised for consistency so
that the design of these practices can be reviewed.
The updated HydroCAD models were not provided with the updated application materials.
Please provide. The following new comments are noted pertaining to the updated
watershed delineation map:
1. The updated watershed delineation map is still inconsistent with the previously
submitted HydroCAD model. Please revise.
EDP Response: The updated HydroCAD models have been included with this
submittal. The Post-Development Watershed Delineation Map has been updated.
2. The updated watershed delineation map is unclear in its delineation of Subcatchment
5S, which includes a portion of the roof buildings and also appears to include a portion
of the rear of each lot. Please clarify the bounds of 5S, consistent with the grading plan.
EDP Response: The Detail of Subcatchment 5S has been updated and included on
the Post-Development Watershed Delineation Map. Subcatchment 5S and 5S1
represent the different rooftop sizes which are representative of the different types of
units. Subcatchments 5S-P and 5S1-P represent the different driveway types and are
representative of the different types of driveways for the proposed units. The area
contributing to the Porous Pavement, subcatchments 12P and 15P,will include the
runoff from the rooftop and from the porous pavement area.
3. A typical lot detail has been added to the watershed delineation map which depicts an
unidentified feature in the rear of each lot. Please clarify.
EDP Response: No features are proposed in the rear of each lot.
4. The location of the two underground infiltration practices shown on the updated
watershed delineation map is not consistent with the site plans. Please revise.
EDP Response: The watershed delineation maps have been updated to reflect the
correct location of the underground infiltration practices.
b. It's not clear from the plans how much of each roof and how the roof runoff will be directed
to the porous pavement for treatment. Please clearly indicate the tributary areas to each
surface and how the roof runoff will be discharged onto the surface of the porous pavement.
A typical lot layout has been added to the watershed delineation map to clarify intended
drainage pattern. Please indicate the proposed means of directing runoff to the porous
pavement as requested.
EDP Response: The runoff from the entirety of the rooftops will be direct to the porous
pavement via a gutter system designed by Architect. Subcatchment 5S and 5S1
represent the different rooftop sizes which are representative of the different types of
units. Subcatchments 5S-P and 5S1-P represent the different driveway types and are
representative of the different types of driveways for the proposed units. The area
contributing to the Porous Pavement, subcatchments 12P and 15P,will include the runoff
from the rooftop and from the porous pavement area.
900 Route 146 Clifton Park,NY 12065
2
(P)518.371.7621 (F)518.371.9540 edpllp.com
Mr. Timothy Wales ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LLP,
March 15, 2019 Shaping the physical environment
34. A layout detail for the Stormtech SC-740 practice (similar to Detail 16 on Sheet 11 for the Stormtech
MC-3500 practice) should be added to the site plans to indicate the required dimensions for this
practice, consistent with what is modeled in the HydroCAD calculations. A layout detail for the SC-
740 practice has been added to the plan but its dimensions are not consistent with the previously
submitted HydroCAD calculations. Please revise.
EDP Response: The HydroCAD calculations have been updated so that they are consistent
with the plans. Please see attached.
35. The Complete Streets Policy (2016) The purpose of the Complete Streets Policy is to ensure that
new and updated public and private projects are planned, designed, maintained and operated to
enable safe, comfortable and convenient travel to the greatest extent possible for users of all
abilities including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders. The proposed street through
the development would be classified as a "Neighborhood Street." Section 2-8 of the Complete
Streets Plan provides classifications of streets ranging from Bronze to Gold. As proposed the street
would be classified as Bronze for its lack of pedestrian lighting and a missing sidewalk on one side
of the street. To meet Silver level standards the street would need sidewalks on both sides of the
street, ADA compliance at all intersections and 5' grass buffers between sidewalk and street. To
reach Gold level, the street would require a full network of sidewalks and crossings, sidewalks
present throughout driveways, gaps in street trees filled and pedestrian scale lighting fixtures.
a. The Planning Board should decide what level is desired for this development, and
b. the applicant should revise the plans accordingly.
EDP noted that the project will include street lighting and the sidewalks have been designed
consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. The Planning Board should consider whether
neighborhood precedence outweighs adopted community plans.
EDP Response: Comment Noted.
36. The Complete Streets Policy (2016) on page 2-2 identifies portions of Dyer Switch Road as a
deficient area for sidewalks. The policy recommends installing sidewalk along Dyer Switch to the
north of the project, but not directly along the project parcel. The proposed project provides sidewalk
west from the intersection of Dyer Switch and Dartmouth Drive to Route 9P/Union Ave but does not
provide a sidewalk east from the intersection of Dyer Switch and the proposed street towards the
sidewalk deficient area called out on page 2-2 of the Complete Streets Policy.
a. The Planning Board may want to consider requiring the extension of the proposed sidewalk
east from intersection of Dyer Switch and the proposed street to the edge of adjacent parcel
at 12 Dyer Switch Road in order to close gaps in the sidewalk network, and
b. the applicant should revise the plans accordingly.
EDP response is that sidewalk construction as this point is unnecessary because there is currently
no sidewalk to connect to. It is recommended that that applicant either build the sidewalk along Dyer
Switch Road or post a bond for the eventual construction of this sidewalk.
EDP Response: The Applicant maintains that this section of sidewalk is unnecessary.
37. Saratoga Greenbelt Connector(adopted 2014) is a plan connecting existing multi-use paths into a
24-mile figure-eight loop around and through the city that can be used by cyclists, runners and
pedestrians for both transportation and recreation. The plan indicates that Route 9P/Union Ave
(page 1-6) on the western side of the project parcel) is designated as a "Greenbelt Trail Connector"
Sheet#3 of 10 from the prior development plans dated 5/19/2016 show an 8'wide pedestrian and
900 Route 146 Clifton Park,NY 12065
3
(P)518.371.7621 (F)518.371.9540 edpllp.com
Mr. Timothy Wales ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LLP,
March 15, 2019 Shaping the physical environment
bike trail along Route 9P/ Union Ave. The most recent drawing set dated 11/02/2018 do not show
the connector trail.
a. The Planning Board may want to consider requiring the installation of the greenbelt trail
along Route 9P/Union Ave as previously proposed.
b. The Planning Board should also consider extending the proposed sidewalk along Dyer
Switch Road in order to connect to the new/future Greenbelt Trail, and
c. the applicant should revise the plans accordingly.
EDP response is to include a seasonal 5 ft pedestrian pathway located on HOA lands from Dyer
Switch Road to Regatta View Drive. The applicant will site the pedestrian pathway to avoid existing
vegetation wherever possible; however, there will be some loss of vegetation in this area. The
Applicant does not provide details for this path. Will the path be asphalt, gravel, or mulch and will it
be maintained and lit? Please provide the required details.
EDP Response: The Pedestrian Pathway has been increased to 8' in width and will be an
asphalt surface that will not be lit or maintained in the winter. A detail of the proposed
Pedestrian Pathway has been added to the plans. See Detail 3 on Sheet 2.
38. City of Saratoga Springs Open Space Plan (1994 and 2002) in Appendix A"Open Space and
Recreation Resources Map" (page 26) indicates Route 9P/Union Ave along the western edge of the
project parcel as part of the "proposed bike trail system."As noted previously Sheet#3 of 10 from
the preliminary plans dated 5/19/2016 show an 8' wide pedestrian and bike trail along Route 9P/
Union Ave. The most recent drawing set dated 11/02/2018 do not show the connector trail.
a. The Planning Board may want to consider requiring the installation of the greenbelt trail
along Route 9P/Union Ave as previously proposed.
b. The Planning Board should also consider extending the proposed sidewalk along Dyer
Switch Road in order to connect to the new/future Greenbelt Trail, and
c. the applicant should revise the plans accordingly.
EDP revised the proposed site plan to include a seasonal 5 ft pedestrian pathway located on HOA
lands from Dyer Switch Road to Regatta View Drive. The Planning Board should consider whether
this type of pathway would be adequate for eventual inclusion into the Greenbelt trail.
EDP Response: The proposed pathway has been increased in width from 5 ft to 8 ft.
Comments regarding Subdivision Requirements
39. Streets and sidewalks: Appendix H "General Requirements and Subdivision Design Standards" §2
"Standards" item F "Streets" number 4 notes that streets must be classified into a category as
defined by the city. The proposed street is 28' wide and would be classified as an "Urban local
street."Appendix H "General Requirements and Subdivision Design Standards" §2 "Standards" item
G "Curb and sidewalk design" number 1 notes that"Curbs and sidewalks shall be installed on both
sides of all local and urban streets." The Site Statistics on drawing 1 "Cover Sheet" indicate that the
proposed owner of the street is the City of Saratoga Springs and the proposed road with is 28'. The
Development Parameters on drawing 1 "Cover Sheet" indicate that"the Dartmouth Way will be
privately owned and maintained by the future condo HOA." If the project is being reviewed as a
subdivision and Dartmouth Way is to be transferred to the City, the applicant should clarify that the
street is classified as a "Urban local street" and provide sidewalks on both sides of the street as per
"Curb and Sidewalk Design." The issue of inadequate sidewalks was previously raised when the
project was proposed as part of a site plan application due to inconsistency with the City's adopted
Complete Streets Policy (2016).
900 Route 146 Clifton Park,NY 12065
4
(P)518.371.7621 (F)518.371.9540 edpllp.com
Mr. Timothy Wales ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LLP.
March 15, 2019 Shaping the physical environment
EDP Response: The proposed street is 24' in width,with 12' travel lanes, (the cover sheet
has been updated to reflect the proposed 24' street width) and is consistent with the
guidelines for a rural road.While sidewalks are not required on rural road sections,the
applicant has located sidewalks on one side of the street to be consistent with the
surrounding neighborhood. It should be noted that the current application has been revised
and is for Site Plan and not Subdivision.
40. Recreation Land Requirements:
Appendix H "General Requirements and Subdivision Design Standards" §2 "Standards" item H
"Recreation land requirements" number 1 notes that"the owner shall offer to the City"Class A Type
Usable Land" equal in size to al lead 10% of the owners subdivided tract." Class A Type refers to
developable land generally devoid of wetlands, drainage courses, steep slopes, etc. Class B Type
refers to land not suitable generally for development except for passive open space. 10% of the
subdivided tract is .68 acres, however none of the drawings indicate that this land has been set
aside. Applicants have the option to provide Class B type useable land if the City offers to accept it.
If the City does not request 10% Class A or B type useable land the applicant may be required to
pay a fee per lot.
The proposed subdivision shows no recreational land set asides. Is the proposed subdivision part of
an existing HOA and if so, will residents have access to adequate recreational facilities?The
applicant should either set aside the required amount of recreation land or clarify how whether or not
the subdivision is to be part of an existing HOA that will be providing adequate recreational facilities
for residents.
EDP Response: The current application has been revised and is for Site Plan not
Subdivision.
41. The 2nd submittal drawings revision date was November 2, 2018, as was the 3rd submittal revision
date— please make sure that all subsequent submittal have a new revision date.
EDP Response: Comment Noted.
42. Please add a detail of the proposed 5' wide seasonal pedestrian path.
EDP Response: The Pedestrian Pathway has been increased to 8' in width. A detail of the
proposed Pedestrian Pathway has been added to the plans. See Detail 3 on Sheet 2.
43. This phase of the Interlaken PUD has been revised in concept from a cluster development to a 24-
lot subdivision. Please identify which dimensional requirements set forth in the Interlaken PUD were
used for this design. Please add and clearly label the required setbacks on the plans.
EDP Response: The current application has been revised and is for Site Plan not
Subdivision.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Travis J. Mitchell, P.E.
Environmental Design Partnership
cc:
900 Route 146 Clifton Park,NY 12065
5
(P)518.371.7621 (F)518.371.9540 edpllp.com