HomeMy WebLinkAbout20181013 2018.104 LA Group Response_1-21-19The LA GROUP
Landscape Architecture &Engineering PC-
Peaple. Purpose. Place.
40 Long Alley
Saratoga Springs
NY 12866
p, 518-587-8100
f 518-587-0180
www.thelagroup.com
January 21, 2019
Mr. Tim Wales, PE
City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
RE: City Designated Consulting Services
Engineering Review of Site Plan application — 1st Submittal
318 West Avenue Mixed Use Building, Saratoga Springs, Saratoga County, NY
City Project No. PB#18.055
Dear Mr. Wales:
The LA Group is in receipt of comments from Chazen Companies, dated December 28, 2018. The following are
responses to the comments.
General
Comment 1: The City's project number of 18.055 should be added to all site plan application documents.
Response 1: Project number has been added to all site plan documents.
Water Sewer Engineering Report
Comment 1: The report should include a discussion addressing existing wastewater flow rates and whether rates are
anticipated to increase as a result of the proposed project. Please revise the report to discuss this and
provide a letter from Saratoga County indicating that they can accommodate the additional flows from
the proposed development.
Response 1: Rates are anticipated to increase by 225 gpd. A Request for Review Form was submitted to the
SCSD and additional flow rates were approved.
Comment 2: The report does not include any discussion/information for hydrant flow testing. It is recommended that
hydrant flow testing be performed to ensure fire flow/sprinkler and domestic demands can be
accommodated.
Response 2: A hydrant test was performed on January 7th and resulted in a residual pressure of 80 psi
flowing at 444 gpm. The estimated flow at 20 psi is 1,774 gpm. Results have been included in
the revised Engineers Report.
Survey
Comment 3: Please provide a signed and sealed copy of the boundary, topographic and utility survey, prepared by
Thompson Fleming Land Surveyors, P.C.
Response 3: A signed sealed copy of the survey will be provided with the final plan set.
Comment 4: Existing water, sewer, electric and gas (if any) services are not shown. Please indicate.
Response 4: The location of the existing underground utility services are not known.
Comment 5: The survey identifies an existing 15' wide sewer easement to the Northern neighbor - is there a sewer
main located within this easement?
Response 5:
Comment 6:
Response 6:
Comment 7:
Response 7:
Comment 8:
Response 8:
Site Plans
Comment 9:
Response 9:
Comment 10:
Response 10:
Comment 11:
Response 11:
Comment 12:
Response 12:
Comment 13:
Response 13:
Comment 14:
Response 14:
Comment 15:
Response 15:
Comment 16:
The easement does include a force main to the existing sanitary main.
Based on review of 2018 aerial photos, the site is partially wooded but a tree line is not indicated.
Please show the extent of the tree line/canopy.
The trees have been located in the spots they exist today and any tree line effected is shown on
the design plans.
The survey, entitled "Lot Line Adjustment" identifies the northern, eastern and southern property lines
as new lot lines with a note that Lands of the YMCA to be added to lands of Cassier Smith RE.
Holdings. Has this been approved already or is this being requested as part of this application?
The lot line adjustment was previously approved by the planning board chair administratively.
The final plans will be filed at the county once the property closing has occurred.
Please indicate that date that the field was performed and whether the underground utilities shown
(particularly those without surface features) were located or are based on record data.
The surveyor will include how the utilities were located on the final survey.
The buildings appear to be taller than the 40' maximum height allowed in this zone. Please clarify.
The architecture plans indicate the building height to be less than 40' which meets the zoning
code.
Please confirm that all the entrances are consistent between the architectural plans and the site plans.
The doorway near the garages is not consistent with the architectural plans.
The entrances shown on the plans are coordinated with the architecture plans.
An existing timber retaining wall and fence is to be removed, but portions extend onto the southern
neighboring property — are they to remain or will they be removed?
The existing retaining wall and fence will be cut and removed along the property line and
grading will be brought to meet in these locations. Disturbance of the adjacent property will not
be allowed.
Based on review of 2018 aerial photos, tree clearing will be required along the northern and southern
property lines. Please show the limit of the proposed tree line/canopy.
The tree line is shown where it is proposed to be affected. The site is currently developed and
the larger trees are shown on the survey. Many of those trees are proposed to be removed.
Proposed treeline is depicted along the eastern property line on Sheet L-3.0.
Also, it appears that a temporary construction/grading easement will be needed on the southern
neighboring property. Please indicate the limits and provide documentation from the neighbor allowing
this work to be performed on their property.
Proposed contours have been revised to pull away from the southern property line and no
temporary construction easement will be required.
A sawcut line should be shown on West Ave at the locations where asphalt pavement is being removed.
Sawcut lines have been added for the West Ave pavement cuts being proposed.
The infiltration trench details include underdrains; however, it is unclear where the underdrains are
connected or terminated. Please show underdrain locations on the utility plan, sheet L-3.0.
Underdrains are connected to roof downspout, as depicted on Detail 6 on Sheet L-6.2. Limits of
underdrain have been added to sheet L-3.0.
A detail should be provided indicating how the rim of the existing sanitary sewer manhole is to be
raised.
Response 16:
Comment 17:
Response 17:
Comment 18:
Response 18:
Comment 19:
Response 19:
Comment 20:
Response 20:
Comment 21:
Response 21:
Comment 22:
Response 22:
Comment 23:
Response 23:
Comment 24:
Response 24:
Comment 25:
Response 25:
Comment 26:
Response 26:
SWPPP
Detail has been added to the plans.
The plans show the location of handicap parking signs, however, do not indicate the location of
proposed informational signs, advertising/monument signs, wayfinding signs, directional signs, etc.
Please indicate applicable signage on the plans.
There are no monument sign proposed for this project. Traffic signs (stop and handicap) are
indicated on the plans.
Please provide additional spot elevations at the handicap parking spaces to assure the slopes do not
exceed the required minimum.
Spot elevations have been provided to ensure ADA compliance on the this set of plans.
Consideration should be given to locating the ADA spaces across the parking lot closest to the building
and providing a drop curb for access to both entrances located in the front of the building.
The location of the ADA spaces was approved to include an additional sidewalk and signage for
ADA compliance during the planning board approval.
Will the residential users be utilizing the office space entrance for ADA access?
ADA accessibility is not required for (2) residential units, the entry/exit door at the fire stair will
be "at grade" and allow for accessible route to the shared elevator vestibule.
It appears that the two parking spaces located outside resident garages will be utilized by the residents,
which leaves only 21 spaces for use by the occupants of the office space. Please update plans
accordingly.
Space 22 will be utilized by office occupants, this will not interfere with the residential parking
garage spaces.
It appears there is a callout incorrectly indicating asphalt pavement for an area near the garages that
appears to be proposed as porous pavement area — please correct.
Asphalt pavement callout was removed.
The site lighting plan does not indicate any lighting near the south west patio/building entrance and
along West Avenue. Please indicate any lighting proposed and provide the illumination levels in these
areas.
The lighting in the patio areas has been added to the lighting plan with this set of plans. The
lighting levels are not reflected with photometrics, but the locations are coordinated with the
architecture. The lighting along West Avenue is a city standard requirement so lighting levels
will not be included in the plan.
Please indicate the location of the proposed transformer, route of electric services and the meters along
with any landscape/screening proposed.
Electric and Gas Meter locations will be shown on the final building plans, they are proposed to
be located on the south side of the building adjacent to the stair #2 and mechanical room 110a
on the architect's drawings.
Please indicate the location of the gas meter(s) if gas service is available/proposed along with any
landscape/screening proposed.
See response 24.
Please indicate the location of the AC units with any landscape/screening proposed.
The AC units will be roof mounted adjacent to the third floor roof terrace and screened from
view.
Comment 27: According to the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual (SWMDM), Porous Asphalt Pavement
shall have a 4"-8" thick choker course of No. 57 stone and an 8"-12" thick filter layer consisting of No. 2
stone. The Porous Asphalt detail provided on sheet L-6.0 only provides 1" for the choker course, which
is not consistent with the SWMDM. Please update the detail accordingly.
Response 27: The purpose of the choker course is to fill the voids of the filter (reservoir) stone in order to
provide a smoother paving surface. We have had success with porous pavement on numerous
projects within the City using the proposed section. Additionally, literature from other states
indicate either a choker layer is optional, or only depth of 1 inch is required. Proposed design is
similar to the Minnesota and FHWA design guidelines.
Comment 28: In addition, the SWMDM requires 3 -ft separation to seasonal high ground water which is not maintained
throughout the site. Please revise the plans and the SWPPP accordingly.
Response 28: In order to maintain 3 -ft of separation between the seasonal high groundwater and bottom of the
porous pavement the minimum surface elevation must be 302.83 based on TP -2. Grading has
been revised in the parking lot to meet this requirement.
Comment 29: The SWMDM requires 25' separation between structures and infiltration practices. The plans show
infiltration trenches and porous pavement within 25' of the building. Please provide documentation
showing how this is not a deviation from the standards
Response 29: As stated in the SWMDM "infiltration practices cannot be placed in locations that cause water
problems to downgradient properties." The proposed structure will not have a basement;
therefore the infiltration trenches and porous pavement will not cause water problems to the
buildings. Additionally, the buildings will be constructed with a waterproof membrane along the
building sides of the drip strip and porous pavement, as indicated on their corresponding
details.
Comment 30: Please revise the subcatchment symbols on the watershed maps to match the symbols used in the
HydroCAD model and label the infiltration trenches, and porous pavement nodes accordingly on the
plans.
Response 30: Watershed maps have been revised accordingly.
Comment 31: The Test Pit Data provided on sheet L-3.0 indicates that no falling head permeability was completed at
TP -1. Falling head permeability testing must be performed in this vicinity in order to verify the infiltration
rates used in design of the infiltration trenches in this area.
Response 31: Due to weather a failing head permeability test cannot be conducted at this time at TP -1. A note
has been added to sheet L-3.0 indicating a falling head permeability test must be completed at
TP -1 prior to construction. Design plans will be modified if rate is slower than assumed. Note
that soil observed in TP -1 was similar to the other two on-site test pits which had permeability
rates of 20 in/hr.
Comment 32: Based on the Post Development Plan provided in the SWPPP in appears that a portion of
subcatchment 2 includes some of the building roof, however it appears that some of the building
included in this subcatchment could be captured in one of the infiltration trenches. Please verify that
subcatchment 2 should include the building as shown or revise accordingly.
Response 32: Subcatchment 2 represents a flat portion of the roof. Stormwater from this portion of the roof
will be captured in roof drains and piped to north under the porous pavement.
Sincerely,
Douglas B. Heller, PE, ASCE
Associate Principal/Civil Engineer
dheller@thelagroup.com
G:\Proj-2017\2017114_ Smith_ Property Consulting_West_Ave\2017114Admin\01Correspondence\2.7Review_Comments\2019 01-17 Wales
Comment Response Ltr..docx