HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190084 Regatta View Phase 3 Chazen Submittals 1,2,3 THE
Capital District Office
ChaKen 547 River Street,Troy, NY 12180
P: (518) 273-0055 F: (518) 273-8391
C OM PA I I ES
www.chazencompanies.com
Engineers Hudson Valley Office (845)454-3980
Environmental Professionals North Country Office (518)812-0513
Land Surveyors
Landscape Architects
Planners
Mr.Tim Wales, PE
City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 June 27,2016
Delivered via email:timothy.wales@saratoga-springs.org
Re: Technical Review of Documents—1St submittal
Regatta View—Area B—Phase 3
State Route 9P, Dyer Switch Road and Regatta View Drive
City of Saratoga Springs,Saratoga County, New York
City Project No. PB#16.018
Chazen Project No.31604.03
Dear Tim:
The Chazen Companies(Chazen) have completed our review of the following materials received:
• Site Plan application package containing:
o New Water Service Connection Agreement&Application Form dated May 13, 2016
o Application for Site Plan Review(Including PUD)dated May 18,2016
o Site Plan Submittal Check List dated May 19,2016
o Completed Streets Checklist
o Construction Cost Estimate dated May 19, 2016
o Short EAF dated May 18, 2016
• Project Narrative—PUD Site Plan Review,dated May 19, 2016, prepared by Mathew J.Jones Esq.
• Sanitary Sewer Service Narrative prepared by Environmental Design Partnership, LLP (EDP), dated May
2016
• Water Service Narrative prepared by EDP, dated May 2016
• Draft Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP),dated May,2016, prepared by EDP
• Stormwater Report,dated May 19,2016, prepared by EDP
• Water Main Connection Plan for Regatta View—Interlaken, prepared by EDP, dated May 10, 1991
• Site Plans dated May 19, 2016, prepared by EDP, consisting of the following 10 sheets:
o Cover
o Existing Conditions and Removals Plan
o Site Plan
o Grading Plan
o Utility Plan
o Erosion Sediment Control Plan
o Planting Plan
o Road Profile
o Site and Sanitary Details
o Stormwater and Water Details
• Architectural artwork and floor plans, prepared by Belmonte Builders LLC, not dated
Tim Wales,P.E.
Regatta View
June 27,2016
Page 2
Following are our observations/comments:
General:
1. All documents should reference the City's project number PB#16.018.
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.
3. Please provide the design, type of construction and materials, and exterior dimensions of proposed
buildings,as required in the Site Plan Review Submittal Checklist.
Water Service Narrative:
4. The Narrative should clearly state what the required fire flow is for these duplex units. The two closest
proposed duplexes are located within 10' of one another therefore it appears from the ISO Guidelines as
if 1,500 gpm is required. The report indicates that they anticipate 1,500 gpm is available and fire flow
tests will be performed. It is suggest that this testing be done prior to approval of the application. Please
provide the results of the hydrant flow tests.
Site Plans:
5. The Complete Streets Checklist indicates that street lighting will be provided however none is shown on
any of the plans. Please clarify and/or show the locations of proposed lights.
6. The Site Plan depicts a vegetated median at the intersection of Dyer Switch Road and references the
typical boulevard road section. There is no typical boulevard road section included in the plans, only a
typical road cross section on Sheet 8 which does not show the median. Please provide the boulevard road
section.
7. Three (3) drywells are labeled on Sheet 4. Three more are shown on the east portion of the site but are
not labeled as such. These additional drywells are included in the SWPPP and should be labeled on Sheet
4 with their invert elevations.
8. Infiltration chambers are depicted on Sheet 4 with a reference to see details. There are no infiltration
chamber details included with this plan set. Please revise accordingly.
9. Please complete the table of bioretention area elevations on Sheet 5.
10. Proposed easements for the sanitary sewer and water main extensions should be depicted on the plans.
11. Many of the erosion and sediment control details and notes on Sheet 6 are not legible at the scale and
line weight chosen. Please revise so that these details and notes are legible.
12. The limits of clearing and grading shown on Sheet 6 (Erosion and Sediment Control Plan) are not
consistent with the limits of clearing identified on Sheet 2 (Existing Conditions and Removals Plan). Please
revise accordingly and ensure that the area of disturbance used as the basis for the stormwater
management design in the SWPPP is accurate.Also please quantify the area of disturbance on the plans.
13. A line shown on Sheet 6 is depicted in the legend on that sheet as "denotes proposed stone check dam".
Based on the way this is shown on the erosion and sediment control plan, it appears that this line is
intended to denote a temporary swale, possibly with stone check dams. Please update the legend or plan
to clarify this.
14. The Typical Road Cross Section on Sheet 8 contains references to the Town of Malta and Town Engineer
approval and does not show the relationship of proposed utilities to one another. Please update this to be
applicable to this project. It is our understanding that the proposed road is to be maintained by a home
owners association and will not be dedicated to the City of Saratoga Springs. The road should be
constructed to the City standards. Please revise accordingly.
15. Both water and sewer mains are shown within the pavement limits with biorention areas located along
the edge of pavement. Please indicate the locations of electric, CATV, natural gas and communications
lines on the plans.
16. Only garage floor elevations are indicated on the site plans. Please indicate the first floor and basement
floor elevations for each unit.
17. There are insufficient spot elevations shown on the site plans-please add additional spot elevations to
clearly depict how the site will drain.
Tim Wales,P.E.
Regatta View
June 27,2016
Page 3
18. Please indicate where sump pumps and foundation drains will be discharged.
19. The proposed water main is intended to be dedicated to the City and should conform to City standards.
Please address the following discrepancies between the water service details presented on Sheet 10 and
City standard details:
a. Per City standards all hydrants and valves should open right. The "Typical Hydrant Installation"
detail (plan view) on Sheet 10 calls for a valve which opens left.
b. The "Typical Hydrant Installation" detail (elevation view) on Sheet 10 references Village of
Ballston Spa standards. Another detail labeled "Hydrant Installation" on the right side of this
sheet is consistent with City of Saratoga Springs standards. Please revise accordingly.
c. The curb box, curb stop, and corporation stop models referenced in the "Water Service" detail
are not the City's standard models. Please update accordingly.
Project Cost Estimate
20. The cost estimate indicates 20 bioretention areas; only 13 are shown on the plans. Please double check all
quantities on the cost estimate and update accordingly.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan:
21. The stormwater management plan utilizes infiltration through porous pavement, infiltration chambers
and drywells.Only results of deep test pit excavations were submitted.The SWPPP indicates that the
required infiltration testing will be completed to confirm infiltration rates. Falling head permeability
testing must be performed in accordance with the SWMDM,the designs updated as needed,and the
SWPPP revised accordingly and resubmitted for review.
22. The stormwater management plan utilizes infiltration through porous pavement for proposed driveways.
Please address the following comments pertaining to the requirements of the NYSDEC Stormwater
Management Design Manual (SWMDM)for porous pavement practices:
a. The SWMDM requires a 25-foot down-gradient setback from structures for porous pavement
practices.The site plans indicate that porous pavement is to be utilized for all proposed
driveways,which abut the proposed buildings. Please add sufficient spot elevations to assure
water drains away from the structures.
b. The SWPPP indicates that the site is to be graded such that porous pavement areas do not
receive runoff from adjacent areas.The Grading Plan (Sheet 4)does not contain sufficient detail
to assure this. Please add sufficient spot elevations to assure that adjacent areas do not drain
onto the pavement.
c. The SWMDM requires observation wells to be installed within porous pavement practices.The
porous pavement detail on Sheet 10 does not include observation wells. Please revise
accordingly.
23. The SWPPP indicates that the NYSDEC and NYSOPRHP have been contacted to request a determination as
to whether the project will result in the taking of any species listed as endangered or threatened, and
whether the project will result in any adverse effects on cultural resources, respectively. If either of these
responses are affirmative then this project will not be eligible for coverage under SPDES General Permit
GP-0-15-002.The responses of these two agencies should be submitted to the City when available. The
SWPPP should not be approved until those documentation of no effect are provided and included as part
of the SWPPP.
24. Please answer Question 5 on the Notice of Intent(NO1).
25. Six proposed drywells are modeled in the HydroCAD model for the project.The drywells are shown with
inconsistent dimensions and only one detail is provided in the site plans. In addition,the inverts in the
HydroCAD model for Drywell 3 do not match those shown on the plan. Please update dimensions and
inverts for consistency between the model and plans.
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.
Tim Wales,P.E.
Regatta View
June 27,2016
Page 4
27. The City Engineer's office requires that yearly inspection and maintenance reports for post-construction
stormwater management facilities be submitted for their files.This requirement should be added to the
SWPPP.
In order to expedite and simplify the review of revised materials we would appreciate if the next submission be
accompanied by a response letter that describes the revised materials and how our comments were/were not
integrated.
Sincerely,
.
•
m
James J.°Connors, P.E.,Associate
Sr. Director, Engineering Services
cc: File
Z:\projects\31600-31699\31604.XX-Saratoga Springs CDE master\31604_03 Regatta View\submittals\1st submittal\sent\31604_03-RegattaView-1st submittal-2016-06-27.doc
THE
Capital District Office
ChaKep 547 River Street,Troy, NY 12180
P: (518) 273-0055 F: (518) 273-8391
COMPAN I ES www.chazencompanies.com
Engineers Hudson Valley Office (845)454-3980
Environmental Professionals North Country Office (518)812-0513
Land Surveyors
Landscape Architects
Planners
Mr. Tim Wales, PE
City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 November 21, 2018
Delivered via email: timothy.wales@saratoga-springs.org
Re: Planning and Technical Review of Documents—2nd submittal
Regatta View—Area B—Phase 3
State Route 9P, Dyer Switch Road and Regatta View Drive
City of Saratoga Springs, Saratoga County, New York
City Project No. PB# 16.018
Chazen Project No. 31604.03
Dear Tim:
The Chazen Companies (Chazen) have completed our review of the following materials
received:
• Cover letter prepared by Jones Steves Attorneys at Law, dated October 24, 2018
• Construction Cost Estimate dated May 19, 2016
• Water Service Narrative prepared by EDP, dated November 6, 2018
• Draft Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), dated October 2018, prepared by
EDP
• Stormwater Management Narrative, undated, prepared by EDP
• Response to comments letter prepared by EDP, dated November 6, 2018
• Site Plans last revised November 2, 2018, prepared by EDP, consisting of the following
12 sheets:
1. Cover
2. Site Plan
3. Existing Conditions and Removals Plan
4. Subdivision Plan
5. Grading Plan
6. Utility Plan
7. Planting Plan
8. Road Profile
9. Erosion Sediment Control Plan
10. Site Details
11. Stormwater Details
12. Water and Sanitary Details
Tim Wales,P.E.
Regatta View,2nd Submittal
November 21,2018
Page 2
Following are our observations/comments:
The numbers correspond to our previous review letter dated June 27, 2016. Items that have
been satisfactorily addressed are not repeated. New comments are presented in bold:
General:
1. All documents should reference the City's project number PB# 16.018. The City's project
number has been added only to the site plans; it should be added to all site plan
application documents (i.e., water report, SWPPP, cost estimate, etc.).
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.
3. Please provide the design, type of construction and materials, and exterior dimensions
of proposed buildings, as required in the Site Plan Review Submittal Checklist. In their
comment response letter, EDP included a narrative of the proposed building
construction type and materials and indicated that a set of "Development
Parameters" would be submitted to be approved with the Site Plan. EDP is requested
to provide the following to address this comment:
a. Updated Architectural Plans and Elevations
b. Submit proposed Development Parameters for review.
Water Service Narrative:
4. The Narrative should clearly state what the required fire flow is for these duplex units.
The two closest proposed duplexes are located within 10' of one another therefore it
appears from the ISO Guidelines as if 1,500 gpm is required. The report indicates that
they anticipate 1,500 gpm is available and fire flow tests will be performed. It is
suggested that this testing be done prior to approval of the application. Please provide
the results of the hydrant flow tests.
EDP indicated in the comment response letter and updated application materials, that
a fire flow exceeding 1,500 gpm is required but they have not conducted any test to
verify that the required flows can be met. Please provide.
Site Plans:
5. The Complete Streets Checklist indicates that street lighting will be provided however
none is shown on any of the plans. Please clarify and/or show the locations of proposed
lights. In their comment response letter, EDP indicated that street lighting will be
shown on future plan sets. Please provide the updated site plans showing street
lighting.
16. Only garage floor elevations are indicated on the site plans. Please indicate the first
floor and basement floor elevations for each unit. EDP has indicated that the first floor
Tim Wales,P.E.
Regatta View,2nd Submittal
November 21,2018
Page 3
and basement floor elevations in their comment response letter and has noted the
basement floor elevation differential on the site plans. EDP is requested to note the
first-floor elevations for each unit on the site plans to address this comment.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan:
23. The SWPPP indicates that the NYSDEC and NYSOPRHP have been contacted to request a
determination as to whether the project will result in the taking of any species listed as
endangered or threatened, and whether the project will result in any adverse effects on
cultural resources, respectively. If either of these responses are affirmative then this
project will not be eligible for coverage under SPDES General Permit GP-0-15-002. The
responses of these two agencies should be submitted to the City when available. The
SWPPP should not be approved until those documentation of no effect are provided and
included as part of the SWPPP. EDP indicated in their response letter that "no known
endangered species" and "no impact" letters have been received from DEC and OPRHP
respectively, but only the letter from OPRHP was included in the SWPPP. Please
update the SWPPP to include documentation from DEC as well.
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.
New comments pertaining to Planning review and Technical review of the updated site plan
application materials are listed below:
28.The new"edge of woods line" shown on Sheet 2 is not consistent with the limits of
clearing shown on the same sheet; please revise. Also,the clearing limit needs to be
updated to reflect the actual limit of construction (i.e. the Stormtech chambers along
Regatta View Drive are shown within the limits of trees to remain, the existing
sanitary sewer main on the west side of the site is shown to be removed and replaced,
etc.)
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.
Tim Wales,P.E.
Regatta View,2nd Submittal
November 21,2018
Page 4
30.The silt fence shown on Sheet 9 is drawn perpendicular to contours in some locations.
In accordance with the NYS Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment
Control (SSESC), silt fence shall be installed parallel to contours to prevent
channelization of flow. Please revise.
31. Site construction will disturb in excess of five (5) acres. A detailed phasing/sequencing
plan showing how disturbance will be limited to less than five (5) acres at a time needs
to be included in the set of plans. This phasing/sequencing plan should clearly
indicate and quantify the limits of disturbance within each phase/sequence.
32.The following details should be updated for conformance with City standards:
a. Detail 1 on Sheet 10 should be revised to indicate a bicycle-friendly grate.
b. Detail 3 on Sheet 10 indicates a 12' wide lane while the City standard is for 18'
lanes on a collector street.
c. Detail 4 on Sheet 10 is not consistent with the City standard tree planting
detail.
d. Detail 7 on Sheet 10 should be updated to include required dimensions and
contrasting color requirements for detectable warning plates.
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.
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.
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.
As requested,we have also completed our review as it relates to the City Planning and public
concerns raised in previous meetings,these comments are presented below.
35.The Saratoga Springs Comprehensive Plan (adopted 2015) and Future Land Use Map is
supportive of development of this density and type in the project area. The Future
Land Use Map indicates that the Project Area is listed as RN-1 Residential
Neighborhood One. The Residential Neighborhood-1 and Residential Neighborhood -2
designations are characterized by single family residential uses with moderate density
two-family. While a mix of housing types is present,these areas contain basic
character of single-family neighborhoods, such as front and rear yards, driveways, and
garages. Small, neighborhood-scale commercial uses may currently exist to
complement the residential uses.The maximum residential density in the RN-1 district
is 3.5 units per acre. The proposed development's residential density is 3.5 units per
Tim Wales,P.E.
Regatta View,2nd Submittal
November 21,2018
Page 5
acre (calculated as 24 units/6.78 acres).The proposed duplexes are in keeping with
the intent and densities of the Future Land Use Map.
36.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.
37.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.
38. 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 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.
Tim Wales,P.E.
Regatta View,2nd Submittal
November 21,2018
Page 6
39. Urban and Community Forest Master Plan (2013) The "Urban and Community Forest
Master Plan" emphasizes the maintenance of existing trees and the establishment of
new street trees.
a. Meeting minutes from January 18, 2018 meeting indicate questions about
screening from Dyer Switch and Regatta View.The approved 1991 Concept
shows a different site layout with larger buffers and relatively smaller area of
disturbance. The new drawing shows smaller buffers between Flying Dutchman
lots 1 & 2 and the southern portion of the proposed street.The Planning Board
may want to consider requiring a clearing restriction easement along Route 9P
as an assurance for the screening/visual impact buffer.
40. 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.
In order to expedite and simplify the review of revised materials we would appreciate if the
next submission be accompanied by a response letter that describes the revised materials and
how our comments were/were not integrated.
Sincerely, .f
-....\ r
, ,ell • c_____,, _
6
l.
A
James 1. Connors, P.E., Associate
Sr. Director, Engineering Services
cc: Brad Birge, City of Saratoga Springs
Jen Nechamen, Paul Cummings/Ethan Gaddy, Chazen
File
Z:\projects\31600-31699\31604.XX-Saratoga Springs CDE master\31604_03 Regatta View-Area B,Ph 3\submittals\2nd submittal\sent\31604_03-
RegattaView-2nd submittal-2018-11-21.doc
THE CAPITAL DISTRICT OFFICE
l Engineers 547 River Street
Pia ers eyorsTroy, NY 12180
COM PAN IChaz,n2vnid
ES® Environmental&Safety Professionals P: 518.273.0055 or 888.539.9073
Landscape Architects
Proud to be Employee Owned Transportation Planners&Engineers www.chazencompanies.com
Mr. Tim Wales, PE
City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 February 18, 2019
Delivered via email:timothy.wales@saratoga-springs.org
Re: Planning and Technical Review of Documents—3rd submittal
Regatta View—Area B—Phase 3
State Route 9P, Dyer Switch Road and Regatta View Drive
City of Saratoga Springs, Saratoga County, New York
City Project No. PB# 16.018
Chazen Project No. 31604.03
Dear Tim:
The Chazen Companies (Chazen) have completed our review of the following materials received:
• Water Service Narrative prepared by EDP, dated December 2018
• Draft Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), dated October 2018 and revised January
2019, prepared by EDP
• Response to comments letter prepared by EDP, dated January 10, 2019
• Site Plans last revised November 2, 2018 (transmittal dated January 29, 2019), prepared by
EDP, consisting of the following 12 sheets:
1. Cover Sheet
2. Site Plan
3. Existing Conditions and Removals Plan
4. Subdivision Plan
5. Grading Plan
6. Utility Plan
7. Planting Plan
8. Road Profile
9. Erosion Sediment Control Plan
10. Site Details
11. Storm Details
12. Water and Sanitary Details
Following are our observations/comments:
The numbers correspond to our previous review letters dated June 27, 2016 and November 21, 2018.
Items that have been satisfactorily addressed are not repeated. New comments are presented in bold:
HUDSON VALLEY•CAPITAL DISTRICT• NORTH COUNTRY•WESTCHESTER• NASHVILLE,TN
Chazen Engineering, Land Surveying& Landscape Architecture Co., D.P.C. (New York)
Chazen Engineering Consultants, LLC(Tennessee)
Tim Wales, P.E.
Regatta View, 3rd Submittal
February 8, 2019
Page 2 of 6
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.
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.
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.
The applicant has updated the easement boundaries on the plans and indicated that
proposed legal descriptions will be submitted with the final plans.
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.
2. The updated watershed delineation map is unclear in its delineation of
Subcatchment 55, which includes a portion of the roof buildings and also appears
Tim Wales, P.E.
Regatta View, 3rd Submittal
February 8, 2019
Page 3 of 6
to include a portion of the rear of each lot. Please clarify the bounds of 55,
consistent with the grading plan.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As requested, we have also completed our review as it relates to the City Planning and public
concerns raised in previous meetings,these comments are presented below.
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.
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
Tim Wales, P.E.
Regatta View, 3rd Submittal
February 8, 2019
Page 4 of 6
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.
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 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.
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.
Tim Wales, P.E.
Regatta View, 3rd Submittal
February 8, 2019
Page 6 of 6
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.
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.
42. Please add a detail of the proposed 5' wide seasonal pedestrian path.
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.
In order to expedite and simplify the review of revised materials we would appreciate if the next
submission be accompanied by a response letter that describes the revised materials and how our
comments were/were not integrated.
Sincerely, f�IL
r e
0
� I
a j
I'
I
James J. Connors, P.E., Associate
Sr. Director, Engineering Services
cc: Brad Birge, City of Saratoga Springs
Jen Nechamen, Paul Cummings/Ethan Gaddy, Chazen
File
Z:\projects\31600-31699\31604.XX - Saratoga Springs CDE master\31604_03 Regatta View -Area B, Ph 3\submittals\3rd submittal\sent\31604-03_RegattaView-3rd
Submittal 2019-02-18.docx