Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190299 Saratoga Golf and Polo Expansion Correspondance The LA GROUP Landscape Architecture&.Engineering P.C_ Peep/.Purpose.Place. 40 Long Alley Saratoga Springs NY 12866 p.518-587-8100 518-587-0180 www,thelagroup.com April 30, 2019 Ms. Susan Barden, AICP City Principal Planner City of Saratoga Springs 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 RE: Saratoga Golf and Polo Club Expansion of Member Facilities 301 Church Street, City of Saratoga Springs, Saratoga County, New York Dear Ms. Barden: The LA Group is in receipt of comments from the Chazen Companies, dated April 26, 2019. The following are responses to the comments. Plans and SWPPP will be revised accordingly and submitted to the City and Chazen at a later date. General Comment 1: The City's project number of 19.299 should be added to all site plan application and construction documents. Response 1: The City's project number will be added to all site plans. Water Sewer Engineering Report Comment 2: The report should include a discussion regarding the capacity of the existing City of Saratoga Springs municipal wastewater system to handle the increase in load resulting from this project, particularly at SCSD Lift Station No. 1. Please revise. Response 2: The proposed upgrades to the site will not affect off-site sewer flows as membership of the facility will remain unchanged by the project. Comment 3: 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. Please revise the report to discuss this and provide documentation of the results of the test. Response 3: Hydrant flow testing will be added to the Engineers Report. Historic hydrant flow tests at the Church/Outlook and Church/Myrtle Street intersections indicated residual pressures of 40 psi flowing at 825 gpm. This pressure and flow is adequate to service the project. Comment 4: A fire flow demand was not provided in the engineering report. Please provide the calculated needed fire flow for the proposed buildings. Response 4: Fire flow data will be provided in an updated Engineering Report. Project Cost Estimate Comment 5: The provided on-site cost estimate is not reflective of all structures/utilities specified in the design plans. Missing items on the cost estimate include (but are not limited to): flared end sections, catch basins, stormwater planters, platform tennis courts with associated fencing, etc. Please revise the cost estimate to include missing items. Response 5: The cost estimate will be updated to reflect all proposed site improvements. Site Plans Comment 6: Setback dimensions are missing on Sheets L-1.0, L-2.0, and L-2.2. Please revise the sheets to include setback dimensions and label setback lines accordingly on all sheets. Response 6: The property setbacks and dimensions will be added to the necessary site plans. Comment 7: No value is specified for the "Provided Front Setback Accessory" on the Cover Sheet. Response 7: The cover sheet will be updated with the provided front setback accessory dimension of 66'which meets the required minimum setback of 60'. Comment 8: The Zoning Board Variance Approval Comment 2 details that "The proposal includes vegetative screening and a landscape berm to minimize visual impact to the property bordering the proposed project, a parking lot for Saratoga Hospital". If the parking lot immediately north of the site is the one referenced, it appears such measures have been omitted from the current plans. Please clarify. Response 8: The variance comment is in reference to the hospital parking lot to the east of the project site near the stabilized parking spaces within the lawn on the project site. There is an existing landscape berm along the property line that will remain undisturbed by the project. Comment 9: A construction entrance is shown on Sheet L-1.0 adjacent to the existing pool. The construction entrance should be moved to the access point for areas of disturbance; currently, it is located in the middle of an area of disturbance and does not appear that it would provide any meaningful protection. It may be beneficial to provide two construction entrances for the two general work areas on the site and because there are two access points to the site. Response 9: The construction entrance will be relocated to provide the most adequate protection for the disturbed areas on site. Comment 10: No pavement/sidewalk, etc. restoration is specified where utilities are proposed to run under existing asphalt pavement. Please revise the plans to depict and detail all work associated with trenching pipe through existing pavement. Response 10: Pavement and sidewalk restoration details will be added to the site plans for the proposed water and sanitary line located between the cabana and clubhouse. Comment 11: Fire hydrants are not shown in the Site Plans. Please revise the Plans to include the locations and distances to nearest fire hydrants. Response 11: The location of the existing fire hydrants will be added to the site plans. Comment 12: Please indicate the size and materials of existing water and sanitary sewer mains that will service the project. Additionally, Sheet L-4.2 details an "8-foot watermain". Please revise accordingly. Response 12: The existing water main is 8" DIP and sewer is 8" PVC. Sheet L-4.2 will be updated to add these callouts. Comment 13: Though the handicap accessible parking quota has been met, no van accessible handicap parking spaces are designated. Please revise accordingly. Response 13: All proposed handicap parking spaces are van accessible. Van accessible signs will be added to detail 3, Sheet L-6.1 Comment 14: Please provide additional spot elevations at all handicap parking spaces to assure the slopes do not exceed the required minimum. Response 14: Additional spot shots will be provided around the handicap parking spaces. Handicap spaces will not exceed 2% slope. Comment 15: Please define the ADA-compliant accessible route from the designated handicap parking stalls to the existing clubhouse and proposed cabana and ensure it meets all applicable standards and regulations. Response 15: ADA routes will be added to the plans. All routes will meet ADA standards. Comment 16: Please demonstrate compliance with Chapter 9 of the Fire Code which requires fire access roads to service within 150'feet of all portions of exterior buildings - it appears that there are portions of buildings on this site that do not meet this requirement. Please provide fire truck maneuvering plan showing access through the site. Response 16: All proposed buildings have a fire an access road within 150'. A fire truck maneuvering plan will be added to the site plans. The access around the existing building will remain unchanged. Comment 17: A grease trap for the Cabana was specified in the Engineers Report but is not identified on the plans. Please revise accordingly. Response 17: The grease trap is within the building and therefore is not included in the site plans. Details for the grease trap will be reviewed during building permit submissions. Comment 18: The plans do not specify the design, type of construction or materials, or dimensions for the proposed buildings. Please submit the architectural drawings complete with these specifications. Response 18: Buildings have already received DRC approval from the City. Comment 19: The plans do not include details on any proposed site lighting improvements or modifications. Please indicate whether additional lighting is proposed or indicate where existing site lighting may be adequate. Response 19: The site lighting will remain as it exists and any new lights will be attached to the building and reviewed as part of the building permit. Comment 20: The plans show multiple silt fences that run perpendicular to elevation contours. Please revise the placement of silt fences following NYS Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control. Response 20: The silt fence locations will be updated in accordance will with the NYS Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control. Comment 21: Please revise the design to include gas and electric utilities that are to service the proposed structures. Drawings should reflect the location of utility lines, points of connection and the location of meters. Response 21: Location of proposed underground gas and electric utilities have never been required as part of the site plan review previously. New transformers are not anticipated as part of the project. Location of meters will be determined by MEP/Architect and submitted as part of the building permit submission. Comment 22: Sheet L-1.0 contains errant hatching that indicates the removal of a concrete patio and walkway beyond the actual footprint of the concrete indicated in the survey. Please clarify. Response 22: The hatching indicating proposed site amenity removal will be updated. Comment 23: Detail 1 Sheet L-6.2 does not conform to the City of Saratoga Springs standard details. The specified pipe zone backfill should be "well graded sand with 3 -inch maximum particle size and not more than 10% passing #200 sieve...". The plans indicate NYSDOT Size 1 &2 crushed aggregate for pipe zone backfill which has a larger gradation than the City standard. Please revise and cross reference all details to ensure conformance with City standards. Response 23: Detail will be revised to indicate NYSDOT Size 1 stone shall be used. Comment 24: Please add dimensions to the concrete crescent immediately south of the proposed tennis courts on Sheet L-2.1. Response 24: Dimensioning will be added to the concrete crescent. Comment 25: Sheet L-2.1 seems to have an errant callout, suggesting to "tie new fence into existing fence" where no fence exists. Please revise. Response 25: This callout will be removed from the site plans. Comment 26: Sheet L-3.2 shows underdrain and storm lines that run parallel to the proposed Proshop in the stormwater planter. The stormwater planter detail only shows one pipe underneath the planter. Please clarify. It appears as if they may conflict(4" UD invert 353.5 and 6" St Invert 352.8) Please also specify the underdrain material. Response 26: The 4" perforated underdrain and 6" outlet pipe connecting the two planter yard drains will run parallel to one another. The underdrain pipe connection to the yard drain will be connected so that it is not in conflict with the 6" outlet pipe. SWPPP Comment 27: The Environmental Assessment Form for this project indicates that 1.6 acres will be disturbed while the Notice of Intent indicates that 2.2 acres will be disturbed. Please correct the discrepancy and show and list the total area of disturbance on the plans. Response 27: A portion of the work is considered maintenance and was not included in the EAF form as it will be done regardless of the approval for this application. The work pertaining to the pond, pond overflow drain, and the sanitary realignment are the items that have been viewed as maintenance items. Comment 28: Section 4.1 of the SWPPP notes: "Seed and mulch bare soil areas within 14 days of disturbance unless construction will resume in that area within 21 days". However, the SPDES General Permit requires that stabilization be initialized in such areas by the end of the next business day and be complete within 14 days. Please revise the note accordingly. Response 28: The SWPPP will be revised. Comment 29: The NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual (SWMDM) indicates that maintenance activities for bioretention areas shall include cleaning/reparation of the outlet device when drawdown exceeds 36 hours and limiting vegetation height to 18". These requirements are not included in the SWPPP; please revise. Response 29: The SWPPP will be revised to include maintenance activities for the bioretention basin. Comment 30: The stormwater management system for the project includes expansion of an existing wet pond. The pre-development model assumes the pond storage starting at elevation 349.00 and lists available volume down to 347.00. a. Has the pond been surveyed to confirm the existing storage volume? b. The model indicates an existing 6" outlet at an elevation of 349.00 whereas the survey indicates a 12" outlet without an invert. Please confirm and revise as necessary. Response 30: a. The existing pond elevations have been confirmed by facility staff. b. The existing pond outlet at the pond is a 6" PVC that transitions to a 12" pipe. Therefore,the existing pond outlet is modeled using a 6" outlet pipe. Comment 31: The boundaries of Subcatchments 1 and 4 are not consistent between the pre- and post- development delineation maps in areas that do not have any proposed grading. Please clarify. Response 31: The subcatchment boundaries will be revised to ensure consistency between the pre and post development HydroCAD models. Comment 32: The stormwater model indicates that the area west of the bioretention area (Subcatchment 8 on the post-development delineation map)will discharge to the proposed bioretention area. However, the grading plan suggests that runoff from this drainage area would be diverted by the retaining wall and flow south, bypassing the bioretention area. Please confirm and revise as necessary. Response 32: Runoff from the area west of the bioretention basin that drains towards the retaining wall will enter the bioretention basin though opens in the retaining wall. Further detail will be added to the plans. Comment 33: The HydroCAD model for practice 2P (the stone reservoir for the proposed platform tennis courts) is not consistent with the site plans/details. The model shows 0.2 feet of storage above the stone which is not reflected on the plans. Also, the model shows a 96' long by 10' breadth broad-crested weir while the plans suggest the stone reservoir would overflow towards the low point at the northeast corner of the reservoir. Please provide details of the platform tennis courts and their relationship to the stone reservoir being installed beneath them. Response 33: Detail 11 on sheet L-6.0 shows a detail of the stone beneath the platform tennis courts. The broad crested weir will be removed from the HydroCAD model as the stone reservoir beneath the tennis courts infiltrates the 100-year design storm. Comment 34: Please clearly label all practices on the post-development watershed delineation map. Response 34: The stormwater management practices will be clearly labeled in the post development watershed map (Sheet W-2). Comment 35: FB-2 in the HydroCAD model does not appear to be consistent with any practice shown on the plans. We assume that this is intended to model a depression in the center of a cul-de- sac on the south side of the property, but these contours are not labeled in the grading plan and the outlet elevations included in the HydroCAD model are not consistent with inverts shown on the plans in this vicinity. Please revise. Response 35: FB-2 is a sediment forebay within the center of the cul-de-sac at the proposed pro shop. The contours will be clearly labeled on the site plans and the pipe inverts will be revised to ensure consistency. Comment 36: The yard drain detail in the site plans does not indicate size— please add and confirm consistency with the HydroCAD model. Response 36: The yard drain size will be added to the grading plan and detail. Comment 37: Please dimension the bioretention weir on the site plans and ensure consistency with the HydroCAD model. Response 37: A 15' dimension on the bioretention weir will be added to the site plans. This dimension is consistent with the broad crested weir modeled in HydroCAD. Comment 38: The stormwater planter elevations in the HydroCAD model are not consistent with the elevations noted on the site plans. The model shows elevations from 359'to 360'with an underdrain at 355', while the plans show elevations from 356' to 357' with an underdrain at 353.5'. Please revise. Response 38: The HydroCAD model will be updated to reflect the elevations proposed on the site plans. Comment 39: The wet pond elevations in the HydroCAD model are not consistent with the elevations noted on the site plans. The model shows elevations from 345'to 350.5'while the plans show elevations from 345' to 350'. Please revise. Response 39: The site plans will be updated to reflect the elevations modeled in HydroCAD. Comment 40: The detail for the wet pond outlet control structure indicates that the outlet pipe is 12"while the HydroCAD model and site plans show this pipe as 18". Please confirm which is required and revise accordingly. Response 40: The outlet control structure detail will be updated to show a 18" pipe outlet. Comment 41: In accordance with the SWMDM, pretreatment is required for 25% of the WQv for bioretention areas. Please update the SWPPP to describe how pretreatment is provided and update the plans accordingly. Response 41: Additional explanation of the pre treatment for the bioretention will be added to the SWPPP. Comment 42: Please clearly indicate which WQv design method described in Chapter 9 of the SWMDM for redevelopment projects has been applied to the site. It appears that Method II has been selected which requires treatment of 25% of the total disturbed impervious area and 100% of the new impervious area. However, WQv treatment has not been provided for some new impervious areas, including the proposed tennis platforms and proposed warming hut on the north side of the site. Response 42: Method II of Chapter 9 for redevelopment projects was used to calculate required stormwater treatment quantities. The proposed bioretention basin, stormwater planters and wet pond provide stormwater treatment for both new and existing impervious area which meets the required treatment volume for the site. The platform tennis and warming hut are not being treated as the site's treatment volumes are already met. Comment 43: The channel protection volume calculations in the SWPPP apply runoff reduction volume from SMP-3 (the wet pond). However, wet ponds do not have RRv capacity in accordance with the SWMDM. Please indicate how the channel protection volume will be provided for the site. Response 43: Per Section 4.4 of the SWMDM, "an individual orifice may not be required for CPv at sites where the resulting diameter of the ED orifice is too small to prevent clogging." SMP-3 provides a 3" orifice, which is the smallest recommended orifice per the Design Manual. The storage between the 3" orifice and the Overbank Flood and Extreme Flood orifices provide the required CPv for the project. Sincerely, ,,,,-, /' / �i n t.i' ,,, , .." Brett C. Strom, PE Civil Engineer bstrom@thelagroup.com G:\Prof-2018\2018074_Saratoga_Golf and_Polo_Expansion\2018074Admin\01Correspondence\2.7Review_Comments\2019 04-29 Comment Response Ltr..docx