The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20190084 Regatta View Phase 3 Chazen comments - 4th submittal THE CAPITAL DISTRICT OFFICE Ch aKed,n CivilLand Engineers 547 River Street Surveyors Planners Troy, NY 12180 COMPANIES Environmental&Safety Professionals P: 518.273.0055 or 888.539.9073 Landscape Architects Proud to be Employee Owned Transportation Planners&Engineers www.chazencompanies.com Ms. Susan Barden,AICP City Principal Planner City of Saratoga Springs 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 April 17, 2019 Delivered via email: susan.barden@saratoga-springs.org Re: Planning and Technical Review of Documents—4th 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 Susan: The Chazen Companies (Chazen) have completed our review of the following materials received: • Comprehensive response to comments letter prepared by EDP, dated March 29, 2019 • Traffic Evaluation letter prepared by VHB, dated March 8, 2019 • Draft Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), dated October 2018 and revised March 2019, prepared by EDP • Site Plans last revised March 13, 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, November 21, 2018, and February 18, 2019. 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) Susan Barden,AICP Regatta View, 4th Submittal April 17, 2019 Page 2 of 5 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. 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. The applicant has indicated in their most recent response letter that they wish to submit a set of Development Parameters in lieu of submitting architectural plans and elevations for review and approval.The applicant indicates that Development Parameters are listed on the site plans.The Cover Sheet contains Design Guidelines that address garages, building separation, and layout constraints related to unique facades. The site plans, however, do not address the proposed building materials or architectural style, although the applicant has described the general appearance in the comment response letter. The City should review the Design Guidelines and the applicant's response to Comment 3 in the comment response letter and determine if additional information is required to address this comment. We do not have any objection to this approach. 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 acknowledges these as outstanding items. We cannot recommend approval of the SWPPP until the NOI and MS4 SWPPP Acceptance Form are updated with the name of the HOA and the outstanding items noted in comment 44 are addressed. Susan Barden,AICP Regatta View, 4th Submittal April 17, 2019 Page 3 of 5 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. 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. EDP acknowledges this. The City will need indicate how they would like the applicant to proceed in this regard. 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 at 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. Susan Barden,AICP Regatta View, 4th Submittal April 17, 2019 Page 4 of 5 EDP acknowledges this. The City will need indicate how they would like the applicant to proceed in this regard. 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. The Applicant has provided updated drawings(Sheet 2, Detail 3) indicating that there will be an 8' wide, paved pedestrian pathway.The details on the sheet are inconsistently labeled.The drawing shows an 8'wide"seasonal pedestrian pathway"and the detail shows a "paved town path section". The Applicant should update titles/labels on the plans to eliminate this discrepancy. 44. Based on review of the updated HydroCAD model submitted the following additional comments need to be addressed: a. The post-development stormwater delineation map does not appear to label all subcatchments.The legend indicates a bold black line as the subcatchment boundary, and boundaries are shown throughout the site without corresponding subcatchment labels. Please update the delineation map to clearly delineate and label all subcatchments. Specifically, it is unclear how the rear of each lot is modeled in the HydroCAD model.Also, the scale of the map is not legible enough to confirm the modelling/routing of the system— please provide 30'scale maps for review. b. The post-development stormwater model indicates that the north portion of the site drains to an on-site depression labeled 2P.The HydroCAD model of 2P is not consistent with the grading plan.The HydroCAD model indicates a depression bounded by the 261 and 262 contours, but neither of these contours are closed on the grading plan. Please clarify. c. The HydroCAD model includes an on-site depression labeled as 4P under the post- development conditions which is not shown on the post-development watershed delineation map. Please clearly identify where this exists on the map. Susan Barden,AICP Regatta View, 4th Submittal April 17, 2019 Page 5 of 5 d. It appears that the onsite depression (believed to be 4P) is the existing swale within NYS Route 9P. This depression should also be modeled in the pre-development model to accurately compare the rates of runoff from the development area. Please revise accordingly. e. The HydroCAD model indicates that infiltration practices 1 and 2 storage capacity is exceeded during the 100-year storm event.The top of stone storage reservoirs are 259.75 and 259.00 for INF1 and INF2, respectively with corresponding peak water surface elevations of 261.61 and 260.16(these are at or above the finished grade over each system). Please update the designs and HydroCAD model accordingly. f. The HydroCAD model indicates that infiltration practices 1 and 2 will discharge to low spots in the road labeled 1P and 5P. It is unclear how this will be achieved. Please label these points in the post-development watershed delineation map and on the site drainage map. g. The overall watershed areas for pre-and post-development models are 9.1±and 7.6±acres respectively. Please update the model since the current underestimates the runoff. 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. i Sincerely, �j �s • i. 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\4th submittal\sent\31604-03_RegattaView-4th Submittal_2019-04-17.docx