Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20180533 385 Broadway Mixed Use Engineering Reviews 9/4/2018 Zimbra Zimbra timothy.wales@saratoga-springs.org PB# 18.036 385 Broadway review From :Timothy Wales <ti mothy.wa les@saratoga-spri ngs.org> Tue, Sep 04, 2018 02:27 PM Subject : PB# 18.036 385 Broadway review To : Douglas Heller <dheller@thelagroup.com> Cc :Al Flick <al.flick@saratoga-springs.org>, Kate Maynard <kate.mayna rd @saratoga-spri ngs.org>, Brad Birge <bbi rge@saratoga-spri ngs.org>, Tim Wales <tim.wales@saratoga-springs.org>, Jennifer Merriman <jennifer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org> Doug, I'll leave my marked up Plans for 385 Broadway with Kate for you to get at tonight's workshop. Our biggest comment is that the Applicant must replace the Sanitary Sewer going south on Broadway from the Division Street Manhole to the Manhole in front of Druthers. The existing sanitary sewer is not competent and we often have sewer breaks. Your survey will need to bring the survey & base mapping up to Division for this and also complete profiles with the plans. Additionally, there is a large utlity ductbank along the curb going south where you propose to replace the storm sewer with 12" pipe. The contractor tried this for druthers and did not have the space, instead installing Two 8-inch storm pipes. You should do some exploration in this area to determine what is feasible. Lastly, we'll need more detail on the construction, plantings, etc., for the Green Roof, as well as a more detailed operation and maintenance plan in the SWPPP. Tim Timothy W. Wales, PE City Engineer City of Saratoga Springs City Hall - 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 (518) 587-3550, ext. 2621 tim.wales@saratoga-springs.org Confidentiality/Privilege Notice: This e-mail communication and any files transmitted with it contain privileged and confidential information from the City of Saratoga Springs and are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity to which it has been addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or taking any other action with respect to the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete it and notify the sender by return e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation. https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=182539&tz=America/New_York 1/2 9/4/2018 Zimbra https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=182539&tz=America/New_York 2/2 Barton Sigguidice July 19, 2018 Timothy Wales, P.E.1 City Engineer City of Saratoga Springs 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, New York 12186 Re: 385 Broadway Apartment Pect Engineering Review File: 539.046.001 Dear Mr. Wales: Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C. (B&L) has completed a review of the following reports and information for the 385 Broadway Apartment pject proposed by385 Broadway, LLC. • Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) undated and unsigned; • Application for Site Plan Review signed by Thomas Newkirk and dated June 7, 2018; • Cost Estimate for Letter of Credit dated June 7, 2018; • Engineering Report for Water and Sanitary Sewer dated May 24, 2018 as prepared by LA Group, PC; w Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) dated May 24, 2018 as prepared by LA Group, PC; • Plan Set (l2Sheets) dated June 7, 2Ol8asprepared byLAGroup, PC; • Narrative as prepared by LA Group, PC, dated May 24, 2018; e City of Saratoga Springs Complete Streets Checklist, dated May 24, 2018; m New Water Service Agreement and Application. This review was conducted on behalf of the City of Saratoga Springs. The above referenced documents and information were reviewed only with respect to our scope outlined in our task order/proposal. The experience to listen The power to 10 Airline Drive,Suite 200,Albany,NY 12205 Office:518-218-1801 Fax:518-218-1805" BartonandLoguldice.com Timothy WalesP.E., City En 'neer City of Saratoga Springs July 19, 2018 Page 2 General 1. Has the p 'ertreceivedanycorrespondencefronnorcoondinatedvvithNYSSHPQin regard to the existing NYS Heritage areas or nearby historic district? 2. Provide city with colored elevations showing existing and proposed street trees. S. Are bike racks proposed in the parking garage? These will be most desired for residents as opposed to Broadway which are good for commercial business operations and should be retained, SEQR 1. Why does document list green/landscaping area as zero? There is not much proposed but some awn and landscaped area is proposed. Water and Sanitary Sewer 1. Add statement that existing system can provide sufficient quantity and flow rate for sprinkler systems from existing system without fire pumping to boost pressure. Is 6" water service sufficient for large fire event on multiple floors? Confirm anticipated fire flow demand (1,000 GPM) from building architect for appropriate building classifications and considerations of occupancy and construction materials. Confirm fire protection systems and water system capacity meets NYS Insurance Services Office and NFPA standards. Z. Where will a backflow preventer be located for this prject? Factor in RPZ and all head losses for fire prevention calculations and indicate available top floor pressures. S. Add a calculation of available pressure at the top floor shower heads at 6' above finished floor. Pressure is anticipated to be adequate. Needs to be 35-40 psi minimum. 4. How will water be made available for green roof irrigation during extended dry periods? Stormwater StonnvvabprPollution Prevention Plan /3NWoPpYstonnm/atermodeling 1. We suggest the continued use of the NYSDEC Stormwater Practice worksheets to aide with stormwater calculations green roofs but without exceeding maximum porosity levels. Value for drainage layer porosity seems higher than maximum. Show extent of green roof on the plan set. 2. Use P =1.2 inches in lieu of 1.15. water quality volume will not increase much. Z\Bz.voum/1D2\1xz17Aoz'zC71-4azs'ao27-o9onc*os4147ux154/oo0-\54/9eo\1541418\uLTirst Comment ur_7_\9_1asooBroadway Timothy Wales, RE., City Engineer City of Saratoga Springs July 19, 2018 4gt Page 3 3. The green roof detail lacks detail to know specifics to check calculation assumptions supporting 10-inch per hour infiltration, porosity and drainage layer characteristics. 4. Thegreenroofdetai) indicetesl° nnaxinnunmpond|ng but the horizontal orifices modeled are above that as well as peak elevations for the storms modeled. Please clarify and provide roof planting plan with slopes to roof drains with proposed elevations. 5. Is there an underdrain proposed for the green roof? How does drainage to the drainage layer shown at 2" depth get conveyed out of the roof system? G. Add in statement that upon completion and one year after to perform site inspection with city of Saratoga Springs staff to identify any needed corrective measures and/or maintenance. 7. Submit N(]I as required from revised calculations. 8. Provide operations and maintenance manual as a separate appendix in SWPPP. Cost Estimate 1. Costs for concrete curb (onsite) and granite curb offsite are very low and need to factor in excavation, asphalt sawcutting at Broadway, preparation and imported materials and placement. Costs presented should be doubled at least. 2. As built plan cost seems quite low. Plans L-2 I. Wooden split rail fence does not seem to fit the look of this site in our opinion and suspect a metal fence and railing system would be better suited. Detail does not indicate wooden system is pressure treated and believe this will require more maintenance than a metal based system. L-03 1. Provide more spot elevations for proposed grading along west part of site both south and north of garage entry. z�\13L-vu"mIc2\18217Am2-1c71-4823'8927'99o5c*054147\0\/541000-1541999\1541418xuoFi=st Comment u,_T_1sL1oso5Broadway Timothy Wales, P.E., City En 'neer City ofSaratoga Springs July 19, 2018 81.4 Page 4 L-04 1. We suggest substitution of NYSDOT type 2 sub-base where Type 4 is called out for better resistance to moisture, particularly beneath replacement curb on Broadway like concrete curb section and sidewalks. 2. For granite curb along Broadway that will be adjacent to parking and occasional mounting by trucks and adjacent to snowplowing activities we recommend continuous dry mix concrete under curb instead of just at joints for prevention of curb damage. L-06 1. Green /roof section requires much more detail regarding materials, depths, and product data. 2. Is 6-inch water service sufficient for proposed fire protection flows? DR[23DR[]4\ DRC2Sand DR[26 1. Provide colored elevations and show any rooftop equipment. 2. Is rooftop access still below maximum 70' building height? If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, BARTON & LOGUIDICE, O.P.C. . ' Bradley D. 'rant Senior Project Manager BDG/ 'f z:\aL-vuumuzz mz17Aoz 1c71-4m 3-8e2r-9so5c4o541470mw000 1541999\154w\auLo\Fustcommnntut.:r_1Y_m385 Broadway Barton Skiguidice September 4, 2018 Timothy Wales, P.E., City Engineer City of Saratoga Springs 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, New York 12186 Re: 385 Broadway Apartment P 'ect Second Engineering Review File: 539.046.001 Dear Mr. Wales: Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C. (B&L) has completed a review of the following reports and information for the 385 Broadway Apartment pject proposed by385 Broadway, LLC. • Response letter from BretStrom, P.E. from LA Group dated August 17, 2018; • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by LA Group and dated August 16, 2018; • Cost Estimate for Letter of Credit dated May 24, 2018 and revised August 15, 2018; • FEAF, revised and signed by Thomas Newkirk on August 16, 2018; • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) dated May 24, 2018 and revised August 16, 2018 as prepared by LA Group, PC; • Plan Set (12Sheets) dated June 7, 2018 and revised August 15, 2018 as prepared by LA Group, PC and the prject Architect; This review was conducted on behalf of the City of Saratoga Springs. It should be noted thatwe did not receive a revised Engineer's Report in this submission. The above referenced documents and information were reviewed only with respect to our scope outlined in our task order/proposal. General I. The project has received correspondence from NYSSHPO in regard to the existing NYS nearby historic district and this building is deemed non-historic? NYSSFIPO did comment that facade renovations should be appropriate to the surrounding historic district. We did not receive colored elevations and versions submitted appear unchanged and do not show street trees. Response letter indicated colored elevations and renderings were submitted to the City. The experience to listen The power to 10 Airline Drive,Suite 200,Albany,NY 12205 Office:518-218-1801 Fax:518-218-1805° BartonandLoguidice.com solve ® Timothy Wales, P.E., City En 'neer City ofSaratoga Springs September 4, 2018 81C Page 2 2. Response letter indicated green roof irrigation will be done by hand but did not indicate if water source was available close by or who would be doing this needed maintenance. This can occur appropriately if this role is recognized as crucial to roof green infrastructure investment during extended dry periods. Water and Sanitary Sewer 1. The response letter indicated the fire flow demand, backflow prevention means and available pressures will be determined by the fire protection designer and MEP designer but is apparently still a work in progress. It is anticipated that adequate capacity exists but yet to be confirmed. 2. Add a calculation of available pressure at the top floor shower heads at 6' above finished floor. Pressure is anticipated to be adequate. Needs to be 35-40 psi minimum. Stormwater Storm water Po//ution Prevention P/an (SWPPP)/storm water modeling 1. The response letter indicated that collection of the roof drainage will be detailed by the architect and MEP designer. 2. The stormwater management system will receive (upon completion and one year after) site inspections by a licensed professional to identify any needed corrective measures and/or maintenance. A report will be prepared and submitted to the owner with pertinent findings. 3. Provide manufacturer's operations and maintenance manual as a separate appendix in SWPPP once the green roof materials have been approved and installed complete as indicated in the response letter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, BARTON LOGUIDICE, D.P.C. I `����— / Bradley D. rant Senior Pject Manager BOGi �f z.\oz~vm"umco\Imz\7Aco-1Cr1-*oza-89z7-9om5C4o»*x*7m\1o71mo0-\571n9m/571*59uLoSm:onuCo_nmntur_oL*_1xsa5omadnu The LA GROUP Landscape Architecture di.Engineering P.C. People.Purpose.Place. 40 Long Alley Saratoga Springs NY 12866 p:518-587-8100 518-587-0180 www.thelagroup.com August 17, 2018 Timothy Wales, P.E., City Engineer City of Saratoga Springs 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 RE: 385 Broadway Apartment Project Engineering Review Dear Mr. Wales: The LA Group is in receipt of comments from Barton & Loguidice, dated July 19, 2018. The following are responses to the comments. General Comment 1: Has the project received any correspondence from or coordinated with NYSSHPO in regard to the existing NYS Heritage areas or nearby historic district? Response 1: NYSSHPO correspondence has been added to the SWPPP. Correspondence states the building is non-historic and they have no archaeological concerns. Comment 2: Provide city with colored elevations showing existing and proposed street trees. Response 2: Architectural renderings have been included in the DRC submissions, which the City has received. Comment 3: Are bike racks proposed in the parking garage? These will be most desired for residents as opposed to Broadway which are good for commercial business operations and should be retained. Response 3: Yes, bike racks are proposed in the northeast corner of the parking garage. SEQR 1 Comment 1: Why does document list green/landscaping area as zero? There is not much proposed but some lawn and landscaped area is proposed. Response 1: The land uses and covertypes have been updated on the SEQR document. Water and Sanitary Sewer miM Comment 1: Add statement that existing system can provide sufficient quantity and flow rate for sprinkler systems from existing system without fire pumping to boost pressure. Is 6"water service sufficient for large fire event on multiple floors? Confirm anticipated fire flow demand (1,000 GPM)from building architect for appropriate building classifications and considerations of occupancy and construction materials. Confirm fire protection systems and water system capacity meets NYS Insurance Services Office and NFPA standards. Response 1: The fire flow demand will be determined by the building fire protection designer. The architect's mechanical designer will verify the size of the incoming service. Comment 2: Where will a backflow preventer be located for this project? Factor in RPZ and all head losses for fire prevention calculations and indicate available top floor pressures. Response 2: The MEP designer will determine backflow preventer location and configuration inside the building. They will also verify available pressures within the building. Comment 3: Add a calculation of available pressure at the top floor shower heads at 6' above finished floor. Pressure is anticipated to be adequate. Needs to be 35-40 psi minimum. Response 3: The MEP designer will verify available pressures within the building as part of the building plumbing design. Comment 4: How will water be made available for green roof irrigation during extended dry periods? Response 4: During extended dry periods, the green roof will be manually watered by maintenance personnel. Stormwater AMIE Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)/stormwater modeling Comment 1: We suggest the continued use of the NYSDEC Stormwater Practice worksheets to aide with stormwater calculations green roofs but without exceeding maximum porosity levels. Value for drainage layer porosity seems higher than maximum. Show extent of green roof on the plan set. Response 1: The porosity of the drainage layer has been revised to 25%for the green. The total extent of the green roof is 3,784 SF. The layout of the green roof can be found on detail 5 of plan sheet L-06. Note that since this is a redevelopment project 25% of the WQv is required to be treated. The NYSDEC worksheet for green roofs produces an error in calculations as it does not account for the fact that the project is redevelopment. Comment 2: Use P =1.2 inches in lieu of 1.15. water quality volume will not increase much. Response 2: In accordance with Figure 4.1 of the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual, the 90th percentile rainfall for Saratoga Springs is 1.15 inches. WQv calculations will maintain the 1.15 inch rainfall number as this rainfall depth has been consistently used on projects in Saratoga Springs. Comment 3: The green roof detail lacks detail to know specifics to check calculation assumptions supporting 10-inch per hour infiltration, porosity and drainage layer characteristics. Response 3: Material callouts have been added to the plans. Permeability of soil media ranges according to product data. Infiltration rate used conservative lower end of the permeability range. Comment 4: The green roof detail indicates 1" maximum ponding but the horizontal orifices modeled are above that as well as peak elevations for the storms modeled. Please clarify and provide roof planting plan with slopes to roof drains with proposed elevations. Response 4: The orifices for the green roofs are modeled at 0.1' above the engineered soil in accordance with detail 6 on sheet L-06. The 0.1' maximum ponding refers to the maximum ponding prior to utilization of the overflow orifices. Larger storm events with peak elevations above the overflow orifice are contained by the green roof walls which are lined with a waterproof membrane. Comment 5: Is there an underdrain proposed for the green roof? How does drainage to the drainage layer shown at 2" depth get conveyed out of the roof system? Response 5: The drainage layer connects directly to the building's roof drainage system. No underdrains are used. Collection of the roof drainage will be detailed by the architect and building MEP designer. Comment 6: Add in statement that upon completion and one year after to perform site inspection with city of Saratoga Springs staff to identify any needed corrective measures and/or maintenance. Response 6: The SWPPP states that"All post-construction stormwater management facilities must be inspected annually by a qualified professional, a report prepared and submitted to the City Engineer documenting the inspections as well as the maintenance activities that were completed during the prior year." Comment 7: Submit NOI as required from revised calculations. Response 7: The project disturbs less than one acre of land and therefore does not require coverage under the NYS general stormwater permit. Comment 8: Provide operations and maintenance manual as a separate appendix in SWPPP. Response 8: Maintenance requirements for the green roof are listed in section 6.2 of the SWPPP. A manufacturer operation and maintenance manual will be provided to the owner once all green roof materials have been approved and installation is complete. Cost Estimate Comment 1: Costs for concrete curb (onsite) and granite curb offsite are very low and need to factor in excavation, asphalt sawcutting at Broadway, preparation and imported materials and placement. Costs presented should be doubled at least. Response 1: The unit cost for both onsite concrete curb and offsite granite curb factor have been revised. Comment 2: As built plan cost seems quite low. Response 2: The as-built plan cost has been updated. Plans - iiim L-2 Comment 1: Wooden split rail fence does not seem to fit the look of this site in our opinion and suspect a metal fence and railing system would be better suited. Detail does not indicate wooden system is pressure treated and believe this will require more maintenance than a metal based system. Response 1: Comment noted, fence has been revised to chain link. L-03 Comment 1: Provide more spot elevations for proposed grading along west part of site both south and north of garage entry. Response 1: Additional spot elevations for the grading along the west of the site have been added. All new asphalt is to be blended with existing asphalt within the property boundaries. L-04 Comment 1: We suggest substitution of NYSDOT type 2 sub-base where Type 4 is called out for better resistance to moisture, particularly beneath replacement curb on Broadway like concrete curb section and sidewalks. Response 1: The concrete sidewalk and curb details have been updated to call out type 2 subbase in lieu of type 4 subbase. Comment 2: For granite curb along Broadway that will be adjacent to parking and occasional mounting by trucks and adjacent to snowplowing activities we recommend continuous dry mix concrete under curb instead of just at joints for prevention of curb damage. Response 2: Comment noted. L-06 Comment 1: Green /roof section requires much more detail regarding materials, depths, and product data. Response 1: Additional information has been added to the green roof detail. Comment 2: Is 6-inch water service sufficient for proposed fire protection flows? Response 2: Yes,water usage calculations are provided in the engineer's report. DRC 13, DRC 14, DRC 15 and DRC 16 Comment 1: Provide colored elevations and show any roof top equipment. Response 1: Colored elevations and roof top equipment are included in DRC applications that have been submitted to the City. Comment 2: Is rooftop access still below maximum 70' building height? Response 2: Per City Code "height limitations shall not apply to architectural features not used for human occupancy or mechanical equipment." The top of the roof is 63'2". The rooftop access is not for human occupancy. Sincerely, I „ ) i• / iii;il // / ...,,, Brett C. Strom, PE Civil Engineer bstrom©thelagroup.com G:\Proj-2018\2018050_Burns_385_Broadway\2018050Admin\01Correspondence\2.7Review_Comments\2018 07-23 Burns-385 Broadway_Comment Response-revl.docx