HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190084 Regatta View Phase 3 Response to Chazen 5-29-19 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
e PARTNERSHIP LLP. 900 Route 146 Clifton Park,NY 12065
(P)516.371.7621 (F)513.371.9540 edpllp.com
Shaping the physical environment
May 28, 2019
Ms. Susan Barden
Principal Planner
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
Regarding: 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
Dear Ms. Barden:
The Environmental Design Partnership, LLP(EDP) previously responded to The Chazen Companies technical
review letters dated June 27, 2016, November 21, 2018, February 18, 2019 and March 28, 2019. The following
includes full responses to the April 17, 2019 comments.
For your convenience the relevant text of the original The Chazen Companies comment is included followed
by EDP's response in bold.
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.
EDP Response: Comment Noted
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
Ms. Susan Barden ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LLP.
May 28, 2019 Shaping the physical environment
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.
EDP Response: Comment Noted.
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.
EDP Response: The HOA name, "Regatta View, Inc—A HOA", has been added to the NOI and
the SWPPP. It should also be noted that it is the applicant's intention to offer the roadways
for dedication to the City of Saratoga Springs, at which point, the City of Saratoga Springs
would be responsible for ownership and maintenance of the SWM practices.
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.
EDP Response: The easements have been clearly delineated and legal descriptions have
been provided. Easements will include the Saratoga County Sewer District following the
existing sanitary sewer main and the City of Saratoga Springs following the proposed
roadway.
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
900 Route 146 Clifton Park,NY 12065
2
(P)518.371.7621 (F)518.371.9540 edpllp.com
Ms. Susan Barden ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LLP.
May 28, 2019 Shaping the physical environment
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.
EDP Response: Comment Noted.
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 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.
EDP acknowledges this.
The City will need indicate how they would like the applicant to proceed in this regard.
EDP Response: Comment Noted.
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.
900 Route 146 Clifton Park,NY 12065
3
(P)518.371.7621 (F)518.371.9540 edpllp.com
Ms. Susan Barden ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LLP.
May 28, 2019 Shaping the physical environment
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.
EDP Response: The titles and labels throughout the plans have been updated to be
consistent. The path will consist of an 8'wide,seasonal use, pathway.
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.
EDP Response: The rear of the proposed lots is included in subcatchments 8S and 9S. A
24"x 36" map of the post-development drainage conditions has been included with the
stormwater narrative.
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.
EDP Response: The grading has been updated to more clearly show the on-site
depression.
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. 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.
EDP Response: The on-site depression 4P has been removed from the post-development
HydroCAD model.
d. 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
INF 1 and I N F2, respectively with corresponding peak water surface elevations of 261.61 and
900 Route 146 Clifton Park,NY 12065
4
(P)518.371.7621 (F)518.371.9540 edpllp.com
Ms. Susan Barden ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LLP.
May 28, 2019 Shaping the physical environment
260.16 (these are at or above the finished grade over each system). Please update the designs
and HydroCAD model accordingly.
EDP Response: Infiltration Practice#1 (INF 1)was sized to fully store and infiltrate runoff
from storm events, up to and including the 25-year storm event. During larger storm
events, including the 100-Year storm event,water will back up onto the road for
approximately 50 minutes before it enters the infiltration chamber.
Infiltration Practice#2 (INF 2) has been updated to fully handle the 100-year storm event
without any surcharging.
e. 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.
EDP Response: The HydroCAD model was revised to include these low spots in the road
as separate, non-embedded storage volumes under INF#1 & INF#2.
f. 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.
EDP Response: Rather than model each individual lot,two"typical" lots were used to model
the two types of different lots proposed within the residential community. For clarity,
subcatchments 5S1 and 55-P1 were relabeled as 115 and 115-P.
Subcatchments 5S/5S-P are representative of 10 lots. Subcatchments 115/115-P are
representative of 14 lots. The total area represented by these two "typical" subcatchments is
1.51 acres,which makes up the difference between the pre and post development HydroCAD
models.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Dar, P.E.
Environmental Design Partnership
cc:
900 Route 146 Clifton Park,NY 12065
5
(P)518.371.7621 (F)518.371.9540 edpllp.com