HomeMy WebLinkAbout20221065 500 Union Longfellows Renovations 2023-02-03 Comment Response LeterFebruary 2, 2023
Matt Zeno
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
RE: 500 Union Avenue
City of Saratoga Springs, Saratoga County, New York
Dear Mr. Zeno:
The following comments pertain to the submission package for 500 Union Avenue, Saratoga Springs, NY. A comment
letter was received on January 12, 2023 from the Laberge Group. Responses to the comments are in bold below.
Site Plan Application and Review Submittal Checklist
Comment 1: Item 8: Setback lines do not appear to have been shown on the drawings.
Response 1: This project is located in within the Interlaken PUD, Zone AA. There are no setback requirements
codified for this zone within the PUDD.
Comment 2: Item 11: Property owner across the street is not shown.
Response 2: Property owner across the street has been added to sheet S-1.
Comment 3: Item 16: Proposed soil stockpiles and staging areas could not be found on the drawings.
Response 3: Soil stockpile and staging areas have been added to sheet L-1.0.
Site Plans
Comment 1: All plan drawings with road designation "New York State Route 9P" should include denotation "Union
Avenue".
Response 1: Union Avenue has been added to all sheets.
Comment 2: Some detail callouts still have XX in the numbers.
Response 2: Detail call outs with XX have been updated to reflect appropriate detail tags.
Comment 3: The applicant should have the plans reviewed by the fire department. It is not clear if fire trucks will be
able to gain access to the rear of the building from the gravel drive to the east of new building.
Response 3: Plans were sent to the fire department and a meeting has been requested for review.
Comment 4: Sheet L-2: Some new employee parking is being added to the southwest corner of the site shown
behind existing parking with no new access provided. Cars will be parked two deep along the length of
this row. This is not a typical arrangement, even when the parking is for employees.
Response 4: The expanded employee parking comment is noted and paint markings will be utilized to denote
employee only parking. The employees parking in this location will be working similar shifts and
will be aware they are restricted to this area.
Comment 5: Sheet L-3 (sheet l of 12): Southeast corner of new building, grading appears to be above the finished
floor of the building.
Response 5: A foundation stem wall is proposed to extend above the finished floor elevation at this corner of
the building. The intent is to preserve existing drainage patterns in this corner while also
ensuring stormwater is directed away from the building.
Comment 6: Sheet L-3: Northwest corner of the site, HDPE drain under shading is not visible.
Response 6: This has been corrected so HDPE pipe is visible.
Comment 7: Sheet L-4: Similar to previous, some shading appears to be blocking out features beneath.
Response 7: This has been corrected so that the HDPE pipe is visible.
Comment 8: Sheet L-4: Applicant should confirm ownership of the water pipes within the property limits.
Response 8: LA Group confirmed with City staff (Matt Zeno) that the water pipes within the property limits are
owned by the applicant.
Comment 9: Sheet L-4: Plans say to connect to existing lateral with same size pipe at enlarged northern building.
The applicant's engineer should confirm that a bigger lateral is not needed since the building will be
larger and occupancy/use will change.
Response 9: This line has been eliminated from the plans in coordination with the project MEP, and supply
will be through the existing lateral on the south side of the building for the entire building. The
existing water main on site is 8”. The existing lateral size is not known, however, the contractor
will verify the size. If a new lateral is required (because the existing one is too small to service
the entire building) then the contractor will perform a tap on the existing 8” main on site.
Engineering Narrative
Comment 1: Page 2: Summary of design flows: Why is a peaking factor of only 2.25 being used? Typically, a
peaking factor of 4 is used.
Response 1: The peaking factor has been updated to be 4.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Comment 1: Section 3.6: Should mention that the wetland is hydrologically contiguous with Lake Lonely.
Response 1: Section 3.6 has been revised to state that eventually the wetland drains to Lake Lonely,
however, the discharge from the site is not considered a ‘direct discharge’ to Lake Lonely. The
general permit defines direct discharge as “mean(ing) that runoff flows from a construction site
by overland flow and the first point of discharge is the specific surface waterbody, or runoff
flows from a construction site to a separate storm sewer system and the first point of discharge
from the separate storm sewer system is the specific surface waterbody.”
Comment 2: MS4 SWPPP Acceptance Form: Saratoga Springs will need to sign this form for inclusion in the
SWPPP to be kept at the site once all reviews are complete.
Response 2: Comment noted.
Comment 3: Section 3. 7: This section mentions a geotechnical report prepared by Vernon Hoffman, PE included in
Appendix B. This report could not be found in Appendix B of the digital SWPPP document provided.
Submittal and review of this report is recommended.
Response 3: Boring logs from the geotechnical investigation have been included in Appendix B, Attachment
A.
SWPPP Appendix B: Stormwater Management Report
Comment 1: The drainage from the western half of the 2-story hotel building should be included in the calculations of
the adjacent drainage area or be added as a drainage area. Drainage from the west side of this building
is collected by inlets and directed to the north to the same storm drainage pipe that discharges at AP-I.
In addition, drainage down the stone path west of the building ends at a catch basin at its northern
terminus, which also connects to the same drainage pipe network. This should be factored into both
pre- and post-development calculations.
Response 1: Drainage from this portion of the building have been added to the pre- and post-development
calculations.
Comment 2: Section 4: The table comparing existing conditions to proposed conditions should also include the
condition of the project completed but without the stormwater management controls proposed. This will
demonstrate the increase in runoff posed by the development and the effect that the management
structures will have. The text should be clear that this is possible considering the overland flow paths,
infiltration rates of the soil and storm water pipe sizes. This evaluation will be dependent on the
geotechnical report and may require additional infiltration rate tests. In addition, the redevelopment
allowance must be factored into this analysis.
Response 2: Analysis reviewing the proposed conditions without stormwater management controls has not
been included. LA Group is not aware of any DEC or City requirement requiring this
analysis. DEC requires analyzing pre-development and post-development flow rates, which is
included in the SWPPP. The project proposes an increase of 6,500 s.f. of impervious area which
will be treated and attenuated by the underground infiltration system. Additionally, water quality
calculations which account for existing disturbed and new impervious area is included in
Appendix D of the SWPPP.
Comment 3: Section 5.2: It is unclear how the WQv was calculated. This section should include an explanation of the
impervious cover of the drainage area and how it was considered in the redevelopment. It is stated
earlier in the report that the project involves a combination of redevelopment and new development.
The Stormwater Management Design Manual includes specific instructions on what constitutes a
redevelopment and how to calculate runoff from a redeveloped area. As such, in conformance with The
Manual a specific analysis should be performed regarding the portion of the project that is considered
redevelopment and the portion that is considered new development, and how they equate to the total
WQv.
Response 3: This discussion has been added to section 5.2 of the Stormwater Management Design Manual.
Additionally, detailed WQv calculations are included in Attachment D of the SWPPP.
Comment 4: Section 5. 4: An evaluation should be provided to demonstrate how the CPv is reduced by the proposed
methods.
Response 4: The required CPv is provided in the Stormwater Management Report and the calculations are
included in Attachment D. The volume is reduced via infiltration at the on site infiltration system.
Comment 5: Section 5.5: The evaluation should show how the proposed practices attenuate the Qp and Qf flows. As
mentioned above, Table 4-1 does not show the increase in peak rates and the subsequent effect that
the stormwater management practices have on the increase. It may be possible to eliminate the need
for extreme event attenuation due to the project draining directly to the wetland of Lake Lonely. If this
approach is taken, it must be clear that all on-site flow from the extreme event can reach the wetland
without travelling through any off-site systems.
Response 5: HydroCAD reports included in Attachment C depict inflow and outflow from the proposed
stormwater management practices. As mentioned in response #2, a separate analysis on post-
development flow rates with and without stormwater management practices is not a DEC or City
requirement. The project does not drain directly to a fifth order or larger stream, and therefore
Stormwater Manual requires attenuation of runoff.
Comment 6: Section 6.0: The proposed stormwater management practices are only proposed in the middle of the
main parking area. However, a large portion of the project area drains directly to AP-1 and therefore
bypasses the proposed practice. The stormwater evaluation should examine each area separately to
ensure that the net result still reduces the flow rates by the required amount. It is clear from the network
layout that the drainage area was delineated properly, but the details are not described sufficiently in
the narrative.
Response 6: Since all the nodes are currently directed to AP-1, the resulting overall flow rates indicate that
the stormwater runoff is attenuated at that analysis point. Additional details have been added to
the Stormwater Management Report and calculations are included in the HydroCAD report.
Notice of Intent
Comment 1: Item #9: Should mention that the wetland is contiguous with Lake Lonely. It should be confirmed that
Lake Lonely is not on any of the protected waterbody lists (Items IO through 12).
Response 1: There is no direct discharge to a tributary to Lake Lonely or Lake Lonely. Regulations only apply
to ‘direct discharges’ to those impaired segments. See Response 1, Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan.
SEQR Long Form
Comment 1: Item E.2.c: The percentage values indicated for the various soil types do not conform to those shown in
the SWPPP.
Response 1: The SEQR form has been corrected to reflect the NRCS soil data, which is the information
contained in the SWPPP.
Comment 2: Item E.2.h: Lake Lonely should be included as a waterbody adjoining the site.
Response 2: There is no direct discharge to Lake Lonely, therefore it has not been included as a waterbody
adjoining the site. The EAF Mapper has identified that no impaired water bodies adjoin the site.
Sincerely,
Douglas B. Heller, PE
Principal/Civil Engineer
dheller@thelagroup.com
G:\Proj-2021\2021075_Saratoga_Hotel_and_Spa_Longfellows\2021075Admin\01Correspondence\2.7Review_Comments\2023-01-16
Comments\2023-01-16 Comment Response Ltr.docx