HomeMy WebLinkAbout20230032 Crescent & Jefferson Site Plan Response to City Comments
May 23, 2023
Susan Barden, AICP
Saratoga Springs Planning Board
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
RE: Response to Review Comments
LaBella Project No. 2224112
Dear Ms. Barden:
We have received the following comments from Barton & Loguidice and the City Department of Public
Works from you on April 26, 2023, and offer the following point-by-point responses below.
Comments from Barton & Loguidice to the City of Saratoga Springs, dated March 31, 2023:
General
1. Comment: Is there a survey map of the property available? Some survey information is shown
on the two wetland maps, DEC-1 and Corp-2 but do not identify adjacent properties fronting
Bunny Lake Drive and show an un-labeled (easement?) approximately 40’ wide. Please provide
a survey map with all adjacent property owners and label 40’ wide linework that turns towards
project property.
Response: The Applicant is in the process of working with Hershberg & Hershberg, to prepare
a survey map as requested. A complete survey will be submitted upon receipt. The owner of
Bunny Lake Drive is also the current owner of the subject property and an easement for access
over Bunny Lake Drive will be given in recordable form at closing of title to the property.
2. Comment: Provide legends applicable to all plan sheets. The extent of porous pavement should
be included in legend on sheet G002.
Response: Refer to Sheet G002 for legends. Porous asphalt will be added to the legend.
3. Comment: Sheet C120 shows trail route and presumed footbridge across wetlands and other
linework at Bunny Lake Drive east of the site property line that is unclear. What does the short,
bolded linework represent?
Response: The short, bolded linework represents the approximate limits of work. Additional
labels indicating such will be added to the plans for clarity.
4. Comment: Show project site on location map on cover sheet please.
Response: The project site will be shown and called out on Sheet G001.
2
5. Comment: Two dumpsters are proposed for entire complex and located west of many of the
proposed units. Is a third conceivably needed for the waste stream for the number of units
proposed? It is good they will not be seen from Bunny Lake Drive but residents on the east
side will have to walk a good distance to access them, particularly in the winter and snow.
Response: Phinney Design Group has indicated that the proposed buildings will have interior
trash rooms/chutes for residents to dispose of refuse, and the management will be
responsible for conveyance to the dumpsters. As such, Liberty finds two trash enclosures
acceptable for their residents at this time.
Building Elevations
1. Comment: Are roof gutters proposed? If not drip edge stabilization is necessary to limit
splattering on siding at grade level.
Response: Phinney Design Group has indicated that roof gutters are not proposed. As such,
stone drip edges along the building will be added to the plans as the building roof line designs
are finalized.
SEQR/FEAF
1. Comment: The project received a negative declaration On page 3 of the FEAF it notes 9 acres
of disturbance and later on indicates a single phase. See stormwater management comments
regarding NYSDEC requirements for 5 acre variance to disturb more than 5 acres at a time
which seems unlikely to be obtainable at this site.
Response: As noted in the Barton and Loguidice letter, the project has completed the SEQR
process and received a negative declaration from the City Council on December 20, 2022. As
part of that process, the long EAF form was prepared and evaluated. The questions in this
section relate to a process which has been complete. However, we are providing necessary
information related to each issue. The project is not proposing to disturb more than 5-acres at
any given time. Areas will be temporarily/permanently stabilized in conformance with the
NYSDEC Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control and GP-0-20-001.
2. Comment: On page 5 the value of 35,420 gallons per day (GPD) is not the same as the water
report (34,200 GPD). Please clarify.
Response: See above comments related to SEQR process and issuance of a negative
declaration on December 20, 2022. The 35,420 GPD in the FEAF was based on a proposed
action of 215 units total. The current plan set includes 212 units equating to 34,320 GPD as
demonstrated in the water report dated January 13, 2023. As such, the project is below the
threshold established during SEQR.
3. Comment: On page 7.j.v there is discussion of ingress and egress via Bunny Lake Road with
an easement for ingress and egress. The viability of the proposal depends on an easement.
What is the status of obtaining this?
Response: See above comments related to the SEQR process and issuance of a negative
declaration on December 20, 2022, which contemplated the access being provided by the
current owner of Bunny Lake Drive. The Applicant and Ferradino Firm, PLLC have confirmed
with the owners of Bunny Lake Drive that the access easement from Bmhd Inc. and Saratoga
3
Harness Racing, Inc. will be conveyed at the closing of title for purchase of the property. A copy
of the draft easement is in process and will be provided to the City upon receipt.
4. Comment: On page 7.vii, there is mention of a traffic study with recommendations for clearing
of vegetation for vehicle site distance. Please submit the latest version of this report to the City
and B&L.
Response: See above comments about the SEQR process and issuance of a negative
declaration on December 20, 2022. The updated traffic study will be submitted to the City.
5. Comment: On Page 8 there is discussion of a proposed 19.88-acre conservation easement.
Show metes and bounds and label this easement. Are walking trails proposed in this easement
area?
Response: See above comments regarding the SEQR process and issuance of a negative
declaration on December 20, 2022. As discussed with the Planning Board during the SEQR
process, the walking trail is proposed within the 19.88-acre conservation easement. Metes
and bounds and labels will be added to Sheet C130.
Site Plan Review Checklist
1. Comment: No. 13 is check as not applicable but the private road and conservation easements
are discussed in the FEAF. Is there an existing easement on Bunny Lake Road for another
property(s)? A conservation easement is also proposed. See first general comment.
Response: Checklist item 13 in the site plan checklist will be revised to yes. Refer to
SEQR/FEAF response 3 above as relates to the ingress/egress easement over Bunny Lake
Drive.
Water System Demand Report
1. Comment: What will the required fire flow demand be for the buildings? Size water service and
fire protection system components based on available system capacity via the municipal water
main system. Conduct fire flow tests of existing area hydrants or obtain recent tests the City
has records of to confirm the system can comfortable provide that needed fire flow and sized
per ISO and NFPA standards. Coordinate with the city engineer’s office and DPW prior to any
tests.
Response: Theoretical fire flow calculations, based on data taken from the “Flowed and
Residual Test Location Map August 2013” prepared by the Chazen Companies dated
08/13/13 and provided by the City of Saratoga Springs Engineering Department, are being
finalized and will be submitted to the City. The required fire flow demand and fire protection
design for the buildings will be determined by the project MEP (Mechanical, Engineering,
Plumbing engineer). The Applicant and Phinney Design Group are in the process of selecting a
project MEP who will address this comment during site plan review.
Cost Estimate for Letter of Credit
1. Comment: Some items have low unit prices that particularly, in the current inflationary
environment, that should be raised substantially as they seem 30-50% low at least. Most
however seem fine. Please review items for all types of asphalt, concrete sidewalks, bike racks
4
(with foundations) 41, 47, 48 (greater depth conceivable) and add in a terminal flushing
manhole for the pressure sewer. Items 19, 11, 25, 47, 48 and 51 are considered low.
Response: Line items 11, 19, 25, 41, 47, 48 and 51 will be revised in the estimate that will
be finalized during site plan review. The manhole within Jefferson Street is included in line
item 52.
Plans
C130-Overall Site Plan/C135 Site Plan
1. Comment: Provide legend or callouts for playground, dumpsters and perhaps other features
not covered by legend.
Response: Legends and callouts were previously provided. Refer to Sheet C135.
2. Comment: Show fire truck and bus routes and turning plan to confirm adequate space is
provided for ladder fire truck and other large trucks accessing the site. Is the intent to have
CDTA buses and school buses pick people up at the bus shelter. Has the City Fire Chief
reviewed the plan?
Response: Supplemental figures will be provided to demonstrate a fire truck, school bus and
SU-40 vehicle movement through the site. The supplemental figures will be circulated to the
City Fire Chief for review.
3. Comment: The center area of parking and pavement has 12’ width in east and west ends. Is
this area for just passenger cars and presumably not for fire or other truck access?
Response: The boulevard is not designed as a fire apparatus access road, using the
dimensional requirements in the International Fire Code Chapter 5. Supplemental figures will
be provided to demonstrate a fire truck around the project site. In addition, two hydrants will
be added to provide 150 ft hose length around the buildings for coverage.
4. Comment: Have “isolated wetlands” shown west of Bunny Lake Drive and south of proposed
building status been confirmed by ACOE?
Response: The “isolated wetlands” have received a jurisdictional determination from ACOE
indicating that Wetlands B and C are to be excluded from the Clean Water Act jurisdiction.
Wetland A is regulated by both NYSDEC and ACOE. A copy of the jurisdictional determination
and wetland delineation report will be submitted to the City.
C136 Offsite Improvements Plan
1. Comment: On Jefferson Avenue please show existing sanitary sewer inverts at connection point
as well as internal steps hopefully on west side opposite force main entry. Verify step location
and notate whether they need to be reinstalled away from new force main entry.
Response: The existing sanitary sewer inverts at the connection point and will be added. In
addition, the step location will be noted to be on the structure western wall.
5
2. Comment: To avoid excessive splatter and odors show force main entry with bend(s) that direct
discharge to outlet pipe as opposed to perpendicularly inside structure with a simple detail.
Response: Detail 1/C570 will be revised.
3. Comment: Is that a proposed fence below the label of silt fence on 4/136? Please label intent
and reference detail.
Response: 4/C136 shows proposed contours and temporary silt fence. Permanent fencing is
not proposed.
4. Comment: Have “isolated wetlands” shown west of Bunny Lake Drive and south of proposed
buildings status been confirmed by ACOE?
Response: The “isolated wetlands” have received a jurisdictional determination from ACOE
indicating that Wetlands B and C are to be excluded from the Clean Water Act jurisdiction.
Wetland A is regulated by both NYSDEC and ACOE. A copy of the jurisdictional determination
and wetland delineation report will be submitted to the City.
C140 Grading and Drainage Plan
1. Comment: Label internal contours of two depressed areas in center of project.
Response: Contour labels will be provided.
2. Comment: The western portion of the project near the cul-de-sac and bus shelter should have
additional drainage structures to decrease dependence on sheet runoff over pavement and
likely a curb break to allow runoff to exit paved area and enter practice east of playground.
This would help alleviate concerns for sheet runoff in freezing conditions across large areas of
pavement where vehicle turning movements including buses have to negotiate.
Response: Grading will be revised at the cul-de-sac and bus shelter in order to address this
comment and any potential for sheet runoff. Additional structures will be added if warranted.
3. Comment: Show yard drain in center of project at drainage pipe junction just west of building.
Response: A yard drain will be added in the southwest corner of the southern building.
4. Comment: Label width of overflow weir at basin and reference detail for rock lined outlet
channel to downstream toe of slope to protect embankment slopes/integrity from erosion.
Response: The width of the overflow weir and the basin and reference for outlet protection will
be added.
5. Comment: Are any slope areas scheduled for erosion control blankets coverage or other means
of stabilization?
Response: Erosion control blankets will be added to slopes 3:1 and steeper.
6. Comment: How are sediments being managed if they reach the basin?
6
Response: Refer to Sheets C150 and C550 for erosion and sediment control practices, in
conformance with the NYSDEC Blue Book and GP-0-20-001.
7. Comment: Show construction sequencing phases to ensure no more than 5 acres of
disturbance exists at one time and progression of stabilization throughout construction.
Response: Construction sequencing phases will be added.
8. Comment: Are curb breaks proposed at dumpsters for truck access?
Response: Curb breaks are not proposed at dumpsters. It is intended for truck loading to be
from the vehicle’s side.
C150 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan
1. Comment: Label silt fencing.
Response: Refer to Sheet C/150.
2. Comment: Are temporary sediment control basins proposed to limit conveyance from point of
origination and deposition to installed elements of storm drainage system?
Response: Refer to Sheets C150 and C550 for erosion and sediment control practices, in
conformance with the NYSDEC Blue Book and GP-0-20-001.
3. Comment: Add notes to reference to specific details elsewhere in drawing set and construction
sequencing plan. Include stone lining and spillway details.
Response: Notes will be added referencing details within the set.
4. Comment: Notate sensitive areas where construction traffic is to avoid damaging pavement
subbase, bottom of stormwater management practices and need for site soil decompaction.
Response: Sheet C150 will be revised to show orange construction fencing around areas of
infiltration practices. In addition, a note will be added regarding decompaction in accordance
with the NYSDEC.
5. Comment: Label concrete washout station.
Response: Refer to Sheet C150.
6. Comment: Show material laydown area and any sacrificial stabilized fill to support construction
activity to protect road subbase and infiltration areas.
Response: A construction staging area will be added to the plans.
7. Comment: What is the rectangular hatched area east of stormwater basin near construction
entrance on south end of site?
Response: The rectangular hatched area will be revised to circular for clarity. This area is a
temporary soil stockpile.
7
C160 Utility Plan
1. Comment: We recommend an additional fire hydrant in the center area of grass between
buildings near the crosswalk to reduce hose lengths. Show locations of exterior connections
to sprinkler system.
Response: Two additional hydrants will be added, in the east corner of the northern building
and above the loading space sidewalk of the southern building. Hydrant locations provide 150
ft hose length to the building. Fire hydrant locations will be coordinated with the Fire District
and revised accordingly. Locations of exterior connections will be added.
2. Comment: Show sizes of existing water main(s) and label water main and valve sizes proposed.
Response: The size of the Crescent Ave water main will be added. Proposed water mains and
valve sizes will be added.
3. Comment: Show invert of force main at pump station.
Response: The invert of the force main at the pump station will be added.
4. Comment: Is discharge from CB-1 without stormwater treatment?
Response: The stormwater design meets 100% runoff reduction volume (RRv) as required by
GP-0-20-001 through green infrastructure techniques (conservation of natural areas and
porous pavements). As such, the area tributary to CB-1 is not required to be directed to a
practice for treatment.
5. Comment: Provide outlet structure with two discharge pipes within that includes inlet controls
at bottom.
Response: No outlet control structures are proposed on the project.
6. Comment: Are roof gutter proposed? Fall from three story height will likely dirty siding without
mitigation in the form of stone strip.
Response: Phinney Design Group has indicated that roof gutters are not proposed. As such,
stone drip edges along the building will be added to the plans as the building roof line designs
are finalized.
7. Comment: Is water main infrastructure to be owned and maintained by the city or privately
owned? If the former an easement would be required to allow maintenance and routine
flushing.
Response: The water main infrastructure will be privately owned and maintained. A master
water meter pit will be provided near the water main connection to Crescent Ave.
8. Comment: Hydrants are shown quite close to curbs and likely to be buried in snow from
plowing. We recommend 6’ back from curb and away from tree plantings.
8
Response: Detail 1/C560 will be revised to show hydrants 6’ from curb lines adjacent to
roadways.
9. Comment: Tree planting should be 10’ minimum from utilities. Remove tree close to sewage
force main downstream of pump station.
Response: Tree planting locations near utilities will be adjusted to maintain 10’ minimum
separation.
10. Comment: Show pump control panel on plan and ensure it is detailed to include vapor blocks
that prevent sewer gases from entering into electronics of control panel via conduits.
Response: The pump control panel will be shown on Sheet C160. Detail 1/C575 will be revised
to identify vapor blocks.
C180 Landscaping Plan
1. Comment: We recommend trees have a minimum caliper of 2-1/2” to increase survivability
and speed of screening.
Response: The plant schedule will be updated to reflect the minimum caliper of 2.5”.
2. Comment: Remove one of Colorado Blue Spruce trees too close to force main near pump
station.
Response: The tree near the force main line will be removed.
3. Comment: Provide a foundation plantings table that allows location and sizes of proposed
plantings at foundations and understory area of trees.
Response: Refer to Sheet C190. The Landscape Plan includes a foundation plant palette of
large and small shrubs with a subdivision for each for Sun and Shade applications.
C190 Photometric Plan
1. Comment: Are the lighting values shown include lights mounted on buildings?
Response: Photometric plan does not include light levels from building mounted lights.
2. Comment: Are additional lights needed at bus stop building?
Response: The proposed plan provides an adequate amount of light. As the plan develops
further, any gaps in light levels will be filled with building mounted lights.
3. Comment: Provide a legend regarding types of lighting fixtures.
Response: A lighting table will be provided.
C530 Site Details
9
1. Comment: Note crowning of pavement and subgrade to drain to the edges on pavement detail.
Response: Detail 1/C530 will be revised.
C531 Site Details
1. Comment: Per recommendation from Tom Baird of our office there have been
recommendations to NYSDEC on installation and cross sections relative to porous pavement
that include:
a. 3-inch minimum for porous asphalt top courses as 2-inch tends to “squishing” out
sides.
b. Choker Course should be 1-inch as deeper depth results in rutting from paving
equipment ahead of asphalt placement. Specify AASHTO 2 not DOT 2 stone.
c. Need specs on pavement on the plans.
d. Greater than 12-inches of reservoir depth is conceivable. Practice and application
must be computed using NYSDEC GI worksheets.
e. Decompaction/scarification of subgrade is recommended.
Response: A porous asphalt detail was provided as detail 6/C531. For clarity the detail will be
relocated as 11/C540. The section will be revised. Practice sizing calculations for porous
pavement are within Appendix C Table C2 of the SWPPP. This calculation follows the
calculation provided Table 5.16 of the NYSDEC Stormwater Management Design Manual
(2015). Use of the NYSDEC Green Infrastructure worksheet is not required under GP-0-20-001
or the NYSDEC design manual.
C575 Pump Station Details and Notes
1. Comment: Many elevations are marked xxx.xx and need to be filled in.
Response: Detail 1/C575 will be revised.
2. Comment: What is diameter of wet well?
Response: Detail 1/C575 will be revised to show the diameter of 6 feet.
3. Comment: Typically lift stations have a separate valve vault for the check valves and isolation
valves and avoid submerging check valves.
Response: Detail 1/C575 will be revised.
4. Comment: Link seal is recommended for all pipe entries/discharges.
Response: Detail 1/C575 will be revised.
5. Comment: Fill in pump station data. Single phase seems unlikely given amount of flow.
Response: Detail 1/C575 will be revised.
6. Comment: Vent pipe is typically 6-inch painted steel to better resist sunlight exposure and
vandalism.
10
Response: Detail 1/C575 will be revised.
7. Comment: Who will own and maintain pump station?
Response: The pump station will be owned and maintained by the Applicant.
8. Comment: Is there an on-site emergency generator as discussed in note 13?
Response: Detail 1/C575 will be revised.
9. Comment: Recommended signage regarding no unauthorized access to pump station area. Is
a fenced enclosure proposed?
Response: Detail 1/C575 will be revised to include a lockable access hatch. A sign and fenced
enclosure are not proposed.
SWPPP
1. Comment: Performance and storm event peak elevations and ability to infiltrate are unknown
since they are not modeled specifically with HydroCAD pond nodes that utilize these
parameters of underground runoff storage via void areas in the stone and outflow via discharge
to the soils via infiltration and likely come controls via mid media underdrains. A sample pond
model node is enclosed that with a porous pavement application that assess maximum
storage levels at all storm events over time. The includes of 6-8 total pond nodes (3-4 per side)
dedicated to porous pavement proportionate to the runoff areas of the model.
Response: The post-development HydroCAD model will be revised to include a curve number
of 98 for porous pavement areas and the porous pavement tributary areas directed to ponds
modeled with storage.
2. Comment: The method of using large area application of curve number 57 with pond nodes
discussed above is problematic.
Response: Refer to SWPPP response 1 above.
3. Comment: The proposed application for porous pavement is presumed to be in all areas and
unsure if traditional pavements are also used. See comments for plans to delineate features
with legends. Areas at the dumpsters and bus loading areas may not perform well with porous
pavement unless a thicker/three-layer design is proposed. Smaller areas of traditional
pavement can still have storage value if the same reservoir courses are beneath as in the
porous adjacent pavement areas.
Response: The loading areas are standard asphalt pavement.
4. Comment: There are concerns for porous pavement installation methods as ultimately outlined
in the design plans that, together with a contractor experienced with successful
implementations of this green infrastructure pavement, can result in years of good service.
There are nuances of placement that should be outlined in pavement specifications that need
to go on the plans including mix design, temperatures delivered, rolled and when to stop rolling
that are vital to a lasting installation. Applications with curbed islands, bump outs and other
challenges require different equipment and more handwork.
11
Response: Comment acknowledged.
5. Comment: We recommend increasing porous pavement area curve number to 98 and
including pond nodes for the porous pavement areas as discussed above. See installation and
modeling attachments.
Response: Refer to SWPPP response 1.
6. Comment: The infiltration rate for the various nodes could be around 10 inches per hour that
represents a safety factor of two from an average rate of say 20 inches per hour. The 180
inches per hour seems to be an anomaly and best thrown out as such. Additional permeability
testing would seem prudent given the A/D soil classification in the soil survey.
Response: Falling head testing previously performed was for feasibility purposes. LaBella is
currently coordinating with the Applicant for additional falling head tests in the areas of porous
pavement. Once additional testing has been completed, results will be added to the plans and
incorporated into the SWPPP.
7. Comment: Plan notes should include actions if perched groundwater is encountered in
subgrade excavations for porous pavement. Strategic implementation of weeps/underdrains
at catch basins or low areas can help control groundwater in this porous pavement application.
Since water quality volume is achieved below any embedded underdrain in the reservoir stone
it really serves as an overflow in extreme runoff events. Please utilize the NYSDEC green
infrastructure sizing excel worksheets and include in re-submission.
Response: The project does not propose underdrains in the porous pavement at this time as
falling head infiltration testing demonstrated adequate infiltration rates. The design may be
revised at a later date dependent on additional testing results.
We have received the following comments from the City of Saratoga Springs Department of Public
Works, and offer the following point-by-point responses:
Comments from City of Saratoga Springs Department of Public Works, dated April 26, 2023
1. Comment: New sewer force main is not shown for its entirety on any plan sheet. Add plan sheet
showing limits where sewer force main will be installed. Include callouts, receiving pits if being
directionally drilled, profile, etc.
Response: An additional sheet will be added to the plan set showing the force main from the
pump station to Jefferson St.
2. Comment: Multiple labels/callouts/descriptions upside down on multiple sheets, rotate
labels/callouts/descriptions as necessary, to correct rotation in each plan view.
Response: Labels will be revised for clarity.
3. Comment: Add work/clearing limits line type and callouts, confusing line type used (tree line
line type?) when comparing to legend on sheet G002.
12
Response: Limits of disturbance and tree lines are provided on Sheet G002. Additional callouts
will be added to sheets, as necessary, for clarity.
4. Comment: Confirm approval of the plans from the City of Saratoga Springs Fire Department.
Response: The plans will be circulated to the Fire Department.
5. Comment: Show turning radiuses for trucks, buses, and fire trucks.
Response: Supplemental figures will be provided to demonstrate a fire truck, school bus and
SU-40 vehicle movement through the site. The supplemental figures will be circulated to the
Fire Department for review.
6. Comment: Sheet G002, datum states using North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83). The City
of Saratoga Springs standard is National Geodetic Datum, 1929.
Response: Sheet G002 has been revised to reflect the datum used in the survey information
provided by Hershberg & Hershberg., NAVD 88. The Applicant is currently having a survey
prepared (refer to general comment 1) and the plans will be updated to reflect the National
Geodetic Datum 29 upon receipt of updated survey information.
7. Comment: Sheet G002, under 'Force Main Testing', leakage test numbers shown are for 1 hour
only. Leakage tests run 2 hours, update numbers to correspond to 2 hour test.
Response: The maximum allowable leakage on Sheet G002 will be revised to specify maximum
allowable leakage in gallons per hour per 1,000 ft of pipe (GPH). These quantities are based
on an equation taken from the AWWA C605 standards.
8. Comment: Sheet C135, show locations of detectable texture warning and callout on plans.
Response: Sheet C135 will be revised to identify detectable warning strips.
9. Comment: Sheet C135, callout all signs as each sign is different (stop, handicap, charging,
etc.) Do not use typical.
Response: Sign designations will be added to sheet C135.
10. Comment: Sheet C135, parking stalls numbers should encapsulate greater number of stalls.
Group up areas so less count callouts are needed. There should be a total number.
Response: Refer to Sheet C130 for the total required and provided parking counts. Refer to
C135 for parking stall counts per bay of stalls.
11. Comment: Sheet C135, use different hatching/shading for porous pavement vs typical asphalt
pavement. It is unclear where porous paving is to be installed.
Response: The hatching for the porous pavement will be revised.
12. Comment: Give a detail for porous pavement
13
Response: A porous asphalt detail was provided as detail 6/C531. For clarity the detail will be
relocated as 11/C540
13. Comment: Why was porous pavement the only stormwater practice implemented?
Response: The project proposes both conservation of natural areas and porous asphalt as
shown in Appendix C Table C1 and C2 in the SWPPP to meet the GP-0-20-001 water quality
requirements. Both water quality and quantity controls meet the requirements of GP-0-20-001.
14. Comment: Sheet C136, the connection of the force main to the existing sewer manhole is
connecting to the Saratoga County Sewer District. Send them these plans for review and
confirm you have approval from them.
Response: The January submission plans and sewer loading calculations were submitted to
the County Sewer District for review on May 17, 2023.
15. Comment: Sheet C150, additional concrete washout areas needed due to size of site.
Response: Refer to Sheet C150. A note indicating that washout locations may be adjusted as
necessary based on construction will be added. The NYSDEC Blue Book Standards and
Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control (page 2.24) does not specify the quantity of
concrete washouts required based on the site of the site. Washouts will be maintained in
accordance with the Blue Book requirements.
16. Comment: Sheet C160, additional valve needed at tee near CB-5 heading west. Additional
valve needed at tee near YD-6.
Response: Additional valves will be provided.
17. Comment: Sheet C160, remove two valves connecting to the existing main as only the tapping
sleeve and valve is needed as per the callout. Add callout for sizing of tee and size of existing
water main.
Response: The two valves connecting to the existing main will be removed. The size of the tee
and existing water main will be added to the plans.
18. Comment: Sheet C160, overflow areas needed for detention basins.
Response: Refer to C140 and C160. An overflow weir and two overflow pipes are provided for
the southern detention basin. An overflow pipe is provided for the northern detention basin.
19. Comment: Sheet C160, from YD-6 to FES-3, multiple invert in elevations are lower than invert
out elevations, re-evaluate and update.
Response: Inverts will be adjusted to provide positive drainage.
20. Comment: Sheet C160, missing bend callout at watermain bend within detention basin.
Response: The water main location will be shifted out of the detention basin footprint.
14
21. Comment: Sheet C160, watermain is placed underneath detention basin and within existing
ditch near existing connection point. Profile and additional bends needed for this section of
watermain. Consider alternative path to avoid going under detention basin.
Response: The water main location will be shifted out of the detention basin footprint.
22. Comment: Sheet C160, North East Parking lot grading has elevations making the middle of
the parking lot a low point. Show or explain how storm water is supposed to shed in this area.
Response: The grading in the northeast parking lot will be revised to sheet water over the
porous pavement.
23. Comment: Sheet C180, multiple tree callouts on plans are not a part of the City of Saratoga
Springs Approved Species List, re-evaluate and update.
Response: The planting list on Sheet C180 will be revised.
24. Comment: Sheet C560, hydrant installation detail has correct “open right” nomenclature and
correct manufacturer. Tapping sleeve and valve detail and typical gate valve detail have
incorrect nomenclature for valve operating direction and manufacturer (which shall only be
Mueller).
Response: Detail 2/C560 will be revised.
25. Comment: SWPPP, post-construction management has sheets pertaining to permeable
pavement. Per the details and drawings, site is to have porous pavement installed. Include
proposed post-construction management sheets within the SWPPP.
Response: The SWPPP will be revised to include specific post-construction maintenance
requirements for porous asphalt.
26. Comment: In the letter dated January 13, 2023 to Deborah LaBreche it was requested that
this office verify that the municipal system can accommodate the increase in demand. This
office will provide LaBella a will serve letter after the County agrees to accept the increase in
sewer flows and after LaBella had done the proper research to determine what the flows are
in that area.
Response: The January submission plans and sewer loading calculations were submitted to
the County Sewer District for review on May 17, 2023.
27. Comment: LaBella will also have to determine if there is adequate fire flow protection for the
buildings.
Response: Theoretical fire flow calculations, based on data taken from the “Flowed and
Residual Test Location Map August 2013” prepared by the Chazen Companies dated
08/13/13 and provided by the City of Saratoga Springs Engineering Department, will be
submitted to the City. The required fire flow demand and fire protection design for the
buildings will be determined by the project MEP, who will be engaged shortly.
28. Comment: Add City of Saratoga Springs Standard Note.
Response: City standard notes will be added to G002.
15
29. Comment: Show sewer main on Jefferson St.
Response: The sewer main on Jefferson St. will be added to the plans.
30. Comment: The test pits were done during a relatively dry fall what are the elevation of the
seasonally high ground water in the test pits?
Response: The deep test results were included in Appendix K of the SWPPP. As shown in the
soil profile description, the depth to groundwater is included when encountered. However, the
profile description also included if the soil encountered above the groundwater was wet or if
grey sandy loam was present. The elevation of the seasonally high-water table was considered
where the soil was wet or grey, not necessarily at the elevation encountered.
If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at
sdrury@labellapc.com or at (518) 266-7307.
Respectfully submitted,
LaBella Associates, D.P.C.
Sara Drury, EIT
Civil Engineer
cc: Randell Denton – Liberty Affordable Housing, Inc.
Nicole Peek – Liberty Affordable Housing, Inc.
Stephanie Ferradino, Esq. – Ferradino Firm, PLLC
Steven Dodds, AIA – Phinney Design Group
Michael Phinney, AIA – Phinney design Group
Courtney Davis, EIT – LaBella Associates
Walter Kubow, PE – LaBella Associates