HomeMy WebLinkAbout20230032 Crescent & Jefferson Site Plan Response to Comments 2023 06 14
June 9, 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:
Attached please find one copy of each of the documents below.
· Site Plans prepared by LaBella Associates, last revised June 9, 2023.
· Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by LaBella Associates, last revised June 9,
2023.
· Traffic Assessment Letter prepared by Creighton Manning, dated May 2, 2019.
· City of Saratoga Springs Site Plan Submittal Review Checklist, dated May 12,2023.
· Hydrant Test Log, prepared by LaBella Associates, dated August 2, 2013.
· USACOE Jurisdictional Determination, dated August 17, 2020.
· Turning Movement Figures, prepared by LaBella Associates, dated May 16, 2023.
· Wetland Delineation and Endangered Species Screening, prepared by Quenzer
Environmental LLC, dated July 2019.
· Cost Estimate for Letter of Credit prepared by LaBella Associates, dated June 9, 2023.
· ITE Trip Generation Supplement
We have received the following comments from Barton & Loguidice, and offer the following point-by-
point responses:
Comments from Barton & Loguidice, 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: A complete survey will be submitted under separate cover.
2. Comment: Provide legends applicable to all plan sheets. The extent of porous pavement should
be included in legend on sheet G002.
2
Response: Legends are provided on Sheet G002. Porous asphalt has been 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: There is no trail currently proposed as part of this project. The short, bolded
linework represents the project work limits and follows the path of the proposed force main
and associated tree clearing. Additional labels indicating such have been added to the plans
for clarity.
4. Comment: Show project site on location map on cover sheet please.
Response: The project site has been shown and called out on the cover sheet.
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. As such, Liberty finds two trash enclosures acceptable for their residents.
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 have been added to the plans see sheet C135 and detail
7 sheet C531.
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: The project has completed the SEQR process and received a negative declaration
on December 27, 2022. 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 to stay below
the 5-acre threshold throughout construction.
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: The project has completed the SEQR process and received a negative declaration
on December 27, 2022. The 35,420 GPD in the FEAF was based on a proposed action of 215
3
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: The project has completed the SEQR process and received a negative declaration
on December 27, 2022. The Applicant and Ferradino Firm, PLLC are in the process of securing
the Bunny Lake Drive access easement from Bmhd Inc. and Saratoga Harness Racing, Inc. A
copy of the easement 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: The project has completed the SEQR process and received a negative declaration
on December 27, 2022. The traffic study has been included with this submission.
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: The project has completed the SEQR process and received a negative declaration
on December 27, 2022. No walking trails are proposed within the 19.88-acre conservation
easement at this time. Metes and bounds and labels have been 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 has been revised to yes. Refer to
SEQR/FEAF response 3. A revised checklist has been included with this submission.
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 has been
included with this submission. The required fire flow demand and fire protection design for the
4
buildings will be determined by the project MEP. The Applicant and Phinney Design Group are
in the process of selecting a project MEP as the project is in 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
(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 52 (previously 51) have been revised in the
estimate. The manhole within Jefferson Street is included in line item 53 (previously 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: Additional callouts have been added 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: Figures 1 through 3 have been provided with this submission to demonstrate a fire
truck, school bus and SU-40 vehicle movement through the site. The plans will be circulated
to the Fire District with this submission.
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 between the buildings is not designed as a fire apparatus access
road, using the dimensional requirements in the International Fire Code Chapter 5. Fire truck,
school bus and other truck access through the site has been included in Figures 1 through 3
of this submission.
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 have been included in this submission.
C136 Offsite Improvements Plan
5
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 have been added. In
addition, the step location has been noted to be on the structure western wall. Refer to sheet
C136.
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: Insertion manhole detail has been revised. Refer to detail 1/C570.
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, temporary silt fence, and temporary orange
construction fence. Permanent fencing is not proposed. A callout for the orange construction
fence has been added to the plans.
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 have been included in this submission.
C140 Grading and Drainage Plan
1. Comment: Label internal contours of two depressed areas in center of project.
Response: Contour labels have been provided. Refer to sheet C140.
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: This area has been graded with adequate slope to provide positive drainage out of
the cul-de-sac minimizing freezing concerns. Additionally, a catch basin (CB-2) is being
proposed in the northern loading zone and the parking stalls on the south side of the eastern
road from the cul-de-sac have been regraded to allow water from the drive aisle to enter them
for infiltration purposes. As such the longest travel path from the cul-de-sac to a stormwater
management practice or drainage structure is about 175’.
3. Comment: Show yard drain in center of project at drainage pipe junction just west of building.
Response: YD-9 has been added. Refer to sheet C140.
6
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: Overflow weir dimensions have been provided on the overflow weir details added
to sheet C540. The weir has been called out on sheet C150.
5. Comment: Are any slope areas scheduled for erosion control blankets coverage or other means
of stabilization?
Response: All slopes 3:1 (H:V) or steeper will be treated with erosion control blankets. Hatching
and an associated callout has been added to the plans (see Sheet C150). A detail has been
added to sheet C550.
6. Comment: How are sediments being managed if they reach the basin?
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: A phasing plan has been provided as Figure 8 of Appendix A of the SWPPP.
8. Comment: Are curb breaks proposed at dumpsters for truck access?
Response: Curb breaks are not proposed at dumpsters. It is intended that truck loading will be
from the vehicle’s side.
C150 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan
1. Comment: Label silt fencing.
Response: Refer to Sheet C150.
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: All erosion and sediment control methods are called out on sheet C150 and details
are provided on sheet C550. A detail for stone lined aprons is provided on sheet C550. Details
for the detention basin spillway are provided on C540.
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.
7
Response: Sheet C150 has been revised to show orange construction fencing around areas
of infiltration practices. In addition, a note has been 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: Construction laydown areas have been added to the plans. Refer to sheet C150.
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 has been revised to circular for clarity. This area is a
temporary soil stockpile. Refer to sheet C150.
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 have been added, in the east corner of the northern
building and above the loading space sidewalk of the southern building. Refer to sheet C160.
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
have been added.
2. Comment: Show sizes of existing water main(s) and label water main and valve sizes proposed.
Response: The existing water main size has been called out on sheet C137. The site water
main size and materials have been called out on sheets C160 and C137.
3. Comment: Show invert of force main at pump station.
Response: Pump station inverts have been provided. Refer to sheet C160.
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.
8
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 have been added to the plans see sheet C135 and detail
sheet C531.
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. Refer to
sheet C137.
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.
Response: The symbols and valves shown are oversized for visibility on the plans. Hydrants
will be owned, operated and maintained by Liberty Affordable Housing. Per NFPA section
18.5.7.1 a 36” clear space shall be maintained around the circumference of fire hydrants
except as otherwise required or approved. The hydrant detail on sheet C560 has been updated
to provide 3’ of minimum clearance between the back of the curbs and the front face of the
hydrants. Tree plantings have also been placed to ensure 3’ of clearance between the hydrants
and trees.
9. Comment: Tree planting should be 10’ minimum from utilities. Remove tree close to sewage
force main downstream of pump station.
Response: Existing tree clearing limits have been adjusted to provide 10’ clearance from
proposed utilities.
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 station control panel has been shown and called out on sheet C160. A
note has been provided on the explosion proof junction boxes for power and control cables
that the conduits are to be sealed with a gas tight fitting and filler. Refer to sheet C575.
C180 Landscaping Plan
1. Comment: We recommend trees have a minimum caliper of 2-1/2” to increase survivability
and speed of screening.
Response: Plant schedule 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 has been removed.
9
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. 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 has been provided. Refer to sheet C190.
C530 Site Details
1. Comment: Note crowning of pavement and subgrade to drain to the edges on pavement detail.
Response: Detail 1/C530 has been revised. Refer to sheet C530.
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: The porous pavement detail has been moved to 11/C540. Practice sizing
calculations for porous pavement are within Appendix C Table C2 of the SWPPP. This
calculation follows the same calculation as Table 5.16 of the NYSDEC Stormwater
Management Design Manual (2015). A note regarding decompaction beneath porous
pavement sections has been added to sheet C150.
C575 Pump Station Details and Notes
10
1. Comment: Many elevations are marked xxx.xx and need to be filled in.
Response: Elevations have been provided. Refer to sheet C575.
2. Comment: What is diameter of wet well?
Response: The detail on sheet C575 has been updated to indicate a 6’ ID wet well.
3. Comment: Typically lift stations have a separate valve vault for the check valves and isolation
valves and avoid submerging check valves.
Response: The detail on sheet C575 has been revised to include a separate valve vault.
4. Comment: Link seal is recommended for all pipe entries/discharges.
Response: The detail on sheet C575 has been revised to include link seals.
5. Comment: Fill in pump station data. Single phase seems unlikely given amount of flow.
Response: Pump station data has been provided. Refer to sheet C575.
6. Comment: Vent pipe is typically 6-inch painted steel to better resist sunlight exposure and
vandalism.
Response: The detail on sheet C575 has been revised to require 6” galvanized steel vent
pipes.
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 has been revised to include an emergency generator receptacle. Refer to
sheet C575. There will not be a permanent generator. However, Liberty Affordable Housing will
own and maintain a portable generator onsite for use as needed. Note 13 has been revised.
9. Comment: Recommended signage regarding no unauthorized access to pump station area. Is
a fenced enclosure proposed?
Response: Detail 1/C575 has been 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
11
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 has been 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.
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: Vehicle parking stalls will be the only porous pavement application. The loading
areas and drive aisles are standard asphalt pavement. Hatching on the plans has been revised
to more clearly distinguish between porous and standard 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.
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
12
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. The practice sizing calculations
provided are consistent with the NYSDEC Design Manual and use of the DEC GI worksheets is
not a requirement of the Design Manual or GP-0-20-001.
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: Sheets C137 and C170 have been added to the plan set. The force main will not
be directionally drilled. The required permits will be obtained from NYSDEC and USACOE to
allow for traditional trench installation of the force main.
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 have been rotated.
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.
Response: Additional work limit callouts have been added to the plan set. The clearing limits
are depicted and called out on sheet C120.
4. Comment: Confirm approval of the plans from the City of Saratoga Springs Fire Department.
Response: The plans will be circulated to the Fire District with this submission.
5. Comment: Show turning radiuses for trucks, buses, and fire trucks.
Response: Figures 1 through 3 have been included in this submission.
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.
13
Response: The maximum allowable leakage on Sheet G002 has been 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: The locations of detectable warning units have been shown and called out on
sheets C135 and C136.
9. Comment: Sheet C135, callout all signs as each sign is different (stop, handicap, charging,
etc.) Do not use typical.
Response: Sign designations have been 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 has been revised.
12. Comment: Give a detail for porous pavement
Response: A porous asphalt detail has been provided 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. Two concrete washout areas are provided with a note
indicating that washout locations may be adjusted as necessary based on construction. 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.
14
16. Comment: Sheet C160, additional valve needed at tee near CB-5 heading west. Additional
valve needed at tee near YD-6.
Response: A valve has been provided on both sides of the proposed tee connection to the site
water loop.
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 have been removed. The size of the
tee and existing water main have been 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 have been revised to provide positive drainage.
20. Comment: Sheet C160, missing bend callout at watermain bend within detention basin.
Response: The water main location has been shifted out of the detention basin footprint. Refer
to Sheet C160 and C137 for revised routing. All bends have been called out on the plans.
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 has been shifted out of the detention basin footprint. Refer
to Sheet C160 and C137 for revised routing. In addition, Liberty Affordable Housing is going to
own, operate and maintain the waterline.
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 has been revised to sheet water over the
porous pavement. The porous pavement practice will act as a means of infiltration.
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 has been 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).
15
Response: Detail 2/C560 and 3/C560 have been 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 post construction inspections and maintenance section of the SWPPP
(Appendix G) has been expanded to cover porous pavement in greater detail.
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: Comment acknowledged. 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 have been
included with this submission. The required fire flow demand and fire protection design for the
buildings will be determined by the project MEP. The Applicant and Phinney Design Group are
in the process of selecting a project MEP as the project is in site plan review.
28. Comment: Add City of Saratoga Springs Standard Note.
Response: City standard notes have been added to G002.
29. Comment: Show sewer main on Jefferson St.
Response: The sewer main in Jefferson Street is shown on both sheets C120 and C136.
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.
Comments from Saratoga County Planning Board, dated May 31, 2023
1. Comment: With referral review material received on February 14 and March 13, 2023 it was
noted that there were no updated sewer loading information, City of Saratoga Springs
16
Engineering Office technical reviews received, or traffic study updates before the SCPB met on
May 18, 2023.
Response: Sewer loading information was included in the January 13, 2023 submission to the
City Planning Board. The January sewer loading calculations were also submitted directly to
William Bills at the Saratoga County Sewer District via email on May 17, 2023. Receipt of
submission was verified via voice call on June 2, 2023. Required review fee, Request for
Review form and Request for Reserve Capacity form were submitted via email on June 5,
2023. City Engineering Office comments, based on the January submission, were received on
April 26, 2023 and responses to these comments are included in this response letter. The
2019 traffic study was not submitted in the January submission package as the traffic study
was submitted and reviewed by the Planning Board, County Planning Department, and City
Council during the SEQR process. The project has completed the SEQR process and received
a negative declaration on December 27, 2022
2. Comment: From what the SCPB Board had received, there were concerns that the 2019 Traffic
Analysis was only for 192 units and not the full build out of 212 units. The dates of the study
were performed in February, 2019 and may not accurately reflect traffic counts for this area.
Response: The traffic study was evaluated under the SEQR process for the project in 2022 by
the City Planning Board, County Planning and the City Council. Part 2 of the FEAF, prepared by
the City, indicated that the impact on transportation would result in no, or small impact. The
project has completed the SEQR process and received a negative declaration on December
27, 2022. During the SEQR process multiple points were made to justify the no, or small
impact including but not limited to:
· The 2019 traffic study resulted in a trip generation of 66 peak am trips and 86 peak
pm trips. NYSDOT and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) use 100 trips as
the threshold for warranting additional study, as is reflected on page 3 of the 2019
study. The NYSDEC FEAF Workbook for Question 13 (traffic) confirms this with the
specification that “It assumes that a project generating fewer than 100 peak hour
vehicle trips per hour will not result in any significant increases in traffic”.
· Updated trip generation calculations, using the Institute of Transportation Engineers’
(ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, for the site using land use code (LUC) 221
for Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) resulted in 74 peak am trips and 83 peak pm trips.
These values are similar to those presented in the 2019 Traffic Study and are below
the 100 peak trip threshold.
· The traffic study demonstrates that the level of services (LOS) remains unchanged
from the existing 2019 conditions to the full building, with the exception of Bunny Lake
Drive southbound which changes from a LOS A to LOS B. Because the intersections
function at LOS A and B, no changes are warranted.
· Site distance requirements will be met with the anticipated vegetation removal, as
outlined in the traffic study.
· Since the traffic report was prepared in 2019, the Saratoga Casino, during the SEQR
process, reported decline in attendance due to construction of the Rivers Casino in
Schenectady and post-covid impacts.
3. Comment: The study also indicated that “residents of the apartment complex can access the
Capital District Transportation Authority system via a bus stop associated with the Saratoga
Visitors Trolley route provided at the casino.” The Saratoga Visitors Trolley line (#875) is a
seasonal line, only available July to September, as per CDTA. This information should be
updated to accurately reflect this site, currently, as not being serviced full-time by CDTA.
17
Response: The traffic study was evaluated under the SEQR process for the project in 2022 by
the City Planning Board, County Planning and the City Council. Part 2 of the FEAF, prepared by
the City, indicated that the impact on transportation would result in no, or small impact. The
project has completed the SEQR process and received a negative declaration on December
27, 2022. We concur that line #875 is a seasonal line running from July to September, which
was disclosed during the SEQR review process. In addition, the project results in am and pm
peak hour vehicle trips less than 100 vehicles, without consideration of reduced vehicles from
line #875. The applicant has initiated discussions with CDTA, who advised that the project was
too early in the process to make definitive decisions regarding modification of CDTA’s route.
When the process is further along, CDTA and the applicant will resume discussions. There was
some discussion about a pilot CDTA program with a new electric car-share fleet and that this
project would be an attractive location for this innovative program.
4. Comment: The SCPB noted that parking was shown in the set back on the site plan closest to
Bunny Lake Drive. The City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board should determine if a waiver
will be provided for portions of those spaces as part of the UDO or if changes to the plan are
needed.
Response: Article 3 and Article 10 of the City of Saratoga Springs UDO do not restrict parking
location in the UR-4 districts building setback lines.
5. Comment: In verifying that the Saratoga County Water Sewer District #1 has not seen anything
on this project yet, the applicant will need to submit all their plans for review and approval to
them. This includes a report outlining flows and loads - and they will likely need DEC approval
as well, as it is above the 2,500 gpd threshold where they need to approve it. Bill Bills at 518-
664-7396, ext 5308 is the contact person for this review process.
Response: A submission was made to William Bills at the Saratoga County Sewer District via
email on May 17, 2023. Receipt of submission was verified via voice call on June 2, 2023.
Required review fee, Request for Review form and Request for Reserve Capacity form were
submitted via email on June 5, 2023. Any applicable submissions to NYSDEC will be made
following completion of Saratoga County Water Sewer District #1 review.
6. Comment: Please provide any additional site plan updates, ACOE verifications, SWPPP
updates, as well.
Response: Revised site plans, ACOE jurisdictional determination, and a revised SWPPP have
been included with this submission.
18
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.
Reed Kinderman – 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