The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20231117 26 Freedom Way SitePlan Response to Comments 2023 06 29 Verity Engineering, D.P.C. P.O. Box 474 Troy, New York 12181 518.389.7200 | verityeng.com 1 EngineeringVerity June 28, 2023 Ms. Kate Halliday Administrative Assistant - Engineering City of Saratoga Springs 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 Re: Response to Comments AgroChem Expansion – 26 Freedom Way 20221117 Site Plan Review Ms. Halliday: On May 8, 2023 via email, we received a series of comments prepared by Laberge Group regarding our previous submission. Our responses are below: Site Plan Application and Review Submittal Checklist 1. Site Plan Item 4: The location map on ·the cover sheet appears to show the wrong location of the project. Both the USGS Map and Zoning Map have been revised accordingly. 2. The applicant should provide elevation views of the proposed buildings. Elevations were not created for the expansion; the building extension will be of match color, materials and façade as the existing facility. The site is not located within an architectural district nor visible to residents to local roadways. The planning board did not request the elevations during the review process to arrive at their approval decision. Site Plan Drawings 1. Sheet V-101: A match line is shown across Freedom Way but there is no reference nor does the continuation appear to be shown anywhere on the plans. This erroneous match line has been removed. 2. Sheet V-101: There is a note within the Freedom Way right of way that mentions the construction of the road and designation to the City of Saratoga Springs. Freedom Way appears to have been constructed. Applicant should confirm that the road has been dedicated to the City in its entirety. This note has been removed. Freedom Way has been constructed as shown on the existing conditions plan and was constructed to City of Saratoga Springs standards and requirements however, at this time the applicant does not wish to have dedication of this road as a condition of approval. 3. Sheet C-101: The applicant should clarify the use of the building shown in the "Site Statistics" table which currently mentions the use being warehouse while the project narrative mentions office support, research, and production. As this is an expansion of an existing use, we expect that the City is aware of current operations. No changes in the nature of the business are proposed by the applicant. 2 V Per the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) - which has been published since the original approval of this facility – the existing use and the use of the proposed building addition would more accurately be reflected by “Industrial – Light.” This use is also allowed within the Industrial, General (IND-G) zone. In making this revision it is noted that our parking calculation must be revised. Per the UDO Industrial – Light facilities must provide a minimum of 1 space per 1,000 sf GFA for the first 40,000 sf and then 1 space per 2,500 sf GFA thereafter. The total of the existing and proposed building footprints is approximately 58,000 sf. The minimum parking required is 48 spaces; 65 spaces are proposed. 4. Sheet C-101: The profile of the sanitary sewer extension appears to show that the sewer will be less than 3-feet deep in some locations. If this is correct, the sewer will need to be deepened or fill should be placed above it to add burial depth and further protect the sewer from freezing. In addition, the volume of infiltration basin IF#2 appears to encompass the ground over the pipe. The grading and profile have been revised to better illustrate a minimum of three feet (3’) of cover over the proposed sewer. 5. Sheet C-101: The building's sanitary lateral passes through IF#2. Considering the shallowness of the sanitary sewer, as mentioned previously, there is likely very little cover over the lateral. This presents a freezing problem which could cause a breakage in the pipe and sanitary flow into IF#2. The applicant should clarify the conditions here. This is an existing condition for which no changes are proposed. The facility has operated with this condition for some time. Respectfully, we ask that this project not proposed any changes to this existing condition. 6. Sheet C-101: Applicant should explain the purpose of the sanitary sewer extension since no new connections are proposed under this project. Lands remain to the south which may be developed at a later date. The purpose of the extension at this time is to streamline future development. 7. Sheet C-101: Freedom Way is shown to be extended, but it appears the plan is not to dedicate it to the City and instead maintain an easement for lot 6A. The purpose of the easement should be clarified as there already is public access to lot 6A. As discussed in our response to Comment #2, Freedom Way was never dedicated to the City. The expansion of the easement shown will allow for the AgroChem parcel (6A) to access Freedom Way from their proposed southern entrance. 8. Sheet C-121: Although the SWPPP explains that all site runoff will infiltrate into the ground, the applicant should provide an understanding of what might happen to runoff should it not be capable of infiltrating at the necessary rate. The goal is to ensure that City and other neighboring properties will not be impacted negatively by such an event from the project site. Given the topography of the site and the surrounding area there are no reasonable pathways to provide an avenue for overflows from the proposed infiltration practice. Waters would pond on-site a considerable degree before impacting areas off-site and that is assuming minimal infiltration and the most extreme weather events. Based on our modeling, the proposed infiltration basin peaks at 325.28’ during a 100-year storm event; storing 32,246 cf of runoff from its starting level. Waters would need to reach 326.50 before they begin to pond on-site (a further 22,697 cf of storage). Waters would need to reach 327.30 before covering the existing entrance drive (a further 24,021 cf of storage). 3 V If we stress our model and lower the infiltration rate from our 5 in./hr. design rate to 0.5 in./hr. we find the 100-year event peaks at 326.56 creating minor on-site ponding. We feel this is a conservative approach and adequately addresses potential off-site impacts. 9. Sheet C-121: Both underground infiltration trenches have the same designation. The titles of these practices have been revised to conform with the SWPPP and other documentation. 10. Sheet C-191: There is no lighting shown within the area south of the new building. The applicant should confirm whether or not lighting is needed considering the proposed access through this area. Lighting is not proposed in this area. 11. Sheet C-502: There appears to be an error in the plot of this sheet as there are two details overlapped at the bottom of the page. This error has been fixed. Traffic Report 1. Although the report concludes that there will be no significant traffic impacts caused by the project, the City should be aware of cumulative impacts along Duplainville Road, Cady Hill Road, Adams Road and Geyser Road considering other projects in the area and the potential for future projects. Geyser Road is of particular concern as the entire industrial park empties onto that road. Acknowledged. Site Plan Narrative 1. The applicant should confirm that the Saratoga Springs Fire Department has reviewed the plans and verify that they can access the site and buildings appropriately. We have sent plans to the fire department and are awaiting their response. If City departments could aid in this coordination, it would be greatly appreciated. SWPPP 1. It is not clear how the runoff from the new building roof will reach the infiltration basin. If roof leaders will be installed the pipes should be shown. The narrative mentions that the flow will be delivered to the slotted drain on the east side of the building, but this is only possible if the roof is pitched in one direction. Roof leaders will be installed to direct roof runoff to the proposed forebay. These have been added to the plans. 2. Drainage from the roof leader at the southwest corner of the existing building is shown to be delivered via a new pipe to IB#1. A forebay should be added at this pipe 's inlet to the basin. This is not a roof leader, but rather an NDS structure which is taking overflow from an existing “eave trench.” This “eave trench” is an existing stormwater management feature that provides pretreatment. This area was previously directed to dry wells and an infiltration basin, both of which are being removed. 3. The data in the "Drainage Area" column of Table 5 appears to be incomplete. Table 5 has been updated to include the “top of basin” elevations in the first column. 4 V SEQR Long Form 1. The applicant submitted a short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to demonstrate the project's compliance with SEQRA. A long EAF is needed for this project considering its size and potential impacts. Included with the documents submitted is a copy of the Notice of Decision for the Agrochem application dated May 13, 2021 that mentions acceptance of the EAF during that review. A new long EAF should be completed and submitted for this project to make sure all possible impacts are properly accounted for. We do not object to providing this information, but as the Planning Board has already issued a negative declaration regarding SEQR for this project we would like confirmation that this documentation is required and providing such does not negate the Board’s prior action. We trust you will find this material to be in order. Once you have reviewed the material, should you have any questions, please contact our office. Respectfully, Aaron J. Vera, P.E. Principal Engineer Verity Engineering, D.P.C. Cc: CLIENT FILE