Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20230032 Crescent & Jefferson Site Plan Response to Comments August 31, 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 August 31, 2023. · Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by LaBella Associates, last revised August 31, 2023. · Cost Estimate for Letter of Credit prepared by LaBella Associates, dated August 31, 2023. · Fire Department Correspondence. · Fire Truck Turning Movement Figures prepared by LaBella Associates, last revised August 29, 2023. · SCSD Correspondence. · Correspondence with Bradley Grant. We have received the comments below from Barton & Loguidice and the City of Saratoga Springs Department of Public Works, and offer the following point-by-point responses: Comments from Barton & Loguidice, dated July 7, 2023 General 1. Comment: Confirm building elevations have been submitted and have not changed. Response: Building elevations were submitted to your office for review as part of our 3/10/2023 submission and have not changed. 2. Comment: We note that a new survey is being prepared that will be updated to reflect the National Geodetic Datum 29 and is pending. Response: Comment acknowledged. Revised survey will be submitted upon receipt. 2 3. Comment: Are all pavement markings that supplement signage indicated on the plans, particularly where one way traffic near the entrance and center of the project are proposed? Response: Pavement markings are not proposed, other than those currently depicted, as these are private development drives and not required by the City’s UDO. Signage is denoted on sheet C135 by number which corresponds with the sign table on sheet C531. 4. Comment: Confirm with the City of Saratoga Springs if SEQR is complete and not needing additional information. Response: Parts 1 through 3 of the completed FEAF were included in our initial submission to B&L on March 10, 2023. Included in that document was the SEQR negative declaration. In addition, as noted in the June 9, 2023 response to comments letter, under SEQR/FEAF section it was noted that a negative declaration was received on December 27, 2022. 5. Comment: Provide detail for bike rack. Response: A bike rack detail has been added as detail 10 on sheet C531. 6. Comment: On page 3 of the NOI, number 7, it is stated that this is not a phased project. Please revise, since there was a phasing plan submitted. Response: The project is proposed to be constructed as a single phase. No additional phases of work are proposed after the completion of this project onsite. The Phasing Plan provided is intended to show the sequence of construction and demonstrate the various stages of work can be performed by disturbing less than 5 acres at any given time. For clarity, the Phasing Plan has been revised to be titled Construction Sequencing Plan. 7. Comment: In the response letter there was reference to previous permeability tests as for feasibility purposes and additional testing in the areas of the porous pavement are pending and results will be incorporated into the plans and SWPPP. These tests should enable better understanding of permeability rate of the site soils below the practice as well as understand groundwater levels. Response: Comment acknowledged. Additional test results will be submitted once testing is completed. 8. Comment: The plans now propose porous pavement in the parking stalls and traditional pavement proposed for the loading areas and drive aisles. Response: Comment acknowledged. Water System 1. Comment: Submit water meter pit detail when available. Note indicates design by others. Response: Comment acknowledged. Water meter pit detail will be submitted once available. 3 2. Comment: The required fire flow demand and fire protection design for the buildings was noted to be pending. Please confirm available fire protection capacity exists without need for a fire pump and comment on how delivered via now known system capacity via hydrant flow tests. Response: The fire protection design will be performed by the fire protection engineer and submitted to City engineering and the fire department for their review and approval upon receipt. 3. Comment: The additional hydrant suggested in the center aisle between buildings was not shown but two were added elsewhere and response indicated hydrant locations will be confirmed/coordinated with the Fire District and revised accordingly. Please update status of this meeting and results in next submission please. Response: Site plans and supplemental turning movement figures were submitted to Chief Dolan and Assistant Chief Dyer for review via email on June 19, 2023. Site plans and turning movement figures were revised per comments received via email. Fire department approval was received via email on August 29, 2023. Revised fire truck turning movement figures and email correspondence with the fire department have been included with this submission. Sanitary Sewer 1. Comment: We recommend a coupler and use of 8’ of HDPE DR 11 between the pump station and valve vault in the likelihood of differential settlement to protect from pipe breakage. If pump station is filled with water for leakage test it could likely hasten any PS settlement and reduce this potential prior to installing piping. Response: A coupler and 8 LF of HDPE DR 11 pipe has been provided between the pump station and valve vault. A note has been added to the hydrostatic testing notes to indicate that hydrostatic testing should be completed prior to final pipe connections. 2. Comment: Submit any SCSD correspondence and review comments in the next submission. Response: The plans were initially submitted to SCSD on May 17, 2023 and a subsequent submission to SCSD was made on June 5, 2023 following a telephone discussion with William Bills in which it was requested that a request to reserve capacity and the review request form be completed and submitted along with a review fee. As of August 31, 2023 no review comments have been received and the project is waiting on either review comments or a will serve letter from the County. Attached to this submission is our correspondence to date with SCSD. 3. Comment: Directionally drilling has been removed from the cost estimate. Is this no longer proposed? Response: Directional drilling is no longer proposed. It is acknowledged that wetland permitting will be required. 4 Cost Estimate for Letter of Credit 1. Comment: Item 25, bicycle racks, still seems low. Does this reflect installation with a foundation? Please provide a detail. Response: The bike rack cost has been revised. The cost includes installation on a concrete pad. A detail has been provided as detail 10 on sheet C531. Plans C531 Site Details 1. Comment: Please consider extending exposed concrete foundation wall above 4” pea stone. The concern is the splatter onto the siding and degradation of the same. There is concern about wicking into the building and we suggest an HDPE liner below grade to control potential wicking. Response: Comment acknowledged. Height of exposed concrete foundation and use of HDPE liner will be determined once building design advances. C150 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan 1. Comment: Are temporary sediment control basins proposed? We did not see them on C150 or C550. Please provide detail if they are proposed. Response: Temporary sediment control basins are not proposed. 2. Comment: Add to note 14 on sheet C550 regarding removal of sediment from detention basin prior to final grading and vegetation establishment. Response: Note 14 (now note 12) has been revised to require removal of accumulated sediment from the stormwater management practices prior to final grading and vegetation establishment. C160 Utility Plan 1. 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. Revise hydrant installation detail accordingly. We recommend greater than 3’ of clearance from the back of the curb and 10’ clearance between trees and hydrants. Response: As stated in the previous response to comments letter: The symbols and valves shown are oversized for visibility on the plans. Hydrants will be owned, operated and maintained (including snow removal) 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 been placed to ensure 10’ of clearance between the hydrants and trees. 5 C180 Landscaping Plan 1. Comment: Provide a foundation plantings table that indicates location and sizes of proposed foundation plantings. They don’t seem to be labeled. Response: The landscaping plan has been revised to provide the location and sizes of proposed foundation plantings. C190 Photometric Plan 1. Comment: Include symbols for the 4 different fixtures in the lighting schedule. Response: The key on the lighting schedule has been updated to indicate which fixture is which. 2. Comment: It is noted that building mounted lights have not been included in the photometric plan and we assume these will not increase light at property lines. First floor entrance(s) is localized light to that area. Please confirm elevated and other building exterior lights do not change value of light at the project boundaries. Response: At this time, building mounted lights are not included, it is not anticipated given the projects separation to the property line and densely wooded buffer that the addition of building mounted lights would not adversely affect light levels at the project boundaries. In addition, if building mounted lights are added as the building design progresses, it is anticipated that site lighting would be reduced to limit redundancy. C531 Site Details 1. Comment: Specify AASHTO 2 stone and not NYSDOT stone for Reservoir Course of porous pavement detail. Response: AASHTO 2 stone has been specified on detail 11, sheet C540. 2. Comment: Add “remove roots and organics” to de-compact note in detail 11. Response: The decompaction note has been revised to require root and organics removal on detail 11 sheet C540. C575 Pump Station Details and Notes 1. Comment: Label all link seals. A typical that includes all penetration require link seals. Response: All link seals have been labeled in Section A-A of Detail 1 on Sheet C575. 2. Comment: Paint 6” steel vent pipes a green over galvanized coating. Paint to be compatible. Response: The notes on sheet C575 have been revised to indicate that the steel vent pipes shall be painted green. 6 3. Comment: Indicate type of 4” check valve. Select a check valve that considers force main back pressure against valve and does not chatter. We recommend a Flygt ball valve with a specific specific gravity ball. Response: A ball check valve has been specified on sheet C575. 4. Comment: We recommend using a DR 11 pipe with a quality coupler for each force main discharge between the wet well and the valve vault to better withstand differential settlement potential. Response: A coupler and 8 LF of HDPE DR 11 pipe has been provided for each force main discharge between the pump station and valve vault. SWPPP 1. Comment: Adjust acreage of phase A, stormwater controls, on Figure 8 phasing plan to reflect actual acreage of work that seems to include phase B and phase C work. Actual disturbance is well below 5 acres but indicates over 9 acres. Response: The acreages provided in the legend do not necessarily indicate disturbance area, instead they provide the total acreage of the phase from both disturbance and non- disturbance activities. As indicated in the description of Phase A, no disturbance shall take place until Phase A is completed. Phase A being listed as over 9 acres is correct and still meets the 5-acre disturbance threshold. 2. Comment: Add a note to general construction phasing notes indicating start of new phase follows after approved stabilization of the previous phase(s). Contractor to coordinate with SWPPP monitoring Professional. Response: Note 6 has been added to the general construction sequencing notes on the Construction Sequencing Plan. 3. Comment: The response letter indicates additional test results are pending in the porous pavement areas. Response: Comment acknowledged. Additional test results will be submitted once testing is completed. 4. Comment: Please print full size hydrologic modeling as small size is difficult to read especially routing diagram for post development. Response: The hydrologic models have been printed full size. 7 5. Comment: The proposed application for porous pavement is now located in various parking stall areas. The pond nodes representing them all indicate 10-inches per hour permeability/infiltration rate into the soil. This value is half of a conceptual soil infiltration rate of 20-inches per hour. As indicated in the response letter additional testing is pending to verify that. The modeling will need to incorporate these specific results in the various areas of porous pavement across the site at each individual practice accordingly. Response: Comment acknowledged. Additional test results will be submitted once testing is completed. Models will be updated as required following additional testing. 6. Comment: We recommend the infiltration modeling utilize bottom area only in lieu of surface area for the porous pavement. This will add a little extra safety factor as the sidewall areas are small as compared to the bottom areas. Response: The porous pavement modeling has been revised to utilize ‘horizontal area’ in lieu of ‘surface area’. 7. Comment: Please double check those porous pavement and depression areas in final design with the square footage of the various practices. Response: Practice areas have been verified. 8. Comment: Are overflow weirs proposed for the planted depression areas? Frozen soil conditions can greatly reduce infiltration rates and grading plan should incorporate controlled overflow from these practices away from traffic areas and sidewalks that could lead to injuries or accidents. Response: Overflow weirs are not proposed for the planted depression areas. All planted depressions have a pipe outlet. Periodic maintenance to remove accumulated snow and ice from the outlet area will be the responsibility of Liberty Affordable Housing. Comments from City of Saratoga Springs Department of Public Works, dated July 10, 2023 1. Comment: Per your comments, there will be no directional drilling, including through the wetlands. Confirm the required permits will be/have been obtained from NYSDEC and USACOE. Response: Comment acknowledged, all required permits will be obtained from NYSDEC and USACOE. 2. Comment: As stated by our DE, DPW will also want to see the meter pit design/detail once available. Response: Comment acknowledged. Water meter pit detail will be submitted once available. 3. Comment: Sheet C160, confirm any new utility installations (water, sewer, and storm mains) have the proper minimum 18" vertical separation if crossing. The southern storm main and water main crossing into the detention basin seems to have less than the minimum separation. Response: Detail 10, sheet C560 indicates how 18” of vertical separation will be maintained at pipe crossings where conflicts exist. 8 4. Comment: Shift the hydrant valve and valve box locations as close as possible to the anchor tees instead of what the plans show for each hydrant. This is mentioned on the City's detail for hydrants, in which it states, "preferred as close as possible" within the distance between valve box and anchor tee. Response: Hydrant valves have been relocated to show them closer to the anchor tees. Additionally, a note has been added to Detail 1, Sheet C560 to specify that the valves should be located as close as possible to the anchor tee. 5. Comment: Add valve near entrance of site. This coincides with Detail 1 Hydrant installation, Note 1 on Sheet C560. Response: An additional valve has been provided to ensure that water flow is not interrupted to more than 2 hydrants at any given time. 6. Comment: Sheet C180, confirm caliper size increased to minimum 2.5" size per your comments. Service Berry and flowering crabapple state 2" per the Plant List Table. Response: Per an email received from Bradley Grant on July 10, 2023 (attached), the TDE stated that 2” min. caliper for the serviceberry is acceptable. The flowering crabapple has been increased to 2.5” min. 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