The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20230233 Station Lane Site Plan DE Comments 2024 01 29James Salaway Principal Engineering Technician City of Saratoga Springs 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 s964-n019 55 YEARS of I, �CEIS.ENC:E. ENGINEERING • ARCHITECTURE < SURVEYING PLANNING January 29, 2024 VIA MAIL & EMAIL Re: Faden-West Avenue Site Plan 20221117 Site Plan Review Letter #2 City of Saratoga Springs, New York Dear Mr. Salaway: We are in receipt of the following revised and/or additional materials for the above referenced subject: A. Completed Review Checklist dated December 21, 2023; B. Lansing Engineering response letter to DPW comments dated December 21, 2023; C. Lansing Engineering response letter to Laberge Group comments dated December 21, 2023; D. Lansing Engineering response letter to Laberge Group SEQR form comments dated December 21, 2023; E. NYSDOT temporary easement dated January 11, 2000; F. Site Plan Drawings revised December 21, 2023; G. Project Narrative revised December 21, 2023; H. Water and Sewer Report revised December 21, 2023; I. SEQR long Form Part 1 revised December 21, 2023; J. Station Lane Sewage Pump Station Report by the LA Group dated November 29, 2017; and K. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, revised December 21, 2023. As requested, we have reviewed these documents and find that the comments previously submitted have been satisfactorily addressed. However, due to the significant changes in the plans and the additional materials submitted, the new comments below are being provided, including comments provided by the City Department of Public Works: Site Plan Drawings: 1. Sheet LM-L A nature trail is proposed within the 100-foot wetland adjacent area. The applicant should provide a detail of the proposed detail as any disturbance within the buffer will require a wetland permit. 2. Sheet LM-1: Bollards should be added to protect the gas meter east of the pump station. 3. Sheet LM-1: The City may want to consider the applicant adding fencing and a locked gate around the pump station. 4. Sheet LM-1: The applicant should explain why the guiderail does not protect the entire length of the retaining wall. 5. Sheet LAI--1: The applicant should explain the purpose of the loading zone at the location shown. It does not directly serve the building and it seems that loading would be more efficient inside the parking lot. 6. Sheet UG-1: It is indicated that the storm drain shown to lie within Station Lane from C134 to its outlet has a 0% slope. It is clear that there is minimal cover and elevation change to work with. 4 Computer Drive West e Albany, New York 12205 ® (518) 458-7112 - Fax (518) 458-1879 www.labergegroup.com Mr. James Salaway January 29, 2024 Page 2 of 3 However, the applicant can remove at least two of the catch basins and move C134 so that it is installed on the existing 24-inch culvert lying just to the east. This will shorten the pipe considerably and possibly allow for a positive slope on this pipe, as the 0% slope is not acceptable. As indicated in the report, the outlet of this culvert leads ultimately to the same area as the proposed outlet of this storm drainage system. Therefore, the end result will be similar. In addition, in their response to a previous comment, the applicant indicated that this pipe would no longer be intended for stormwater storage. However, the plans still note the storage gallery usage. The applicant should confirm whether or not this is still the intent. As mentioned previously, this length of pipe should not be used for storage and should be a standard installation. 7. Sheet ESC-1: Inlet protection should be shown around structure CB 12 on the 24-inch culvert. Sheet ESC-1: Silt fencing is not a perimeter control. Silt fencing shown along the curb line is impractical and will not be conducive to the construction activities. Alternate methods should be utilized including filter socks, temporary swales and check dams. Site Plan Narrative and Water/Sewer Letter Report: 9. The narrative indicates that the footprint of the restaurant has reduced in size, the retail space has increased and the number of residential units has increased. The applicant should confirm that these changes been made to all relevant documents. 10. Based on review of the Station Lane Sewage Pump Station report, the pump station appears to have sufficient capacity, if the upgrades indicated have indeed been installed. The City should confirm this is the case and provide as -built information, if collected. SEQR Long Form, Part 1: 11. Item B, Government Approvals: The applicant has mentioned that since the area of the discharge adjacent to the wetland has been previously disturbed that a permit is not required. This is not the case. Any disturbance within the adjacent area to the wetland requires an Article 24 permit, regardless of past disturbance. 11' the applicant feels that this assertion is incorrect, proper documentation to the correct interpretation of the regulations should be referenced or a confirmation letter from NYSDEC should be supplied. DPW Comments: • Sheet ECD-1: Change note for parking sign locations to DPS, not DPW. • Sheet LM-1: Existing Pump Station will need vehicle access. Proposed sidewalk, curb, and nature trail along with plantings are in conflict with the Pump station and pump station access. DPW would prefer a pull off area in front of the pump station, plantings around pump station removed, and sidewalk/trail to go behind and around pump station. • What is the reasoning for an additional 3' jut into the curb for the loading zone? Curb should be unified in length. Also note utility pole NM-46-2 and GUY wires have conflict with the loading zone. • Confirm with CDTA about bus stop location change. • Real Estate Committee and City Council will need to vote and give confirmation on the permanent concrete work and steps that will be at the corner within the ROW. • Note states ADA compliant stairs, should this say ramp instead? • Sheet UG-1: Existing Watermain project is connecting to is 12" out in West Ave. Update connection note and additional pertinent details accordingly. • Jellyfish 2 Inv. Out is 319.99'. B-6 boring states refusal at 319.65'. Per jellyfish detail on DT-8, structure goes down approximately an additional 4' to install to bottom. Call out rock removal as necessary for this and any other structure that conflicts may occur. Per our review, at least Jellyfish 1 and 2 will require rock removal for installation. Mr. James Salaway January 29, 2024 Page 3 of 3 • DT-2: Why is the Cascade Separator have name changes within the detail? Also where on the plans is CAS2? • General: Bike rack location on the plans? • Guard rail does not follow NYSDOT spec, detail on DT-5 shows guard rail shallower into the ground. Also, is the guard rail along the retaining wall feasible? • Confirm DT-2 Detail 6, is this the standard for all Catch Basins or is it to be called out on select catch basins? • On LT -I, use the City Standard detail (LT -I) for type A lights. Update sheets and table accordingly. • In the parking and jut out, add note that the property is to maintain those road areas for snow removal during winter. • Red Maples are invasive species to the region. Choose a different tree and confirm all others are on the City's approved species list. • Proposed new location for existing train station sign is rejected. The City would prefer the sign were to stay on the North side of Station Lane. • Relocation of stop signs need to be before the crosswalk, not how it is shown on the plans. Update at all locations. • Add a note at crosswalk installations referencing the "City's pedestrian crossing toolbox". • Note per the MUTCD the parking stall width on the street can be 8' in width. Please feel free to call our office if you have any questions. RJT: kmo C: Matt Zeno, City of Saratoga Springs D. Rhodes, P.E., Laberge Group J:',2023069\CorrespondenceAReview 0 1 -26-24.docx Very truly yours, LABERGE GRO By: - Robert J. Titus, P.E. Senior Project Engineer