HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190084 Regatta View Phase 3 Engineers Response 7-26-19 THE CAPITAL DISTRICT OFFICE
ChazycLaivnidl Esngineers 547 River Street
purveyors
Planners Troy, NY 12180
COMPANIES® Environmental&Safety Professionals
L�andscape Architects P: 518.273.0055 or 888.539.9073
Prod to be Employee owned Transportation Planners&Engineers www.chazencompanies.com
Ms. Susan Barden, AICP
City Principal Planner
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 July 26, 2019
Delivered via email: susan.barden@saratoga-springs.org
Re: Planning and Technical Review of Documents—5th Submittal
Regatta View—Area B—Phase 3
State Route 9P, Dyer Switch Road and Regatta View Drive
City of Saratoga Springs, Saratoga County, New York
City Project No. PB# 16.018
Chazen Project No. 31604.03
Dear Susan:
The Chazen Companies (Chazen) have completed our review of the following materials received:
• Response to comments letter responding to Chazen's letter dated April 17,2019 prepared by EDP,dated
May 28, 2019.
• Sanitary Sewer Utility Easement dated May 24, 2019 prepared by Timothy J. McAlonen, PLS.
• Waterline Utility Easement dated May 28, 2019 prepared by Timothy J. McAlonen, PLS.
• Stormwater Narrative last revised May 2019, prepared by EDP
o An updated Stormwater Narrative was received during review, last revised June 2019.
• Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Narrative last revised May 2019, prepared by EDP
o An updated SWPPP Narrative was received during review, last revised July 2019.
• Site Plans last revised June 4, 2019, prepared by EDP, consisting of the following 13 sheets:
1. Cover Sheet
2. Layout Plan
3. Existing Conditions and Removals Plan
4. Proposed Utility Easement Plan
5. Grading Plan
6. Utility Plan
7. Planting and Lighting Plan
8. Road Profile
9. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
10. Site Details
11. Site Details
12. Storm Details
13. Water and Sanitary Details
Following are our observations/comments:
HUDSON VALLEY•CAPITAL DISTRICT• NORTH COUNTRY•WESTCHESTER • NASHVILLE,TN
Chazen Engineering, Land Surveying& Landscape Architecture Co., D.P.C. (New York)
Chazen Engineering Consultants, LLC(Tennessee)
Susan Barden,AICP
Regatta View, 5th Submittal
July 26, 2019
Page 2 of 4
The numbers correspond t0 our previous review letters dated June 27, 2016, November 21, 2018, February 18,
2019 and April 17, 2019. Items that have been satisfactorily addressed are not repeated. New comments are
presented in bold:
General:
2. Please submit the original survey for this project,as required in the Site Plan Review Submittal Checklist.
Please add a note on the plans and survey that the topography is based on the NGVD 1929 Elevation
datum. An existing conditions plan has been submitted with notation indicating that the topography is
based on the 1929 NGVD elevation datum. The original signed and sealed survey has not been
submitted and should be provided to the City. The applicant indicated that the original signed and
sealed survey will be included with the final plan set.
3. Please provide the design, type of construction and materials, and exterior dimensions of proposed
buildings, as required in the Site Plan Review Submittal Checklist. In their comment response letter, EDP
included a narrative of the proposed building construction type and materials and indicated that a set
of"Development Parameters" would be submitted to be approved with the Site Plan. EDP is requested
to provide the following to address this comment:
a. Updated Architectural Plans and Elevations
b. Submit proposed Development Parameters for review.
April 17, 2019 note:
The applicant has indicated in a previous response letter that they wish to submit a set of Development
Parameters in lieu of submitting architectural plans and elevations for review and approval. The
applicant indicates that Development Parameters are listed on the site plans. The Cover Sheet contains
Design Guidelines that address garages, building separation, and layout constraints related to unique
facades. The site plans, however, do not address the proposed building materials or architectural style,
although the applicant has described the general appearance in the comment response letter. The City
should review the Design Guidelines and the applicant's response to Comment 3 in the comment
response letter and determine if additional information is required to address this comment.
We do not have any objection to this approach.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan:
26. The SWPPP indicates that ownership and maintenance of the SWM practices will be by Regatta View
LLC. A formal inspection and maintenance agreement, acceptable to the City and in accordance with
City Code Chapter 242, must be in place to assure that the practices will be properly operated and
maintained in accordance with the long-term operation and maintenance plans included in the
SWPPP. Please submit an agreement for the City's review. A sample agreement is available in City
Code Chapter 242.
EDP indicated in their response letter that ownership and maintenance will be the responsibility of a
homeowner's association (HOA) and that HOA documents will be submitted to the City for review.
a. Please submit this documentation in order to address this comment.
b. Also, the NOI and MS4 SWPPP acceptance Form needs t0 be updated to reflect the actual
name of the Home Owners Associate before the SWPPP can be approved.
Susan Barden,AICP
Regatta View, 5th Submittal
July 26, 2019
Page 3 of 4
EDP indicated in their response letter that HOA documents will be provided for review upon
completion, and that the NOI and MS4 SWPPP Acceptance forms will be updated with the actual
name of the HOA.
April 17, 2019 note:
EDP acknowledges these as outstanding items.
We cannot recommend approval of the SWPPP until the NOI and MS4 SWPPP Acceptance Form are
updated with the name of the HOA and the outstanding items noted in comment 44 are addressed.
The applicant has noted the name of the HOA in the NOI and SWPPP and noted that it is the
applicant's intention to offer the roadways for dedication to the City of Saratoga Springs, at which
point responsibility for SWM practice ownership and maintenance would be transferred to the City.
Please note that the City does not intend to accept ownership and maintenance of SWM practices
outside of the road ROW,and that responsibility will remain with the HOA in the event that the
road is dedicated to the City.
As requested, we have also completed our review as it relates to the City Planning and public concerns raised
in previous meetings,these comments are presented below.
35. The Complete Streets Policy(2016)The purpose of the Complete Streets Policy is to ensure that new
and updated public and private projects are planned, designed, maintained and operated to enable
safe, comfortable and convenient travel to the greatest extent possible for users of all abilities
including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders.The proposed street through the
development would be classified as a "Neighborhood Street." Section 2-8 of the Complete Streets Plan
provides classifications of streets ranging from Bronze to Gold. As proposed the street would be
classified as Bronze for its lack of pedestrian lighting and a missing sidewalk on one side of the street.
To meet Silver level standards the street would need sidewalks on both sides of the street, ADA
compliance at all intersections and 5'grass buffers between sidewalk and street.To reach Gold level,
the street would require a full network of sidewalks and crossings, sidewalks present throughout
driveways, gaps in street trees filled and pedestrian scale lighting fixtures.
a. The Planning Board should decide what level is desired for this development, and
b. the applicant should revise the plans accordingly.
EDP noted that the project will include street lighting and the sidewalks have been designed
consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods.The Planning Board should consider whether
neighborhood precedence outweighs adopted community plans.
April 17, 2019 note:
EDP acknowledges this.
The City will need indicate how they would like the applicant to proceed in this regard.
36. The Complete Streets Policy(2016) on page 2-2 identifies portions of Dyer Switch Road as a deficient
area for sidewalks.The policy recommends installing sidewalk along Dyer Switch to the north of the
project, but not directly along the project parcel.The proposed project provides sidewalk west from
Susan Barden,AICP
Regatta View, 5th Submittal
July 26, 2019
Page 4 of 4
the intersection of Dyer Switch and Dartmouth Drive to Route 9P/Union Ave but does not provide a
sidewalk east from the intersection of Dyer Switch and the proposed street towards the sidewalk
deficient area called out on page 2-2 of the Complete Streets Policy.
a. The Planning Board may want to consider requiring the extension of the proposed sidewalk
east from intersection of Dyer Switch and the proposed street to the edge of adjacent parcel
at 12 Dyer Switch Road in order to close gaps in the sidewalk network, and
b. the applicant should revise the plans accordingly.
EDP response is that sidewalk construction at this point is unnecessary because there is currently no
sidewalk to connect to. It is recommended that that applicant either build the sidewalk along Dyer
Switch Road or post a bond for the eventual construction of this sidewalk.
April 17, 2019 note:
EDP acknowledges this.
The City will need indicate how they would like the applicant to proceed in this regard.
All our comments have been addressed to our satisfaction and we feel that an additional review by our office is
not required. If acceptable to the City, the outstanding items described above can be satisfied through a final
submission to the City Engineering and Planning Departments.
Sincerely,
James J. Connors, P.E., Associate
Sr. Director, Engineering Services
cc: Jen Nechamen, Paul Cummings/Ethan Gaddy, Chazen
File
Z:\projects\31600-31699\31604.XX-Saratoga Springs CDE master\31604_03 Regatta View-Area B,Ph 3\submittals\5th submittal\sent\31604-03_RegattaView-5th Submittal_2019-07-26.docx