HomeMy WebLinkAbout20230233 Station Lane Site Plan Lansing Response to CommentsOctober 18, 2024
Susan B. Barden, AICP
Principal Planner
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
RE: Faden — West Avenue Site Plan
City of Saratoga Springs, Saratoga County, New York
Project #20230233
Dear Mr. Salaway:
Lansing Engineering is pleased to submit this letter in response to the January 29, 2024 letter
containing comments from Robert J. Titus, P.E. and the City of Saratoga Springs Department of
Public Works regarding the above noted project. The following summarizes the comments
followed by our response.
Site Plan Drawings:
Comment: Sheet LM-1: 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.
Response: A detail for the nature trail has been added to sheet DT-6. A 4" mulch
surface is proposed for the trail. Using a permeable surface eliminates the need for
pretreatment, and the mulch will mimic the existing forested ground such that the
peak runoff rates will not increase. The trail will therefore have a minimal impact to
the wetland and 100 ft adjacent area. The applicant will be responsible for
maintenance of the trail and will work with the City to establish a list of routine
maintenance tasks that must be completed and a schedule for completing each
task.
2. Comment: Sheet LM-l: Bollards should be added to protect the gas meter east of the pump
station.
Response: There are four existing bollards around the gas meter on the east side of the
pump station that are proposed to remain in place.
Faden — West Avenue Site Plan
3. Comment: Sheet LM-1: The City may want to consider the applicant adding fencing and a
locked gate around the pump station.
Response: Comment noted. The applicant will coordinate with the City to install a
fence with lockable gate around the pump station if one is desired.
4. Comment: Sheet LM-1: The applicant should explain why the guiderail does not protect the
entire length of the retaining wall.
Response: A minimum separation of 3' must be provided between the back of the
guiderail posts and the back of the retaining wall. Due to site constraints, it was not
possible to maintain the minimum separation without causing an impact to the
100' wetland adjacent area with the previously submitted layout, so the guiderail
was terminated where the exposed height of the wall was approximately 1.5'. The
layout for the retaining wall has been revised in this submission to allow for the
guiderail to be extended to the end of the retaining wall. As a result, a portion of
the retaining wall will impact approximately 131 SF of the 100' wetland adjacent
area. An Article 24 permit application has been submitted to NYSDEC for the
combined impacts to the 100' adjacent area caused by the retaining wall and the
proposed nature trail.
5. Comment: Sheet LM-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
Response: Per Section 10.8 of the City's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) one
(1)12' by 55' loading space is required. Additionally, the area reserved for the
loading space is exclusive of parking lot drive aisles and maneuvering spaces. There
are no locations on the project parcel that can be reserved for a loading space while
still meeting the parking and vehicular/pedestrian circulation requirements for the
project. As such, the required loading space has been provided at the location
shown in the Station Lane right-of-way. A sidewalk has been provided from the
loading space to an exterior door located adjacent to and south of the basement
level parking entrance. Delivery persons and residents utilizing the loading space
can enter the building at this door and then use the elevators or stairs to access the
remainder of the building.
6. Comment: Sheet LIG-1: It is indicated that the storm drain shown to lie within Station Lane
from CB4 to its outlet has a 0% slope. It is clear that there is minimal cover and elevation
change to work with. However, the applicant can remove at least two of the catch basins and
move CB4 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 storm water storage. However, the
plans still note the storage gallery usage. The applicant should confirm whether or not this is
pg. 2
Faden — West Avenue Site Plan
still the intent. As mentioned previously, this length of pipe should not be used for storage
and should be a standard installation.
Response: The plans have been revised to eliminate one catch basin (CB3 in the
previous plan set) and the pipe run between the structures previously known as CB4
and CB2. The structure previously labeled as CB4 has been renamed to CB2 and
relocated to be over the existing 24" culvert. The structures previously known as CB1
and CB2 have been renamed to CB11 and CB1, respectively. Finally, the diameter of
the pipe between CB1 and ES2 has been reduced from 24" to 18". The combination of
these changes allows for a 0.5% slope on this run of pipe.
The HydroCAD model was updated to reflect these changes. Subcatchment SS has
been merged with Subcatchment 2S and all outlet controls on the pipes were
eliminated. After this modification was made, the post -construction peak runoff rate
to Design Point 1 remained less than the existing conditions for all storm events, with
the exception of the 1-year storm. Eliminating the storage provided by the pipe
gallery, along with changes to the site design that were requested by the City
Department of Public Works, resulted in the post -construction peak runoff rate
exceeding the pre -construction conditions by slightly more than 5% for the 1-year
storm event. Additional chambers were added to Subsurface Detention System #1
and the diameter of the low flow orifice was slightly decreased. With these
modifications, the peak runoff rate to Design Point 1 will be less than 5% of the pre -
construction conditions.
7. Comment: Sheet ESC-1: Inlet protection should be shown around structure CB12 on the 24-
inch culvert.
Response: Sheet ESC-1 has been revised to show inlet protection around all
proposed storm structures.
8. Comment: 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.
Response: The plans have been revised to replace the silt fence along the curb line
with compost filter socks.
Site Plan Narrative and Water/Sewer Letter Report:
9. Comment: 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.
Response: The reports and documents included with this submission have been
checked and verified that they contain accurate information related to the
proposed size for the restaurant, retail space, and number of residential units
proposed by the project.
10. Comment: 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
pg. 3
Faden — West Avenue Site Plan
installed. The City should confirm this is the case and provide as -built information, if
collected.
Response: Comment noted.
SEQR Long Form, Part 1:
11. Comment: 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. If 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.
Response: An application for an Article 24 permit has been submitted to the
NYSDEC. A copy of the approval from NYSDEC for the proposed disturbances to the
100' wetland adjacent area will be provided to the City when it has been obtained.
The Full EAF has been revised to note the requirement for the Article 24 permit.
DPW Comments:
Comment: Sheet ECD-1: Change note for parking sign locations to DPS, not DPW.
Response: The note has been changed to reference the Department of Public
Safety.
2. Comment: 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.
Response: The plans have been revised to provide vehicle access to the pump
station. The plantings have been removed and the sidewalk has been routed behind
the pump station.
Comment: 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.
Response: Per Section 10.8 of the City's Unified Development Code (UDO), the
minimum dimensions for the required loading space are 12' in width and at least
55' in length. The 3' jut in the curb represents the difference in space width for the
loading space (12') and passenger vehicle street parking spaces (9'). An additional
curve has been added to the curb to provide a smoother transition for easier snow
removal.
As noted on sheet ECD-1, the applicant will work with the appropriate utility
provider to remove or relocate the guy wire that extends northwest from utility
pole NM 46-2 to ensure there are no conflicts. Utility pole NM 46-2 is located
outside of the loading space and is not anticipated to be in conflict with vehicles
making deliveries to the proposed building.
pg. 4 I
Faden — West Avenue Site Plan
4. Comment: Confirm with CDTA about bus stop location change.
Response: Information regarding the project and the proposed relocation of the
existing bus stop has been provided to CDTA. A copy of CDTA's authorization to
relocate the bus stop will be provided to the City upon receipt from CDTA.
5. Comment: 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.
Response: Comment noted. Please confirm if any additional information is needed
from the applicant to initiate the review and voting process with the Real Estate
Committee and City Council.
Comment: Note states ADA compliant stairs, should this say ramp instead?
Response: The note is in reference to the applicable ADA requirements for stairs,
which include restrictions on riser heights, tread depths, and handrails. There is a
separate callout for the ADA-compliant ramp.
7. Comment: Sheet UG-1: Existing Watermain project is connecting to is 12" out in West Ave.
Update connection note and additional pertinent details accordingly.
Response: The note has been updated to reflect the correct diameter of the existing
watermain. Detail 8 on sheet DT-3 has also been revised to reflect the correct size
for the existing watermain.
8. Comment: 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 I and 2 will require rock removal for installation.
Response: Areas that have the potential for rock removal have been added to
sheet ECD-1. In addition to the two Jellyfish structures, rock removal may be needed
for the group of structures south of Subsurface Detention System #2, Cascade unit
CAS1, and a portion of the footing around the perimeter of the north/south wing of
the building.
9. Comment: DT-2: Why is the Cascade Separator have name changes within the detail? Also
where on the plans is CAS2?
Response: There are two Cascade units proposed for the project. The structure
labeled CAS1 will provide pretreatment for Subsurface Detention System #1 (SDS
#1), which is the larger of the two detention systems. The contributing drainage
area for SDS#1 is larger than the drainage area for Subsurface Detention System #2
(SDS#2) so a larger Cascade unit (CS-5) is needed. SDS#2 has a smaller contributing
drainage area and therefore a smaller (CS-4) Cascade unit is needed. The
differences between the two Cascade units are limited to a few dimensions so only
one detail has been provided. The name changes have been used to highlight the
differences between the CS-4 and CS-5 units.
Faden — West Avenue Site Plan
CAS2 is located in the driveway near the southwest corner of the building,
immediately west of DMH3 and south of JELLYFISH2.
10. Comment: General: Bike rack location on the plans?
Response: A bike rack is provided at the northwest corner of the north/south wing
of the building. This bike rack is provided for employees of the
commercial/restaurant tenants, as well as people visiting the residents of the
building. Bike parking spaces for residents of the building will be provided at the
southeast corner of the lower -level parking garage. The layout for the bike parking
area will be provided in the architectural plans that will be submitted with the
building permit application.
11. Comment: 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?
Response: The guiderail detail has been replaced with a detail that references the
NYSDOT standard detail for box beam guiderails (Item 606.4).
Segmental block retaining walls typically require 3' of separation between the back
of the guiderail post and the back of the wall. In previous submissions, the retaining
wall was located to avoid impacts to the NYSDEC 100' wetland adjacent area. This
resulted in the guiderail terminating before the end of the wall. The wall layout has
been revised in this submission to allow for the guiderail to be extended for the full
length of the wall while maintaining the required 3' of separation between the
guiderail and the block wall. Additional details for the retaining wall, including
requirements for the placement of the guiderail, will be provided to the City as the
project advances to construction. Please note that the revised wall layout results in
approximately 131 SF of impact to the NYSDEC 100' wetland adjacent area. A copy
of an Article 24 permit for impacts to the adjacent area will be provided to the City
when it has been obtained.
12. Comment: Confirm DT-2 Detail 6, is this the standard for all Catch Basins or is it to be called
out on select catch basins?
Response: Snouts shall be installed on structures CBI, CBI I, and DMH4. The labels
on sheet UG-1 for these structures include an asterisk. As stated in note #5 on sheet
UG-1, structures with an asterisk must be 5' diameter, must have a 4' minimum
sump, and must have a snout installed. Detail 6 on sheet DT-2 has been revised to
include a note stating that snouts shall not be installed on structures with sumps
that are less than 4' deep. The structures in the Station Lane right-of-way are more
likely to contain trash and other f/oatables, thereby justifying the installation of the
snouts.
13. Comment: On LT- I, use the City Standard detail (LT-1) for type A lights. Update sheets and
table accordingly.
Response: Sheet LT-1 has been updated to reflect the use of the City Type A lights,
including the detail, lighting schedule and lighting output grid.
Faden - West Avenue Site Plan
14, Comment: In the parking and jut out, add note that the property is to maintain those road
areas for snow removal during winter.
Response: A note has been added to the lower right corner of sheet LM-1 stating
that the property owner shall be responsible for snow removal from the street
parking spaces and the loading space along the north side of Station Lane. A similar
note (#33) has been added to sheet COV-1 under the General Notes heading.
15. Comment: Red Maples are invasive species to the region. Choose a different tree and
confirm all others are on the City's approved species list.
Response: Red maples have been removed from the landscaping plan and replaced
with Cladrastis kentukea (Yellowwood), which is on the City of Saratoga Springs
Approved Species List.
Honeylocust and American Elm trees were also removed from the landscaping plan
as they are not included on the City's Approved Species List. Kentucky Coffeetree
(Gymnocladus dioicus) is proposed as a replacement for the Honeylocust and
Northern Red Oak (Quercus rubra) is proposed to replace the American Elm trees.
Both the Kentucky Coffeetree and the Northern Red Oak are included in the City's
Approved Species List.
16. Comment: 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.
Response: The proposed location for the train station sign has been moved to the
grass strip between the new sidewalk and concrete curb near the northwest corner
of the intersection of Station Lane and West Ave, as shown on sheet LM-1.
17. Comment: Relocation of stop signs need to be before the crosswalk, not how it is shown on
the plans. Update at all locations.
Response: The new stop sign at the proposed driveway has been moved to be
placed before the crosswalk. The existing stop sign controlling traffic turning onto
West Avenue from Station Lane is located after the proposed north/south oriented
crosswalk on Station Lane. Therefore, a callout has been added to relocate the
existing stop sign. Additionally, a note has been added to replace the existing stop
sign and post if they are found to be in poor condition.
18. Comment: Add a note at crosswalk installations referencing the "City's pedestrian crossing
toolbox".
Response: A note has been added at the three proposed crosswalks referencing the
City of Saratoga Springs Pedestrian Crossing Toolbox.
19. Comment: Note per the MUTCD the parking stall width on the street can be 8' in width.
Response: Comment noted. Per the City's Parking Layout Standard Detail (drawing
SS-9), the required stall width for parallel spaces is 9'. As such, a width of 9' has
been maintained for the proposed street parking spaces along the north side of
Station Lane.
Faden — West Avenue Site Plan
Attached is a copy of the revised plan set and supporting documents for your review. If additional
information is required, please contact our office at your earliest convenience. Thank you.
Sincerely,
LANSING ENGINEERING, PC
Michael T. Vaillant, PE
CC: File