HomeMy WebLinkAbout20241018 NYS Route 29 Prime Station Lane Site Plan Comment Response Letter 04212025EP Land Services LLC
621 Columbia Street Ext.
Cohoes NY 12047
(518) 785-9000
April 21, 2025
James Salaway, P.E., City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
Re: Station Lane Subdivision
PB# 20241018
City of Saratoga Springs, NY
#2022-02
Dear Ms. Dryburgh:
EP Land Services LLC has received comments dated March 4, 2025 from Barton & Loguidice with respect to
the proposed Staton Lane Subdivision and following comment responses to those comments.
General
1. The Army Corps of Engineers has approved coverage under its Nationwide Permit 29 based
on a small degree of wetland disturbance. Conditions and notification requirements apply.
Coordinate with regulatory agencies as required.
Response: ACOE and NYSDEC Water Quality Permit have been obtained. See enclosed permits
2. The layout of this residential project is quite dense. There are some concerns for stormwater
impacts due to significant increase in impervious area from project but can be addressed
with reasonable infiltration rates and adequate area. See subsequent comments below.
Response: Project comports to City Code and Stormwater concerns are addressed below.
3. There are two separate areas with soil groups of A/D. Please furnish copy of soils report, test
locations and soil logs, which would help better understand seasonal high
groundwater/mottling in these areas. Entire site was modeled as A soils only. In drier
portions of the year it will runoff as an A type soil but groundwater can be 2’ shallow in
isolated areas and react as a D soil. See stormwater and plan comments below.
Response: Test pit data, seasonal high water table elevation results, locations are shown on C-2,
C-4 and with Stormwater report. An older overall Geotech report confirming Gifford Engineering
results from Foundation Design PC dated August 2017 has been included.
4. Labeling of key features on the plans such as building numbers, stormwater practices, site
features and related needs to be improved.
Response: See revised plans.
5. City comments will be distributed separately.
Response: Will respond once City comments are received.
FEAF
1. Include NYSDEC stormwater permit in list of required agency approvals.
Response: LEAF Part 1. B.G does state NYSDEC (“stormwater permit”) in form. I may have provided
you with older version. See enclosed LEAF
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 2 of 12
Project Narrative
1. Number of units in section 1.3 seems to add up to 349 units and not 344. Please clarify.
Response: The total # of units of 344 was correct but there was a typo on Building #2 total units
and that has been correct to 160 units for a total of 344 units.
2. What is the status of lot mergers tax map nos. 2.70, 2.19 and 2.18?
Response: The project involves tax map numbers 2.70, 2.19 and 2.18 and when the subdivision is
filed for the 13 new lots, the existing 3 tax parcel will be removed by the county. If the City wants
a formal merger of the lots before they are subdivide, we can certainly do that request.
3. State number of bedrooms of the 46 townhouse units in section 1.4.
Response: See revised Project Narrative section 1.4 denoting 4 bedrooms in each
townhouse.
4. Discuss parking at the 110 room hotel if fully occupied with only 99 spaces in section 1.5. Is
there overflow and employee parking nearby?
Response: See revised Project Narrative section 1.5.
5. What is the status of the concept of dedication of road ROW and Stormwater Parcels to the
city in section 1.6?
Response: All stormwater infiltration basins will be privately owned. As for roadway ROW
(Station Park Ave) there have been no formal comments by the City on this topic beside
planning board past comments wanting this road Public.
6. The amenities proposed seem amenable but fire pits are noted. Will there be restricted
hours, adult supervision and fire control measures? Include discussion in section 1.7.
Response: See revised Project Narrative section 1.7.
7. Add brief section on number of Auto and ebike charging stations and rationale on number
provided.
Response: See revised Project Narrative new section 1.8.
8. It would be extremely helpful if a version of the map in section 2.1 at a blown up scale with
all of the 13 lots shown.
Response: See revised Project Narrative new section 2.1.
9. What is the status of the special use permit for the multi-family facilities? What is the status
of the area variances for frontage less than 70% in section 2.3?
Response: Area Variance and Special use permit have been started by the City and after
SQRA determination is done then special use permit and area variance applications can then
proceed.
10. The concept of a Dog Park would likely be popular and used. The likelihood of dog fights and
possible injuries to humans and animals is perhaps small but if the public is able to come the
city should be absolved of liability in my opinion. We recommend coordination with city
planning and attorney offices on this amenity.
Response: The Dog Park is privately owned and is not open to the public. Thus, there is no
liability for the City at this location
11. Include requirements of flow reservation, review and approval from Saratoga County Sewer
District. Include ant correspondence with SCSD in next submission.
Response: SCSD does not have jurisdiction within the city limits.
Cost estimate
12. Not provided, please submit per City standards.
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 3 of 12
Response: Cost estimate of work in ROW will be submitted once the project receives a
SEQRA determination.
13. Include all work for all three phases and offsite work.
Response: See response above.
FEAF
1. Break down 13 lots in a brief summary in section A.
Response: See Revised LEAF.
2. Include Stormwater permit from NYSDEC in Part 1, section B.
Response: LEAF Part 1. B.G does state NYSDEC (“stormwater permit”) in form. I may have provided
you with older version. See enclosed LEAF
3. Confirm 17 acres of disturbance of 17.6 acres site. Only 0.60 acres are not disturbed?
Response: The disturbance of 17.0 accounts for lands within existing City ROW and DOT ROW.
There is approximately 0.9 acres on-site that will not be disturbed on site.
4. Intermittent dewatering in areas of A/D soils is likely during construction. Revise part 1
section D.2.iv.
Response: See Revised LEAF.
5. Screening via vegetation has more value than just light blocking light. See Part 1-secion
D.2.n.ii.
Response: Section D.2.n.ii only questions whether a natural barrier is being removed and
the effect to site lighting. There are other impacts by removing existing trees and those
impacts are noted under other sections of LEAF.
Complete Streets Checklist
1. Not provided, please submit per City standards. Confirm if City will accept main road and
infrastructure ownership.
Response: Complete streets form was submitted to City in August of 2024. It has been
included for TDE to review.
Water and Sewer Report for Station Park
1. Provide M&E report that confirms NFPA/NYS codes for required fire flow demands for each
building type that includes all head losses (and backflow prevention devices, fittings and pipe
lengths). Will a booster pump be required to provide fire flows for the upper flows of the
four story buildings?
Response: As noted in section 2.2 of report the MEP engineer will supply report on sprinkler
design, head loss, backflow prevention etc. for the building during the building permit
process and submitted DPH-347 form. As noted in the report, a booster pump is most not
required based upon the pressure but the MEP design will confirm that requirement.
2. Is there any mitigation for offsite sewer system proposed beyond funding installation of
proposed pump station improvements? Providing spare check valves for the 24 year old
check valves in the valve vault should be considered.
Response: No additional funding besides the pump station upgrades is proposed. See D-3
for new check valves.
3. Confirm pumps include non-clog type of impellers.
Response: Flygt model NP 3171 SH3 adaptive 275 is a non-clogging pump. See manufacturer
information included in Exhibit 3 of the revised Water and Sewer Report.
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 4 of 12
4. Has this report been provided to Saratoga County Sewer District (SCSD) and design flow
reservation been obtained? Coordinate with SCSD.
Response: SCSD does not have jurisdiction within the city limits.
5. Pump selection of 293 GPM is barely above the peak pumping rate required at 289 GPM.
Confirm the pump selection calculations includes all head losses including fittings, valves and
the check valves. The selection of C=110 for a frictional coefficient seems reasonable but a
ductile iron force main will degrade over time. We recommend a pump (operating by itself)
operate at least 300-305 GPM.
Response: The existing peaking factor of 3.3 was determined based upon flow metered while
a sewer peaking factor of 3.4 was used in the calculations. The report uses a more
conservative peaking value, thus represents an additional 10 gpm used in the overall sewer
peak value used of 289 gpm. Finally, per sewer report section 2.3.2 the sewer flows for
Intrada (26,975 gpd) and Askew Development (5,840 gpd) were obtained from the sewer
reports. As these two developments have been built, actual sewer flows can be determined
now. I’m waiting on hour meter reading to confirm actual flows based upon run time of
pumps from the City. Most likely the 32,815 gpd is conservative and there is actually a lower
flow present by these two projects site to the existing pump station. Once data is obtain I
will confirm average existing flow to sewer pump station
6. Revise section 2.3.1 to include natural gas powered generator.
Response: See Revised 2.3.1 of report.
7. There are a number of gravity sewer sections with less than 2 feet/second velocities (MH’s
6-10), some significantly. This is due to slopes less than 0.50%. Can greater slopes be
provided by lessening upstream slopes without piping conflicts to increase slope
downstream in runs from MH6 through MH10? These concerns are particularly acute with
the widespread use of “flushable” and non-flushable wipes.
8. Response: See revised sewer profile on C-19 as sewer pipe run between MH #6 to MH #10
has a minimum slope of 0.50%. Per 10-States Standard pipe flowing full must have a cleaning
velocity of 2.0 fps. This is demonstrated under section 2.3.2 of Water and Sewer Report, but
sewer flows through pipe based upon peaking factor was also used to demonstrate the
capacity of the system.
Traffic Impact Evaluation
1. The traffic impact evaluation was completed in accordance with industry accepted practices
and methodology.
Response: None required.
2. The proposed development consists of two multifamily housing buildings with 192-units and
152-units (totaling 344 units), 46 row homes, and a hotel with a maximum of 110-rooms that
are expected to generate 206 new vehicle trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 213
new vehicle trips during the weekday PM peak hour.
Response: None required.
3. We take no exception to the use of Land Use Code (LUC) 221 – Affordable Housing, LUC 215
– Single-Family Attached Housing, and LUC 310 – Hotel, or the respective trip generation
results for each of those LUCs provided by the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
Response: None required.
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 5 of 12
4. The PM right turn movement on Figure 2 for the Washington Street (NY 29) westbound
approach identifies a lower volume of vehicles when compared to the Traffic Volume Data
in Attachment B (61 verses 65 vehicles). However, the difference is not considered
significant to warrant adjustment because the westbound Thru/Right movement and overall
Approach Level of Service remain at C for the No-Build 2028 and Build 2028 scenarios.
Response: None required.
5. We take no exception to the sight distance analysis provided.
Response: None required.
6. Coordinate with city of Saratoga Springs regarding refuse truck access and CDTA for
provisions for public transportation. Please provide correspondence from CDTA.
Response: Information has been submitted to CTDA by traffic consultant. If we have a
response, we will inform TDE/City
Stormwater Management
1. The practices recommended for water quality and volume treatment include a wet swale,
infiltration basin and a subsurface infiltration areas utilizing perforated pipes. A few
proprietary units are proposed for strictly water quality treatment. The practices selected
are sound choices but there are concerns for sizing and long term performance based on use
of the design infiltration rate of 200 inches per hour. Is groundwater level mounding or
hydro-compaction in a wet season possible under array?
Response: See revised plans and Stormwater report dated 4/10/25. The Stormwater report
has been updated to NYSDEC 2025 SWDM requirements. The infiltration rate in
Underground infiltration Array #1 and Infiltration Basin #1 have been reduced to 100
inch/hour.
2. We request the full geotechnical report be submitted as just some of the results we shown
in the stormwater report. The Saratoga County Soil survey indicates permeability of Windsor
soils in the range of 20-100 inches per hour. 200 inches per hour seems quite excessive
especially since conservative design per NYSDEC computation sheets are applied on the
infiltration basin bottom only and not the side slopes as currently modeled in the H&H
computations. It should be noted other permeability tests onsite were considerably less and
indicative of varying soil profiles and infiltration capacity. Revise peak elevation data as
needed.
Response: See revised plans and Stormwater report dated 4/10/25. The infiltration rate is
within Underground infiltration Array #1 and Infiltration Basin #1 is only applicable to the
bottom of practice per DEC standards. This is demonstrated in pond report file in Exhibit C
where exfiltration has been set to “contour area” and cfs outflow is a constant value.
3. Please include NYSDEC computation sheets for sizing underground infiltration and wet swale
practices in next submission.
Response: See revised Stormwater report dated 4/10/25 Exhibit B
4. It is conceivable that the sub-surface infiltration array can be lengthened towards or even
under the dog park and likely would have to be. Infiltration in areas of A/D soils is unlikely
due to seasonal groundwater but in areas of deep sand is very feasible. This practice treats
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 6 of 12
almost 4 times the area as the infiltration basin and only undersized sumps in drainage
structures keeps sediment out of system. Increase sediment removal capacity with 2-3’ deep
sumps currently shown as only 6” deep.
Response: See revised plans and Stormwater report dated 4/10/25. The length of array has
been increased by 20 feet and an extra 36” pipe (additional 2,000 sf) has been added. Also,
instead of extra sediment removal in catch basin an “isolator row” with 12’ sump with a
capacity of about 500 cf has been added to array for easy of cleaning.
5. If additional capacity is needed consideration of drywells and/or infiltration trenches at the
beginning of watershed areas should be given. Smaller drainage areas with less runoff could
be good candidates for these applications.
Response: See revised plans and Stormwater report dated 4/10/25, but beyond the array
expansion, no additional drywells or infiltration areas are proposed at this time.
6. Please provide full sized sheets of pre-and post development watershed maps that include
all sub-catchments, location of 13 lots, time of concentration lines and components (use
100’ maximum for sheet flow), better labeling/locations of stormwater practices, soil groups
and related. Current mapping is too small to read well.
Response: See revised Stormwater report dated 4/10/25
7. Include NYSDEC de-compaction data as an appendix in SWPPP and notate need on plans in
strategic areas.
Response: See revised Stormwater report dated 4/10/25 section 11.0 and C-2 of plan set.
8. Has infiltration trench and/or drywell practices been considered to reduce area dependent
on underground array?
Response: Additional small areas were reviewed for stormwater but based upon percolation
rates and depth to seasonal high water table, it was determined one practice was the best
for maintenance and meeting the separation distance requirements from buildings and
infrastructure.
9. On page 3 of the Stormwater Management Report (SWMR), post development 3 is stated to
be 8.5 acres in size but is slightly over 3 acres. Please clarify.
Response: See Stormwater report dated 4/10/25. Post Development Area #3 watershed
area typo has been corrected.
10. Drainage areas are not consistent. Table 1 of SWMR totals 21.5 acres but site is 17.6 acres.
Show offsite areas on pre and post development maps requested.
Response: The site is 17.6 acres but the watersheds to discharge points contains lands off
site (aka Route 29, Station Lane) to determine the pre and post development watersheds
total 21.5 acres.
11. Show WQv calculations with input values and not just formula.
Response: See Stormwater report dated 4/10/25. Section 4.1 and Exhibit B
12. Provide a brief discussion on why no tailwater was assumed for the wet swale in section 5.5.
20 inches per hour infiltration was assumed and confirm testing data supports that rate.
Response: Per Stormwater report section 2.3 the infiltration rate determined in the field was
30 inch/hr but in the hydraulic model used 20 inch/hr was used. Tailwater was not assumed
in existing channel, and it effects on the wet swale as no stormwater discharges from the
wet swale up to the 100-year storm event.
13. Is there an internal or external bypass for the water quality units?
Response: WQv #1 and WQv #3 do not required a “by-pass” pipe/floe per Contech
manufacture information. WQv #2 to infiltration array does require a by-pass pipe based
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 7 of 12
upon flow and was included in model by Hydrograph #9 and how the flow will be split to
WQv #2 or by-pass the hydrodynamic unit. The flow to WQv #2 Is noted by Hydrograph #10
and By-Pass flow by hydrograph #11 in model. The hydrograph #10 and #11 are based up
slope, pipe diameters and invert elevations of outlet pipe configuration at storm manhole
#7.
14. Re-check impervious area calculations of post development comptations in Exhibit A. They
seem low based on dense layout with hard surfaces most everyhere.
Response: Impervious area in watershed #1A (18,869 sf) + watershed #2 (390,055 sf) +
watershed #3A (98,154 sf) is a total of 507,078 sf or 11.64 acres or is conservative based
upon C-2 where impervious area was calculated total 11.41 acres. Some of the reasons there
is more impervious area, is because of existing Station Lane and NYS Route 29 is now being
collected and sent to treatment areas.
15. Does 18.5 acres listed in soil survey map unit legend include offsite area? Include all drainage
areas on watershed maps and hydrologic modeling.
Response: soil map from NRCS was used to determine the soil limits on the site. The area
was not based upon watershed. Thus 18.5 acres has nothing to do with the watershed
delineation of this project.
16. Label WQv units applicable to each WQv calculation in Exhibit B.
Response: See revised Stormwater report dated 4/10/25.
17. Include a complete routing diagram for pre-condition and post condition H&H modeling.
Many nodes beyond 10, 11, 12 and 13 are not shown.
Response: All routing of stormwater was included in stormwater report. The three-
stormwater practices are shown in model and the WSEL within each practice was
determined (see Exhibit C). No additional nodes besides what was included in model are
required. For closed drainage system that was included in Exhibit D. See revised plans and
Stormwater report dated 4/10/25
18. Post 2 piping diagram should label discharges consistent on modeling and FES numbers on
the plans and Figure 3. Label outfall numbers. Label infiltration basin, underground array
and wet swale on diagrams.
Response: See revised Stormwater report dated 4/10/25 Exhibit D.
19. Provide a construction sequence schedule for each phase in section 2.4 of the SWPPP.
Complete stabilization of each phase before proceeding with next phase should be noted to
ensure less than 5 acres are un-stabilized at any time.
Response: See revised Stormwater report dated 4/10/25, section 11.0
20. Include final inspection and approval of city staff and SWPPP monitoring professional in
section 7.4 before filing Notice of Termination.
Response: See revised Stormwater report dated 4/10/25 section 12.4
21. Include Residential housing in NOI question 2.
Response: NYSDEC ENOI automatically fills in #2 based upon the data inputted. Cannot
change that cell within ENOI.
22. What does Part III mean in the title of the post construction maintenance manual.
Response: See revised Stormwater report dated 4/10/25 section 13.0 and exhibit G are
required by NYDEC General Permit and goes to who owns and operates the stormwater
practice and the future maintenance and inspection requirements of the practices per
NYSDEC General permit requirements.
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 8 of 12
23. Notate that all sediments will be cleaned of all drainage structures, infiltration basin and
underground array be cleaned of sediment deposits and drainage areas stabilized in
maintenance manual.
Response: See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25 C-17.
24. Mark up Contech data with specific units of water quality units proposed in data chart. Label
on plans and SWMR calculation sheets.
Response: See Revised Stormwater Report Dated 4/10/25, Exhibit B
Building Elevations
1. What are siding and trim materials on the exterior of all building types. Economy materials
are discouraged while quality products will enhance the desirability and aesthetic intent of
the project. Submit samples of siding proposed to City of Saratoga Springs.
Response: Review of architecture features of buildings will be reviewed by the City’s Design
Review Commission (DRC) per city code. DRC submission to City and approvals will be
performed by architect.
2. Submit full sheet and colored elevations.
Response: 11x17 of buildings have been provided to City during site plan review to see
overall look. City DRC will have approval of architecture of building and submission
requirements will follow DRC application requirement when submitted.
3. Label building types and include all four elevations for all buildings including row houses.
Provide maximum top of roof and finished floor elevations of buildings. Response: See
Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25 C-9 for building FF elevation, GFE elevations
and building ht. based upon FFE elevation.
Plans
1. The plans were reviewed but additional future comments are likely given the comments
herein and the breadth of revisions or clarifications needed.
Response: No required at this time.
2. The plans are labeled preliminary and some of the comments listed below relate to
improving labeling, need for legends and clarity of design intent. Future submissions will
need some more detailing and likely re-sizing of the subsurface stormwater infiltration
system.
Response: See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25.
3/4/25Sheet C-1-Cover:
1. Include all plan sheets in sheet index. Landscaping (L) sheets are missing.
Response: See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25.
Sheet C-2-Notes:
1. Label Hotel building in green space calculation after building number.
Response: See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25.
2. Verify impervious area and green space computations. Paver areas are considered
impervious and not green areas.
Response: Paver area along with Playground mat was included square footage of impervious
area calculated under “Concrete/Pavers” area sf.
Sheet C-3-UDO Compliance Plan:
1. Plan views would be improved if at 1”=60’ or better labeling of; top of roof spot elevation(s),
building numbers, private road labeling, and a descriptive note for the steep slope
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 9 of 12
stabilization near rote 29. Reference sheet for proposed grading and stabilization
techniques.
Response: See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25.
2. Variance for building height is required and potential bonus points from the Design Review
Board review pertain to the proposed height. What is the status of that review?
Response: The City needs to review the bonus request and no action on this item has
occurred by the City.
Sheet C-4-Existing Conditions and Removal Plan (now C-5)
1. Label the areas of tree retention that comprise the 52 to be retained.
Response: See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25.
Sheet C-5-Subdivision Plan: (now C-6)
1. Narrative discusses 13 lots and Lot legend shows 10 lots. Please clarify.
Response: See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25 for the 13 lots.
Sheet C-6-Easement Plan: (now C-7)
1. Notate the proposed parties of the easement, intent and ultimately records of filing
easement to the city.
Response: See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25.
Sheet C-7-Layout Plan: (now C-8)
1. What surface is proposed for the southerly tab of lot 8? Grass? South of the center feature.
Response: See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25 C-16 for coverage (grass,
mulch, landscaping stone, etc.).
2. Label all features that appear a boxes and center feature between walks between buildings.
Response: See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25 C-16 for miscellaneous
structures information and sizes.
Sheet C-8-Grading Plan: (now C-9)
1. Show existing contours where proposed contours tie into them around property lines. West
area of the site employs retaining walls but need to be verified that grading will only occur
on the property. Coordinate with the railroad on any permits or other requirements for
working so close to their land. Show temporary
Response: See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25. West retaining wall is placed 4
feet from property line for future maintenance. C-16 for coverage (grass, mulch, landscaping
stone, etc.).
Sheet C-9-Spot Grading Plan: (now C-10 and C-11)
1. Provide all contouring within basin to reflect actual bottom elevations relevant to bottom of
wall elevations. Some of the forebays only look 1’ deep. Please clarify.
Response: Bottom of Infiltration Array per detail on D-3 is at elevation 319.00 or at least 4
feet below bottom of retaining wall. Basically, the proposed top of array is 12” above the
bottom of wall. Ther are no forebay all pretreatment is done by hydrodynamic units before
stormwater runoff enters the water swale, infiltration array or infiltration basin.
2. Show the outline of the underground infiltration array.
Response: See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25.
Sheet C-11-Utility Plan: (now C-12)
1. There is room to lengthen the four perforated pipes at the underground infiltration array in
both the north and south directions. With a lower infiltration rate additional area will be
required. A fifth pipe could also be used.
Response: See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25.
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 10 of 12
Sheet C-13-Site Lighting Plan: (now C-13)
1. Is lighting proposed at the pavilion between buildings 1 and 2? Are these lights factored into
the plan?
Response: Yes, the lights within the courtyard between building #1 and #2, labeled as LP-D
and are 12’ high decorative light poles (see D-5 for detail) have been included in the
photometric plans shown on C-13.
2. Are the dog park and playground to receive lighting? It does appear so in the light values
shown.
Response: Lighting is not proposed at dog park and playground area to limit use of these site
amenities after dust.
3. What are the hours these area will be open? Provide signage with hours of operation.
Response: Dust to dawn. See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25 sheet C-14.
Sheet C-15-Site features & Land Coverage Plan: (now C-16)
1. What are the proposed hours and availability for the gas fire pit near building 2? What
controls on its usage for its use?
Response: The gas fire pit is controlled or turned on/off by tenants. There is a timer with the
switch which automatically shuts off the gas off after a certain amount of time.
Sheet C-16-Erosion Control Plan: (now C-17)
1. Include notes for protection of underground infiltration array from staging or equipment
travel or storage at these two features. Show staging areas that do not harm installed
infrastructure and impact soil permeability.
Response: See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25.
2. Notate the removal of sediment from structures and infiltration basin once runoff area is
stabilized or allowable limits of accumulation have been reached.
Response: See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25.
3. Show concrete washout areas for all three areas and reference removal/restoration
information.
Response: There are 5 concrete washout areas shown on plans. At least one for each phase
of the project. Additional notes to washout areas for phasing have been added. See Revised
Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25.
4. Show limits of phases, perhaps with a unique line type as it does not show well.
Response: Limits of work for each phase (grading, utilities, sidewalk, pavement, etc.) are
shown on C-22 to C-24. Erosion control practices have been added to these sheets.
Sheet C-17-5 Acre Disturbance Plan: (now C-18)
1. Notate stabilization of surfaces for previous phase before starting a new phase.
Response: See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25.
Sheet C-18-Plan and Profile: (now C-19)
1. Provide match lines on plan views for partial plans and profiles.
Response: There are no partial plan/profiles on this sheet. C-20 does show a match line A-A
in profile view as it not required in plan view.
2. What is a P drainage structure? Good legends would go a long way to plan clarity.
Response: P stands for “pipe” and no structure are listed as P. The legend from C-2 has been
included. See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25.
Sheet C-19-Plan and Profile: (now C-20)
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 11 of 12
1. Show all water and sanitary sewer laterals. Sewer laterals entering sanitary sewer manholes
should be above concrete benching.
See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25. Water and sewer lateral are now shown
on both profile sheets. All sewer laterals going into manhole have been place 9-inches above
the invert out elevation to make sure they are not in conflict with the bench. MH #11 as it
at the end of run, the laterals were placed 0.1 above invert out elevation to increase cover
on lateral and help with flow characteristic at the beginning of this sewer run.
Sheet C-20-NYS Route 29 Improvements: (now C-21)
1. We recommend dry mix concrete beneath curbing and concrete backing at joints and
intermittent backing of curb to ensure stability.
Response: All details on this sheet are in conformance with NYSDOT standards as all
elements with NYS Route 29 must comply with DOT specifications.
2. Extend rip rap protection down to toe of slope below stormwater discharges.
Response: Per NYSDEC Blue Book dated 11/2016, section 3.16 “STANDARD AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROCK OUTLET” sizing of rip-rap apron was followed. The length and
width of apron is shown on C-21 plan and detailed is per section 3.16 of Blue Book.
Sheet W-1-ACOE Impacts:
1. Label the wet swale in the buffer impact plan.
Response: See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25.
2. Provide velocity of 24-inch cross culvert (with infill) to verify if turf reinforcement material
can remain stable during 50-100 year storm peak rates of runoff. Specify mat or other
material selected and provide length and width.
Response: Post #1 100-year peak storm event is 0.18 cfs, which flows to this culvert. If the
15-inch @ 0.5% slope at beginning of swale from the train station parking lot is flowing full
(or 5 cfs) there is less than 5.5 cfs to 24-inch partially filled culvert pipe. Based upon 5.5 cfs
the culvert will experience a maximum velocity of less than 5 fps (see Stormwater Report
Exhibit D for culvert calculation). Turf Mat C350 has an allowable sheer velocity of between
10.5 fps to 20 fps thus turf mat is appropriately specified.
Sheet D-1-Details:
1. Private road section shows an underdrain,
Response: Underdrain has been removed. See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25.
2. For private road why 90% compaction and not 95 % standard proctor?
Response: See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25.
3. Add a note 11 to the group for accessible sidewalks and curb ramps to indicate materials,
dimensions, specifications to comply with applicable NYSDOT standard sheets.
Response: See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25, But also included the City as
City details are different from NYSDOT specifications.
4. Revise note 4 to add medium broom finish in private sidewalk detail.
Response: See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25.
5. See previous comments and curb base and backing.
Response: Curbing detail per city standard detail and is slip formed curb.
Sheet D-2-Details:
1. Confirm the PVC material (vertical “boards”) are all on all sides and not just the front.
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 12 of 12
Response: Yes, solid fence around dumpster and See Revised Construction Drawing Dated
4/10/25 with dumpster fence added.
2. Will retaining walls have an underdrain as detailed? Show on plans to discharge if providing
them.
Response: As the retaining walls are all in fill, above existing grade and soils have high
percolation rates, retaining wall footing drains are not required for this project. See Revised
Drawing Dated 4/10/25.
Sheet D-3-Details:
1. Catch basin sumps should be deeper, we recommend 3’ depth. See previous comments for
protecting infiltration systems.
Response: Deep sump catch basins have not been included for this project. The proposed
hydrodynamic units are oversized and provide sediment removal. As the two surface basin
(Wet Swale #1 and Inflation Basin #1) have small watershed extra sediment removal in not
a concern. The underground infiltration array has included an “isolator row” with sump to
ensure sediment does not reduce percolation rate within array and for easy of cleaning.
See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25.
2. Specify perforated stormwater pattern.
Response: See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25.
3. Provide a table of all pipe/structure elevations for each WQv unit.
Response: Make and model with pipe invert, rim elevation etc. were included next to
hydrodynamic unit typical detail.
Sheet D-5-Details:
1. Specify soil mix for plantings with soil amendments as native sand soils would need it.
Response: City soil amendment requirements have been added to all planting details. See
Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25.
2. Note stabilization of surfaces for previous phase before starting a new phase.
Response: See Revised Construction Drawing Dated 4/10/25.
Sheet L101-Planting Plan:
1. Screening east of the hotel near the property line would benefit with two more trees,
possibly conifers for better screening.
Response: See revised L101, which shows two additional Fraser Firs added east of the hotel for
enhanced all year round screening.
2. Label exterior structures and shapes on all the landscaping sheets.
Response: See revised L100, which provides a legend for the Site Amenities. Additionally,
landscape features have been labeled on the drawings.
If City has questions about the responses, please feel free in contacting me at 518-785-9000 or at
jeaston@theprimecompanies.com.
Sincerely,
James W. Easton, PE
Director of Land Development