HomeMy WebLinkAbout20241018 NYS Route 29 Prime Station Lane Site Plan Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C. Second Review
539.072.001 Station Lane-2025 -second comment letter (ID 3359548).docx–February 13, 2025
10 Airline Drive, Suite 200, Albany, NY 12205 · Office: 518-218-1801 · Fax: 518-218-1805 · BartonandLoguidice.com
June 25, 2025
James Salaway, P.E., City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
Re: Saratoga Station Park Site Plan Review – DE services
PB# 20241018/PO #250813
File: 539.072.001
Dear Mr. Salaway:
Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C. (B&L) has completed a second review of the following reports and
information from EP Land Services, LLC for a project located at Station Lane as proposed by Prime
Companies:
Stormwater Management Report dated July 12, 2024, revised April 4, 2025, received via e-mail
on June 17, 2025;
Project Narrative for Saratoga Station Park, received via e-mail on June 17, 2025;
Water and Sewer Report dated July 12, 2024, revised April 10, 2025;
FEAF dated July 12, 2024 signed by James Easton, PE;
Complete Streets Checklist dated July 12, 2024;
Station Park Geotechnical Evaluation as prepared by Foundation Design, P.C. dated August 2017;
New Water Service Application dated July 12, 2024;
NYSDEC Permit #5-4115-00274/00001 (WQ and correspondence dated January 27, 2025);
ACOE Nationwide permit received via e-mail from James Salaway, PE from City of Saratoga
Springs on February 24, 2025.
This review was conducted on behalf of the City of Saratoga Springs. The above referenced documents
and information were reviewed only with respect to our scope outlined in our task order/proposal.
General
1. The Army Corps of Engineers has approved coverage under its Nationwide Permit 29 based on a
small degree of wetland disturbance. NYSDEC has issued its own water quality permit.
Conditions and notification requirements apply. Coordinate with regulatory agencies as
required.
2. City comments will be distributed separately.
James Salaway, P.E., City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
June 25, 2025
539.072.001 Station Lane-2025 -second comment letter (ID 3359548).docx
3. See complete streets checklist regarding public transit and specific comments.
4. The geo-technical report was useful for onsite soil data but our scope of review does not include
building foundation design review.
5. Saratoga County Sewer District typically needs to determine flow reservations for large projects
in the City.
6. Include all sheets in index. Detail sheets are missing.
7. Coordinate with the City on the subdivision lots and any formal mergers.
Project Narrative
1. Include requirements of flow reservation, review and approval from Saratoga County Sewer
District. Include any correspondence with SCSD in next submission. Response letter indicated
SCSD does not have jurisdiction. The typical process at SCSD is to review and acknowledge flow
calculations so that SCSD capacity can be reserved and planned for. Confirm SCSD requirements
for this project.
2. Lot mergers and designated lots including any roads to be owned by the city still need to be
coordinated with the City of Saratoga Springs. The response letter described options.
3. Special use variances are proposed to be applied for after the city’s SEQR determination according
to the response letter.
Cost estimate
1. Not provided and response indicated it is pending after SEQR determination.
Complete Streets Checklist
1. Under transit facilities section the form indicates N/A for transit shelters bus turnouts and
standing pads. For such a large and dense project and projected population we would assume
public transit would be beneficial to all involved. If there is pertinent correspondence from CDTA
please provide in next submission. Please coordinate with City and CDTA.
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). This is still pending.
2. Has this report been provided to Saratoga County Sewer District (SCSD) and design flow
reservation been obtained? Coordinate with SCSD. See general comments.
3. Pump selection will not pump highest peak discharges without both pumps but emergency
connection will allow a portable pump to supplement discharge scenerios.
4. Coordinate with the city for any infrastructure maintenance mitigation needs.
Geotechnical Evaluation
1. There are recommendations in section 5.1 of the report regarding observation proof-rolling for
pavement sub-grade and building areas that should be noted in the plan set as it is advisable.
James Salaway, P.E., City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
June 25, 2025
539.072.001 Station Lane-2025 -second comment letter (ID 3359548).docx
2. We also recommend retaining qualified geotechnical engineers involvement for imported
material inspection and monitoring of structural fill placement and other critical operations
involved the buildings and infrastructure. See sections 5.2 and 5.3.
Stormwater Management
1. There are still concerns with the undersized sumps in drainage structures. These would provide
a more visible practice and more accessible for maintenance. The isolator row addition and
additional length is noted but providing sumps to several key structures would provide more
pre-treatment for the infiltration gallery underground that is less visible and difficult to access.
See previous comments. Cleaning the isolator row is harder than removing sediments from
structures in our opinion. Please clarify.
2. Label infiltration basin, underground array, water quality units and wet swale on the Post
Development Watershed map in exhibit E.
3. Response to previous comment 2 is confusing as it references use of 100 inches per hour at
infiltration chambers and surface basin but response letter indicates use of a constant infiltration
rate in CFS outflow as shown in modeling. With additional surcharge inside the system additional
head would increase. Also stated is the infiltration through contour area which seems applicable to
the underground units but not the bottom only area of the surface basin. Is infiltration at the
infiltration basin (3.55 acres) computed for bottom only area exclusive of side-slopes? Please clarify
how the rate of 25.46 CFS was derived.
4. Modeling for infiltration array (Pond 2) indicates rise and span of 36” (Box culvert?)and not a circular
pipe. This seems to include volume that a circular pipe would not totally. Please clarify.
5. It appears that the modeling does not include pages for the performance of the infiltration array,
infiltration basin and wet swale practices for all storm events modeling. Calculations and modeling
needs to depict peak water elevations for these storms consistent with what are shown on the plans.
Please clarify. We suggest having fly pages with titles separating the existing and proposed condition
models along with the practices and the sub-catchments.
Building Elevations
1. Confirm status of City of Saratoga Springs building design review and refer to TDE comments in the
first comment letter.
2. Has any sample of siding proposed been submitted to the city? Economy siding should be avoided to
ensure upscale look. Coordinate with City reviewers.
Plans
1. The plans were reviewed but additional future comments are likely given the comments herein
and the breadth of revisions or clarifications needed.
2. Building height variance is noted in the plan and is still pending from City review of building
plans.
James Salaway, P.E., City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
June 25, 2025
539.072.001 Station Lane-2025 -second comment letter (ID 3359548).docx
Sheet C-1-Cover:
1. Include all plan sheets in sheet index. Detail sheets are missing.
Sheet C-2-Notes:
1. Are EV chargers tabulated under zoning map compatible with E-Bikes or can the dedicated bike
chargers be listed also? Code requirements likely apply to car chargers exclusively.
2. Soil restoration notes indicate 6-inches of topsoil.
Sheet C-3-UDO Compliance Plan:
1. 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? Coordinate with the city.
2. Revise Bldg. #1 and #2 height dimension/leader line to peak of roof.
Sheet C-8-Layout Plan:
1. Will the gazebo in the playground area and its foundation interfere with the underground infiltrain
system? How deep will foundation be?
2. Label feature that appear a box in the center feature between walks between buildings.
Sheet C-12-Utility Plan:
1. Label all drainage structure numbers and reference where rim and invert elevations can be found in
the plan set.
2. Show cleanouts in underground infiltration array.
Sheet C-13-Sinage Plan:
1. Show stormwater practice signs per NYSDEC standards.
2. Are the dog park and playground to receive lighting? It does appear so in the light values shown.
3. What are the hours these area will be open? Provide signage with hours of operation.
Sheet C-15-Site features & Land Coverage Plan:
1. Show signage for stormwater practices Per NYSDEC guidelines.
Sheet C-16-Site Features & Land Coverage Material Plan:
1. Topsoil notes are inconsistent with sheet C-2 regarding provision of 6-inches of topsoil. With highly
permeable sand sub-soils the 3-inches of compost and 6-inches of topsoil are considered necessary.
Please review set for inconsistencies and clarify.
Sheet C-17-Erosion Control Plan:
1. Notate and show presumed sediment basins (temporary) that are shown on sheet C-23. Include
notes for removal, backfilling, compaction requirements and restoration when no longer needed.
Sheet C-19-Plan and Profile:
1. Water service for maintenance building seems to have a localized area near station 0+30 with less
than 5’ of cover. Please revise.
James Salaway, P.E., City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
June 25, 2025
539.072.001 Station Lane-2025 -second comment letter (ID 3359548).docx
Sheet C-20-NYS Route 29 Improvements:
1. We recommend dry mix concrete beneath curbing and concrete backing at joints and intermittent
backing of curb to ensure stability.
2. Extend rip rap protection down to toe of slope below stormwater discharges.
Sheet W-1-ACOE Impacts:
1. Label the wet swale in the buffer impact plan.
2. Provide velocity os 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.
Sheet D-1-Details:
1. How will construction traffic be routed around proposed public road to avoid impacts on sub-soils?
Is a parallel route proposed or significant soils restoration in impacted soil depths?
Sheet D-2-Details:
1. Confirm the PVC material (vertical “boards”) are all on all sides and not just the front.
2. Will retaining walls have an underdrain as detailed? Show on plans to discharge if providing them.
Sheet D-3-Details:
1. Catch basin sumps should be deeper, we recommend 3’ depth. See previous comments for
protecting infiltration systems.
2. Remove break lines and show all piping proposed for infiltration array. Include notation for
subgrade inspection for necessity of any raking of sidewalls or de-compaction of sub-grade if soils
are smeared. Avoid operations of excavation in wet weather.
3. Top of infiltration berm elevations indicate 325.00 and in spillway section 324.00. Please clarify and
revise.
4. Coordinate providing the city with the pumps and generator replaced if they wish to have them.
They likely could be used in the future.
Sheet D-4-Details:
1. We recommend use of DIP in lieu of PVC beneath footings and slabs.
2. Notate stabilization of surfaces for previous phase before starting a new phase.
Sheet D-5-Details:
1. Topsoil depth inconsistent with sheet C-2. Please revise.Screening east of the hotel near the
property line would benefit with two more trees, possibly conifers for better screening.
Please provide a response letter with detailed responses below DE and City comments in a different
font. Identify how addressed and specific document page(s) of where in revised submission they are
addressed.
James Salaway, P.E., City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
June 25, 2025
539.072.001 Station Lane-2025 -second comment letter (ID 3359548).docx
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office.
Sincerely,
BARTON & LOGUIDICE, D.P.C.
Bradley D. Grant
Senior Project Manager
BDG/bdg
Cc via email- James Salaway, PE-City Engineer
Susan Barden, Planning
Matt Zeno, Cty of Saratoga Springs
James Easton, PE-EP Land services