HomeMy WebLinkAbout20241018 NYS Route 29 Prime Station Lane Site Plan Response to CommentsEP Land Services LLC
621 Columbia Street Ext.
Cohoes NY 12047
(518) 785-9000
August 1, 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 Mr. Salaway:
EP Land Services LLC has received comments dated June 25 2025 from Barton & Loguidice with respect to
the proposed Staton Lane Subdivision and UDO Code review dated 3/31/25 and have 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. 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.
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.
Response: Information has been submitted to SCSD (see enclosed email to Bill Bills) on 3/25/25.
As noted in a prior response letter, SCSD has no approvals or jurisdiction on the 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.
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 2 of 9
Response: The lot merger, subdivision and roadway dedication maps/legals will be done before
construction and after site plan/subdivision approval is granted by the City.
3. Special use variances are proposed to be applied for after the city’s SEQR determination according
to the response letter.
Response: A special use permit and area variances are required for this project. Per City code,
once a SERQA determination is done, then the area variance and special use permit applications
can then be reviewed by the city.
Cost estimate
1. Not provided and response indicated it is pending after SEQR determination.
Response: A cost estimate is required but not required at this time. The City construction cost is
required for all City owned infrastructure, so the developer has the proper bond amount. This
task will certainly be done but as we get closer to construction.
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.
Response: CME on 3/38/25 reach out to CDTA and follow up on 4/9. On 4/30/25 CME provided
me with attached information from CTDA. See attached email from CME/CTDA.
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.
Response: MEP report for sprinkler and backflow prevention will be done by the MEP engineer
during building permit application as noted in report. The MEP design of and approval of this item
will be done but is not required for site plan or SEQRA determination.
2. Has this report been provided to Saratoga County Sewer District (SCSD) and design flow
reservation been obtained? Coordinate with SCSD. See general comments.
Response: Information has been submitted to SCSD (see enclosed email to Bill Bills) on 3/25/25.
As noted in a prior response letter, SCSD has no approvals or jurisdiction on the project.
3. Pump selection will not pump highest peak discharges without both pumps but emergency
connection will allow a portable pump to supplement discharge scenerios.
Response: Per water & sewer report dated 4/10/25 the proposed new pumps with a C=110 can
pump 293 gpm while the peak flow from existing uses and proposed is only 289 with peaking
factor. Thus, only one pump is required to run at time under this calculated peak design flow rate.
If both sewer pumps were to run, it would produce over 500 gpm (see section 2.4 of report). Thus,
a portable pump is not required for this site, plus the wetwell is already set up for by-pass pumping
in the event that both pumps fail.
4. Coordinate with the city for any infrastructure maintenance mitigation needs.
Response: Noted.
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 3 of 9
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.
Response: See C-2 which already include a note under “Geotechnical”, that contractor is to follow
geotechnical report.
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.
Response: See C-2 which already include a note under “Geotechnical”, that contractor is to follow
geotechnical report.
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.
Response: Catch Basins are per City Standards. We understand B&L comment of reducing sediment
from getting to underground infiltration array, but the project does comport to NYSDEC 2024 SWDM
on pretreatment and additional we have provided an “isolator row” in infiltration array to capture
any additional sediment going past the pretreatment device and from getting into the underground
infiltration area. Cleaning the isolator row is easier as you can pressure wash sediment from one
manhole to another while using a vac-truck to suck up the sediment. It is almost the same procedure
as catch basin, but you are not traveling to 40-50 structures.
2. Label infiltration basin, underground array, water quality units and wet swale on the Post
Development Watershed map in exhibit E.
Response: See Revised SWDR 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.
Response: The infiltration rate within the infiltration basin and array was at 100 inches/hour as
observed field result (see section 2.3 or SWMR) have infiltration rates greater than 100 inches/hour.
To obtain the CFS through the bottom of the infiltration practice Intellisove hydraulic model just
converts in the infiltration rate to cfs based upon the bottom area of practice. In this case the
Infiltration Array (Pond No. 2) has infiltration rate of 25.46 cfs
Example= 100 in/hr x 1/3600 sec/hr=0.0277 in/sec.
0.0277 in/sec x 11,000 sf (bed area) x 1 inch/12 foot= 25.4 cfs
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 4 of 9
Intellisove hydraulic model software allows the user to select “Contour” of “Wetted Perimeter” to
calculate infiltration rates in system. “Contour” was selected to keep the infiltration rate only
applying to the bottom area of the practice. That is why from elevation 0 to 5.46 within the
underground array the discharge rate stays constant at 25.46 cfs as infiltration only is being applied
to the bottom and not sidewalls per NYSDEC requirements. If in the array Wetted Perimeter was
selected the model would have the CFS rate varying based upon elevation as there is more surface
area for infiltration.
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.
Response: The rise and span of 36 inches is not a box culvert it is just the pipe diameter. The numbers
are both 36 inches, thus it is a round pipe. Intellisove hydraulic model software to use arch pipe,
doghouse unit etc. by defining the shape of the chamber in the underground array. In this case it just
36” diameter round pipe. See input parameter from model below.
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 5 of 9
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.
Response: The model does include performance of infiltration basin, array and wet swale for all
storm events. Hydrographs #13 (array), #14 (basin) and #15 (wet swale) for each storm event (1
to 100) have been included and each one of those results are shown in Exhibit C. There is a
summary page for each storm event but also each of these hydrographs show peak discharge
rates, storage volume and water surface elevation in system on top right corner of the printout.
Building Elevations
1. Confirm status of City of Saratoga Springs building design review and refer to TDE comments in the
first comment letter.
Response: City of Saratoga Design Review Board reviews and approvals all building elevations and
materials.
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.
Response: The City of Saratoga Design Review Board will then review the application by the architect
once a SEQRA determination is done.
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: None required.
2. Building height variance is noted in the plan and is still pending from City review of building
plans.
Response: Planning Board is considering the Ht. variance bonus credit.
Sheet C-1-Cover:
1. Include all plan sheets in sheet index. Detail sheets are missing.
Response: D-1 to D-5 is noted on sheet index. No revision to plan is required.
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.
Response: E-bike charges are not required by code. C-2 has been updated with an overall E-Bike
charging stations proposed and see C-13 for location of E-Bike charging stations (near building #1
and #2).
2. Soil restoration notes indicate 6-inches of topsoil.
Response: Per NYSDEC SWDM latest edition (2024) page 5-12 requires 6-inchs of topsoil. No
revision to plan is required.
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.
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 6 of 9
Response: City Planning Board is reviewing this potential bonus. A decision on bonus from the
planning board will most likely be determined within the next 3-4 months. The worst case is the
pitch roof changed from 6:12 to a 5:12 pitch roof if the bonus of 3.4 feet is not granted.
2. Revise Bldg. #1 and #2 height dimension/leader line to peak of roof.
Response: See UDO code Article 21.4.D.1.c. The height for pitch roof is measured to the mean
average height of roof. No revision to plan is required.
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?
Response: Finish grade of gazebo and playground equipment is between elevation 331.5 to 330.5.
Thus any footing for structure will go to a maximum depth of 5-foot foundation or elevation 325.5.
The top of the underground infiltration array per D-3 and C-9 is at elevation 324.00. Thus, there
is 18” inched clear between bottom of footings and top of stormwater array.
2. Label feature that appear a box in the center feature between walks between buildings.
Response: Features in courtyard between building #1 and #2 are labeled on C-16 for clarity purposes.
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.
Response: See Revised C-12 with structure #s shown and note to refer to C-9 for additional
information.
2. Show cleanouts in underground infiltration array.
Response: Cleanouts are not required as storm manhole are provided at all 4 corners of underground
array for entry and cleaning.
Sheet C-13-Sinage Plan:
1. Show stormwater practice signs per NYSDEC standards.
Response: See revised C-15 for stormwater signs.
2. Are the dog park and playground to receive lighting? It does appear so in the light values shown.
Response: No park will not have lighting. See revised C-15 for sign to show dog park and playground
are open from dawn to dusk.
3. What are the hours these area will be open? Provide signage with hours of operation.
Response: See revised C-15 for signs
Sheet C-15-Site features & Land Coverage Plan:
1. Show signage for stormwater practices Per NYSDEC guidelines.
Response: See revised C-15 for stormwater signs.
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.
Response: See revised C-16.
Sheet C-17-Erosion Control Plan:
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 7 of 9
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.
Response: On C-22 to C-24 (phasing plans) the presumed basins are not temporary sediment basins.
In fact, these areas are the basement of the rowhouses in which fill for the basement is not
required. If contractor so choices to uses these areas as temporary sediment basins, then
calculations and field modification to the SWPPP will be done during construction.
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.
Response: See revised C-19.
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.
Response: Improvement within NYSDOT R.O.W are designed per DOT requirements and NYSDOT
has final design review of this area. If NYSDOT requires above, then the detail will be revised.
2. Extend rip rap protection down to toe of slope below stormwater discharges.
Response: size of rip-rap apron is per NYSDEC Blue Book dated November 2016 per page 3.39 of
manual. As discharge will be less than 3 ft/sec for these pipes the required La=7 feet
Sheet W-1-ACOE Impacts:
1. Label the wet swale in the buffer impact plan.
Response: Wet swale is labeled on W-1
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.
Response: The 24” culvert with net area of 18” diameter pipe as it is partially filled and is located in
Post Development Area #1 watershed. The 100-year storm peak discharge is less than 1 cf for this
watershed. As other drainage towards the 24” culvert pipe (Rail Station Parking Lot) by an existing
18” pipe to the west of this culvert. Utilizing the existing 18” pipe flowing full (5.5 cfs) that value was
used to determine the velocity of headwater on the proposed 24” culvert. This is shown in Exhibit D
of SWMR. Per the hydraulic model of the 24” culvert the maximum flow the culvert can transport
before overtopping the proposed road is 10 cfs. With 5.5 cfs the velocity is less than 5 ft/sec at
either end of culvert. As previously provided Vmax C350 has an allowable velocity over 10 fps. The
length of turf reinforcement mat is also shown on W-1.
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?
Response: Per profiles on C-19 and C-20 the proposed roads are mainly in a fill section. The fill depth
varies from 1 foot to 12 feet. As this fill is placed under control to achieve the required compaction
the long-term impacts on the sub-soil due to construction traffic on the proposed roads are greatly
reduced. Next the only City Road is “Station Park Ave” the boulevard road while the other road is
“Railroad Ave” is private. Soil restoration in green space is proposed.
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 8 of 9
Sheet D-2-Details:
1. Confirm the PVC material (vertical “boards”) are all on all sides and not just the front.
Response: The dumpster enclosure does have solid PVC fencing on gates and on side per the details
and call-out.
2. Will retaining walls have an underdrain as detailed? Show on plans to discharge if providing them.
Response: The retaining walls do not require underdrains as the proposed retaining wall is placed in
a fill section and underlying soils have a high percolation rate. Thus, static force due to hydraulic
pressure is not present for this project in which underdrains are typically utilized.
Sheet D-3-Details:
1. Catch basin sumps should be deeper, we recommend 3’ depth. See previous comments for
protecting infiltration systems.
Response: Catch Basins are per City Standard. We understand B&L comment of reducing sediment
from getting to underground infiltration array, but the project does comport to NYSDEC 2024
SWDM on pretreatment and additional we have provided an “isolator row” in infiltration array to
capture any additional sediment going past the pretreatment device and getting in infiltration area.
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.
Response: Break lines are an acceptable practice for a detail when the same item is just repeated.
Inspection notes have been added to array and basin detail. See Revised D-3.
3. Top of infiltration berm elevations indicate 325.00 and in spillway section 324.00. Please clarify and
revise.
Response: The of berm and spillway elevations are correct so stormwater only travels out a specific
location from a basin per NYSDEC SWDM.
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.
Response: Noted and added note on D-3 to this effect.
Sheet D-4-Details:
1. We recommend use of DIP in lieu of PVC beneath footings and slabs.
Response: The PVC is privately owned within the rowhouse. The PVC is only under the garage floor
slab and if the pipe fails in 75-100 years the contractor can directionally drill from basement to
header pipe in driveway if needed.
2. Notate stabilization of surfaces for previous phase before starting a new phase.
Response: Assuming this is for sheet C-18 and “stabilize area before starting next phase” is noted.
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.
Response: Se Revised D-5 so there is a total 6 inches of topsoil. I will let Saratoga Associated know of
this request about additional screening along eastern property line next to Intrada existing parking
lot.
Station Lane Subdivision
Page 9 of 9
Zoning Comments- Date March 31, 2025
The following changes have been made to the site plans based upon UDO code review.
Table 4-C – BTZ- Hotel has been located/extended to the BTZ. See C-3, C-6 and C-8.
Table 4-A. See C-3 for townhouse lot coverage
Table 4-A. See C-3 for townhouse row height.
Table 4-A. See C-3 and C-6 for 5’ interior side setbacks for townhouses.
Table 4-A. See C-3 and C-6 for 24’ rear setbacks for townhouses.
Article 10.2. See revised C-8 for parking stalls being moved behind the front of townhouse.
Article 10.3C.5. See Revised C-15
Article 10.3 G. Per C-14 the photometric results shows 0.0 foot candles at property line at behind rowhouses
1-6 . Behind rowhouse 25-30 the light is on Lot 6 (hotel) and some light spillage will occur but there
is a parking lot on the back side of Intrada.
Table 10-C-Bicycle spaces. See C-16 for locations.
Table 10-C 80% long term bicycle spaces. See revised C-2 and C-16. Long term bicycle spaces have been
provided by placing shelters over the exterior bike racks (total of 4) adjacent to multifamily units
covering 80 bicycles spaces which exceeds the 80% requirement. The bike racks near rowhouse #1,
#8 and #31 of 18 bicycles spaces do not have exterior shelter as these units also have garages where
bicycles can be stored inside.
Article 10.7- bicycle parking standards. Belson outdoors double-sided bike rack does allow support of front
wheel and utilizing U-shape lock (front wheel to vertical member of bike rack)
There are additional comments on Design standards, Building Form and Façade Design
Based upon revised plans date 8/1/25 and UDO code review letter the following area variances or Planning
Board waiver are anticipated.
1. Building Height for Building #1 and #2 (multifamily)
2. Lot 1 BTZ on Station Lane
3. Lot 7 BTZ on Station Lane
4. Lot 1 Buildout percentage on Station Lane and Station Park Ave
5. Lot 6 Buildout percentage on NYS Route 29 and Station Park Ave
6. Lot 10 Buildout percentage on NYS Route 29
7. Disturbance of steep slopes
8. City wetland buffer zone impact
9. Significant Tree
If the 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