Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190117 Eberlein Subdivision updated materials 12-9-19 inga u s December 5, 2019 2603 Guilderland Avenue Schenectady, NY 12306 City of Saratoga Springs T 518 393 7725 Department of Public Works F 518 393 2324 City Hall E info©ingallsllp.com 474 Broadway www.ingallsllp.com Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Attn: Mr. Michael B. Veitch, Business Manager Re: Conservation Subdivision Eberlein 42 Ruggles Road City of Saratoga Springs Dear Mr. Veitch: Ingalls & Associates, LLP has received an email letter dated November 7, 2019 from The Chazen Companies to Michael Veitch, City of Saratoga Springs Business Manager with engineering review comments for the 42 Ruggles Road Conservation Subdivision. We are forwarding the following updated documents: • Response letter to Michael B.Veitch, City of Saratoga Springs Business Manager to review comments from The Chazen Companies dated December 5, 2019. • Subdivision Plans (5 Sheet set), entitled "Ruggles Road Conservation Subdivision", dated January 18, 2019, last revised December 5, 2019. • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan dated December 5, 2019. • Revised EAF Short Form Thank you for your review of the above and enclosed. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 518-393-7725 ext. 113. Sincerely, Ingalls &Associates, LLP David F. Ingalls, PE Principal Enclosures Cc: Jim Connors, The Chazen Companies 1 Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 - Project Information Instructions for Completing Part 1—Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding,are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item,please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information. Complete all items in Part 1.You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the lead agency;attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part 1—Project and Sponsor Information Name of Action or Project: Two Lot Subdivision Lands of Eberlein Project Location(describe,and attach a location map): 42 Ruggles Road,Saratoga Springs,NY 12866 Brief Description of Proposed Action: Propose a two lot single family subdivision.There is an existing house and driveway that will remain on lot one.A new single family dwelling with a drivway and on site wastewater system is proposed on lot two. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone:P 518-441-8811 Gerldine M. Eberlein E-Mail: Meberlei@nycap.rr.com Address: 42 Ruggles Road City/PO: State: Zip Code: Saratoga Springs NY 12866 1. Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan,local law,ordinance, NO YES administrative rule,or regulation? If Yes,attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that ❑ may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no,continue to question 2. 2. Does the proposed action require a permit,approval or funding from any other government Agency? NO YES If Yes,list agency(s)name and permit or approval: ❑✓ ❑ 3. a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? 10.3 acres b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? 0.9 acres c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? 10.3 acres 4. Check all land uses that occur on,are adjoining or near the proposed action: 5. ❑Urban ❑ Rural(non-agriculture) ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial m Residential(suburban) ❑Forest ❑ Agriculture ❑ Aquatic ❑ Other(Specify): ❑Parkland Page 1 of 3 5. Is the proposed action, NO YES N/A a. A permitted use under the zoning regulations? ❑✓ ❑ b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? ❑✓ ❑ NO YES 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape? 7. Is the site of the proposed action located in,or does it adjoin, a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES If Yes,identify: ❑� ❑ NO YES 8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? El El b. Are public transportation services available at or near the site of the proposed action? El El c. Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near the site of the proposed ❑✓ ❑ action? 9. Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES If the proposed action will exceed requirements,describe design features and technologies: 10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES If No,describe method for providing potable water: 11. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES If No,describe method for providing wastewater treatment: On-site wastewater system(septic) El El 12. a.Does the project site contain,or is it substantially contiguous to,a building,archaeological site,or district NO YES which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places,or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the 0 El State Register of Historic Places? b.Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for ❑✓ ❑ archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO)archaeological site inventory? 13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action,or lands adjoining the proposed action,contain NO YES wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal,state or local agency? El El b. Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into,any existing wetland or waterbody? ✓❑ ❑ If Yes,identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: Page 2 of 3 14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on,or are likely to be found on the project site.Check all that apply: EShoreline ❑ Forest ❑Agricultural/grasslands ❑ Early mid-successional El Wetland ❑ Urban Suburban 15. Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal,or associated habitats,listed by the State or NO YES Federal government as threatened or endangered? Karner Blue, Frosted Elfin ❑ El 16. Is the project site located in the 100-year flood plan? NO YES ❑✓ ❑ 17. Will the proposed action create storm water discharge, either from point or non-point sources? NO YES If Yes, a. Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? b. Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems(runoff and storm drains)? If Yes,briefly describe: The existing drainage patterns and runoff rates of the site will be maintained with runoff to existing drainage ways,including the existing culvert at Ruggles Road. 18. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that would result in the impoundment of water NO YES or other liquids(e.g.,retention pond,waste lagoon,dam)? If Yes,explain the purpose and size of the impoundment: ❑ ❑ 19. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed solid waste NO YES management facility? If Yes,describe: ❑ ❑ 20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation(ongoing or NO YES completed)for hazardous waste? If Yes,describe: ❑ ❑ I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor/name: David Ingalls Date:02-07-19(revised 12-5-19) Signature: J �� Title:Agent for the Applicant PRINT FORM Page 3 of 3 EAF Mapper Summary Report Thursday, February 07, 2019 12:28 PM Disclaimer: The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental assessment form(EAF).Not all questions asked in the EAF are answered by the EAF Mapper.Additional information on any EAF question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to DEC,you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order to obtain data not provided by the Mapper.Digital data is not a substitute for agency determinations. f�ft�Ns la1 cnacal Saratoga Saratoga Sprirl .-• Toronto 4 >, r • f� iot.i! Boston Sources: Esri{ HERE,+G'armin,USGS, �1 4' RradJ prrawlttefrce Intermap, INc REMENT P NRCen, Esri Japan,MET1,�sriChina ;Hong Kong),Esri Sources71511,14%E., 811-11 in. Korea, Esri lT ailend), EJ,GCC, l� ryColumbua :FtittEburgh USGEFr111aterinlap, INCREh,1EN T Cre-StFeeth,14 contributors,and the CIS F;M Can, EsriJapan, E'AETI, a a Communi cinnala wafffiailia IHorg Kong),Esri Part 1 /Question 7 [Critical Environmental No Area] Part 1 /Question 12a [National Register of No Historic Places] Part 1 /Question 12b [Archeological Sites] No Part 1 /Question 13a [Wetlands or Other Yes - Digital mapping information on local and federal wetlands and Regulated Waterbodies] waterbodies is known to be incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. Part 1 /Question 15 [Threatened or Yes Endangered Animal] Part 1 /Question 15 [Threatened or Karner Blue, Frosted Elfin Endangered Animal - Name] Part 1 /Question 16 [100 Year Flood Plain] Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. Part 1 /Question 20 [Remediation Site] No Short Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report inga 1S December 5, 2019 2603 Guilderland Avenue Schenectady, NY 12306 T 518 393 7725 City of Saratoga Springs F 518 393 2324 Department of Public Works E info©ingallsIlp.com City Hall www.ingallsllp.com 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Attn: Mr. Michael B. Veitch, Business Manager Re: Response to Comments from TDE Eberlein Conservation Subdivision 42 Ruggles Road City of Saratoga Springs Dear Mr. Veitch: Ingalls & Associates, LLP has received an email letter dated November 7, 2019 from The Chazen Companies to Michael Veitch, City of Saratoga Springs Business Manager addressing review comments relative to the proposed Subdivision at 42 Ruggles Road. We offer the following responses: General Comment 1: The City's project number of 19.117 should be added to all site plan application and construction documents. Response 1: The City's project number has been included on all plans and documents, including the SWPPP document. Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Comment 2: Please respond to item 13b. Response 2: Item 13b has been revised to indicate that the action will not encroach into any wetlands or water bodies. Comment 3: Item 17a is marked "No". This should be changed to "Yes"as the project will create storm water discharge in the form of non-point source runoff from new impervious areas. Response 3: Item 17a has been revised to yes and it is indicated that existing drainage patterns and corresponding runoff rates will be maintained. 1 inga u s Site Plans Comment 4: The original signed and sealed survey referenced to NGVD 1929 datum must be submitted. Response 4: Ingalls and the applicant are working with VanDusen & Steves, and the signed and sealed survey referenced to NGVD 1929 datum from VanDusen & Steves will be part of the Final Plat (Sheet 3) to be submitted upon approval. The Plat notes have been updated to reference a datum of NGVD 1929. Comment 5: Please indicate the location, size and material of the existing water main to which the project will connect in Ruggles Road. Response 5: Record plan information for the existing waterline has been requested from DPW and will be added to the plan when received. However, the capacity of the existing water line will be more than sufficient. A new water service curb stop is shown on the existing waterline adjacent to the existing hydrant. Comment 6: Please identify the inverts of the existing 15"culvert under Ruggles Road. Response 6: The inverts of the existing 15" culvert have been identified. Comment 7: A drainage easement is shown on the Conservation Analysis upstream of the project site, ending at the east boundary. Please confirm that the easement does not extend through the project site and restrict the proposed development. Response 7: The drainage easement is not part of the subject deed and does not continue thru the project site. Comment 8: The Conservation Analysis needs to identify the required 30'buffer areas as defined in Chapter 241 of the City of Saratoga Springs Code. Response 8: Chapter 241-12 General Regulations, {B}Standards for conservation subdivisions, {5} Other area dimensional requirements, {a}, "There shall be no required area, bulk, or dimensional standards in a conservation subdivision, except that where such subdivision abuts an existing residence in a residentially zoned area, a suitable buffer area with suitable screening shall be required by the Board. This buffer shall be at least the same distance as the minimum rear or side yard setback in the district in which the abutting land is located." The project has preliminary approval and the Board has not required a buffer beyond the required building setbacks. However, most of the buffer is already included in deed restricted conservation area and any areas that are not will remain as wooded/vegetated area. Comment 9: In accordance with City Code Chapter 241, Article IV, Section 1, Paragraph C.3, the Subdivision Plat shall identify the location, use, ownership, management, methods of preservation, and 2 inga u s rights of the owners and the public to the open space land subject to the deed restriction. Please add appropriate notations. Response 9: The deed restricted conservation area(s) are clearly indicated and labeled on the plat. A draft restrictive covenant has been submitted and is under review by the City Attorney. Comment 10: The Subdivision Plat should be updated to note the area of each proposed lot, as well as the area of deed-restricted open space on each lot. Also, the plat must be prepared and signed/sealed by a licensed land surveyor. We assume that since Van Dusen & Steves prepared the boundary survey that they prepared the subdivision plat—please confirm. Response 10: The subdivision plat has been updated to identify the total areas as well as the deed restricted areas on each lot. The final plat will be prepared and signed/sealed by VanDusen & Steves. Comment 11: In accordance with City Code Chapter 241, Appendix H, Section 2, Paragraph R, the owner of a proposed subdivision shall offer to the City "Class A Type Usable Land"equal in size to at least ten percent (10%) of the owner's subdivided tract. There are alternatives presented in the Code. Please identify how this requirement will be met. Response 11: The project has received preliminary approval. As only a single new lot is proposed, the Board has not required the owner to offer to the City any"Class A Type Usable Land". Comment 12: Silt fence is shown on the Grading and Erosion & Sediment Control Plan as perpendicular to contours. Please revise. Response 12: The silt fence location(s) have been revised. Comment 13: Insufficient information and detail is provided for the proposed septic tank and onsite disposal system to verify compliance with NYSDOH requirements presented in "Residential Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Design Handbook". Specifically, please provide the following: a. Proposed invert elevations of all system components along with top of concrete and the finished grades over each component. b. Proposed concrete strength and reinforcing requirements for the septic tank and distribution box. c. Identification post details for buried septic tank and distribution box covers, if applicable. d. Additional septic tank dimensions, including: offset between baffles and top of tank, depth of baffles below inlet and outlet, wall thickness, tank width, minimum and maximum liquid level, inlet and outlet inverts, and offsets between baffles and inlet/outlet. e. Additional distribution box dimensions, including: inlet and outlet inverts, offset between outlet and bottom of distribution box, width, length, and height. f. Certification and tightness testing requirements. 3 inga u s Response 13: a. Invert elevations for each component have been shown on a system profile from the house to the leach fields. b. The precast concrete septic tank and dbox come engineer certified from the manufacturer relative to concrete strength and reinforcing c. There are no posts proposed as system tie distances will be used. d. Additional septic tank dimensions have been added. e. Additional dbox dimensions have been added. f. Certification and tank tightness are not applicable as the tanks are seamless. Comment 14: The septic and onsite disposal system notes reference the Town of Charlton inspection requirements. Please revise. Response 14: The reference has been revised to the City of Saratoga. SWPPP Comment 15: The SWPPP identifies two drainage areas and two analysis points in the Existing Drainage map. However, it appears that the northern portion of the site drains to the north and discharges onto the property of Gary and Leeanne Raga under current conditions rather than to the 15" culvert under Ruggles Road as analyzed. As modeled, this overstates the peak rates realized under existing conditions at Ruggles Road. Since the post development analysis shows they are just maintaining the rates at Ruggles Road, the system as designed may not actually meet detention requirements. The Existing and Proposed drainage maps and runoff analyses should be updated to reflect this additional drainage area and analysis point. Response 15: The drainage analysis has been revised to include a separate drainage area for the small area draining northerly and not to the culvert. Based on some slight modification to the proposed grading, the analysis continues to show no increase in ruff off rates to all analysis points. Comment 16: The post-development runoff analysis accounts for storage and exfiltration (10 inches/hour) in a proposed onsite depression area. Deep tests and falling head permeability testing must be completed within footprint of this practice to verify the exfiltration rate used in the storm water model and that the infiltration system meets industry separation requirements to seasonal high ground water. Response 16: The post development runoff analysis has been revised to not account for any exfiltration within the proposed minor depression area in the front yard. No additional test pits are required. 4 n au s Thank you for your review of the above and enclosed. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 518-393-7725 ext. 113. Sincerely, Ingalls &Associates, LLP 1 � David F. Ingalls, PE Principal Encl: Ruggles Road Conservation Subdivision rev 12/5/19 SHEAF 12/5/19 SWPPP 12/5/19 5