HomeMy WebLinkAbout20241018 NYS Rt 29 Station Lane Site Plan Review Barton & Loguidice Comments 07.07.202610 Airline Drive, Suite 200, Albany, NY 12205 ·Office: 518-218-1801 ·Fax: 518-218-1805 ·BartonandLoguidice.com
SENT VIA EMAIL
December 17, 2025
James Salaway, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
Re: TDE Site Plan Application Review
Saratoga Station Park
PO #250251
File: 539.072.001
Dear Mr. Salaway:
Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C. (B&L) has completed a third review of the following reports and information
submitted on behalf of Prime Station Lane, LLC (Applicant) for the proposed Saratoga Station Park (the
“Project”) located on Station Lane and NYS Route 29 in the City of Saratoga Springs (City) as proposed by
Prime Companies:
Response to Comments Letter dated August 1, 2025 as prepared by EP Land Services LLC (EP);
Application for Site Plan Review dated July 12, 2024 as prepared by Applicant;
Project Narrative dated July 12, 2024, revised April 10, 2025 as prepared by EP;
Station Park Subdivision and Civil Site Plans (the “Site Plans”) dated July 12, 2024, revised August
1, 2025 as prepared by EP;
Stormwater Management Report, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Post
Construction Maintenance for Station Park Subdivision dated July 12, 2024, revised July 30, 2025
as prepared by EP;
Water and Sewer Report for Station Park Subdivision dated July 12, 2024, revised April 10, 2025
as prepared by EP;
Station Park Geotechnical Evaluation dated August 2017 as prepared by Foundation Design, P.C.;
Traffic Impact Evaluation for Station Park Mixed-Use Development dated July 9, 2024 as
prepared by VHB;
Station Park Perspective Renderings dated April 2, 2024 as prepared by Mackenzie Architects
P.C.;
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment dated May 18, 2024 as prepared by PS Property
Solutions, Inc.;
James Salaway, P.E., City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
December 17, 2025
Page 2 of 17
Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) signed and dated July 12, 2024 by James Easton,
P.E. of EP;
City of Saratoga Spring Complete Streets Checklist dated July 12, 2024, preparer unspecified;
New Water Service Connection Agreement and Application form signed and dated July 12, 2024
by James Eason, P.E. of EP;
NYSDEC Water Quality Certification (WQC) Permit #5-4115-00274/00001 dated January 24, 2025
and cover letter from NYSDEC dated January 27, 2025;
Letter from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) dated February 20, 2025 in response to Permit
Application No. NAN-2024-0932-UCA;
Email correspondence dated April 30, 2025 from Lansing Engineering to EP regarding feedback
on the Project from the Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA); and
Email correspondence dated May 25, 2025 from EP to Saratoga County Sewer District #1 (SCSD)
regarding SCSD’s jurisdiction over the Project.
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 as outlined in our task order/proposal.
Based on our review of the above information we have the following comments:
General
1.City comments will be distributed separately.
2.The Station Park Geotechnical Evaluation was useful for onsite soil data but B&L’s scope of
review does not include building foundation design review.
3.Coordinate with the City on the subdivision lots and any formal mergers.
Project Narrative
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25): 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.
EP Response (8/1/25): 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.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Has Applicant received a response to its 3/25/25 email to Bill Bills
regarding the need to submit a reserve capacity request to SCSD #1? If so, Applicant should
provide that response for review.
2.B&L Comment (6/25/25): 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.
EP Response (8/1/25): 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.
James Salaway, P.E., City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
December 17, 2025
Page 3 of 17
B&L Response (12/16/25): Comment satisfied.
3.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Special use variances are proposed to be applied for after the city’s
SEQR determination according to the response letter.
EP Response (8/1/25): 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.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Comment satisfied.
Cost estimate
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Not provided and response indicated it is pending after SEQR
determination.
EP Response (8/1/25): 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.
B&L Response (12/16/25): § 240-15.9 of the City Code (CC) is nonspecific as to the timeline for
submittal of the required cost estimate. As noted in prior Applicant response letters, Applicant
will submit for review a cost estimate for all work to be completed within the public right-of-way
once a SEQRA determination for the Project is reached. Comment satisfied.
Complete Streets Checklist
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):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.
EP Response (8/1/25): 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.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Has there been any additional correspondence between Applicant,
CME, and CDTA regarding the prospect of adding new bus stops along Washington St.?
Improvements suggested by CTDA along Washington St. to facilitate said bus stops are not
indicated on Sheet C-21 of the Site Plans.
Water and Sewer Report for Station Park
James Salaway, P.E., City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
December 17, 2025
Page 4 of 17
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):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.
EP Response (8/1/25): 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.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Comment satisfied.
2.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Has this report been provided to Saratoga County Sewer District (SCSD)
and design flow reservation been obtained? Coordinate with SCSD. See general comments.
EP Response (8/1/25): 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.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Has Applicant received a response to its 3/25/25 email to Bill Bills
regarding the need to submit a reserve capacity request to SCSD #1? If so, Applicant should
provide that response for review.
3.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Pump selection will not pump highest peak discharges without both
pumps but emergency connection will allow a portable pump to supplement discharge scenarios.
EP Response (8/1/25): 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
gpm 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.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Comment satisfied.
4.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Coordinate with the city for any infrastructure maintenance mitigation
needs.
EP Response (8/1/25): Noted.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Comment satisfied.
Geotechnical Evaluation
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):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
December 17, 2025
Page 5 of 17
EP Response (8/1/25): See C-2 which already include a note under “Geotechnical”, that
contractor is to follow geotechnical report.
B&L Response (12/16/25): For clarity, the referenced “Geotechnical Note” on Sheet C-2 of the
Site Plans should be amended to state, “SEE STATION PARK GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION DATED
AUGUST 2017 AS PREPARED BY FOUNDATION DESIGN, P.C. FOR ALL RECOMMENDATIONS
INVOLVING COMPACTION, DIRT REMOVAL, STRUCTURAL FILL PLACEMENT, FOUNDATION
DESIGN, BACKFILL, ORGANIC REMOVAL, RETAINING WALLS, CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, ETC.”
2.B&L Comment (6/25/25):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.
EP Response (8/1/25): See C-2 which already include a note under “Geotechnical”, that
contractor is to follow geotechnical report.
B&L Response (12/16/25): For clarity, the referenced “Geotechnical Note” on Sheet C-2 of the
Site Plans should be amended to state, “SEE STATION PARK GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION DATED
AUGUST 2017 AS PREPARED BY FOUNDATION DESIGN, P.C. FOR ALL RECOMMENDATIONS
INVOLVING COMPACTION, DIRT REMOVAL, STRUCTURAL FILL PLACEMENT, FOUNDATION
DESIGN, BACKFILL, ORGANIC REMOVAL, RETAINING WALLS, CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, ETC.”
Stormwater Management
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):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.
EP Response (8/1/25): 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.
B&L Response (12/16/25): The explanation regarding compliance with City standards, use of
NYSDEC 2024 SWDM guidance, and inclusion of an isolator row is noted. B&L continues to
recommend consideration of deeper sumps at select key drainage structures to improve
pretreatment visibility and long-term maintenance accessibility upstream of the underground
James Salaway, P.E., City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
December 17, 2025
Page 6 of 17
infiltration system. The provided clarification regarding isolator row maintenance procedures is
acknowledged.
2.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Label infiltration basin, underground array, water quality units and
wet swale on the Post Development Watershed map in exhibit E.
EP Response (8/1/25): See Revised SWDR Exhibit E.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Revisions to Exhibit E labeling the infiltration basin, underground
array, water quality units, and wet swale are noted. Comment satisfied.
3.B&L Comment (6/25/25):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.
EP Response (8/1/25): 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 Intellisolve
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
Intellisolve 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.
B&L Response (12/16/25): The detailed explanation of infiltration rate assumptions, Intellisolve
modeling methodology, and use of bottom-area-only (“Contour”) infiltration consistent with NYSDEC
requirements is noted. The clarification regarding conversion of the field-observed infiltration rate to
CFS based on the practice bed area adequately explains how the 25.46 CFS value was derived.
Comment satisfied.
4.B&L Comment (6/25/25):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.
James Salaway, P.E., City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
December 17, 2025
Page 7 of 17
EP Response (8/1/25): 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. Intellisolve 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.
B&L Response (12/16/25): The clarification that the infiltration array elements are modeled as 36-
inch diameter circular pipes, and not box culverts, is noted. The explanation of Intellisolve shape
input parameters is acceptable. Comment satisfied.
5.B&L Comment (6/25/25):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.
EP Response (8/1/25): 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.
B&L Response (12/16/25): The clarification that hydrographs for the infiltration array, infiltration
basin, and wet swale are included for all storm events in Exhibit C, along with peak discharge rates,
storage volumes, and water surface elevations, is noted. While additional separation or labeling of
James Salaway, P.E., City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
December 17, 2025
Page 8 of 17
model output pages may improve clarity, the explanation provided addresses the comment.
Comment satisfied.
Building Elevations
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Confirm status of City of Saratoga Springs building design review and refer
to TDE comments in the first comment letter.
EP Response (8/1/25): City of Saratoga Design Review Board reviews and approvals all building
elevations and materials.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Comment satisfied.
2.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Has any sample of siding proposed been submitted to the city? Economy
siding should be avoided to ensure upscale look. Coordinate with City reviewers.
EP Response (8/1/25): The City of Saratoga Design Review Board will then review the application
by the architect once a SEQRA determination is done.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Comment satisfied.
Site Plans
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):The plans were reviewed but additional future comments are likely
given the comments herein and the breadth of revisions or clarifications needed.
EP Response (8/1/25): None required.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Comment satisfied.
2.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Building height variance is noted in the plan and is still pending from
City review of building plans.
EP Response (8/1/25): Planning Board is considering the Ht. variance bonus credit.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Please note determination of Planning Board with respect to
Applicant’s height variance bonus credit in future response letters. Comment satisfied.
Sheet C-1-Cover:
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Include all plan sheets in sheet index. Detail sheets are missing.
EP Response (8/1/25): D-1 to D-5 is noted on sheet index. No revision to plan is required.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Comment satisfied.
Sheet C-2-Notes:
James Salaway, P.E., City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
December 17, 2025
Page 9 of 17
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):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.
EP Response (8/1/25): 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).
B&L Response (12/16/25): Comment satisfied.
2.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Soil restoration notes indicate 6-inches of topsoil.
EP Response (8/1/25): Per NYSDEC SWDM latest edition (2024) page 5-12 requires 6-inchs of
topsoil. No revision to plan is required.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Comment satisfied.
Sheet C-3-UDO Compliance Plan:
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):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.
EP Response (8/1/25): 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.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Please note determination of Planning Board with respect to Applicant’s
height variance bonus credit in future response letters. Comment satisfied.
2.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Revise Bldg. #1 and #2 height dimension/leader line to peak of roof.
EP Response (8/1/25): 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.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Comment satisfied.
Sheet C-8-Layout Plan:
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Will the gazebo in the playground area and its foundation interfere with
the underground infiltration system? How deep will foundation be?
EP Response (8/1/25): 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.
James Salaway, P.E., City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
December 17, 2025
Page 10 of 17
B&L Response (12/16/25): The provided elevations and confirmation of an 18-inch vertical
separation between the bottom of gazebo footings and the top of the underground infiltration
system adequately addresses the concern. Comment satisfied.
2.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Label feature that appear a box in the center feature between walks
between buildings.
EP Response (8/1/25): Features in courtyard between building #1 and #2 are labeled on C-16 for
clarity purposes.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Comment satisfied.
Sheet C-12-Utility Plan:
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Label all drainage structure numbers and reference where rim and invert
elevations can be found in the plan set.
EP Response (8/1/25): See Revised C-12 with structure #s shown and note to refer to C-9 for
additional information.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Revisions to Sheet C-12 labeling drainage structures and referencing rim
and invert elevations are acceptable. Comment satisfied.
2.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Show cleanouts in underground infiltration array.
EP Response (8/1/25): Cleanouts are not required as storm manhole are provided at all 4 corners
of underground array for entry and cleaning.
B&L Response (12/16/25): The explanation provided is noted. However, given the overall size and
depth of the underground infiltration system, B&L continues to recommend that dedicated cleanouts
and/or inspection ports be provided in addition to access via storm manholes. Cleanouts and
inspection ports are considered a best practice for larger subsurface stormwater systems to facilitate
inspection, maintenance, and long-term performance. Please consider revising the plans to include
appropriately sized cleanouts/inspection ports consistent with manufacturer recommendations and
NYSDEC guidance.
Sheet C-13-Sinage Plan:
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Show stormwater practice signs per NYSDEC standards.
EP Response (8/1/25): See revised C-15 for stormwater signs.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Provided revisions indicating stormwater practice signage on Sheet C-15
are acceptable. Comment satisfied.
2.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Are the dog park and playground to receive lighting? It does appear so in
the light values shown.
James Salaway, P.E., City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
December 17, 2025
Page 11 of 17
EP Response (8/1/25): No park will not have lighting. See revised C-15 for sign to show dog park
and playground are open from dawn to dusk.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Please clarify response. If lighting is being provided to both the dog park
and playground, are the hours for those parks limited as a safety measure? The dog park sign
depicted on Sheet C-15 does not specify hours of dawn to dusk.
3.B&L Comment (6/25/25):What are the hours these area will be open? Provide signage with hours of
operation.
EP Response (8/1/25): See revised C-15 for signs.
B&L Response (12/16/25): The ‘Playground Rules’ sign depicted on Sheet C-15 specifies hours of
dawn to dusk, but the ‘Dog Park Rules’ does not specify hours.
Sheet C-15-Site features & Land Coverage Plan:
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Show signage for stormwater practices Per NYSDEC guidelines.
EP Response (8/1/25): See revised C-15 for stormwater signs.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Provided revisions indicating stormwater practice signage on Sheet C-15
are acceptable. Comment satisfied.
Sheet C-16-Site Features & Land Coverage Material Plan:
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):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.
EP Response (8/1/25): See revised C-16.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Comment satisfied.
Sheet C-17-Erosion Control Plan:
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):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.
EP Response (8/1/25): 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 chooses to use these areas as temporary sediment
basins, then calculations and field modification to the SWPPP will be done during construction.
B&L Response (12/16/25): The explanation regarding the intended use of basement excavation
areas is noted.
James Salaway, P.E., City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
December 17, 2025
Page 12 of 17
Sheet C-19-Plan and Profile:
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Water service for maintenance building seems to have a localized area
near station 0+30 with less than 5’ of cover. Please revise.
EP Response (8/1/25): See revised C-19.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Comment satisfied.
Sheet C-20-NYS Route 29 Improvements:
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):We recommend dry mix concrete beneath curbing and concrete backing
at joints and intermittent backing of curb to ensure stability.
EP Response (8/1/25): 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.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Comment Satisfied.
2.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Extend rip rap protection down to toe of slope below stormwater
discharges.
EP Response (8/1/25): 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
B&L Response (12/16/25): The explanation referencing NYSDEC Blue Book criteria for riprap sizing
is noted. However, the original comment was intended to confirm that riprap protection extends to
the toe of slope below the stormwater discharges to prevent erosion and undermining. Please verify
on the plans that the riprap apron length and limits extend fully to the toe of slope, or revise as
necessary.
Sheet W-1-ACOE Impacts:
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Label the wet swale in the buffer impact plan.
EP Response (8/1/25): Wet swale is labeled on W-1.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Comment satisfied.
2.B&L Comment (6/25/25):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.
EP Response (8/1/25): 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 cfs 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
James Salaway, P.E., City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
December 17, 2025
Page 13 of 17
(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.
B&L Response (12/16/25): The detailed hydraulic explanation, velocity calculations, and references
to the SWMR and Sheet W-1 adequately address the concern regarding turf reinforcement stability.
Comment satisfied.
Sheet D-1-Details:
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):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?
EP Response (8/1/25): 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.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Comment Satisfied.
Sheet D-2-Details:
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Confirm the PVC material (vertical “boards”) are all on all sides and not
just the front.
EP Response (8/1/25): The dumpster enclosure does have solid PVC fencing on gates and on side
per the details and call-out.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Comment satisfied.
2.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Will retaining walls have an underdrain as detailed? Show on plans to
discharge if providing them.
EP Response (8/1/25): 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.
B&L Response (12/16/25): The explanation that underdrains are not required due to fill conditions
and soil permeability is acknowledged. Please ensure this intent is clearly reflected in the plan notes
to avoid construction ambiguity.
Sheet D-3-Details:
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Catch basin sumps should be deeper, we recommend 3’ depth. See
previous comments for protecting infiltration systems.
James Salaway, P.E., City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
December 17, 2025
Page 14 of 17
EP Response (8/1/25): 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.
B&L Response (12/16/25): The reliance on City standard catch basin details and the inclusion of an
isolator row are noted. While deeper sumps are still recommended by B&L to improve pretreatment
and maintenance accessibility, Applicant’s response is acknowledged.
2.B&L Comment (6/25/25):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.
EP Response (8/1/25): 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.
B&L Response (12/16/25): The addition of inspection notes and clarification to the infiltration
system details on revised Sheet D-3 is acceptable. Comment satisfied.
3.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Top of infiltration berm elevations indicate 325.00 and in spillway section
324.00. Please clarify and revise.
EP Response (8/1/25): The top of berm and spillway elevations are correct so stormwater only
travels out a specific location from a basin per NYSDEC SWDM.
B&L Response (12/16/25): The explanation regarding differing berm and spillway elevations to
control discharge location is acceptable. Comment satisfied.
4.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Coordinate providing the city with the pumps and generator replaced if
they wish to have them. They likely could be used in the future.
EP Response (8/1/25): Noted and added note on D-3 to this effect.
B&L Response (12/16/25): The added note regarding coordination with the City for pumps and
generators is acceptable. Comment satisfied.
Sheet D-4-Details:
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):We recommend use of DIP in lieu of PVC beneath footings and slabs.
EP Response (8/1/25): 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.
James Salaway, P.E., City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
December 17, 2025
Page 15 of 17
B&L Response (12/16/25): The explanation provided is noted. While the proposed PVC piping
is privately owned and located beneath garage slabs, B&L continues to recommend the use of
ductile iron pipe (DIP) beneath footings and slabs as a best practice to reduce long-term risk
and potential maintenance impacts. Please consider this recommendation during final design
and construction.
2.B&L Comment (6/25/25):Notate stabilization of surfaces for previous phase before starting a new
phase.
EP Response (8/1/25): Assuming this is for sheet C-18 and “stabilize area before starting next
phase” is noted.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Comment satisfied.
Sheet D-5-Details:
1.B&L Comment (6/25/25):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.
EP Response (8/1/25): See Revised D-5 so there is a total 6 inches of topsoil. I will let
Saratoga Associates know of this request about additional screening along eastern property
line next to Intrada existing parking lot.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Comment satisfied.
Zoning Comments dated 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.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Please provide additional detail regarding this change.
Table 4-A.See C-3 for townhouse lot coverage
B&L Response (12/16/25): Please provide additional detail regarding this change.
Table 4-A.See C-3 for townhouse row height.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Please provide additional detail regarding this change.
Table 4-A.See C-3 and C-6 for 5’ interior side setbacks for townhouses.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Change noted, though the manner in which the 5’ interior side setbacks
are shown on Sheet C-6 (i.e., the apparently coterminous boundaries of the setback and buildings)
make it unclear as to whether the townhouse footprints extend beyond the minimum 5’ interior
James Salaway, P.E., City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
December 17, 2025
Page 16 of 17
side setbacks on Lot #s 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, and 13. Please confirm that the building footprints on these
lots do not extend past the minimum 5’ interior side setbacks.
Table 4-A.See C-3 and C-6 for 24’ rear setbacks for townhouses.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Change noted.
Article 10.2.See revised C-8 for parking stalls being moved behind the front of townhouse.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Please provide additional detail regarding this change. The Site Plans
dated April 1, 2025 also show parking stalls behind the townhouses.
Article 10.3C.5.See Revised C-15.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Please provide additional detail regarding this change. There is a dead-
end parking lot next to the proposed playground where Applicant has incorporated a turnaround
space compliant with UDO § 240-10.3(C)(5). Have any other parking lots revised been revised
accordingly?
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.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Please confirm whether any changes to the Site Plans were incorporated
based on this comment.
Table 10-C-Bicycle spaces.See C-16 for locations.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Please provide additional detail for this change.
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.
B&L Response (12/16/25): Change noted.
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)
B&L Response (12/16/25): Change noted.
There are additional comments on Design standards, Building Form and Façade Design. Most of the
remaining items noted in UDO review have to deal with architectural review and landscaping.
Landscaping revisions to occur during next submission and DRB will review architecture.
James Salaway, P.E., City Engineer
City of Saratoga Springs
December 17, 2025
Page 17 of 17
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
B&L Response (12/16/25): Comment is acknowledged and anticipated area variances and waivers
requested from the Planning Board are noted.
Please provide a letter with detailed responses to B&L’s above-listed comments and identify the specific
document page(s) within any revised submission(s) in which the comments are addressed.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office.
Sincerely,
BARTON & LOGUIDICE, D.P.C.
Matthew Miller
Project Manager
cc:Matt Zeno, Assistant City Engineer
Susan Barden, Administrator of OPED
James Easton, P.E. – EP Land services LLC