HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200083 South Broadway Hotel Engineering Comments 4-21-20 �
The LA �R��JP
La�idscape Ardii[e�t�u�e i�hBiqineerinq P_C_
l�e��ufr.PxrP���r_POr�v.
�o ����,� n���y
Sr�.ra[r�q� 5prings
NY 12�66
h�'�1�3-58��-81Q0
/:`�13-`�8`r-(�18C1
�,- ,., , � �
April 21, 2020
Susan Barden, AICP
City Principal Planner
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
susan.barden(c�saratoqa-sprinqs.com
RE: South Broadway Hotel
Dear Ms. Barden:
The LA Group is in receipt of comments from the Chazen Companies, dated April 3, 2020. The following are
responses to the comments. Update plans and documents will be provided at a later date.
General:
Comment 1: The City's project number of 20200083 should be added to all site plan application and all
supporting documents.
Response 1: The plans will be updated to include the city project number on each sheet.
Comment 2: A Site Plan Application Checklist, Complete Streets Checklist, Environmental Assessment
Form and Water Service Connection Agreement were not submitted with this application. If
the City would like us to review these documents, please forward to us.
Response 2: The Complete Street Checklist, EAF, and Water Service Connection Agreement were
previously submitted as part of the Special Use Permit and SEQRA approval. These
items as well as the Site Plan Checklist will be submitted as requested.
Water/Sewer Engineering Report:
Comment 3: The report should include a discussion regarding the system, capacity and adequacy of the
downstream collection, conveyance and treatment systems (up to and including the
wastewater treatment plant) to handle the increase in flow resulting from this project. Please
revise accordingly and provide an ability to serve letter form the WWTP operator.
Response 3: In discussions with the Saratoga County Sewer District No. 1 they see no issues with
the ability to serve this project. A letter will be obtained from the sewer district stating
such. Also note that the wastewater flows stated in the Engineers Report do not
account for existing flows from the site, therefore the increase in flow from this project
to the sewer system is overstated in the Engineers Report.
Comment 4: Section IV of the Engineer's Report provides projected wastewater flow rates for two uses
only, Sleeping Units and Employees. The Engineer's Report states that there is a proposed
bar/lounge included within the hotel but does not include the wastewater generated by this
use. There does not appear to be any details on if there will be any food service, and as such
full review of the wastewater flow rates cannot be conducted until all potential wastewater
uses are fully understood. The Applicant needs to include a discussion on all proposed sewer
system components (i.e. grease traps, etc.).
Response 4: Additional information regarding the bar/lounge will be added to the Engineers Report.
An internal grease trap will be provided, and a note on the plans will be added.
Comment 5: The hydrants tested do not appear to be the closest hydrants to the site as there appears to
be an existing hydrant located immediately adjacent to the proposed hotel. Further these
hydrants were tested on March 27, 2018. It is recommended that new hydrant tests be
performed on the hydrant located adjacent to the site and because the tests are over 2-years
old. Typically, hydrant flow testing shall be no older than six(6) months unless it has been
deemed that no changes to the supply or transmission of water within that area have
occurred since the test was performed. Our office does not take exception to hydrant flow
tests being conducted in support of building permit application, so long at the City does not
take exception. The fire code official shall be notified prior to the water supply test. Further,
our office understands that a full review of the sprinkler system and NFF will occur during the
building permit application.
Response 5: There have been no significant changes to the supply or transmission of water in this
area since the test. As noted, the previous test was completed in close proximity, +/-
400' away.
Project Cost Estimate:
Comment 6: It appears the unit prices used in the provided cost estimate may be below what is typically
seen for site work within the NYSDOT ROW. Please review and update as necessary.
Response 6: Unit prices will be reviewed and updated, as necessary.
Site Plans:
Comment 7: Please provide a signed and sealed copy of the boundary, topographic and utility survey
prepared by CHA Consulting.
Response 7: A signed and sealed copy of the survey will be provided with the final accepted set of
plans for signature.
Comment 8: Sheet L-5.1 titled "Lighting Plan" is missing from the site drawings. Please provide in
subsequent submissions. A review of the lighting plan will occur once provided.
Response 8: The lighting plan will be submitted for review.
Comment 9: Please provide additional spot elevations throughout the site and particularly at all handicap
parking spaces to assure the slopes do not exceed the required minimum.
Response 9: Spot grades will be added throughout the site and specifically at the handicap parking
spaces to verify the slopes for ADA compliance. All handicap parking spaces will
meet ADA requirements with regards to slope.
Comment 10: There appears to be proposed work within the NYSDOT ROW, including an open cut trench
through the road. The Applicant to provide the plans to the NYSDOT for review and
comment.
Response 10: It is our understanding as with other projects within this corridor that no NYSDOT
permit is required because the City maintains this portion of the ROW.
Comment 11: It appears, based on the location of the construction entrance, that construction traffic will be
directed to use Todd Street to enter and exit the site. It appears that only a portion of Todd
Street is to be repaved following construction. The City should consider requiring the
Applicant to re-pave the full width of Todd Street since it will be significantly affected by
construction traffic?
Response 11: No response required, comment to the city. City to advise.
Comment 12: Further, the Todd Street intersection with South Broadway appears to have a small turning
radius. It is assumed that concrete trucks will use Todd Street (based on the location of the
construction entrance). Please submit vehicular maneuvering plans showing construction
vehicles can be accommodated at this entrance.
Response 12: The turning radius for Todd Street is existing and is to the standard of the city and is
located entirely within their ROW. The Todd Street width is increasing but the radius
of the curb cut will remain the same as the existing condition.
Comment 13: It is unclear what the proposed width of Todd Street will be following construction; please
revise the plans accordingly.
Response 13: The Todd Street width will be added to the plans.
Comment 14: The Applicant shall provide the plans and engineering report to the Fire Department for
review and comment. Please submit for the record a letter from the Fire Department
indicating that they can adequately service the proposed use.
Response 14: It is our understanding that the planning department sends the submission drawings
along to the fire department for their review and comment. They have in the past
reviewed drawings and provided comments.
Comment 15: Please provide a fire truck maneuvering plan, using the largest responding emergency
vehicle as prescribed by the responding fire department, showing access through the site.
Section D105.1 of the 2015 Fire Code states "Where the vertical distance between the grade
plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet (9144 mm), approved aerial fire
apparatus access roads shall be provided. For purposes of this section, the highest roof
surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of
the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater." Section D105.2
of the 2015 Fire Code states "Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum
unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925 mm), exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of
the building or portion thereof." The cover sheet indicates the building will be 4-stories and 49
feet high. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned
shall be approved by the fire code official. The Applicant to provide which side of the building
once determined by the fire code official. Conformance to the Fire Code will be reviewed
once an answer is provided
Response 15: It is our understanding that fire truck access thru the site is not required as the
building can be accessed from city ROW's along two sides. This is how the other
properties within this corridor accommodate aerial fire apparatus access. Access to
the rear of the site can be accommodated but not as a fire apparatus access road.
Comment 16: The Applicant to provide the gross building area of the proposed building.
Response 16: The building Gross floor area will be added to the cover sheet.
Comment 17: The layout of the proposed parking within the building is not depicted. Please provide.
Response 17: Architectural plans will be part of the next submission and will include the proposed
parking layout within the lower parking deck.
Comment 18: Please revise the design to include gas and electric utilities that are to service the proposed
structures. Drawings should reflect the location of utility lines, points of connection and the
location of ineters, transformers, etc. along with landscape screening.
Response 18: The gas and electric utility design locations will be added to the plans as well as the
location for the gas meter and transformer within the site plan development area.
Comment 19: Detail 5 Sheet L-6.4 does not conform to the City of Saratoga Springs standard details. The
specified pipe zone backfill should be "well graded sand with 3/-inch maximum particle size
and not more than 10% passing #200 sieve...". The plans indicate NYSDOT Size 1 &2
crushed aggregate for pipe zone backfill which has a larger gradation than the City standard.
Please revise and cross reference all details to ensure conformance with City standards.
Response 19: The proposed detail has been historically used for projects in the City with no issues.
Proposed gradation has 90-100% passing the 1" sieve with less than 1% passing the
#200 sieve and is in close conformance with the City standards.
Comment 20: It appears that there will be a permanent shared access and parking with both the
neighboring parcels located at the southeast corner of the Lincoln Avenue and S. Broadway
intersection. Please submit a copy of the agreements with these two parcel owners for the
City's records— please note that these agreements will need to be filed in the County Clerk's
office for all properties involved. Also please depict the limits of the proposed easement on
the plans. Further, since access to those existing two parcels is being altered the Applicant
shall re-evaluate fire apparatus access and turning maneuverability for those parcels as well.
Please submit appropriate maneuverability plans.
Response 20: A shared access and parking agreement is proposed and will be provided to the city
for their records as well as being filed with the county clerk's office. Fire apparatus
access should not change for those properties as they have frontage along the city
ROW on Lincoln and South Broadway which is the anticipated apparatus access point.
Comment 21: The existing hydrant on South Broadway appears to be connected to an abandoned
watermain according to the utility plan sheet. Further, it does not appear that the utility plan
depicts any other new or existing hydrants. The Applicant to clarify or revise accordingly.
Response 21: LA Group is coordinating with the City regarding existing waterline and hydrant. Plans
will be updated accordingly.
Comment 22: Sheet L-2.0 depicts a retaining wall that runs adjacent to the parking structure ramp. It is
anticipated that sheeting will be required in order to facilitate construction of the building and
the retaining walls or an easement will be required from the adjoining property owner. Please
note as such on plans or show the proposed limits of the temporary construction easement
and provide a copy of the agreement with the neighboring property owner for the City's
record.
Response 22: The plans will be revised as required to show the limits of construction and provided
for review with the next submission. It is assumed sheeting will be required to
facilitate construction.
Comment 23: Sheet L-3.0 depicts a trench drain that is noted as being internally drained as is catch basin
7. No MEP plans or structure details were provided with this submission. Where does this
system discharge? How is it treated? It is lower than the surrounding storm sewer system?
Please clarify and revise design accordingly.
Response 23: The trench drain will discharge to the existing storm pipe that connects to the catch
basin in South Broadway. Since this project is redevelopment this portion of
stormwater is not being treated.
SWPPP:
Comment 24: The project is a re-development with an increase in impervious area. The pre-development
watershed map does not show sufficient existing conditions to verify the on- and off-site
watershed delineation nor their impervious surfaces. Please updated the SWPPP
accordingly.
Response 24: Edge of pavement will be darkened on the Existing Conditions Watershed Map to more
clearly delineate impervious surfaces.
Comment 25: The existing conditions subcatchment 1 lists 39,120 sq./ft. of Paved parking as the only
impervious surface, however it appears that the existing buildings, Todd Street, gazebos etc.
are not accounted for. Please clarify and revise the SWPPP accordingly.
Response 25: All impervious areas are accounted for and are included under the "paved parking"
area calculation. All impervious areas have a CN number of 98, regardless if it is a
building or parking lot.
Comment 26: It appears that AP-1 is the existing catch basin at the south corner of Todd Street. The
SWPPP must clearly describe the exact design point into which stormwater is directed.
Please revise all design points accordingly. We believe that AP-1 should be broken up into
two design points —the catch basin located at the south corner of Todd Street and the catch
basin located just upstream of it, since the pipe between the two catch basins could be
overwhelmed by proposed storm system.
Response 26: AP-1 represents runoff entering the existing catch basin in South Broadway, north of
Todd Street. The catch basin at the south end of Todd Street does not see any flow
from the project site. Language in the SWPPP will be updated to specify location of
AP-1.
Comment 27: There is insufficient topographical information to review the pre-and post-subcatchment
boundaries that flow onto the site from neighboring properties. Based on the topographic
information provided, the neighboring properties to the north, east and south side of Todd
Street do flow onto the site and will be collected and conveyed into the proposed stormwater
management systems, thereby rendering them inadequate. Please revise the plans, and
SWPPP accordingly.
Response 27: The property to the north of the east of Todd Street do not discharge stormwater
runoff onto the site. Stormwater runoff from these properties travels north to adjacent
properties and Gurtler Lane. Additionally, not shown on the survey is a large berm
along the existing fence line that prohibits stormwater runoff from Gurtler Lane to
discharge on the project site. All stormwater runoff from these neighboring properties
travels north along the east side of Gurtler Lane as evidenced by the pavement
erosion at neighboring property lines along Gurtler Lane. Stormwater runoff from
properties to the south of Todd Street travels southwest along Todd Street and
eventually onto South Broadway. The SWPPP will be updated to remove Gurtler Lane
from the site watershed.
Comment 28: The post-development model indicates that subcatchments 1, 3, 11 and 12 (which include the
majority of the roofl are tributary to AP-1. It is unclear how those subcatchments get treated
prior to discharge to AP-1. Please clarify and revise both the plans and the SWPPP
accordingly.
Response 28: The projects entire treated WQv is provided by the underground chambers. Since this
project is classified as redevelopment 100% of all new impervious area and 25% of
existing disturbed area needs to be treated. Subcatchment 1, 3, 11, and 12 are not
required to be treated due to the redevelopment requirements.
� Comment 29: It is not clear where the roof(subcatchment 11 and 12) nor the internally drained trench drain
and CB noted previously are to be discharged. Please clarify and revise both the plans and
the SWPPP accordingly.
Response 29: Plans will be modified to show connection to the existing catch basin in South
Broadway.
Comment 30: The stormwater management report indicates that an isolator row in the underground
chambers will provide the required pre-treatment. The HydroCAD model indicates however
that exfiltration is utilized for all 52 of the chambers, which indicates exfiltration is utilized in
the pre-treatment area. According to discussions with NYSDEC representatives, exfiltration
may not be modeled in pre-treatment facilities. Please revise the SWPPP accordingly.
Response 30: SWPPP will be revised accordingly.
Comment 31: Please provide pre-treatment calculations for the isolator row that indicates it meets the
requirements of the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual (SMDM).
Response 31: Pre-treatment calculations will be provided.
Comment 32: All of the structures in the stormwater treatment system need to be modeled, specifically the
diversion structure and outlet control structure. Please revise the SWPPP accordingly.
Response 32: The outlet control is modeled in SMP1. The diversion manhole will be added to the
model.
Comment 33: It is unclear how all portions of subcatchment 10 will discharge to catch basin 3. Please
clarify and revise the SWPPP accordingly.
Response 33: SWPPP will be revised to depict subcatchment 10 discharging to CB2, which
subsequently discharges to catch basin 3. Subcatchment 10 and subcatchment 9
discharge to CB-2 via the roof drain located along the east side of the building.
Comment 34: It is unclear how all portions of subcatchment 9 will discharge to catch basin 2. Please clarify
and revise the SWPPP accordingly.
Response 34: See response 33.
Comment 35: The plans do not show how the trench drain and catch basin 7 are connected to the internal
system noted on the plans — please indicate piping for these components.
Response 35: Trench drain and CB-7 are internally connected and discharge to the existing catch
basin in South Broadway. Piping inside the building footprint will be designed by the
MEP engineer. MEP plans will be provided to the building department for review
during the building permit review.
Comment 36: In the HydroCAD model, the runoff depth shows a ">" indicating that a time span of 5-20
hours is not sufficient to realize the full effects of the storm. The applicant to revise the time
span such that it is at least the length of the storm analyzed (24 hours).
Response 36: Time span will be increased to 24 hours. Note that there is no change to peak flow
rates due to this change.
Comment 37: Compaction of the soil within the future location of the underground infiltration chambers may
occur due to construction traffic. Please add a note to the plans indicating that construction
traffic must avoid the area of the infiltration system to avoid over compacting and adversely
affecting the natural infiltration rate of the soil.
Response 37: Note will be added to the plans.
Comment 38: Falling head permeability tests must be conducted within the limits of the proposed
underground infiltration chambers in accordance with the NYS Stormwater Management
Design Manual (SMDM). Please add the locations of the infiltration tests, borings, etc. along
with the results of these tests on the site plans so that we can confirm this criterion is met.
Response 38: Location of tests will be added to the plans. Infiltration tests I-2 and I-3 are located on
either ends of the proposed underground chambers.
Comment 39: The infiltration tests conducted were performed 4' below existing site grades (approximately
elevation of 313') at a rate of 34-36 in/hour. The SMDM requires that the infiltration testing be
performed 24" below the bottom of the proposed infiltration system. The testing presented is
not. It is actually 5 feet above the required testing elevation of 308'. Please conduct testing
that meets this requirement, verify that the design rate is appropriate and revise the plans
and SWPPP accordingly.
Response 39: Additional permeability tests will be conducted at the required depth.
Comment 40: Section 4.1 of the SWPPP notes: "Seed and mulch bare soil areas within 14 days of
disturbance unless construction will resume in that area within 21 days". However, the
SPDES General Permit requires that stabilization be initialized in such areas by the end of
the next business day and be complete within 14 days. Please revise the note accordingly.
Response 40: Note will be revised accordingly.
Comment 41: City Code Chapter 242 requires long-term maintenance of the stormwater management
practices. The following notes need to be added to each SWPPP under Post-Construction
Operation and Maintenance of Stormwater Control Devices:
a. "All post-construction stormwater management facilities must be inspected annually by a
qualified professional, a report prepared and submitted to the City Engineer documenting
the inspections as well as the maintenance activities that were completed during the prior
year."
b. "The City of Saratoga Springs shall approve a formal maintenance and inspection
agreement in accordance with City Code Chapter 242 for stormwater management
facilities to ensure the practices will be properly operated and maintained in accordance
with the long-term operation and maintenance plans. This agreement shall be binding on
all subsequent landowners and recorded in the office of the County Clerk as a deed
restriction on the property."A draft maintenance agreement was provided and shall be
reviewed by the City and City's counsel.
Response 41: Notes regarding inspections are included in the SWPPP on page 10 under"Post
Construction Stormwater Maintenance." A draft maintenance agreement will be
provided to the City for review and approval.
Sincerely,
Douglas B. Heller, PE
Associate Principal
Director of Civil Engineering/
Civil Engineer
dheller(a�.thelaqroup.com
G:AProj-2016�2016144 Turf v Spa_Larkin South Broad«ay\2016144Admin\O1CoirespondenceA2.7Reviecr_Comments\2020 04-06 South Broad�ay
Comment Response Ltr.-hafiev l.docx