Engineering review
North Country Office
100 Glen Street, Glens Falls, NY 12801
P: (518) 812-0513 F: (518) 812-2205
www.chazencompanies.com
Capital District Office (518) 273-0055
Engineers
Environmental Professionals Hudson Valley Office (845) 454-3980
Land Surveyors
Landscape Architects
Planners
March15, 2012
Mr. Craig Brown
Zoning Administrator and Code Compliance Officer
Town of Queensbury
742 Bay Road
Queensbury New York 12804
Delivered via email only: CraigB@queensbury.net
Re: Quaker Ridge Technology Park
Preliminary Subdivision Submission
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York
Chazen Job # 91104.07
Queensbury Ref No: Subdivision 1-2011 & FWW 1-2011
Dear Mr. Brown:
The Chazen Companies (Chazen) received the latest submission resical comments
offered by Chazen on November 10, 2011. Based upon our review, Chazen offers the following
comments for the Towns consideration:
Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control
1.It is noted that plan sheets C-165, C-201, C-202, and C205-C212 were not provided in time for
review, therefore these sheets will need to be submitted by the
submission.
2.The runoff rates and volumes listed in Tables 4, 5, and 8 are no
calculated in the HydroCAD models. Based upon the calculated values taken from Hyd
the proposed development is increasing the rate of runoff for th-year storm, and is increasing
the volume of runoff for the 1-, 10-, 50-, and 100-yr storms at the discharge point of Drainage
Area 1. As such, the project design is not in conformance with t
Town of Queensbury. Section 179-6-080 of the Town code states, All stormwater management
plans shall be designed so that post-development run-off rates and volumes are equal to or less
than pre-development run-off. The Applicant shall revise the design for compliance.
3.As stated in Comment 1, the values listed in Table 5 are not con
calculated in the HydroCAD model. Based upon the calculated values, it appears that runoff
rates for the uncontrolled site are actually decreasing when compared to existing values listed
Table 4. Since Table 5 is presenting the project site without stormwater
expected that runoff rates would do the opposite, and increase when compared to
conditions. The applicant shall provide clarification and revise the calcula
Town of Queensbury
Quaker Ridge Technology Park
March 15, 2012
Page 2
4.In response to Comment 2 of Chazens November 10, 2011 comment lpplicant has
provided a revised SWPPP and Existing and Proposed Drainage Maps. However, the
mapping shows inconsistencies in the proposed subcatchment designations when compared to
the HydroCAD modeling. The mapping presents subcatchment designado not exist
within the modeling, and vice versa. In addition, the proposed drainage map indicates 26
subcatchments, while the HydroCAD model and the SWPPP report indicate a total of 25
subcatchments. It is requested that the subcatchment designations and the number of
subcatchments shall be revised for consistency.
5.Based upon the overall watershed boundary presented on the drain
watershed area does not appear to change from existing to proposed conditions. However, the
HydroCAD modeling depicts different values for the existing and proposed area listing totals.
Approximately 1.5 Acres are missing from the proposed model. The Applicant shall revise for
consistency.
6.Based upon the grading provided, it does not appear that subcatcBA-1 and 5 include the
entire areas tributary to each respective subcatchment. Portions of the land to the south
actually flow towards these areas and will enter the proposed in
shall revise these subcatchments to include the entire tributary areas.
7.Plan C-141 indicates a stormwater practice designated IT-3. The Applicant shall clarify if this
practice is intended to be an infiltration trench. If so, this practice has not been included in the
HydroCAD modeling, as a single infiltration trench has been modeled for the northwest portion
of Quaker Ridge Blvd.
8.Plan C-040 shall be revised to depict the proposed outlet control structure and pipe outlet from
Pond 1. The plans appear to show all other drainage structures and piping, except for these. The
outlet control structure shall also be included in the Drainage
9.The Grading and Erosion Control Plans shall depict stone apron outlet protection for all pipe
outlets proposed on the site. These aprons shall be sized in accordance with detail 2/C204 and
shall be drawn at an accurate scale on the plans.
10. The RRv calculations provided in the SWPPP appear to use runoff
the modified hydrologic soil group C and D (15%) for the vegetated swales. According to the
NYS SMDM, modifications must be in accordance with Section 5.1.6 - Soil Restoration. The
Applicant shall revise the Vegetated Swale detail to include spe
modifications. For clarity, it is recommended that the dry swale and vegetated swale details be
separated, such that explicit soil specifications can be clearly defined.
11.In response to Comment 5 of Chazens November 10, 2011 letter, t
the proposed improvements will not impact archeologically sensitive areas. However, the Phase
1 Grading and Erosion Control Plan depicts disturbance (inc. but not limited to tree clearing and
erosion control measures) within the archeologically sensitive area directly adjacent to
proposed Quaker Ridge Blvd. The Applicant must coordinate this plan with the equivalent Phas
2 plan, in addition to the Phase 1 & 2 Clearing Plans. It appear
are not consistent. In addition, the Applicant is proposing a precast concrete culvert directly
adjacent to this area. Plan C-207 shall be revised to show the boundaries of the archeological
R:\9\91100-91199\91104.00_Town of Queensbury PB Engineer\91104.07-T. Queensbury -VMJR Companies (Subdiv. 1-2011 & FWW 1-2011)\ENG\DOCS\Review\Quaker Ridge SUB 1-2011
& FWW 1-2011_03-15-12_L5.doc
Town of Queensbury
Quaker Ridge Technology Park
March 15, 2012
Page 3
sensitive area and should be revised to include specific constru
of this area. The Applicant shall investigate specific means & methods of construction for this
culvert to ensure that impacts will not occur to the restricted
As previously indicated, the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, an
require that a Phase 2 site examination be completed if work is to occur in the sensitive area.
Pursuant to this, the applicant shall either revise the drawings
archeological sensitive areas, or furnish a No Adverse Impact
support SPDES General Permit eligibility.
12.In response to Comment 7 of Chazens November 10, 2011 letter, the Applicant has provided
gravel access drives for Ponds 1 and 2, as well as Bioretention Facility 1. However, detailed
material specifications have not been provided. In addition, it appears that the access drive to
Pond 1 does not meet the requirements for width or slope, as pre
NYS SMDM. It is recommended that the Applicant provide a standar
indicating the minimum requirements outlined in the NYS SMDM.
The Applicant shall also provide clarification regarding the Pond 1 Access Drive. The Phase 1
Grading and Erosion Control plan indicates that an existing trail will b
However, the Phase 2 plan appears to show a separate drive just north of the trail, w
extends from Quaker Ridge Blvd to the proposed parking lot. If t
the Applicant shall indicate how this trail will be improved to s.
13.In response to Comment 8 of Chazens November 10, 2011 letter, t
intend to convey ownership of all proposed stormwater facilities
construction. The Town should consider this proposal as part of ion review.
14.In response to Comment 10 of Chazens November 10, 2011 letter, the Applicant has provided
revised profiles. However, profiles 2/C060 and 2/C061 do not depict all proposed utilities, as
required by the Town Zoning Code. The profiles shall be revised to include every pipe and
structure. In addition, detailed invert information must be depicted for all utilities, to include
precise station and offset information.
Additionally, the Applicant has included a plan & profile for the Quaker Ridge extension.
However, this section of roadway is no longer proposed. The Applicant shall remove this
drawing from the plan set.
15.The Applicant has revised the design to include drywells to trea
Ridge Blvd Extension. It shall be noted, that Section 6.3.1 of the NYS SMDM states that dra
to drywells shall include rooftop runoff only. The Applicant shall consider using an alternate
treatment practice, such as a wet swale.
16.Grading of Infiltration Trench 1, does not conform to the dimensions depicted in detail 7/C203.
Specifically, the grading shall be revised to show the 5-0 bottom width. The Applicant shall
revise the plans for consistency.
17.Detail 6/C-203, Bioretention Facility shall be revised to include material cifications for soil
and stone media, as well as depths of the different material sec, in accordance with Section
R:\9\91100-91199\91104.00_Town of Queensbury PB Engineer\91104.07-T. Queensbury -VMJR Companies (Subdiv. 1-2011 & FWW 1-2011)\ENG\DOCS\Review\Quaker Ridge SUB 1-2011
& FWW 1-2011_03-15-12_L5.doc
Town of Queensbury
Quaker Ridge Technology Park
March 15, 2012
Page 4
6.4 of the NYS SMDM. This detail shall also indicate material & depth requirements for the stone
level spreader. As required by Section 6.4.5 of the NYS SMDM, the plans shall include
landscaping plans for the bioretention facilities.
18.The applicant has provided Geotechnical information in Appendix
Location Layout Plans. These figures shall be revised to include current site layout and the
revised stormwater management areas, so a comprehensive review can be performed.
19.Question number 31 on the NOI includes only the rates associated with DA-1 out . This should
be revised to include the cumulative runoff volumes and rates for all offsite discharge points
(DA-1 and DA-2). The applicant shall revise the NOI appropriately.
In general, Questions 30 through 35 of the NOI shall be revised
upon the current layout and calculations.
20.As previously commented, it is noted that no emergency overflow weirs are included in the
design of the stormwater management basins. As required by the N
conveyance of all storms must be provided; therefore the applica
overflow weirs with appropriate erosion controls into the design
management basins.
21.Regarding the proposed stormwater swales presented on the plans
outlet berms should be depicted on the plan, with the appropriatvations per the
stormwater model indicated.
Freshwater Wetlands
22.In response to Comment 12 of Chazens November 10, 2011 letter, the Applicant shows the
outlet protection from Pond 2 as ending just outside of the wetland boundary. However, the
stone lined apron at this outlet must be sized in accordance with the NYS Standards &
Specifications for Erosion & Sediment Control, as presented in detail 2/C204. This apron shall be
sized in accordance with these requirements and presented at its appropriate size on the plan
view. Final location of this outlet/apron may need to be adjuste
23.It is noted that a wetland mitigation area is proposed to be cre
Lot #1, presumably to offset wetland impacts. The proposed grading and landscaping of this
mitigation area shall be depicted on the plans, as well as appro
control measures.
24.In response to Comment 13 of Chazens November 10, 2011 letter, the Applicant indicates that
impacts are not proposed to wetlands in this area and that silt fencing will be installed along the
wetland areas to offer additional protection. For this portion of construction, it is recommended
the Applicant install snow fence, in addition to any required erosion and sediment controls, such
that inadvertent impacts are not realized during construction.
R:\9\91100-91199\91104.00_Town of Queensbury PB Engineer\91104.07-T. Queensbury -VMJR Companies (Subdiv. 1-2011 & FWW 1-2011)\ENG\DOCS\Review\Quaker Ridge SUB 1-2011
& FWW 1-2011_03-15-12_L5.doc
Town of Queensbury
Quaker Ridge Technology Park
March 15, 2012
Page 5
Conclusions and Recommendations
It is our opinion that the applicant should provide clarificatio
changes for the next submission. Within future submissions, it is kindly requested that the Applicant
submit hard copies of the entire drawing set, without omissions. it is kindly requested that
the Applicant submit full size versions of the watershed mapping.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me at 824-1926.
Sincerely,
Sean M. Doty, P.E., LEED AP
Senior Project Engineer
cc: Pam Whiting, Town Planning Office Administrator (via email)
Keith Oborne, Town Planner (via email)
Joel Bianchi, P.E., Senior Director - Municipal Engineering (via email)
File
R:\9\91100-91199\91104.00_Town of Queensbury PB Engineer\91104.07-T. Queensbury -VMJR Companies (Subdiv. 1-2011 & FWW 1-2011)\ENG\DOCS\Review\Quaker Ridge SUB 1-2011
& FWW 1-2011_03-15-12_L5.doc