HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity of Carmel Docket 13090014 Z Drury Plaza Hotel.msgGood afternoon Mr. Twomey,
Thank you for meeting today. The Department has completed a review of the plans received on June 18, 2014 in response to comments issued by letter on November 16, 2013 and by email on
December 10, 2014. Assuming that nothing has been changed since the last submittal beyond that necessary to address the comments that were issued (none have been indicated in writing
as required part 3 of the General Information section of the letter dated November 6, 2013) our review was limited to the comments previously made. There are several additional comments
related to the review of the previous comments or based upon other approvals that might be needed based on the work shown. The list below are the items that need to be addressed prior
to final release of the construction plans. I have also included the administrative items that are customarily required before we support the release of the ILP.
Engineering Comments
1. Comment 1: By my estimation, compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan for this classification of road requires a monetary commitment equal to the value to construct an additional
8-feet of mainline pavement and curb across the City frontage. The City frontage is approximately 143-LF. So, the commitment value is that value to otherwise construct the following,
plus an additional 10% of the total value for design:
a. City Standard Chairback Curb: 143-LF
b. Surface, Type C, 9.5-mm: 12-tons
c. Intermediate, Type C, 19-mm: 36-tons
d. Base, Type C, 25-mm: 50-tons
e. Intermediate, Type D, 19-mm: 20-tons
2. Comment 18/Comment 19 (and Crossroads comments 3(k), 3(o), 7). I completed my review of the plans dated June 17, 2014 but subsequent to our meeting also reviewed the plans dated
July 10, 2014. Thank you for providing the most current plan set. I re-reviewed the flood route and am of the opinion that the MLAG/MFPG should be 837.40. I have left Mr. Schrage a voicemail
to discuss how the current elevation of 837.18 was established. As we discussed at the meeting, the current FFE of 837 for the outlot may not be accurate and does not represent the FFE
but instead represents the pad grade. If that is the case, then with a 6-inch or 8-inch slab, the actual FFE may meet the standard. I will also discuss this with Mr. Schrage.
3. Comment 22. Thank you for providing the drainage summary. I assume that the maximum release rate is per the master plan for this lot. Please indicate why the developed peak
flow exceeds that allowed by the master plan.
4. Comment 23. Is the off-site drainage pipe (and proposed easement in which the pipe is contained) on other property but within existing easement that already provides such drainage
rights? If so, a new easement is not required. Also, unless the proposed flood route easement conveys runoff from an off-site area, this easement is not required. (Please see additional
comment below regarding the INDOT right-of-way).
5. Comment 25. Per our discussion today, it is my understanding that these lanes were discussed during approval of the PUD and that the Plan Commission established that these lanes
were not necessary.
Crossroads Comments
6. Comments 1(b), 3(k), 3(o), 5, 6(ii), 6(xiv), 7, 8 need to be addressed.
SWPPP Comments
7. It appears the U.S. Army Corps jurisdictional determination is valid for 5 years to the date that the letter was issued. The letter was issued on March 10, 2009 meaning it has
expired on March 10 of this year. We are checking with John Thomas on this.
8. Based on the information provided it is apparent that the volume of the existing ponds is 3-times the City requirements for the ponds to be considered adequate for water quality
purposes and qualify as a second BMP.
9. The water quality unit must be sized per the Indianapolis Approved BMP list. According to the Indianapolis list, the proposed AS-7 will not be able to treat the 6.58-cfs generated
by the site. An AS-10 will be required to meet this treatment rate.
10. Please list the wet pond as a BMP in #2 of the post-construction SWPPP.
11. For the O&M manual:
a. Provide a telephone number and email address for the BMP owner.
b. Replace the current owner acknowledgement agreement with the Carmel format and list the BMPs on this page.
c. Show the location of the points of discharge for storm water treated by the BMPs.
d. Provided cross sections of the BMPs.
Additional Comments
12. Is the off-site sanitary sewer work wholly within the INDOT right-of-way? If any of the work is within the City right-of-way, additional approvals may be required from the BPW.
13. What is the proposed slope from the property line to the top back curb along the perimeter of the parking lot? City standard maximum is 3:1 slope.
14. Has the wooded area north and west of the site been altered by the INDOT project? Does the drainage still come into the site as the contours show? If so, a flood route easement
needs to be provided and this flood route considered in the establishment of the MLAG and MFPG elevations.
15. There appears to be a low spot just off-site along the north/west property line where the top back curb is higher and water will be trapped.
Administrative Items Customarily required prior to construction plan release
16. Performance Bond for the Construction Phase Erosion and Sediment Control Measure and the Post Construction BMP
17. Payment of the thoroughfare plan commitment
18. Right-of-way permit for construction access
19. Storm water management permit (please submit the application ASAP)
20. BMP Easements approved by the BPW and recorded
21. Final O&M manual approved and recorded
22. Dedication of Right-of-Way through the BPW
23. Outlet permit from the Hamilton County Surveyors Office
Thanks so much,
Gary
Gary R. Duncan, Jr., PE
Assistant City Engineer
City of Carmel
Department of Engineering
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
(317) 571-2441
(317) 571-2439 (fax)
gduncan@carmel.in.gov
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
ใจ