Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity of Carmel Docket 13090014 Z Drury Plaza Hotel (2).msgGood morning Brad, We reviewed the plans on Friday. Thank you for revising the drawings and resubmitting them. The ftp site did not contain the revised O&M manual so we could not confirm that the revisions to the O&M manual have been completed. Please submit this ASAP. Comments 1-5: These comments have been addressed. Comment 6: I am confirming with Crossroads. Comment 7: Thank you. Please keep us apprised of this status. Comment 8: This comment has been addressed. Comment 9: The change is reflected in the SWPPP but not on Sheet C602. Please ensure the designation is for an AS-10 on Sheet C602 on the final plans submitted for approval. Comment 10: This comment has been addressed. Comment 11: Per above, please provide the O&M manual ASAP. Comment 12-13. These comments have been addressed. Comment 14: Did the MWSE used to establish the MLAG/MFPG include the off-site water being conveyed through the site during the “inlets clogged” condition? Comment 15. This comment has been addressed. Comments 16-23. Before we release the plans for construction, at a minimum, we need the bonds for Construction Phase Erosion and Sediment Control and Post Construction BMP’s. Please advise on the when the estimates for the value of this work will be delivered and when these bonds will be delivered. We need to review the estimates before the bonds are submitted. Thanks so much, Gary From: Schrage, Brad [mailto:BSchrage@structurepoint.com] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 10:52 AM To: Duncan, Gary R; Thomas, John G Subject: Drury Plaza Hotel Gary and John, Please use the link below to download the current plan set which includes the revisions requested as well a minor revision for CTRWD on the west side of US-31. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Per your request I have also attached your final comments below as well as our responses. ftp://ftp.structurepoint.com/Drury%20Plaza%20Hotel/2014-07-28/ username: ftpuser password: ftppassword 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 Per our emails last week, the multi-use path was the only required Throughfare Plan Improvement as a part of the PUD approval. 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. a. We have revised the MLAG/MFPG as well as adjusted the FFE of the future restaurant pad. 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. a. This has been revised to agree with 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). a. The easements shown on the plans have been revised per our conversations to include the INDOT drainage. 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. a. Understood. Crossroads Comments 6. Comments 1(b), 3(k), 3(o), 5, 6(ii), 6(xiv), 7, 8 need to be addressed. a. We believe we have addressed these comments from Crossroads. 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. a. We believe that all necessary permitting has been completed, but have follow up calls in to verify 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. a. Understood 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. a. The structure shown has been revised to an AS-10. 10. Please list the wet pond as a BMP in #2 of the post-construction SWPPP. a. This has been added to the 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. Please see the attached provided O&M 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. a. The sanitary sewer work is within INDOT R/W. 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. a. This area was designed to be at a maximum of 3:1 per the provided INDOT plans. 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. a. This area has been included in the off-site easement. 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. a. This was a low spot in the topo, however at the completion of the INDOT and Drury projects, this low area will be revised. 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 a. Understood. 17. Payment of the thoroughfare plan commitment a. See comment #1 above 18. Right-of-way permit for construction access a. Understood 19. Storm water management permit (please submit the application ASAP) a. Please see the attached permit 20. BMP Easements approved by the BPW and recorded a. Understood 21. Final O&M manual approved and recorded a. Understood 22. Dedication of Right-of-Way through the BPW a. Understood 23. Outlet permit from the Hamilton County Surveyors Office a. The surveyors comments have been addressed and the outlet permit applied for Thanks, Brad _________________________________________ Brad Schrage, P.E., LEED AP Project Engineer, Civil Group 7260 Shadeland Station, Indianapolis, IN 46256 T 317.547.5580 E bschrage@structurepoint.com F 317.543.0270 W www.structurepoint.com <http://www.structurepoint.com/> C 317.372.6081 Follow us on Description: facebook logo <http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/American-Structurepoint-Inc/308123878516> Description: twiter logo <http://twitter.com/#!/AmericanStrpnt> ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute, utilize, or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake, and delete this e-mail from your system. No design changes or decisions made by e-mail shall be considered part of the contract documents unless otherwise specified, and all design changes and/or decisions made by e-mail must be submitted as an RFI or a submittal unless otherwise specified. All designs, plans, specifications and other contract documents (including all electronic files) prepared by American Structurepoint shall remain the property of American Structurepoint, and American Structurepoint retains all rights thereto, including but not limited to copyright, statutory and common-law rights thereto, unless otherwise specified by contract. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard-copy version. American Structurepoint, Inc., 7260 Shadeland Station, Indianapolis, IN 46256, USA, http://www.structurepoint.com/ http://www.emaildisclaimers.com/