Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - BV TAC Responses 3-24-11BLACK VEATCH Building a world of difference. March 24, 2011 City of Carmel- Department of Community Services 1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor Carmel, Indiana 46032 Attention: Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Subject: Technical Advisory Committee Review Comments BLACK VEATCH 5750 CASTLE CREEK PARKWAY, STE 245 +1 317 -570 -8331 1 WILLETRK @BV.COM White River North WTP UV Disinfection Facility B &V Project 169576 B &V File 34.2000 This letter serves as the response to review comments that have been received from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) members and during the review meeting on March 16, 2011. The numbered items are comments from TAC members and the'Responsd'items are from Black Veatch. I. Hamilton County Surveyor's Office 1. The proposed project falls in the incorporated area and MS4 jurisdiction of the City of Carmel. Response: Comment acknowledged. 2. The proposed project DOES fall in a Carmel Wellhead Protection Zone. Response: Comment acknowledged. 3. The proposed project does not fall in a Hamilton Regulated Drain Watershed. Response: Comment acknowledged. 4. Please direct all stormwater questions to the City of Carmel Engineering Department. Response: Comment acknowledged. II. City of Carmel Department of Community Services- Alternative Transportation 1. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan requires the construction of a 10' asphalt path and space for a bicycle lane along River Rd. Please revise the plans to include these facilities. Response: Review comments regarding the asphalt (pedestrian) path will be addressed in separate correspondence. III. City of Carmel Department of Engineering 1. The plans do not reflect the multi -use path identified in an email from Michael McBride dated 02/09/11. The plans will need to include the following for the construction of the path: a. Site Plan b. City standard path pavement section. www.bv.com 8. Is the FFE 2 -feet above the BFE of White River? Response: The FFE of 747 is 2 feet above the BFE of 747. MARCH 24, 2011 1 PAGE 2 c. City's Paving Policy d. Appropriate City ADA ramp detail. e. If required, how drainage of the right -of -way will be maintained. Response: Review comments regarding the asphalt (pedestrian) path will be addressed in separate correspondence. 2. The Department assumes that there is no location on -site at which to mitigate the loss of floodplain that will result from the construction of the addition. Response: The only location available on the site to provide compensatory storage for the fill resulting from the construction of the building and the dry well stormwater management basin would result in significant disturbance and excavation of the natural areas that are located in the White River floodway. We request a variance from the City's no -fill ordinance due to the small volume of fill within the floodplain and to minimize impacts to the environmentally sensitive site. 3. Is any curbing proposed with this building expansion? Response: There is no curbing associated with the building expansion. 4. The plans need to include a legal description of the property. Response: The existing property legal description has been added to Drawing C01. 5. The Department assumes that right -of -way dedication documents will be prepared and submitted for acceptance by the Board of Public Works and Safety. Response: Review comments regarding the asphalt (pedestrian) path will be addressed in separate correspondence. 6. A right -of -way permit will be required for construction equipment to access the property from the public right -of -way. Response: Contractor will be responsible for obtaining a right -of -way permit after award of contract and prior to the start of construction, as required. 7. Will the proposed dry well be subject to flooding from the base flood elevation of White River? If so, will any pollutants be accumulating in the basin and at risk for re- suspension? Response: The dry well is not subject to flooding and is protected from the BFE. The emergency spillway elevation (746.1') for the earthen basin around the dry well is 1.1 feet above the BFE (745.0 www.bv.cam MARCH 24, 2011 1 PAGE 3 9. Please establish the Minimum Flood Protection Grade and Minimum Lowest Adjacent Grade elevations and label on the drawing set. The City's definition of MFPG and MLAG need to be added to the plan set. Response: Per discussions with Gary Duncan, it was agreed that since the FFE is 2 feet above the BFE (i.e., the 100 -year flood elevation from White River), the project has met CarmeYs requirements for flood elevations and no revisions are necessary. 10. Please indicate the limits of the Floodway and Flood Fringe on the plan set. Response: The floodway limits as shown on the 2003 FIRM 18057CO235F have been added to Drawing C01. There is no work proposed within the floodway. The flood fringe limits as shown on the FIRM are west of River Road, with the site being shown within the floodplain. However, the existing water treatment buildings are elevated above the BFE. A note has been added to Drawing C01 indicating that portions of the site are located within the 100 -yr floodplain. 11. Please add the following note to the drawings: All paving within the existing and proposed city Right -Of -Way shall conform to the requirements of the Department Of Engineering. The Contractor shall contact the Department Of Engineering to schedule a pre- construction meeting to review the Department's construction requirements, staff notification requirements, required inspections for certain stages of the work and to review the authority of the department as it relates to work within the existing and proposed Right -Of -Way:' Response: Review comments regarding the asphalt (pedestrian) path will be addressed in separate correspondence. 12. Utility relocations required by the project shall be the responsibility of the petitioner. Existing pole lines required to be relocated shall be relocated to within one foot of proposed right -of -way line. Response: Comment acknowledged. IV. City of Carmel Department of Community Services -Urban Forestry 1. Replacing the colored landscaping [assumed to have been removed during construction of the recent proposed Groundwater Treatment Plant], according to the attached plan, will satisfy my review of this building project. The full size landscape plan can be made available upon request. Response: Our understanding of the requested landscaping is as follows: eight (8) Bald Cypress trees, seven (7) Norway Spruce trees, four (4) Tulip trees, two (2) Sugar Maple trees, and two (2) Northern Red Oak trees. A cash allowance has been added to the construction contract that will pay for the costs of the trees and their installation. However, replacing the trees in their original locations may conflict with the planned pedestrian path in this area. We request that CarmeYs Urban Forester visit the site prior to the tree installation and provide the Contractor with direction on where the trees would be best located. The Carmel tree planting detail has been added to Drawing CO5. www.bv.corn Very truly yours, BLACK VEATCH Robert K. Willet Senior Engineering Manager bk Enclosures: DHS Exemption Letter Revised Drawings C01 and CO5 cc: Mr. Matt Klein, City of Indianapolis Department of Waterworks Mr. Dan Reidy, Veolia Water Indianapolis Mr. Donnie Ginn, Black Veatch Mr. Ben Knoop, Black Veatch MARCH 24, 2011 1 PAGE 4 V. City of Carmel Fire Department 1. The Water Company will need to make sure they get any required State of Indiana Construction Design Release from the State Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Once they have any required CDRs plans can be dropped off at DOCS for permitting. Response: We have requested an exemption from Indiana DHS from the Construction Design Release requirement (attached). If the exemption is granted we will submit a copy of it to Carmel for your records. If the Construction Design Release is required, we will obtain the required release and submit it to you. www.bv.cam