The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCorrespondence: Updated Plan Sheets for Drainage ReviewTingley, Connie S From:Jeff Bolinger <jbolinger@fhai.com> Sent:Friday, February 17, 2012 5:25 PM To:Willie Hall; Andy Cash Cc:Chuck Tyler; Andy Miller Subject:RE: Carmel HS Athletic Center - Udpated Plan Sheets for Drainage Review Willie, In addition to Andy’s responses please note Fanning Howey responses on the remaining issues in green. Please review and let us know if these responses have answered your concerns. Thanks again for your help and timely review Jeff Bolinger, RLA Sr. Associate, Site Dept. Coordinator Fanning Howey T: (317) 848-0966 F: (317) 848-0843 E-mail: jbolinger@fhai.com From: Willie Hall [mailto:whall@crossroadengineers.com] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:29 PM To: 'Andy Cash'; Jeff Bolinger Subject: RE: Carmel HS Athletic Center - Udpated Plan Sheets for Drainage Review Andy, Yes, sorry I over looked those on the Utility Plan. Items 3.k and 6 are handled sufficiently. Thanks, Willie William Hall II, P.E. Phone: (317) 780-1555 x 140 Fax: (317) 780-6525 From: Andy Cash [mailto:acash@tlf-engineers.com] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:24 PM To: Willie Hall; Jeff Bolinger Subject: RE: Carmel HS Athletic Center - Udpated Plan Sheets for Drainage Review Willie, I believe that we addressed items 3.k and 6 when we placed the flow arrows on the Utility Plan. Perhaps you’re looking on the Grading Plan for that Information. The flow arrows are depicted on the Utility Plan very much in the same way that Gary Duncan redlined them during our meeting. Let’s check with Fanning regarding the other items. Jeff, Could you respond concerning the Flood Note, Legal Description, Flood Delineation, Additional Spot Grades and Drainage Arrows on the Grading Plan. 1 Thanks. From: Willie Hall [mailto:whall@crossroadengineers.com] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:05 PM To: Andy Cash Cc: Greg Ilko; Gary Duncan; Amanda Foley Subject: RE: Carmel HS Athletic Center - Udpated Plan Sheets for Drainage Review Andy, I took a look over the revised plans that you resubmitted, and it appears that several of the items that I included in the list of comments from my Feb. 6, 2012 e-mail were not addressed. The comments below are from the e-mail. The items in red do not appear to be addressed, and the items with a strikethrough have either been addressed or identified as not needed in our meeting with Gary Duncan. 1.Per Section 102.02.v., please revise Sheet GD1.0, Site Demolition Plan, to include the following information: d. One hundred (100) year floodplains, floodway fringes, and floodways, established or identified in accordance with the City of Carmel Flood Hazard Area Ordinance. Please note if none exist. We have these shown on the soils map on plan sheet G2.1. The flood limits however are at such a lower elevation (-30’) as those in our “project area” that they should not have any influence on the project. They are also so far north of our construction area(650’ +) that we could not fit them on Plan sheet GD1.0 at a decent scale and still be legible. For the purposes of this “project site” any floodplains, fringes or floodways at the remote north end of the owners site will not have any influence. 2.Per Section 102.02.ii., please revise the plans to include a legal description of the site. The legal description was added on the cover sheet. 3.Per Section 102.02.xi., please revise the Site Grading Plan, Sheet G2.0 to include the following information: a.Existing drainage facilities, including size, material, invert elevations and top casting information. c. One hundred (100) year floodplains, floodway fringes, and floodways established in accordance with the City of Carmel Flood Hazard Area Ordinance. Please note if none exists. (Please note the FEMA FIRM Map Panel Number) None exists in the immediate “project site”. See response in item 1. For more information. k. Emergency flood routing paths and their invert elevations from detention facilities to the receiving system. Shown on the utility plan. You have indicated it is sufficient q. Drainage arrows shall be indicated for all surface drainage, swales and on each side of every break in swale slopes. If the directional flow arrows indicated on the site utility plan are not sufficient we can add to G2.0. 4.Per Section 102.03, please revise the drainage report to include pre and post-developed watershed maps to contain all required information. 5.Per Section 102.03.d., please revise the pipe sizing calculations (Manning’s Pipe Calculator data) within the drainage report to correspond with the pipe information (size, slope, etc.) indicated on the plans. Per Section 303.07, please indicate on the plans the ponding / overflow path throughout the development 6. resulting from a 100-year storm event, calculated based on all contributing drainage areas, on-site and off-site, in proposed conditions with the storm pipe system assumed to be completely plugged. This overflow path shall be clearly shown on the plans . and contained within a 30 feet permanent drainage easement along the centerline of the overflow path. Shown On the utility plan. You have indicated it is sufficient. 7.Per Section 501.01, there should be no less than 2.5 feet of cover along any part of the pipe from final pavement grade to the top of the pipe. It appears that the pipe runs designated as Keynote #2 and #17 do not comply. Please review and revise accordingly. Any waiver request for this design standard shall be submitted directly to the City of Carmel Engineering Department. 2 8.Please revise the Grading Plan, Sheet G2.0, to include more spot elevations. Additional spot elevations shall be included at connecting points to existing grade for sidewalks, curbs, etc. We are somewhat hesitant to give spot elevations to some of those points where we are connecting to existing pavements, etc. as we don’t have “existing” spot elevations from the survey for each and every one of those points. If we give an approximate elevation the contractors may give us “that” approximate elevation even though it might differ slightly from the “in field” elevation which could create a trip hazard. It can and has happened. We do call on the plans for them to meet existing grades flush. Let us know how you would like to address this item without exposing Fanning Howey to potential liability or exposure. Let me know if I missed something, or didn’t get the most revised sheets. Also, I am still coordinating with Gary concerning all of the resubmitted modeling information. Thanks, Willie William Hall II, P.E. Phone: (317) 780-1555 x 140 Fax: (317) 780-6525 From: Andy Cash [mailto:acash@tlf-engineers.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 4:06 PM To: Duncan, Gary R Cc: Thomas, John G; Willie Hall; Jeff Bolinger; Chuck Tyler; Greg Rasmussen Subject: Carmel HS Athletic Center - Udpated Plan Sheets for Drainage Review Gary, Please find updated plan sheets as described in the attached meeting minutes. This submittal addresses comments th discussed at your offices on February 8, 2012. Should you have any questions or concerns feel free to give me a call. Thanks. Andy Cash T 317.334.1500 F 317.334.1552 Direct Dial 317.224.0409 ——————————————————————————— 3901 W. 86th Street • Suite 200 • Indianapolis IN 46268 acash@tlf-engineers.com www.tlf-engineers.com ________________________________________________________________________________________ This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual or entity named. The use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake and delete this email from your system. Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. has taken reasonable precautions to see that no viruses are present in the electronic mail. Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. 3