HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence: Kimley-Horn response to DOCS
Suite 2125
205 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL
60606
August 23, 2012
Angie Conn
Planning Administrator
City of Carmel Planning & Zoning Division
Dept. of Community Services
rd
1 Civic Square, 3 Floor
Carmel, IN 46032
(317) 571-2426
Re: Olive Garden Restaurant – 10206 Michigan Rd. Carmel IN- Project Review #2
Dear Mrs. Conn:
We are in receipt of your comments dated July 19, 2012, on the plans submitted for the 10206 N.
Michigan Road, Olive Garden Restaurant in Carmel, IN. Following are our responses to those
comments:
CLAY TOWNSHIP REGIONAL WASTE DISTRICT
Comment 1:Existing Sanitary structure should have the prefix MH # “E” not E1.
Response 1: Existing sanitary structure labeled as MH “E”. See Sheet C5.1 for revision.
Comment 2:It may not be possible to adjust the Air Release Structure to TC EI: 892.14 the invert of the
whole structure is 889. This structure will probably not be able to be adjusted from current TC
Elevation.
Response 2: The Olive Garden site was raised and regraded and rim elevation on the existing air
release structure does not need to be adjusted and the rim will remain at 894.17. See grading plan on
Sheet C4.2 for revision.
Comment 3:Please provide a cut sheet of JR Smith 2010-H-B.
Response 3: The cut and detail sheet of the JR Smith 2010-H-B structure has been added to the plans.
See sheet C6.2 to see the detail.
Comment 4:Callouts on sheet C5.1 Utility legend still show 4” sanitary and needs to be changed to 6”
(Ex. C, I, and J).
Response 4: All crossing callouts have been revised to call out 6” sanitary instead of 4”. See Sheet C5.1
for revision.
Comment 5:Service Yard Drain Calls out 4” and 6” is labeled on blow up view.
1
Response 5: Service Yard Drain now calls out for a 6” sanitary pipe connection. See Sheet C5.1 for
revision.
Comment 6:Dry Detention Basin elevation: 888 don’t leave much clearance over our 14” Force Main
(see asbuilts). Estimate is 2’-4’…4’ is least amount of cover allowable. Please also put note on plans
sheet caution when digging active FM depth unknown.
Response 6: Site has been regraded and pond design changed to now allow for over 4’ of cover on the
west side of the site. See C4.2 and C5.1 for revision.
Comment 7:Please send us a copy of the executed sanitary sewer application that can be found on our
web site atwww.ctrwd.org.
Response 7: Executed sanitary sewer application is included with this submittal.
HAMILTON COUNTY SURVEYOR’S OFFICE REVIEW
Comment 1:We still need an outlet permit for the indirect discharge into the Crooked Creek Regulated
Drain. The application is available at Surveyor’s Form Page.
Response 1: Outlet permit is included with this submittal.
Comment 2:Our Stormwater Manual (HCSMTSM) allows for the exceeding of the release rates based
on a 6” minimum orifice, but only 1 orifice per site outlet. Looking at the site design, I would
recommend the orifice be placed on the outfall pipe of ST2, with debris guards on both pond outfalls to
minimize chances of debris getting to the orifice. The discharge rates need to be adjusted accordingly.
Response 2: The storm sewer has been changed to be all 12” pipe. We have included a 6” plate
restrictor at structure ST2. In order to minimize the release rate of the site we included a 6” plate
restrictor at structure ST4 for the west pond. We also added a 6” plate restrictor at storm structure
ST14. See Sheets C4.4 and C4.5 for revision along with the storm water report.
Comment 3:Please submit final construction plans and drainage calculations along with the outlet
permit.
Response 3: Revised plans and storm water drainage report are included with this submittal.
CROSSROADS ENGINEERING REVIEW
Comment 1:Per Section 102.2. v.d, please include the FEMA map reference number in all notes about
floodplains, floodway fringes and floodways.
Response 1: FEMA map reference number has been added to the plans. See Sheet C4.3 for revision.
Comment 2:Section 102.02.xi.k, please revise the Grading Plan, Sheet C4.2, and/or Drainage Plan,
Sheet C4.3, to show the emergency flood routing path(s) and their invert elevations from the detention
facility to the receiving system.
2
Response 2: Emergency flood routing paths and invert elevations have been added to the plans. See
Sheet C4.3 for revision.
Comment 3:Per Section 102.02.xi.r., please revise the Grading Plan, Sheet C4.2, and/or Drainage Plan,
Sheet C4.3, to indicate the slopes of all surface drainage swales. The response letter states that all
drainage swale slopes have been added to Sheet C4.2, however the slope of the Southwest pond is not
included.
Response 3: All ponds and drainage swales now show bottom of pond slopes. See Sheet C4.2 for
revision.
Comment 4:Per Sections 102.02.xi.l and 102.02.xi.s, please revise the Grading Plan, Sheet C4.2, and/or
Drainage Plan, Sheet C4.3, to include a typical cross section of the detention pond showing the
following information on the cross sections:
a. 10-year high water elevations resulting from the controlled release conditions called for
by the City of Carmel’s Stormwater Management Ordinance.
b. bottom of pond, top of bank, emergency spillway, and water surface over the emergency
spillway elevations.
c. Emergency spillway dimensions
Response 4: Pond and spillway cross sections are included with all above listed information in the
plan set. See Sheet C4.5 Storm Profiles and Cross Sections for the cross sections.
Comment 5:Section 102.2.xi.o., please revise the plans to include a statement indicating the definition
of minimum flood protection grade in accordance with the manual.
Response 5: Minimum flood protection grade definition is listed in the Drainage Summary Table on
the Drainage Plan. See Sheet C4.3 for revision.
Comment 6:Section 102.02.xiv., please include a separate Structure Data Table containing the
minimum information discussed in the manual or revise the Storm Sewer Pipe Analysis on the Storm
Sewer Plan, Sheet C4.4, to include the required information.
Response 6: Structure and Pipe Data Tables are included in the plan set with applicable information.
See Sheet C4.4 for revision.
Comment 7:Per Section 302.06.01, please provide information to verify that a minimum of 90% of the
original detention capacity of the proposed dry detention basin is restored within 48 hours from the
start of the design 100-year storm. It appears that the Northeast Pond does not conform. Please
review and revise as necessary.
Response 7: The orifice restriction at the northeast pond was revised to now allow for 90% of the
original detention capacity (19,023 CF) to be restored within 48 hours for the 100 year storm. See
Appendix L of the Storm Water Management Plan for the revision.
Comment 8:Per Section 302.08.1, a minimum of 1% bottom slope in all directions shall be provided in
dry detention facilities with perforated subsurface drains. The Southeast pond does not conform to the
3
minimum 1% bottom slope and the West pond does not have a slope listed in the Construction Plans.
Please review and revise accordingly.
Response 8: Pond and swale slopes are all now a minimum of 1% and the slopes are shown in the plan
set. See Sheet C4.2 for revision.
Comment 9:Per Section 302.08.2, the maximum planned depth of stormwater water stored shall not
exceed four (4) feet. Also note that any waiver requests should be submitted directly to the City of
Carmel Engineering Department.
Response 9: The maximum planned depth of water stored in any of the ponds does not exceed 4 feet.
See pond cross sections on Sheet C4.5 for revision.
Comment 10:Please provide a typical section of the emergency spillway in the Construction Plans and
calculations for the proposed spillway to show that it complies with all requirements of Section 302.11
of the manual.
Response 10: Cross sections of the emergency spillways for both the west pond and the southeast
pond are included in the plan sheet along with the spillway weir calculations. See Sheet C4.5 for
revision.
Comment 11:Per Section 501.01, there should be no less than 2.50 feet of cover along any part of the
pipe from the final pavement elevation or final ground surface elevation to the top (outside) of pipe. It
appears that there are multiple storm sewer structures that are not in conformance. Please note that
any waiver requests should be submitted directly to the City of Carmel Engineering Department.
Response 11: We will be submitting a waiver for this 2.5’ cover requirement. With maintaining only 4’
of depth in the ponds and the need for BMP drainage swales, the cover over the pipes at the
structures drops below 2.5’. Note that for a majority of the length of pipe, cover is over 2.5’, it is only
within the swaled, grassed areas that the cover drops below 2.5’. A waiver request is submitted to the
City with this revision.
Comment 12: Per Section 501.03, a minimum drop of 0.1 feet through manholes and inlet structures
shall be provided. Also per Section 501.03, when changing pipe sizes within a structure, the pipe
crowns should align. Please note that any waiver requests should be submitted directly to the City of
Carmel Engineering Department.
Response 12: The minimum drop of 0.1 feet through manholes and inlets is now met at all storm
sewer structures. See Sheets C4.4 and C4.5 for revision.
Comment 13: Please provide calculations showing that the downstream receiving system from the
detention pond (grate and pipe flow of Existing Storm Structure “A”) is sufficient to convey the peak
detention pond outflow in addition to the watershed already draining to the inlet. Verify that there are
no downstream restrictions, and that the system can handle the emergency overflow scenario. (This
information should be surveyed, as-built information.)
4
Response 13: A downstream analysis has been done and a summary, calculations and exhibits are
included in the storm water management plan. The proposed condition does not increase the current
flow to the existing storm sewer structure at the southeast corner of the site.
Comment 14: Per Section 305.02, the minimum diameter of all storm sewers shall be 12 inches. This
shall apply to both public and private storm piping, unless the piping is a roof drain, footing drain or
sump pump. When the minimum 12-in diameter pipe will not limit the rate of release to the required
amount, the rate of release for detention storage shall be controlled by an orifice plate or other device,
subject to acceptance of the City of Carmel. Please revise the plans accordingly.
Response 14: The minimum pipe diameter (besides the roof drains) is now 12”. Orifice plates have
been added to storm sewer structures to control the release. See SheetC4.5 for revision.
CITY OF CARMEL
Comment 1: Previous Comment 8 of a letter dated June 15, 2012. Please confirm with the INDOT that
the entrance to the south can be used as proposed. You will also need to work with RCI (the property
owner to the south) to obtain access rights. The Department restates this comment.
Response 1: We have contacted INDOT and discussed the proposed project and use of the south drive.
We sent them the site plan and they were going to have conversations with the City of Carmel and
contact us if they need any further information and if the proposed use of the drive is allowed. We
have also contacted and are working with RCI to put together access agreements. Correspondence
and final documents will be forwarded to the City once received.
Comment 2:Previous Comment 11 of a letter dated June 15, 2012. Please provide the emergency flood
route from any detention facilities to the receiving system. Please also provide the on-site flood routing
from all areas to the detention facility assuming all inlets plugged during a 100-yr rain event. Please
indicate the on-site flood route through the site to the detention facilities.
Response 2: Emergency flood routes and invert elevations from the emergency spillways to the
receiving system are included on the plan set. On-site flood routing for the site if all inlets are plugged
are also provided. See Sheet C4.3 for revision.
Comment 3:Previous Comment 12 of a letter dated June 15, 2012. Please provide the MFPG and
MLAG for the proposed building. The MFPG and the MLAG shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-
year flood elevation or the maximum water surface elevation of the flood routes. The MFPG and MLAG
should be based on the overflow weir elevation or the 100-year pond elevation, whichever is greater,
OR the highest surface water elevation on site (What is the highest water surface elevation on site, with
all inlets plugged, before the stormwater will spill over into the pond?). Please ensure the MFPG and
MLAG are correct.
Response 3: The MFPG and MLAG elevations are listed in the plan sheet. The finished floor elevation
is 2.29’ above the emergency spillway elevation and is 2.5’ over the 100 year flood elevation. The
highest on-site elevation for overland flow if all the inlets are plugged is 894.05. The finished floor
5
elevation of the building is 895.05. This is only providing 1’ of difference between the two elevations.
A waiver request is included in this submittal for this requirement.
Comment 4: Previous Comment 14 of a letter dated June 15, 2012. There appear to be direct discharge
points proposed for areas of this property. The property should be graded to drain internally to the
site, minimizing any direct discharges. There still appears to be discharge points proposed for areas of
this property. The property should be graded to drain internally to the site, minimizing any direct
discharges. There still appears to be a direct discharge from the south driveway. It is possible to direct
this stormwater back into the site?
Response 4: The site is drained so that there is no direct discharge within the property limits. At the
south driveway the high point for the site is at the property line and all drains internal to the site. The
rest of the driveway which is not within the property limits does drain south to meet existing drive
grades. See Sheet C4.2.
Comment 5: Previous Comment 21.b. of a letter dated June 15, 2012. On Sheet CS6: Section 03000:
Does this apply to curbing or foundations? If this applies to curbing, please include a note similar to the
note on CS3 stating, “All concrete curbing materials, production, delivery, placement, curing, jointing,
finishing, etc. shall be per City of Carmel Curbing Policy.”
Response 5: Note stating “All concrete curbing materials, production, delivery, placement, curing,
jointing, and finishing shall be per City of Carmel Curbing Policy” is added to the plans under Section
03000 1.02B on Sheet CS6. See Sheet CS6 for revision.
Comment 6: Please indicate the requisite drainage and BMP easements per Section 306.02 of the
Stormwater Technical Standards Manual.
Response 6: BMP and storm water drainage easements are shown on the plan set. See Sheet C4.3 for
the easments.
Comment 7:Please label the pond elevations as: Top of Bank, 100-yr, and spillway elevation.
Response 7: Pond elevations for Top of Bank, 100 year elevation and spillway elevations are listed on
the plan sheet. See Sheet C4.3 for revision.
Comment 8:Has Clay Regional Waste District approved the detention pond locations along the sanitary
sewer easements?
Response 8: Clay Township Regional Waste District has reviewed the plan set and the sanitary sewer
easements. Their concern with the previous pond elevations reducing cover over the existing
forcemain has been addressed with regrading the site and maintaining a minimum of 4’ of cover over
the pipes. Final approval and acceptance from Clay Township Regional Waste District can be
forwarded to the City upon request.
CARMEL STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN REVIEW
Comment 1: Please place all storm drains and SSDs in bold on C2.2.
6
Response 1: All storm drains and SSDs are shown in bold. See Sheet C2.2 for revision.
Comment 2: Does this drain to Payne Branch or Crooked Creek? Please check and revise if necessary.
Response 2: The ultimate drainage of the site and drainage during construction will drain south which
is in the Crooked Creek Watershed. See Sheet C2.2 for revision and clarification.
Comment 6: Please provide a soil map for the site.
Response 6: Soil type boundary outlines and types are listed in plan view and in the legend on Sheet
C2.2. A separate soil map is also included with this submittal. See Sheet C2.2 and the separate soil
map included.
Comment 7: Iowa regulations are cited. Please revise.
Response 7: Iowa regulations are no longer cited. See Sheet C2.2 for revision.
Comment 8a: How will the site be accessed until Retail Parkway is completed? Will an additional
construction entrance be needed off of Michigan Road until it is installed? Please close gap in silt fence
on SE corner of the site on C2.2. The “Do Not Mow or Spray” sign locations are hard to determine on
C2.3 where it meets the vegetative swale symbol. Please clarify. There are also handicapped signs with
the same symbol near Vegetated Swale 8. Please remove these from C2.3
Response 8a: If Retail Parkway is not constructed at the time of the Olive Garden construction a
construction entrance will need to be placed off of Michigan Road. A note has been added to the
plans (Sheet C2.2) stating this and that the location shall be coordinated with the City and Engineer to
determine the best location. The gap has been closed of the silt fence at the southeast corner of the
site (Sheet C2.2). The “Do Not Mow or Spray” sign locations have been clarified by changing the
symbol and increasing the size of the symbol on the plans. The handicap sign locations have been
frozen on the sheet (Sheet C2.3).
Comment 8d: Geotechnical report indicates water was found 3.5’ below the proposed building pad.
Please include a dewatering control detail in case excavations need to be dewatered. Vegetated Swale
SSDs need to be encased in washed #8 stone with filter fabric on bottom and sides of the #8s. A 4” layer
of pea gravel should be placed on top of the #8 stone with the filter fabric extending up along the sides
of this layer as well. Is the SSD riser detail on C6.2 going to be used on site? If not, please remove. Filter
Fabric should be used underneath the rip rap on the curb turnouts. Please update detail.
Response 8d: A dewatering control detail has been added to the plan set (Sheet C2.4). The vegetated
swale detail has been revised to show pea gravel and stone layers with proper geotextile installation.
A note about the location of the geotextile fabric has also been added to the detail to help clarify
(Sheet C2.4). The SSD risers will be used for the SSD drains at both the west and southeast detention
ponds in order to connect the underdrains to the storm sewer system. The detail remains on
SheetC6.2. Filter fabric to be installed under riprap at the curb turnouts has been added to the detail
(Sheet C2.4).
7
Comment 11: Please provide a temporary seeding and mulch detail/notes on C2.2 in case there is a gap
in time where the site remains undisturbed for more than 14 days. Please provide planting plan for the
vegetated swales on the SWPPP. Erosion control blanket should be used throughout the bottom of the
vegetated swales to stabilize them unless it conflicts with the planting plan.
Response 11: Temporary seeding notes are listed under section 11.2 (Sheet C2.2). If the site remains
undisturbed for more than 14 days it states that the area shall be temporarily seeded and the seed
mix types are listed. The vegetative swale plant list has been added to the SWPPP sheets (Sheet C2.3).
Erosion control blanket is shown for all ponds and vegetative swales through the bottom of the ponds
(Sheet C2.2).
Comment 13c: Iowa is listed as the reporting authority for spills in Section 12.2 of the Spill Prevention
Section. Please update with Indiana Department of Environmental Management Spill Response Line and
with 911.
Response 13c: Iowa references have been removed from the notes and theIndiana Department of
Environmental Management Spill Response Line information and contact has been added. See Section
13.12 on Sheet C2.2 for revision.
Comment 1: Please show the location of the Post Construction BMP and Access Easements on C2.3 in
accordance with Chapter 700 of the Technical Standards Manual.
Response 1: BMP and Access Easement locations are shown on the plan set. See Sheet C2.3.
Comment 2e: Please provide the backfill detail for the storm water quality unit.
Response 2e: Backfill details have been added to the “Storm Water Quality Structure” detail. See
Sheet C2.4 for revision.
Comment 5: Please provide an O &M manual for review.
Response 5: An O &M manual is included with this submittal.
We trust these responses adequately address your comments, if you have any questions or require any
additional information, please contact Lesley Netzer at 630-487-5555 or me at 312.924.7403.
Sincerely,
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Justin Muller, PE
8