Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutdowners comments.pdfLisa Schaaf From: Downer Davis <dkdbus@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2019 10:59 AM To: George Shaw Cc: Lisa Schaaf Subject: Re: FW: PN 19-1000 - TIMA Expansion SWMR Submittal I offer the following comments on the Engineer's Thursday, August 01, 2019 5:17 PM submital you forwarded to me Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 8:09 AM. Drainage Report: • It is anticipated that no drainage will leave the site under these design conditions. I'm not sure how this statement can be correct. Additionally, it's not necessary as runoff is definitely leaving the site now. The volume of run- off generated from the roof top will be approximately 114 -cubic feet using a 25 - year 24-hour storm event with an intensity of 0.33 -inches (from GSMM Volume 2 for Savannah) "Run- off" means just that, "run" "off" of the area under consideration. The volume of storage provided by the 6" gravel base beneath the building is approximately 870.4 - cubic feet using a porosity factor of 0.4 for gravel. The Blue Book with the CSS, only allow 0.32 or 0.3 (immaterial and I'm not looking it up at this time). Additionally, the ground had comparable storage that has not been considered. Since the soils are Group A (Attachment C - Web Soil Survey), it assumed that the infiltration rate is 6"/hour or 2,176 -cubic feet per hour. This means the infiltration practice will drain in approximately 30 -minutes or less. The site will effectively accommodate the 25 - year 24-hour storm event onsite without contributing to any conditions downstream of the site. Great point, since the peak hour is around 3.23 inches and total 24-hour rainfall is approximately 8 inches per hour. • Energy dissipation at the discharge from the downspouts.. • Since we're on the Atlantic Ocean, if the reference to the Pacific can be removed, that'd greatly reduce the likelihood of some unnecessary conversation involving all in the email distribution. • The drainage area needs to be clearly shown in the report. I can follow where it is from the description and the plans, but an exhibit needs to be added or the topo marked up. Construction Civil Plans: 1 " The same symbol is used for the proposed concrete pad and the area to the north labeled crusher run. As the Engineer considered both impervious, it doesn't affect my concurrence. However, from an ADA perspective and the Iikelyhood, it'll be paved, I recommend the Engineer change the hatching symbol to be different for the crusher run, state it to be an either/or, change it to concrete, etc.... at his option. " The grading plan shows runoff from the areas not under roof to continue the pre development pattern onto Tots to the north and east. It that is the case and those properties are owned by the Church, please clarify. As I understand the school has no agreement for those adjacent properties, concurrence is needed from the Church for this runoff. " The downspout locations on the east side of the building need to be shown and with the discharge flow path shown to confirm flow beneath the building. " "Gravel" beneath the building needs to be clarified as #57 or whatever. Clarification is needed that maintaining the predevelopment surface topography will require the removal of soil prior to placement of the stone. " The report states, "...iimpervious area will be reduced in the existing parking areas along Lovell Avenue to balance out the net results. The table below reflects this change." The plans need to reflect this. " Proposed unpaved parking spaces noted on the plans are unacceptable. Stabilization is required. If these are the areas of reduced impervious areas, the method of accomplishing this needs to be noted. Will they be permeable stone (not crusher run), permeable brick pavers, or 7 Earth, grass, etc... is not compliant with governing erosion control and stabilization requirements. The Engineer's intended design reflects that .... " the impervious area and, thus, the runoff coefficient will be reduced. " the travel time of concentration and total time of runoff leaving the site will not be reduced. (It's likely it can be shown to be increased if necessary.) Each of these design features, independently, show that runoff will not be increased. Pre and post runoff calculations can be shown demonstrating no increased runoff. The plans need clarification. I'm not recommending any changes in design method. I understand the design and I truly want to concur. When the report is clarified and the plans are revised to adequately reflect site construction requirements, I can concur with this drainage plan. Downer On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 8:09 AM George Shaw <gshaw@cityoftybee.org> wrote: Downer, 2 Please review and comment asap. George From: Jason Ball <jason@ballmaritime.com> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2019 5:17 PM To: George Shaw <gshaw@cityoftybee.org> Cc: Perb Fortner <perbfortner@hotmail.com>; 'Carolyn Jurick' <CKjurick@comcast.net>; Brian Allen <brian@ballmaritime.com> Subject: PN 19-1000 - TIMA Expansion SWMR Submittal George, Attached is our re -submittal with the requested information. Please review and let us know if you have any questions. Regards, Jason Jason P. Ball, PE, D.PE, D.NE Mobile (912) 662.2914 jason(a,ballmaritime.com Ball Maritime Group 4 Cedar View Court Savannah, GA 31410 Visit us at: ballmaritime.com This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. 3