TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD

Engineering Department Interoffice Memo

DATE: TO: CC:

July 20, 2012 Philip J. Morin, III, Esq. Township Attorney Eric Mason, Township Administrator Leonard Dolan, Fire Chief D/Lt. Edward Davenport, Police-Traffic Safety Kevin Campbell, Township Commissioner Richard Belluscio, Building Sub Code Officer Richard A. Marsden Jr., P.E. Township Engineer Engineering Department Review of
Preliminary & Final Site Plan and Application for Flood Hazard Area Individual Permit Cranford Residential Redevelopment 215 & 235 Birchwood Avenue Township of Cranford, Union County, New Jersey Block: 291 Lot: 15.01, Block: 292 Lot 2, Tax Maps 63 & 64

FROM:

RE:

The Cranford Engineering Department has reviewed the referenced application site plans, last revised June 4, 2012, (containing 25 sheets), engineering report, last revised June 4, 2012, and the Stormwater Management Maintenance Plan, dated January 2012 prepared by Michael E. Dipple, NJPE Lic. # 4081200, of L2A Land Design, LLC, 650 Grand Avenue, Englewood, NJ, 07631. The Engineering Department has also reviewed the architectural drawings, last plotted June 04, 2012, and prepared by a registered architect, Steven T. Moriak, NJRA Lic. #18934, (containing nine (9) sheets.) The following are my observations and comments that have to be addressed: 1. SITE PLANS SHT. C-02: Gate valves are not shown on the field verified enlargement window. This is important to note, because it would control the outflow of the existing parking lot stormwater storage. Note, that the engineering report (discussed later) will show that these gate valve restrictions are not even considered in the existing storage calculations. SITE PLANS SHT. C-02: The floodway limit line established in the stream cross section area located approximately between 100 and 200 feet downstream of the centerline of Birchwood Avenue, (same cross section that contains two existing buildings,) does not appear to follow the existing geographic features of this area. The floodway in this section is located much closer to the existing stream then any of the other floodway section lines on this plan. The other floodway lines follow the existing contours more closely, as they should. If you consider the existing structure, like the building in this section area, the section becomes the most constrictive cross section area along the stream, and the floodway line should be located much farther away from the

2.

stream. If the existing building is not considered in the cross section equation, then the manmade mound created by the grass islands and the high point across the driveways (These elements were created for the driveway to provide surface drainage and access to the building and prevent ponding in the driveways.) should not be considered in the section, which should be the case. This section of the floodway line should be located much more inline with the pre-existing contour lines, along contour elevation line 67, as is the case with the other floodway section lines. This will pull the floodway line approximately sixty feet farther away from the stream, making the floodway more parallel to the contours in the area and the floodplain limit line. However, it will put the proposed Building A in the floodway. Thus, requiring this building to get relocated out of the floodway. 3. SITE PLANS SHT. C-03: This demolition plan proposes to remove approximately 280 linear feet of existing 18 inch pipe that originates in the wetlands and catches the water from the existing ditch. This ditch collects runoff from the existing township drainage system that traverses through the nursing home, existing detention systems, and the runoff drainage from Cranford Avenue. Removing this section of pipe will create a back up effect into the ditch, and the two existing detention systems on the nursing home property, creating more frequent ponding, thus, affecting the storage capacity in those detention basins. This backwater would change the hydric characteristic of the soil, possibly destroying existing wetland habitat and vegetation, and increasing the potential for breeding of mosquitoes. This piping system should be left in place. In addition, you will be going into the wetlands to remove this pipe. Wetlands GP#1 permit will be required for the disturbance of wetlands due to removal of this pipe. SITE PLANS SHT. C-03: A note should be added to this plan to require construction fencing around all trees that are to remain undisturbed. This fence shall be placed along the drip line of each tree or cluster of trees. SITE PLANS SHT. C-03: This plan should be reviewed by the Construction Sub Code Officer to see if it complies with all demolition building codes. SITE PLANS SHT. C-04: The areas noted, as Lawn & Landscaping and Courtyard do not show any sidewalk or patio areas. Also sidewalk and patio areas are not shown when referring to Sheet C-07 Landscaping and Tree Replacement Plan. However, that plan has open unmarked areas in between the landscaping that we must assume are going to be grass. These unmarked areas must be labeled grass areas. SITE PLANS SHT. C-04: There are existing storm and sanitary sewer systems traversing the site. Some have easements, others dont. We need fifteen-foot easements along all these utilities, and fifteen-foot access easements to get to these utilities. SITE PLANS SHT. C-04: At the north corner of the parking garage in Building B there is an open area approximately 12 and 140 long that is undefined. However, in the architects plans its defined as an areaway. Does it have a roof? What is its purpose? Will it be impervious? How will it drain? Will there be access to it for maintenance?

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

SITE PLANS SHT. C-04: Fire safety concerns for access, positioning equipment for fighting a fire, and fire flows should be addressed by the Fire Department. Some concerns are, firstly, during a flood the fire truck would only be able to enter through the northeasterly entrance of this 24 foot wide two way street, because the northwesterly entrance would be under water by more than 2.5 feet. There are no turnarounds for the fire trucks proposed on this site. They would have to back out. Secondly, the turning radius of 20 feet for the 90-degree turns, located along the south corners of Building B, will make it difficult for the fire truck to turn. The truck would be turning into the oncoming lanes at some point in the maneuver and, if oncoming vehicles were encountered, they would have to back up, extending the time it takes to get to the fire. If they are moving quickly, there may be a collision due to the restrictive site distance of the southwest building corner being within 10 feet of the curb. This roadway should be wider. Thirdly, as shown on Sheet C-05, the northwesterly entrance has a steep incline of 12% right after you enter it. This can put the fire truck at risk of bottoming out. Finally, once the fire ladder truck is in position to fight the fire, they would be setting down their stabilizers, which have an 18-foot spread. If the truck driver were perfectly positioned, there would only be 6 feet remaining in the street for passing vehicles, like police and ambulance vehicles that would have to negotiate around the truck. There should be fire lanes established along this building to prevent other vehicles from parking in the areas close to the building, and this loop road should be 30 feet wide to provide room for other emergency vehicles to pass. SITE PLANS SHT. C-05: The proposal to raise Birchwood Avenue over 1-1/4 feet is the solution the applicant is requesting to meet the NJDEP requirement of maintaining one access during a flood. However, to get the northeasterly entrance out of the flood plain they will push the 100-year flood line approximately one hundred feet closer to the stream. This will reduce the stream cross-section and raise the height of the flooding upstream. What impact will this filling in of the flooded roadway have on the upstream properties, which properties include the Township Conservation Center and Wetlands? NJDEP Flood Hazard Area Control Rules, Section 7:13-11.3 Requirements for excavation, fill and grading activities Sub-section (b)1, states that the following requirement has to be met, The overland flow of stormwater is not impeded and floodwaters can freely enter and exit the disturbed areas,.. . By filling in the roadway in a portion of the floodplain, the hydraulic stream section is being reduced and the floodwaters are impeded from entering the downstream floodplain. The loss in the stream section due to the roadway fill is approximately 12%. In fact, this section is not the only stream section that has been reduced. When we looked at the Engineers report there were no hydraulic model stream sections between the upstream entrance and downstream exit of the 624 linear feet of twin 36x60 inch elliptical concrete pipe. That means that this roadway section was not even considered in the flood hazard area design elevation and tailwater determinations.

10.

At the upstream entrance to the twin pipes there is a split in the flow of the floodwater that may have a significant impact on the backwater into our roadway and conservation center. At this point the flows should be evaluated as split flows, one through the twin pipes and the other overland across the Conservation Center and Birchwood Avenue.

This part of the split flow, the overland flow, crosses the diagonally at the intersection of Birchwood Avenue with the entrances of the Verizon parking lot and the westerly proposed driveway of this application. This hydraulic stream section is only 330 linear feet where the section at the upstream and downstream end of the twin pipes are 980 and 688 linear feet respectively - significantly narrower then the other sections. (To get the entrance driveway out of the floodplain as quick at possible, the proposed entrance drive climbs up 4 feet in fifty feet, filling in the floodplain approximately 1.5 feet in this cross section.) The loss in this stream section due to the driveway fill is approximately 18%. This reduction in the stream section will additionally impede the floodwaters from passing through the site, making an existing upstream flood condition even worse. 11. SITE PLANS SHT. C-05: Where will all the plowed snow go on the inside curve of the loop road when there is sidewalk up against the curb, and building B is only an average of 6 feet away from that sidewalk, and where will all the plowed snow go along the outside curve of this loop road, when there is guide rail or 90 degree parking. There is no room to plow the snow in the sides. There are no designated areas showing the storage of plowed snow. This will also impact the Fire Department access. SITE PLANS SHT. C-05: A new 8 inch sanitary line is being proposed to connect into our existing manhole located in the wetlands. This new line will require excavation in the wetlands, wetlands buffer and floodplain. The mitigation and disturbance of wetlands and wetlands buffer is not considered anywhere in this plan package. A Wetlands GP#2 permit will be required for the disturbance of wetlands due to construction of this pipe. SITE PLANS SHT. C-05: The new pipe will be paralleling the wetlands line. This wetlands line is within the 76 and 77 foot ground elevation. The pipe is averaging more the 10 feet deep in this area. This places the pipe invert between elevation 71.8 and 68.8, far below the wetlands surface grade and below the streambed elevation. Unless there are cutoff walls place across this sanitary sewer system, the new trench can act like a conduit transporting the ground water out of the area and possibly drying up the wetlands. SITE PLANS SHT. C-05: The proposed sanitary pipe invert elevation located at the top of the system is just below the invert elevation of the proposed storm water pipe system in that same area. The proposed lateral that will collect the sanitary sewer flows from the northern part of Building B may conflict with the elevation crossing of this storm line. This pipe crossing should be checked and the pipe elevations noted on the plan. Also a concrete bridge should be poured between the pipe crossings. SITE PLANS SHT. C-05: The additional sanitary sewer flows added to this new piping system would stress our already old system. Whats to guarantee that the added flow of 360 dwelling units will not accelerate the deterioration of our piping system? The Sanitary Sewer Capacity Study, prepared by L2A Land Design LLC in January 2009 indicated that there were three sections of piping system that were inadequate. In their conclusion they also indicate that inflow and infiltration had increased the flow rates between 40% and 50%. However, nowhere did they recommend a remedy to resolve the insufficient capacity, and inflow and infiltration problems. We need to be provided documentation that shows how this change in unit count will affect our existing sanitary

12.

13.

14.

15.

sewer system, and then provide a remedy for those insufficient areas in our piping system. 16. SITE PLANS SHT. C-05: The outflow rip-rap apron located at the upstream end of the stream should be designed in accordance with The Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey. The outflow velocities of the proposed 24-inch stormwater pipe have to be reduced to the point where they do not erode the opposite bank of the stream. Calculations for the dimensions and size of the outflow rip-rap apron will have to be provided. When proposing stormwater discharges, the designer should be aware that no outfall structure be oriented toward lands not owned by the applicant. This is prohibited unless the applicant can obtain written permission from the effected property owners, per NJAC 7:13-9.2(f). SITE PLANS SHT. C-06: The lighting plan shows 16 foot tall street lamps along the inside of the 10 foot buffer located along the west side of the property. These lights would be intermixed with the proposed arborvitae. Lighting would become ineffective once these trees grow. The lights should be moved away from the tree buffer area. SITE PLANS SHT. C-06: There should be lighting in front of the complex along Birchwood Avenue, because 360 units will generate pedestrian pick ups and drop offs in front of the complex. The lighting should be the Townships standard lamps that are used in the downtown area. SITE PLANS SHT. C-06: Police may want the 140 feet deep breezeway that faces Birchwood Avenue lit for safety and security reasons. It is the only breezeway around Building B that is not lit. SITE PLANS SHT. C-07: Arborvitae grows to 60 feet tall. The building next to it is 55 feet tall. The distance between the two is approximately 55 feet apart. There would be limited time of sunlight to this area. In addition, the plantings in the courtyards will have the same reduction of sunlight. I recommend that a landscape architect review the Landscape Plan to see if there will be issues with the duration of sunlight for these proposed plantings. As great as these landscape plans look, if the plant does not get the proper amount of sunlight it will die or not grow fully, and the areas will look baron. In addition, the planting should be native to the region. We have been getting foreign species along our river ways, that are choking the native species and changing the flow characteristic of the rivers. SITE PLANS SHT. C-08: Silt fence location is to close to Building A. It measures approximately 5 feet off the building. This provides no room for machinery, excavation for footings and any other work needed for construction of the building from the outside. Silt fencing should be at a minimum of 15 feet off the proposed building lines. SITE PLANS SHT. C-08: The proposed topsoil stockpile location is 5 feet off the proposed building B wall. In addition, the proposed stockpile is in a breezeway where it is surrounded by three sides of the building. How is the construction machinery going to get around this pile to construct footings, the two drainage pipe that go under the pile, and deliver construction material?

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

SITE PLANS SHT. C-09: The sanitary sewer profile shows the pipe to over 12.5 feet in the ground. We need to know pipe design specifications, and that the pipe can sustain the weight of the saturated soils in this area. Or you need to change the pipe to cast iron.

24.

SITE PLANS SHT. C-014 through C-17: The end-area storage calculation table does not account for the volume displaced by Building B structural walls and columns that have to support the building, and the supports for the stairs, elevator, mechanical room and for the protection needed for the bathroom plumbing that will be exposed to the floodwater flows. SITE PLANS SHT. C-20: The outflow rip-rap apron detail should be designed in accordance with The Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey. The outflow velocities of the proposed 24-inch stormwater pipe have to be reduced to the point where they do not erode the opposite bank of the stream. Calculations for the dimensions and size of the outflow rip-rap apron will have to be provided. SITE PLANS SHT. C-22: The 5 x 10 Structure W/Backflow Preventer detail needs to be revised to clearly show that end of the Tideflex check valve (the part that extends furthest away from the wall of the chamber) clears the floor of the chamber by 6 inches, not 6-inches at the chamber wall. Some Tideflex check valves curve downward as they leave connection at the wall. SITE PLANS SHT. TA-01: This plan does not show the impact of the proposed sanitary sewer as it passes through the wetlands and buffer to connect to the existing sanitary sewer manhole. Nor does it show the impact of the proposed stormwater outflow rip-rap apron as it connects to the stream. Disturbance of the wetlands should be mitigated. SITE PLANS SHT. TA-01: The impact to the wetland buffers along the south wall of Building B, and along the proposed retaining wall (located along the proposed loop road) is only 5 feet from these structures. To build the footing for these structures and provide the needed construction access for machinery to build these structures, you need 15 feet, or explain how these structures are to be built with only 5 feet of space without cutting into the buffer. SITE PLANS SHT. TA-02: There should be a note stating that a construction fence should be placed along the final buffer average limit line, so that construction vehicles will not encroach beyond those limits. ARCH PLANS SHT. 1: Trash collection areas are shown within the parking garages. With a floorto-floor elevation difference of 11 feet 6 inches and approximately a 3-foot reduction for concrete main beams, vehicular clearance would be 8 feet 6 inches. A standard garbage truck cannot make those clearances. How will the garbage be picked up? ARCH PLANS SHT. 1: There is annotation stating Lobby Amenity Leasing At Ground Level at the pool entrance of Building B. If there is proposed leasing to outside organizations, or even residents with guests, where will they park?

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

MAINTENANCE MANUAL Pg. 2: There needs to be a paragraph describing the area of flood storage under Building A. MAINTENANCE MANUAL Pg. 6: Section VIII.A.3. should be rewritten, starting at the second sentence, as follows: This work may require an engineering design consultant to prepare construction or rehabilitation plans for review and approval to the township engineer. The last sentence should read, Should rehabilitation work be required, it is recommended that you contact the design engineer of record: MAINTENANCE MANUAL Pg.7: The word Wayne and Division should be taken out and replaced with Cranford and Department in paragraph C. MAINTENANCE MANUAL Pg. 8: The word Passaic should be replaced with Union located in the last paragraph on this page. MAINTENANCE MANUAL Pg. 9: The words and/or JCP&L should be removed in the last paragraph on this page. ENGINEER REPORT Stormwater Section: This report broke the surface drainage areas into three major sections, because area DA-1 has to be routed through the parking lot detention area, and area DA-2 is routed through a grass depression. Area DA-3 is not required to be routed through any detention or storage system. However, when the surfaces were broken down into classification areas for woods, grass, etc, there are no plans showing what areas were considered as wooded or grass, other then the survey that shows woods line limit symbols. We need a map showing these sub-section breakdowns, because, if all the areas not encompassed by the woods line symbol are considered as grass areas, we need to look at breaking the grass areas down more, or change the surface designation, because there are stands of large trees that canopy most of the grass areas. ENGINEER REPORT Stormwater Section: The existing condition CN numbers used for grass in much of Area #3 should be increased because these areas do have a canopy of trees covering the ground, and thin cover of grasses and mosses. The CN numbers should be more in the range of 82 and 86 for soil groups C and D, as designated in your Table 2.2c wood-grass combination poor. ENGINEER REPORT Pond Report Pond #1 215 Parking Lot: This report shows the outlet orifice control to be a 12 diameter pipe. These calculations never considered the outflow restrictions that the gate valves had on each of these existing 12 outflow pipe. Or the gate valves were assumed to be completely open in the analysis of the parking lot storage and outflow conditions. This is not the correct way to determine the storage in the parking lot. Why would the existing parking lot stormwater systems have gate valves if the regulated outflow were set for a 12 diameter pipe opening, which is the existing size of the pipe leading to the gate valves? Any backup flow from the main brook would not flood the parking lot, because the parking lot elevations are higher then the 100 flood elevation in this area. Therefore you would not need these valves to prevent backup into the parking lot. The backup of floodwater into the existing parking lot stormwater system would only help in storing the floodwater for a longer period of time. The valves had purpose of regulating the outflow and were only opened all the way to clean out the system. However, this reduced opening cannot be determined unless you go back to the original design criteria that required this type of detention system. We do not have those

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

old engineering calculations. So, the only way to determine the opening size for the gate valves is to assume the site as undeveloped and recreate the outflow requirements using the dimensions of the parking detention and overflow controls. 40. ENGINEER REPORT Pond Report Pond #1 Pond #4 Underground Basin: Our engineering consultant, P.S.& S., has to look at the storage methodology used, starting with the last chart of the last page of this report entitled Stage/Storage/Discharge Table to confirm the following. It appears that there is no outflow from the proposed underground storage facility until it fills up 3.62 feet or to elevation 78.12. However, the 24 diameter orifice control invert for this structure is at 74.00. The Backflow Preventer check valve will keep the floodwaters from coming into the underground detention basin. But it will also allow the detention basin to outflow until these floodwaters come up to the base elevation of the detention structure. So at the beginning of a storm event, there would be an small outflow rate that progressively gets larger until the flood waters from the main stream back up into this outflow detention system. This is not reflected in this table. If this water is not detained on the site opposite of what the Stage/Storage/Discharge Table indicates, we will be releasing runoff faster then the existing conditions did, and not opening up the detention structure for additional storage for the flood waters. Im not convinced their methodology works. A design that is below the flood hazard flood elevation must take into consideration the function of the basin during both flood and non-flood events. The rate of discharge from the basin may be significantly reduced by the tailwater conditions on the receiving water. When I had to design detention facilities in or below a flood elevation I either compared the difference in the time of concentration of the main river with the time of concentration of the runoff passing through the detention structure, and left additional storage in the detention facility for the runoff that could no longer get out, or I just designed my system so that the required storage would be above the flood elevation, knowing that some runoff would still be discharging, but at the same rate as the existing site conditions. The various storm event lag times of the stream with the discharge times from the storage basin have to be evaluated.