Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-03-15 Board of Public Works Minutes Fr- March 15, 1976 Meeting of the Board of Public Works opened at 7:30 P. M. ' in Room 16, Municipal Building. Present were Chairman Russell , Secretary Dustin, Board Members Blood, Price ,and Botka and Superintendent Louanis. Minutes of the previous meeting were accepted as corrected. The Board met with the Tree Warden, Irving Dickey, who out— lined the Lowden Treatment Program for a cure of Dutch Elm Disease. The program calls for treatment of individual trees twice during a single growing season at a total cost of $150 per tree. Allotted funds provide for the treatment of eight to ten trees and the elms in the common were selected to receive the care. Following a lengthy discussion it was moved, seconded and voted to continue the program and fund it from the existing account. The Board read letter from Whitman and Howard, Inc. (copy attached) reporting on their meeting with Dr. Jerome Carr, engin— eering representative of the Conservation Commission regarding design criteria for the Master Drainage Plan. Following a dis— cussion it was moved, seconded and voted to accept the letter as a point of progress. Mr . Price abstained from the discussion and the vote. Read Petition from residents of Belmont Street requesting the extension of the sewer line in Belmont Street be scheduled in 1976 rather than 1977 and letter from the Board of Health reporting on the sanitary conditions in the area. Following a brief discussion it was moved, seconded and voted that Belmont Street be included in the 1976 Sewer Construction Program. Read letter from 0. Bradley Latham of the law firm of Latham and Latham together with Petition signed by 376 interested persons requesting the Town secure additional off—street parking facilities ' in the shopping area near Haven, Linden and Chute Streets. It was moved, seconded and voted to write Mr. Latham advising him there is no Town owned land available for this purpose and that the peti— tion has been forwarded to the Board of Selectmen for their consideration. The Superintendent reviewed letter from the State Depart- , ment of Public Works regarding a reclassification of certain streets within the Town of Reading as shown on the State . High- way Classification Map and recommended that the Board accept the State's recommendation of the new Federal-Aid System Classification.of local highways. It was moved, seconded and voted the Board approve the State Plan regarding the layout of Federal-Aid System of local highways. The Board read note from Mr. Bergeron, Town Engineer con- cerning calculations in arriving at cost estimates for Twin Oaks and Norman Roads. It was moved, seconded and voted to table this item until the meeting of March 29. The Chairman informed members of the Board that a meeting is scheduled Wednesday, March 17th to negotiate with Union Repre- sentatives for anew contract. Mr. Russell reported that Mrs. Lynn Stasz was concerned ' about the loss of revenue in the recycling effort since the aluminum cans are not separated satisfactorily from the tin cans. A lengthy discussion relative to various means in separating the cans was followed by a motion that the Board spend no more money separating cans. This was seconded and voted 3-2 in favor. The Chairman reported on his meeting with the Finance COm- mittee stating that cuts made by the Finance Committee had been partially reinstated. Another meeting is scheduled Tues- day, March 16, to complete discussion on the Comprehensive Water Study and special park construction program. Mr. Dustin reported as the Board's representative to the Recreation Committee that progress had been made on the replace- ment of the Municipal Bath House recently severely damaged by fire in that the Recreation Committee had obtained funds from the Finance Committee to hire an architect for the plans and speci- fications. Services of the firm of Whitman and Howard have been obtained and the Recreation Committee anticipates having a good estimate of the new construction prior to the Town Meeting on March 22nd. However, funds have not been allocated for the supervision of the construction phase and the Recreation Committee requested the consideration of the Board in providing inspection from the Department 's Engineering Division. After considerable discussion it was moved, seconded and voted (Mr. Price abstained from the discussion and the vote) to notify the Recreation Committee that the Board of Public Works was unable to assume responsibility of supervision of this contract because of work load. Mr. Botka reported that he had been investigating the possi- bility of the Public Works developing a community garden project in which the Town might provide public land for private gardens. He had contacted Mrs. Smith, President of the Garden Club and she indicated that the club had no particular interest in this project. He had also contacted Ronald Bouchard of the Conserva- tion Commission requesting consideration be given by the Commission to make some of the Conservation's land available for this purpose and received a negative response. It was accepted as a point of progress. The Board signed the Pay Roll for the period ending March 14 and the Bill Roll dated March 19, 1976. Chairman Russell stated it would be necessary to go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing labor negotiations and it was not the intention of the Board to reconvene in open session. At 9:30 P. M. Mr. Blood moved and it was seconded to go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing collective bargaining. The roll call vote, as follows: Mr. Botka In favor Mr. Price In favor Mr. Blood In favor Mr. Dustin In favor Mr. Russell In favor Meeting adjourned. ectfu 1hY submitted, Secretary -� EST. Lew—eNC. 1924 wGH Robes T.kneeBuckram, ,PreTem ASSOCIATES Paul C.Bucknam,Jr.,Jc,Treasurer WHITMAN & HOWARD , INC. ;°,.IC ;�Ph.D. C R.wickerson,Cheirman 8 C.Roser Pearson,Ch..Emeries �L Robert E.Crawford Anthony CFurawloRi Engineers and Architects Donald F. Ellis Daigle Eli.A. Cooney Charles G.Ellis Rrewsler Hm W.fuller 69 BROAD STREET, BOSTON, MASS. 02110 a TEL. (61]) 0264400 Ernest , fasentro Robert E. Hickman Myles E Howard Geoge A.Howland III Frederick D.A.King,Ir, Arthur List James T.McDonough lam.A. Little Edward R. his sHowardA S Perkins,Manger March 6 1976 Alai. JaA.S.Walkeq Arch.Comm ffer burnsSle,eI. Medlar Arthur T.LuttMnl,Controller lamp i. Murphy IueepM1 A.Murphy Town of Reading Board of Public Works Municipal Building Reading, Massachusetts 01867 Re: Design Criteria Gentlemen: on March 1, 1976, we met with Dr. Jerome Carr, the engineering representative of the Conservation Commission at his office in Weston, Mass. The purpose of this meeting was to make a comparative analysis of the alternative methods of calculating peak runoff and to discuss the differences of the two Town Boards in their approach to drainage design and analysis. Two drainage areas were chosen for this comparison. Area #1 is located south of Franklin Street with its outlet at Pearl Street. This area contains swamp, natural high ground, developed areas and also exhibits overland and 'channel flow. The soil composition and type of ground cover were not known. Area #2 is located in the vicinity of Forrest Street and Grove Street with its outfall at Grove Street, north of Henzie Street. This area includes natural ground, developed areas with piped drainage and also exhibits both overland and channel flow. The soil composition and type of ground cover were not available with any degree of accuracy. The basic criteria used in both analyses was maximum development according to zoning regulations and ground slopes and drainage patterns to remain similar to existing conditions. The soil classification of both areas was assumed to be "C° by Dr. Carr based on the poorest expected soil conditions. Initially, a 50-year design storm was used with each method. Out 10614. Co.glin.uous 'Setvice Town of Reading -2- March 8, 1976 We used the rational formula for peak runoff deter- mination. A runoff coefficient of .45, a one-hour intensity of 2.4 inches/hour, and the time of concentration determined from the existing ground slope were the criteria used with the rational formula. The modified soil cover complex method was used by Dr. Carr with development to 1/2 acre residential lots and soil classification "C" as the basic criteria. Initially, the peak runoff as computed by both methods indicated considerable variation in the expected flows. Further refinements in the calculations, however, resulted in expected flows which were much more comparable. Refine- ments included modifying the soil classification somewhat, reducing the design storm in the modified soil cover complex method, since the basic formula differs from the rational formula, and raising the coefficient of runoff to .50. The results in Area #1 were a peak runoff of 34 cfs for the rational formula and 60 cfs with the modified soil cover complex method initially; a final result of 38 cfs with both methods using a design storm of 10 years and a soil classifi- cation "B" in the modified soil cover complex method. In Area #2, the peak runoff was calculated at 55 cfs by the rational method and 112 cfs for the modified soil cover complex method, initially; a final result of 60 cfs by the rational method and 70 cfs for the modified soil cover complex method, using the above-mentioned criteria. We note that these figures are based on final development and represent approximations of possible conditions in both cases. The modified soil cover complex method computes peak flows which exceed those computed using the rational formula. This difference appears to increase as the size of the drainage area decreases. The magnitude of this difference depends greatly on the criteria used in each method and, especially in the modified soil cover complex method, on the availability of field data. Criteria should not be inter- changed between the two methods since factors inherent within each system vary considerably. As an example, a design storm of 50-year frequency used with the rational method roughly approximates a 10-year storm analysis with the modified soil cover complex method. Care should be taken, therefore, to insure that comparable criteria be used in design and review situations. Town of Reading -3- March 6, 1976 The modified soil cover complex method represents a very conservative approach to drainage analysis. Some studies have indicated that the rational formula may compute less than actual flows in some parts of the country, however, our experience has been that computed flows more than adequately describe actual conditions in this area. Also, little evidence has been shown that the additional expense required by designing for increased flows is warranted for health or safety reasons. It is interesting that most structures which have proven inadequate were designed for 5- 10 year design storms, or have become damaged or blocked by debris and improper maintenance. While designing on a very conservative basis may appear as an advantage, we suggest that it may, in fact, be a liability. Maximum design criteria is determined from many factors including pro- tection of upstream and downstream land and economy of construction and maintenance. Since culverts act as con- trolling structures in very severe storms using higher design flows in culvert design may result in considerable damage downstream due to excessive discharge quantities while controlled flows may produce minor flooding upstream. Excessive design in retention basins may result in areas which are very large and expensive to maintain and place unnecessary restrictions on public and private development. We realize that the Board of Public Works and the Conservation Commission have somewhat different points of view on this matter. We feel, however, that the objectives of both are compatible within the framework of good design practices. Often, the differences in expected flows may result in additional head being developed at the inlet which may be handled with higher banks. Also, culverts designed for a 50-year storm may only be required to satisfy a 10-year analysis if full development of the area results in a closed drainage system. In any case, we recommend that the design criteria outlined in our report be utilized in all public and private designs to insure an adequate in- tegrated system which controls outlet quantities to protect downstream lands and property within the Town of Reading. If, due to other considerations, developers are required to supply additional storage capacity, it should be constructed in such a way that easy maintenance and multiple uses may be obtained. For example, retention basins could be designed with moderately sloped sides and landscaping so that rec- reational uses can be realized. Town of Reading -4- March 6, 1976 Our report deals with overall drainage system in Reading and sets criteria on a town-wide basis. The criteria may not satisfy each particular condition, but is essential for setting and maintaining standards of design and con- struction. We are completely confident in the criteria and designs included therein as our experience has proven them adequate for all expected conditions in applications in other communities. Also, we feel that it presents an economically feasible system which will adequately serve the Town through its development. The report will act as a planning tool to identify existing and potential problem areas, set priorities, and aid in designing individual elements of the system. If you have any questions concerning this matter, we shall be pleased to answer them. Very truly yours, WHITMAN & HOWARD, INC. ByI�D7.GLCEF2�3L'�.- rewst� Brewster W. Fu e1Z rte, I VE Vice President By -- chard F. Merri BWF:pdd WHITMAN & HOWARD. INC. ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS March 5, 1976 Town of Reading Conservation Commission c/o Mr. Gary Gilbert 60 Hillcrest Road Reading, MA 01867 n Re: Design Criteria For JII Drainage Design Gentlemen: We are enclosing a copy of the design criteria to be used in the Moater Drainage Study being completed for the D Town of Reading at the request of the Conservation commis- sion and the Superintendent of Public Works. Please note that the coefficient of runoff for Res. A. has been revised at the request of Dr. Carr. Very truly yours, WHITMAN 6 HOWARD, INC. chard F. Herr n RFM/hmg cc: Superintendent of Public Works Dr. Jerome Carr encl. Design Criteria Area: 1. Land Use: the land within the study area is assumed to be completely developed in accordance with current zoning regulations. Flood plain zones will be considered undeveloped except any obvious exceptions which may be discovered. Rainfall: 1. -Average Frequency of design storm 50 years for culverts 10 years for roadway structures 2. Duration of design storm 60 minutes 3. -Rainfall intensity 50 year frequency 2.4 inches per hour 10 year frequency 1.8 inches per hour 4. Inlet time 15 or 20 minutes for computer analysis, .variable depending on conditions for other analysis. 5. Runoff determination by the Rational Method. 6. Coefficient of runoff Res A - .50 Res B - .65 Business - .75 Industrial - .75 .Swamp - .15 Storm Drains 1. Coefficients for Manning Formula a. pipes n=.015 (reinforced Concrete) n=.024 (corrugated Metal) b. channels: t Clean, straight, no pools n=0 .030 As above, with weeds and stones n=0 .035 Winding, pools and shallows, weeds and stones n=0.045 Sluggish, weedy, with deep pools n=0 .065 Very weedy and sluggish - n=0.112 Man made Channels -9- i Smooth earth n=0.018 Firm gravel n=0.020 2. Minimum diameter I drains - 12 inches culverts - 18 inches 3. Allowable velocity - minimum - 3.0 feet/second .' maximum - 8 .0 feet/second 4. Maximum spacing of manholes and catch basins - 300 feet. 5. pipe material - reinforced concrete, except where clearance requires asphalt coated corrugated metal pipe. 6. Minimum pitch of drainage pipes - 0.58. pc i —10— . 1111■■■■■� ■■ol■■n�■ { ����■■■■■� ■■���■�■■ . . OINIMEN NNE =� ME MOO MMI1IMMIUi 20611 ■■■■�■■■■■■■■■ NEW Mi■■■■�■■■■■■■■■ milli\\\ONE ■■oml■mi milli■\\ISBN mo■lC■�■i ISIS Moll moll■■■ ■■�■■■■�0■■� mill=■■C■■■■■.■kNI a iolll■■■moo h■■mom\;bpi milli■■■NON E■■M ■\o ! 11111■■■ ■1101 1111 ME 11 oil III WOMEN 112■11■■��11■■11■■2■2C i1■■■211112111■■�21■■■1121212: i■111■■=mom�■■■■MEN= i 00111M■M■■■ =11011■■■== milli■■■mol am■■��■■�■i 5000 70 L s .n 40 - 1000 x ao 30 opaved .E z a w U O 3 Nbore N 20 soil U- 0 0.1 0 LL oL poor o z grass o 0 J `c 100 average- I.0 E v 15 ograss E dense n grass 10 0 20 10 10 6 WHITMAN & HOWARD, INC. PLATE ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS BOSTON, MASS.