Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T03BU00115
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/22/2003 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: January 22, 2003 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T03BU00115 PROJECT NAME: Stone Curves PROJECT ADDRESS: 4083 N. Stone PROJECT REVIEWER: James C. Tate, P.E. Resubmittal required: Grading Plan, Drainage Report The following items must be revised or added to the Grading Plan. Please include a letter with the next submittal addressing how all the engineering and floodplain comments have been addressed. 1. Grading in excess of 5,000 yards is designated as "engineered grading". A soils engineering report is required. IBC Chapter 36 Section 9.3 Include in the soils report recommended building setbacks from the basins. 2. Show grading limits. IBC Chapter 36 Section 9.4. Setback criteria from property lines can be found in Section 14. Minimum grading setback is 2 ft. from the property line. 3. Proposed developments exceeding 5 acres are subject to NPDES requirements. Submit required plans. 4. Retention volumes on the Grading Plan do not match those in the Drainage Report. Because there is more than adequate retention provided, a revised Drainage Report is not required. It is noted that the Drainage Report is incorrect. 5. The project is not in a critical or balanced basin so detention is not required. The Drainage Report is not required to route the basins and does not do so. However, the Grading Plan shows 0 cfs outflow from the basins. Without routing the basins, or providing a total volume calculation for individual watersheds, the outflow can not be determined. The drainage report in lieu of routing the basins assumes 100 yr. peak outflow. This is acceptable. Please correct the outflow quantities on each basin. 6. Without routing Basin D2 it can not be determined whether or not there will be a 10-yr peak discharge from the basin. It must be assumed that there will be and a sidewalk scupper is required on the outflow to Limberlost Rd. All sidewalks must be flood free for up to the ten-yr. event. DS 2-08.4.1.E 7. The sidewalk north of the south parking lot requires a scupper. 8. Please provide on the plan a length and width dimension for each basin. This will facilitate the grading inspection. 9. Show a section for the channel at the outlet for Basin D 3. The plan shows sharp bends in the channel. If the channel is designed to overflow its banks what is the effect on the drainage plan and the adjacent sidewalks? 10. Show on the plan basin side slopes (3:1, 4:1, etc.). Security barriers must be provided at the top of all basin slopes steeper than 4:1 where water depths exceed two feet. Basins D2 and D5B would seem to meet this criteria. Show the barriers on the plan. 11. Basins must have bank protection in accordance with that recommended in the required soils report. Show the bank protection locations and types. Revise the Landscape Plan accordingly. 12. Maintenance access must be provided to the three larger basins. The Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.3.4 requires a 15 ft. wide access ramp not exceeding 15% slope. Show on the plan. 13. The required weir lengths specified in the Drainage Report do not match those on the Grading Plan. Revise. |
| 01/22/2003 | JAMES TATE | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | See Engineering Folder comments. |
| 01/28/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | A NPPO pre-permit inspection is required prior to approval of the grading plan. Call 791-5640 Ext. 1140 to schedule inspection. |
| 01/30/2003 | LOREN MAKUS | NPDES | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide three signed copies of Notice of Intent (NOI); (One for the Stormwater Section, one for the site and one for the applicants file). 2. Provide three (3) copies of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (to be distributed as above). 3. Provide a signed project manager/owner certification. 4. Provide a general location map with the nearest crossroads. 5. Provide a signed operator certification. 6. Provide for an inventory of materials to be stored on site with updates. 7. Specify the location and size of the stabilized construction entrance on the plan sheet. Weekly sediment removal from the adjacent streets may be insufficient. Specify that the adjacent streets will be swept as required to prevent the accumulation of sediment in the roadways. 8. Provide legible copies of the pages from the FCDMC BMP guide. The guide is available at www.fcd.maricopa.gov/Services/StormWaterQuality.asp. 9. Specify the information that is required on inspection reports. Name & qualification of inspector Date Major observations Sediment removal if sediment trap’s design capacity is reduced by 50%. If everything is okay, certification that facility is in compliance with SWPPP. Revise the SWPPP and submit three copies with the resubmittal of the grading plan. |
| 01/30/2003 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Engineering, Floodpalin, NPDES and NPPO approvals required for Zoning review. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/31/2003 | TAMI ACHONG | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |