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: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Permit Number - T04BU00996
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/14/2004 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Clearly identify the limits of disturbance on the landscape plan, grading plan and native plant preservation plan. DS 2-07.2.2 |
| 06/28/2004 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 28, 2004 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04BU00996 PROJECT NAME: Fire Station No. 20 PROJECT ADDRESS: 4798 N. 1st Ave. PROJECT REVIEWER: James C. Tate, P.E., CFM 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. Resubmittal Required: Grading Plan, Drainage Report GENERAL COMMENTS 1. A copy of the stamped approved Site Plan must be included with the Grading Plan submittal. 2. A Flood Use Permit is required prior to Grading Plan approval. 3. The Site Plan is currently in the review process. Any changes made to the Site Plan must be reflected on the Grading Plan. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS 1. Show area to be graded. The area to be left natural must be easily discernable. It is not clear on the plan where the grading limits are located. IBC Chapter 36. (Previous review comment) 2. Grading setbacks from property lines can be found in IBC Chapter 36 Section 14. The setback for fill slopes is ½ the height of the slope or 2 ft. whichever is greater. The slope on the south property line is higher than 4 ft. Therefore, the setback is greater than 2 ft. The proper setback must be shown on the plan. Also, Section B Sheet 2.2 shows a 0 ft. setback. Correct the plan. (Previous review comment) 3. Show a section through the proposed berm south of the retention basin. IBC Chapter 36, Section 9.4 (Previous review comment) 4. The Geotechnical Report Section 3.2, "INFILTRATION TESTING" says, "For the test at this site, the initial infiltration rate was approximately 1,200 minutes per inch. With a rate this slow, an acceptable drainage rate of water of a standard basin is not indicated." A bleed pipe must be included in the design of the basin. Show this structure on the plan. The basin must drain in 12 hours. Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, SDRM, 3.5.1.3 (Previous review comment) 5. Detail 5 Sheet 2.2 does not show curb on the sides of the v-channel. Sheet 2.1 shows curb. Also, flowmaster indicates that the maximum capacity of the channel at the indicated slope of .45% is 5 cfs. The Drainage Report indicates a flow of 18 cfs. Revise the plan. (A previous review comment required a correct detail of this structure) 6. The Grading Plan shows an area of rip-rap being placed at the outlet structure of the basin to the north. Label and dimension this rip-rap. Label and dimension the curb opening. All drainage structures must be properly labeled and dimensioned. (Previous review comment) 7. The Drainage Report indicates that the discharge from the north travels through the property to the south drainage channel easement. The Grading Plan shows the discharge traveling on to the drive entrance and on to 1st. Ave. The stormwater needs to be accepted and released at the same locations as under existing conditions. Change the plan. 8. The grades indicate that there is flow along the south gutter line of River Rd. adjacent to the property. The new proposed curb cut and driveway will direct this flow through the property to 1st Ave. Stormwater must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes, as encountered under existing conditions. Stormwater patterns must remain the same. SMDDFM, 12.5 . (Previous review comment) 9. The proposed plan significantly increases the velocity of the flow in the channel (to over 7 fps). This velocity is highly erosive. See SMDDFM 7.5. Maximum allowable velocity for an unlined channel would be about 4 fps. Erosion protection is required. (Previous review comment) DATE: June 25, 2004 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04BU00996 PROJECT NAME: Fire Station # 20 PROJECT ADDRESS: 4798 North First Avenue PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert, Engineering Associate The following items must be revised or added to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN. 1. The site shows fill slopes on the north, east and west sides of the proposed building and parking area. What kind of permanent stormwater controls will be used to reduce sediments from leaving the site? Revise the narrative and the site map to show the permanent stormwater controls. (Part IV.D.6.) It is acknowledged that the landscape plan shows areas of hydroseeding and the site map calls out hyrdoseeding. However the hydroseeded area is difficult to determine on the Site Map. It is recommended to include areas of hydroseeding by use of a darker or lighter shaded area to depict hydroseeded fill slopes on the site map. It is also recommended to remove all information that does not pertain to drainage, contours or the SWPPP. Currently there is a large amount of information on the SWPPP that does not pertain to a SWPPP. Remove the information, For example, zoning information, utilities, easements, detail callouts that pertain to the grading plan. All of this information makes the site map busy and difficult to read. The purpose of the SWPPP site map is an easy to read document for the contractor to use on site. If the contractor needs to know what the zoning is on the adjacent property he/she can refer to the site plan. If the contractor needs to at where the utilities are located he/she can refer to the utility plan. 2. The off-site berm is located near a significant amount of vegetation. Is the vegetation going to be removed or preserved in place? Document areas where existing vegetation will be preserved on and off-site on the SWPPP site map. (Part IV.D.4.a) It is acknowledged that the site map makes reference to the NPPO plan for the location of the preserved vegetation. However it is a requirement that the locations of nonstructural controls are required to be identified on the SWPPP site map. Preserved vegetation is considered a nonstructural permanent control. Use a symbol and/or a different shade tone to depict where the preserved vegetation is. 3. Clearly delineate areas of soil disturbance and areas which will not be disturbed on the SWPPP site map. (Part IV.C.3.b) This plan has too much superfluous information on the site map. It is difficult to determine where the natural undisturbed areas are. Refer to comment number 2 and the redlined site map. Everything highlighted on the redlined site map is not required to be on the site map. Remove all the necessary information from the plan and clearly delineate which areas will not be disturbed. 4. Provide a detail of the stabilized construction entrance on the site map. 5. It is acknowledged, a call out to a stabilized construction entrance is on the site map. However, it is difficult to determine where the stabilized construction entrance is located. Provide shading or a hatched area that clearly indicates the location of the stabilized construction entrance. Revise site map. 6. It is difficult to see some of the stormwater controls on the SWPPP site map. Due to the extent of information on the site map it is recommended that scale is increased to 1" to 20' or 1" to 10'. Please see redlines on the site map. Everything highlighted in pink is not required to be on the SWPPP site map. Site Map. Per the APDES General Permit for Discharge from Construction Activities, Part IV.C.3., the SWPPP must contain a legible site map completed to-scale, showing the entire site, that identifies the following: a. Directions of stormwater flow (e.g., use arrows to show which ways stormwater will flow) and approximate slopes anticipated after major grading activities; b. Areas of soil disturbance and areas that will not be disturbed; c. Locations of structural and nonstructural controls identified in the SWPPP; d. Locations where stabilization practices are expected to occur; e. Locations of off-site material, waste, borrow areas, or equipment storage areas; f. Locations of all surface water bodies (including wetlands); g. Locations where stormwater discharges to a surface water (including ephemeral waters or dry washes) and to MS4s; Please remove the unnecessary information on the site map and leave the required information (listed above) on the site map. 7. A 8" PVC Pipe Outlet for the retention basin is shown on the site plan. However on the SWPPP site map this 8" PVC pipe is not shown. Show the 8" PVC Pipe on the SWPPP site map. Because Jim Tate (grading comment number 7) is requesting a bleed pipe for the retention basin a stormwater control is required for the outlet of this bleed pipe. Revise site map as necessary. 8. A permanent sediment control is required at the outlet of the bleed pipe. Revise the SWPPP narrative and site map to include these stormwater controls. (See comment number 8) 9. Be advised when a facility has a Equipment/Vehicle Wash Area, the area is required to have an oil water separator and the discharge can go into the sanitary sewer system. If the discharge output is directed to a wash, channel, retention/detention area, natural area or a landscaped area ADEQ requires an Aquifer Protection Permit, this includes analytical monitoring, reporting, etc. |
| 07/02/2004 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | July 2, 2004 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section David Rivera Senior Planner Comments: 1. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering and Landscape Review Section. 2. Two copies of the approved and stamped development/site plan, landscape and NPPO plans must be included with grading plan. 3. Please insure that the loading zone location on the grading plan matches the location on the approved site plan. 4. Include copies of the Adminsitrative Directive 1.07-6 Waiver with the next submittal. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/02/2004 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |