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: REVISION - GRADING
Permit Number - T07BU01366
Review Name: REVISION - GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/20/2009 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 27, 2009 SUBJECT: 2747 E Airport Drive Final Grading Plan Submittal- Engineering Review TO: M3 Engineering & Technology Corp. LOCATION: T15S R14E Sec20, Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T07BU01366 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Section of Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD) has received and reviewed the proposed final grading plan for the above referenced property. The Engineering Section does not recommend approval of the final grading plan at this time. Per a field investigation conducted by the PDSD Engineering Inspector and PDSD Engineering Reviewer the following items must be addressed on the final grading plan: 1) A Registered Civil Engineer must certify that this project was constructed in substantial conformance with the approved plans prior to final inspection. The 3 sheets provided for review did not satisfy this requirement. Sheet CG101 has been stamped "As-Built" by Lang Wyatt Construction and Sheets CG101 and CG102 still have the original engineer's stamp of 02DEC08. The final grading plan (As-Built) must show all areas of revision and/or improvements that were necessary due to field conditions. The final grading plan must show all revisions on all sheets were the improvements have changed, been omitted, added, etc since these will be the sheets submitted for recordation purposes (last approved plan had a total of 9 sheets). 2) Remove the stockpiles that are on the northeast portion of the site. These stockpiles are within a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area and research of our records does not show an approved stockpile permit or Floodplain Use Permit for the placement these stockpiles within the 100-year floodplain. 3) Remove all excess materials on site that were not used during the course of construction. An example is the excess rock riprap piles adjacent to the channel and the constructed rock pads. 4) The final grading plan shows the pedestrian circulation path in front of the warehouse building extending to the vehicular use area. However field investigation shows that this portion of the sidewalk was not constructed in the field, revise or construct. 5) The final grading plan shows a handicap access ramp constructed within the vehicular use area in front of the maintenance building. However field investigation shows that the ramp was constructed as part of the sidewalk with the ramp built sloping east to west; revise the plan to correctly show field conditions. 6) Field investigation showed that concrete barricade railings have been placed at the inlet to the constructed micro basin. Per the sedimentation and mud cracks that were visible during the field investigation the middle barricade has been placed in the low flow point of the basins inlet, revise and show these barricades in plan view. 7) Revise the final grading plan to clearly label the constructed 12-inch PVC pipe from the micro basin on the west side of the constructed berm. Revise the detail for the culvert outlet to represent field conditions. The detail shows a concrete end protection and each end of the pipe. Field conditions differ from the plan, revise and or construct. It is recommended to miter both ends of the pipe to match the slope of the erosion protection. 8) Revise the final grading plan to remove any and all proposed parking spaces that were not constructed within the vehicular use area. One example is the parking spaces along the north side of the warehouse building. These areas on the grading plan should be shown as open vehicular use areas (PAAL). 9) Revise the final grading plan to show all of the canopies that have been built on site. Field investigation shows 4 additional canopies that have been constructed and not labeled or dimensioned on the final grading plan. 10) Revise the final grading plan so that all sheets provided show the "As-Built" improvements. Sheet CG102 (previously stamped civil sheet) differs from Sheet CG101 (stamped "As-Built" Lang Wyatt Construction) for the same area of the property. 11) Remove all improvements from the sheets that have not been constructed within the field. Example is Keynote #3 and the proposed future oil/water separator. 12) Provide on all sheets the improvements that have been constructed in the field. Example is the holding bins, canopies, chain link fencing, PAAL stub outs, storage containers, etc. 13) Remove the storage containers that have been placed within the mapped FEMA SFHA of Airport Wash. These containers if proposed must have a Floodplain Use Permit and Elevation Certificates to show conformance with the rules and regulations of Chapter 44 of the Code of Federal Registry. 14) The Sheet provided by Lang Wyatt Construction will not work for recordation purposes. The information provided does not meet the minimum text or font sizing and the lettering is hard to distinguish in places. All information on the final grading plan should be submitted in a clear, legible format for recordation purposes. 15) Revise the constructed swale within the vehicular use area to re-grade the gravel piles to allow water to drain per the constructed slope. The gravel in the swale should be graded out along the bottom and side slopes and not piled in the middle of the flow line. 16) The constructed basin on the west side of the property needs to be regraded to allow the water to flow to the constructed outlet. Field investigation shows a high spot in the middle of the basin that has allowed water to pond on the south side. The high spot seems to be from excess sedimentation entering the basin from the outlet of the vehicular use swale during construction of the project. 17) Provide a detail for the constructed weir at the basin outlet. Clearly show all aspect of the weir as constructed in the field; the weir length, overall length, concrete tie in on each side, 4 outlet bleed holes, etc. A meeting is requested to discuss this project with the engineering reviewer and the consultant to help expedite the resubmittal prior to resubmitting the plans. I can be reached at 837-4929 to schedule the meeting. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 08/27/2009 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 08/27/2009 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Passed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/29/2009 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 12/29/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |