Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 4 of 19 <br />After review of the plans and documents submitted for revision #4, the following comments remain <br />unaddressed: <br />1. All sediment basins to be removed have not been identified in the site plans. Applicant has stated <br />that all basins are temporary and will be removed upon completion of construction. <br />2. The date of the Armtech wall detail is dated 10/4/18 and the notes in the plans reference a detail <br />dated 10/2/18. Full-sized set of plans submitted are not sealed. <br />3. There is a graded area shown in the site plans (page C5.10) extending 40 feet into the required <br />perimeter buffer. <br />4. The reference photos shown in Appendix 2E are too small to read. <br />5. Exhibits provided with the floodplain development permit application are not sealed, and <br />Attachment 6 is missing <br />6. The original landscape plan stated that existing vegetation would remain and be supplemented <br />(conditions 6 and 18 of the original approval) within the required perimeter buffer. Appendix 2E <br />is not sufficient to determine compliance with said conditions. <br />7. Applicant is proposing species of landscaping not found in the approved planting list. <br />8. The landscaping provided along the Stewart property does not meet the Ordinance; there are no <br />shrubs provided along the northwestern and southern property lines. <br />9. Along the northwestern property line (portion of the site to the north of Joyner Road), there is an <br />encroachment into the required perimeter buffer by Array 1 (Landscape Buffer B1-A, page L1.1 of <br />site plan). <br />10. Applicant contends that their plan is in compliance with the requirements of the Ordinance. Staff <br />contends the proposed site plan does not comply with the conditions of the original approval. <br />11. Digital copies of signed documents are not signed in accordance with certification requirements <br />and cannot be verified through Adobe. <br /> <br />Submitted by Phillip Collins <br /> <br />Engineering Review: <br />The following items were noted during a review of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment Drawings: <br /> <br />1. A detail has been added to the plans to show the method of decommissioning the temporary <br />sediment basins on the site. The chart lists a bottom width for the channel based on the 10 <br />year flow to the channel. Add a chart that lists the flow rate to each basin. <br />2. Permanent swale stabilization using a temporary matting with a vegetative liner is shown on <br />the plans. Typically the liner type and dimensions vary with the expected design flows, soil <br />types, and grades, however, the sediment and erosion control regulations and the Phase II <br />stormwater permits have requirements concerning the establishment and maintenance of the <br />groundcover used in stormwater channels. After completion of the project, a copy of the site <br />stormwater BMP inspection for September of 2019 should be provided to the Planning <br />Department to document that the all site stabilization has occurred and that all measures are <br />performing as designed. <br /> <br />The following items were noted during a review of the Buffer Encroachment Report and Exhibit EXC - <br />110: