My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4220 COLBY AVE B 2020-05-05
>
Address Records
>
COLBY AVE
>
4220
>
4220 COLBY AVE B 2020-05-05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/5/2020 9:00:11 AM
Creation date
5/5/2020 8:57:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Address Document
Street Name
COLBY AVE
Street Number
4220
Unit
B
Imported From Microfiche
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
207
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Sabrina Fandler <br /> From: Arnie Roshak <br /> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 11:46 AM <br /> To: Sabrina Fandler <br /> Subject: 4220 Colby <br /> Follow Up Flag: Follow up <br /> Flag Status: Flagged <br /> Hi Sabrina, <br /> I am reviewing the plans for 4220 Colby,which is in the combined system. My previous comments to them were that <br /> minimum requirements 1-9 would apply,except MR#6 for treatment. I do not see detention provided for the site. Even <br /> though they filled out the small project checklist which states that they only have to complete general info and the <br /> construction stormwater plan,the SWMM requires them to follow MR1-9 if new/replaced impervious surface is>5,000 <br /> sf and value of proposed improvements is>50%of the assessed value of existing improvements. It is on the burden of <br /> the developer to prove that their improvements are less than the 50%to be exempt. <br /> .Also,this site is in an area where we still have level of service issues in the sewer system, so detention will be required, <br /> to limit discharges to match the existing site. <br /> the filter swale (treatment) is not required and is too close to the building. The site is not suitable for infiltration <br /> because the neighboring property has a basement. <br /> -- Another comment on sheet C-5 is to make sure there is adequate clearance between proposed utilities. Also, it looks <br /> like there is some discrepancy between the elevations at SSMH1 in the plan vs profile. <br /> Let me know if you have any questions for me or want to discuss. <br /> Thanks, <br /> Arnie <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.