3317 WETMORE AVE BASE FILE 2020-05-21

1 FM ,ryncsa=nt L - 12,014- i Sabrina Fandler From: Sabrina Fandler Sent: Tuesday,August 29, 2017 4:48 PM To: 'Nosrat Majlesy;wdgrantandassoc@aol.com Cc: Kembra Landry;Arnie Roshak Subject: RE: permits Attachments: Stormwater Management Questionnaire -DraftVersion(2-12-2016).docx Hi Nate, I sincerely apologize for the delay on plan review comments from a collective Public Works standpoint.When your plans were originally routed for Public Works review by the various associated departments,Arnie had sent comments to me on June 19th and we were waiting on follow-up information/verification from Brian Doolan in the Sewer and Drainage Maintenance and Operations division prior to sending any formal comments to the applicant team.Arnie requested an inspection of the sewer in the alley for capacity verification and input to her review comments.After several check-ins with the sewer department,we had feedback that the inspection would be scheduled several weeks out and had not yet taken place.On July 13th, revised site plans addressing the Planning Department's concerns were submitted. Kembra had consultedwith me about the revised driveway widths only, but had not completed her review and had not yet routed the plans to me until the middle of August.At that point in time,the Public Works Department had to do another review of the plans since this was a different site plan than what was originally submitted. Since we still have not heard back from the sewer department and therefore never got Public Works plan review comments out, I checked the revised plans against Amie's original comments and against our standard site plan requirements. There are still several elements missing from the plans and other items that need to be readdressed. I am unaware of the specific comments/communication you have had with Arnie previously, however her original comments to me are below and none of them have been adequately addressed per our review of the revised site plan. Please see Amie's stormwater and sewer comment plans below: Amie's Comments from 6/19/2017: • The proposed impervious area given on their drawing looks low. Since the project is adding/replacing more than 2,000 sf of impervious then minimum requirement 1-5 will apply for this project. The project won't trigger flow control (MR7) for this project. We had discussed them doing permeable pavement with an underdrain, which(under the 2010 stormwater manual) will help keep them under the threshold —looks like they are now showing a combination of permeable and concrete pavement, and added landscaping between buildings. Please have them verify their new/replaced impervious numbers. (Sabrina's additional input: The site plan calculates impervious area as 1796sf. However the roof area of building 1 and building 2 combined is 2264sf. The total impervious area(roof+hard surfaces)needs to be correctly calculated and identified on the plans. This is over 2000sf and therefore triggers drainage mitigation per the 2010 Stormwater Management Manual. Please fill out and complete the attached Stormwater Management Questionnaire to fulfill this requirement.Within this, a drainage plan will need to be shown on the site plan and an erosion control plan addressing all 13 elements listed will need to be shown on the site plan as well. These can either be on the overall site plan as long as it remains clear to read, or the site plan can be copied and relabeled with added drawing elements to isolate erosion control and drainage items on separate plans.) • Disconnect the roof drains from the proposed storm drain lateral and allow the roof drainage to discharge to the surface to meet the code requirement. They can just do a splash block from building one and sheet flow through landscaped area toward Wetmore Ave. The curb does not look high enough for a sidewalk drain to be feasible. For building 2,prefer they alsodirect toward Wetmore since that's where this site currently drains to. See if they can t the drain under the pavers and discharge to the 1/y