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: GRADING
Permit Number - T02BU00170
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/23/2002 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | 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. 1. All drainage related information on the Tentative Plat (T.P.) must be shown on the Grading Plan. See redlines on the Tentative Plat for information that must be included on the Grading Plan. 2. Drainage information on the Grading Plan (G.P.) and Paving Plan (P.P.) must exactly reflect the Tentative Plat (T.P.)or the Drainage Report must address any proposed changes. The Grading Plan and Paving Plan must be consistent. 3. See redlines on the Grading Plan and Paving Plan. 4. Sheet 5 of the Grading Plan has a detail "Spillway on Camino De Juan". There is no such street on the plan. This spillway is associated with the inlet to the basin from Leutea? Change name on detail. Show this detail as part of detail A-1. 5. Spillway across Elute from Lot 30 on Tentative Plat shows riprap apron 40 ft. wide D50=9". Spillway detail on Grading Plan Sheet 5 does not match these parameters. Also, the riprap must extend beyond the toe of the slope. 6. Detail A-2 Sheet 5 scupper at Lot 30,31 to Leutea shows a width of ???? and a note on this detail says maximum length of 20". The T.P. specifies the width as 12 ft. This scupper won't work in this application. Change. Reflect this change on the Paving Plan. 7. G.P. Sheet 2 Drainage Easement between Lots 30-31 specifies a width of 10 ft. The T.P. shows 20 ft. Change. 8. Pavement Plan Sheet 6 Detail A-A shows a roadway section. There is a drainage channel located in this easement. 9. Section A-A Sheet 5 does not match the T.P. detail E-E Sheet 2. Change. 10. Show spot elevations and grades for the drainage channel between Lots 35-36 and 30-31. 11. Detail the scupper and drainageway inlet between Lots 35-36. 12. The P.P. Sheet 6 drainage structure between Lots 43-44 at the inlet shows a 7 ft. scupper. The T.P. shows an 8 ft. scupper. The G.P. does not specify the size. Change. 13. Detail the drainage structure between Lots 43-44 o the G.P. (see T.P. Section G-G Sheet 2 for specs). 14. Detail riprap apron outlet of channel between Lots 43-44 (see T.P. Sheet 3 for specs). 15. Show radius of curvature for the channel between Lots 30-31 where it curves at the north end of the lot line. 16. Dimension the basin width and length at several places. Show basin elevations on the contours. Show a bottom elevation. 17. The T.P. shows a 12" low flow outlet for the basin. Show on G.P. Show inlet and outlet invert elevations and grade. 18. The T.P. shows 2-36" CMP basin outlet. Section D-D shows one. Change. 19. Detail riprap apron outlet of basin CMP (specs T.P. Sheet 3). 20. Detail A-1 Sheet 5 has a scupper width of 56 ft. The T.P. Sheet 3 specifies 56 ft. Change. 21. Spillway detail Sheet 5 of G.P. show and detail the riprap area. 22. Section B-B G.P. Sheet 5 specs for rock do not match those on T.P. Sheet 3 Section K-K. 23. The T.P. shows a 24" SRP from Lot 54 to the basin. Detail this structure on the G.P. 24. This site is subject to HDZ requirements. The cut and fill side slopes for the roads (shown on section to be 3:1) must be revegetated per DS 9-04.3.2. Place a note on the plan. 25. The basin must have a maintenance access ramp with a width of at least 15 ft. and a slope of 15% or less. Show and dimension on the plan. 26. The Grading Plan Sheet 1 shows an estimated grading in excess of 5,000 yards. Please complete note 10 on this sheet and provide a soils report for this project. All grading in excess of 5,000 yards is considered "engineered grading" and a soils report is required. See IBC Chapter 36 Section 9.5 for specific requirements. In addition, the report must address recommended building setbacks from the basin. 27. Show lot drainage for lots 30-33. 28. Sheet 1 of the Paving Plan shows a street section B-B with no sidewalk on either side of the street. The Tentative Plat shows at least one sidewalk on every street. Section B-B on the P.P must match Section B-B on the T.P. 29. Change note 7 on the P.P. to I.B.C. Chapter 36. 30. The roadway section and materials on Sheet 5 of the P.P. Section A-A does not match that on the T.P. Sheet 4 Section M-M. 31 A Flood Use Permit is required prior to Grading Plan approval. 32. The Drainage Report specifies on page 6 that the drainage pattern (floodplain) at lots 71 and 72 would not be affected by the development. The Grading Plan and Paving Plan show that the road encroaches into the floodplain. Show and label the post development floodplain limits. Label the erosion hazard setback and floodplain. |
| 10/23/2002 | JAMES TATE | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | See Engineering Folder comments. |
| 10/25/2002 | PATRICIA GILBERT | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Once engineering has approved the grading plans please call to schedule an NPPO pre permit inspection, 791-5640 Ext 1140 to schedule. Protective fencing is required for NUOS Area. |
| 10/25/2002 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Engineering, Floodplain and NPPO approvals required. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/30/2002 | MONICA VALDEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |