Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T02BU02876
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/30/2003 | DROBEY1 | ZONING | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 01/30/2003 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Arden Ranshaw, Tetra Tech Inc. SUBJECT: Starr Pass Resort Grading Plan, Floodplain & Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach DATE: January 30, 2003 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T02BU02876 SUMMARY: Engineering has received the revised Grading Plan, geotechnical addendum, bond letter, and drainage addenda submitted January 29, 2003. With this resubmittal package, the revised grading plan was reviewed. Engineering found that there are a few items that have not been completely addressed. Engineering needs the following remaining items addressed for resubmittal. REMAINING COMMENTS: 1) On sheet 2, crossing number 6 is still unclear regarding disturbance areas. Label if this area is proposed to be spanned and provide a plan view detail for crossing #6. 2) There is one section of the 404 limit, shown on sheets 2, 3, and 5, which overlaps the grading limits. Correct grading limit delineation to clarify 404 limits and depict the differentiation between construction site and no disturb area. 3) On sheets 3 and 6, label types of entrances and exits for headwall structures. 4) On sheet 3, the note "FOR PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION DETAILS, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND FINAL GRADING SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS" shall read "FOR LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS". 5) On sheet 7, the note "FOR CONSTRUCTION DETAILS AND FINAL GRADING SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS" shall read "FOR LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS". 6) On sheet 7, for 48" RCP drainage swale labeled as detail G/9, discuss in drainage report and show on plan how overtopping is prevented at curve in swale. Provide calculations and discussion in drainage report. 7) A 16-foot cut was discussed in comment response 27. Explain how the 16 feet exposed fill at south end of detention basin meets HDZ case for cut / fill and benching parameters for this project. 8) For drainage structure detail A/8, I am concerned that the flows may jump 2-foot header as it transitions into the concrete channel. Please explain in drainage report where these flows are conveyed if they breakout, and specifically how they are deflected from the downstream building structures. Discuss curbs, walls, or road grades if applicable. 9) It is imperative that the engineer of record seal the response letter (dated January 29, 2003), as well as the response letter for this set of comments. Provide two copies of the revised grading plan, redlines from last submittal, two copies of the sealed response letters, two copies of the revised drainage report, and fees. It is important that a meeting be arranged with the engineer of record upon resubmittal to go over the final revisions and any proposed conditions of approval for the grading permit. Per your request, the reseed bond for the Clear and Grub Grading Permit will be transferred for use as the reseed bond for this grading permit. The current outstanding fees need to be paid with two separate checks ($538.75 for grading permit, and $200 for floodplain use permit application submittal and review). This payment would be needed for the Permits Clerk to process and issue the permits. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Section Development Services |
| 01/30/2003 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Arden Ranshaw, Tetra Tech Inc. SUBJECT: Starr Pass Resort Grading Plan, Floodplain & Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach DATE: January 30, 2003 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T02BU02876 (grading) SUMMARY: Engineering has received the floodplain use permit application, revised Grading Plan, geotechnical addendum, bond letter, and drainage addenda submitted January 29, 2003. With this resubmittal package, the revised grading plan and floodplain use permit application was reviewed. Engineering found that there are a few items that have not been completely addressed. Engineering needs the following remaining items addressed for resubmittal. REMAINING COMMENTS: 1) On sheet 2, crossing number 6 is still unclear regarding disturbance areas. Label if this area is proposed to be spanned and provide a plan view detail for crossing #6. 2) There is one section of the 404 limit, shown on sheets 2, 3, and 5, which overlaps the grading limits. Correct grading limit delineation to clarify 404 limits and depict the differentiation between construction site and no disturb area. 3) On sheets 3 and 6, label types of entrances and exits for headwall structures. 4) On sheet 3, the note "FOR PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION DETAILS, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND FINAL GRADING SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS" shall read "FOR LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS". 5) On sheet 7, the note "FOR CONSTRUCTION DETAILS AND FINAL GRADING SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS" shall read "FOR LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS". 6) On sheet 7, for 48" RCP drainage swale labeled as detail G/9, discuss in drainage report and show on plan how overtopping is prevented at curve in swale. Provide calculations and discussion in drainage report. 7) A 16-foot cut was discussed in comment response 27. Explain how the 16 feet exposed fill at south end of detention basin meets HDZ case for cut / fill and benching parameters for this project. 8) For drainage structure detail A/8, I am concerned that the flows may jump 2-foot header as it transitions into the concrete channel. Please explain in drainage report where these flows are conveyed if they breakout, and specifically how they are deflected from the downstream building structures. Discuss curbs, walls, or road grades if applicable. 9) It is imperative that the engineer of record seal the response letter (dated January 29, 2003), as well as the response letter for this set of comments. Provide two copies of the revised grading plan, redlines from last submittal, two copies of the sealed response letters, two copies of the revised drainage report, and fees. It is important that a meeting be arranged with the engineer of record upon resubmittal to go over the final revisions and any proposed conditions of approval for the grading permit. Per your request, the reseed bond for the Clear and Grub Grading Permit will be transferred for use as the reseed bond for this grading permit. The current outstanding fees need to be paid with two separate checks ($538.75 for grading permit, and $200 for floodplain use permit application submittal and review). This payment would be needed for the Permits Clerk to process and issue the permits. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Section Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/31/2003 | MONICA VALDEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |