Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T03BU03025
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/19/2004 | Patricia Gilbert | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: February 20, 2004 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T03BU03025 PROJECT NAME: Yavapai Apartments PROJECT ADDRESS: 105 East Yavapai Road PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert The following items must be revised or added to the grading plan. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: GRADING PLAN 1. A copy of the stamped approved Site Plan must be included with the Grading Plan submittal. 2. The Site Plan is approved. Any changes made to the Grading Plan must be reflected on the Site Plan. The Site Plan and Grading Plan must match. If changes to the Grading Plan require the Site Plan to be revised a re-stamp will be required. 3. Show roof drainage (flow arrows). DS 2-02.2.1.A.16 This comment was not addressed from the first submittal. 4. The disturbance area exceeds 1 acre a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required. The SWPPP must be submitted with the next grading plan submittal. 5. A sidewalk scupper is required in the ROW. Sidewalks must be flood free for up to a ten year event. Where is grading keynote 25? There is reference to a grading keynote 25, but it is not on the grading plan. Revise as necessary. 6. Show ponding limits for the retention basins. This comment was not addressed from the first submittal. 7. Grading note 11 is incorrect. All work must conform to the Grading Standards in Chapter 36 of the IBC. This comment was not addressed from the first submittal. 8. The elevations on the grading plan do not match the elevations in the drainage report. All elevations on the grading plan (Water Surface, Weir Inverts, etc) need to match what is on the drainage report. Revise the grading plan to show the correct elevations (Water Surface, Weir Inverts, etc). 9. The Finish Floor Elevation on the grading plan for the existing structure (FFE = 40.5')adjacent to the middle basin - west, is not consistent with the detail D/C1.2 (FFE = 42.7') 10. Per conversation with Jim Tate, he requested a letter from a Registered Civil Engineer specifying the minimum setback distance from the basins. Submit the letter. |
| 03/10/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the grading plans to accomodate trees designated as preserved-in-place. The root zone for protected plants should remain undisturbed as noted on sheet N1.2. and as explained on the landscape plans. Add notes or references to the clarify the plant preservation requirements. 2) Revise the grading and site plans to include the same screening or wall treatments along the east property line. (keynote 5) |
| 03/12/2004 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/16/2004 | LISA LESNY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/15/2004 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |