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: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T04CM04610
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/22/2005 | BLANCA ESPINO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | assigned per jpv |
| 02/22/2005 | BLANCA ESPINO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Site Plan 1. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. Include plans/redlines from previous plan submittal. 2. Indicate project address in title block area. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.3 3. Indicate downspout along the north end of the proposed building. Indicate a downspout symbol in legend. 4. Indicate existing and future sight visibility triangles for the southeast corner of parcel. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.10 Local to an Arterial is 30' Far, Arterial to Local 165' Near. 5. Dimension sidewalk and pathways. Sidewalk along Grant Road is six (6) feet wide and long 14th Ave is four (4) feet wide. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 6. For the loading space area, include a copy of the architectural plans as per Note 35 D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14 7. Dimension along Grant Road from street monument lines to existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, driveways and utility lines. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.21 8. Indicate right-of-way information to be existing or proposed. 9. Indicate the dimension on the north property line. 10. Indicate Plan View and Outlet Structure Section A-A graphically on Site Plan. 11. Indicate the Datum used to determine elevations. 12. Indicate and or identify the 100-year flood limits. Call out in legend. 13. Indicate cross sections and water surface elevations of all basins. 14. A Grading Plan review will be required. Submit 2 copies of a Grading Plan, the approved Site Plan a SWPPP Report and a copy of the Drainage Report. Drainage Report 1. Indicate project description of existing conditions, include percentage of impervious surface. 2. Indicate developed conditions, include percentage of impervious surface. 3. Page 6, 5-year Retention storage volume appears to be less than the required storage volume. From looking at TDOT, this site looks to be 0% impervious surface with 100% D type soil. Therefore the weighted runoff coefficient for the existing site condition is .46. As per the site plan it indicates that 90% of the surface is impervious which the weighted runoff coefficient for developed conditions is .87. As per the drainage report, the proposed runoff coefficients for existing is .483 and developed is .837. The proposed basin is 470 cf less volume area. Correct and revise. 4. As per Development Keynotes #30, 33 and 39 it indicates that Retention Basin G and the basin just northwest of the property are draining. Retention basins are to retain and percolate. As per Page D12, the basins are to drain/recharge between 9 to 12 hours. Indicate justification for basin discharge. |
| 03/02/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/02/2005 | SREEVES1 | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/25/2005 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/25/2005 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Zoning 3/25/2004 1) Lot combination paperwork detailed in zoning comment #2 dated 10/22/2004 must be provided prior to approval, 2) The front (Grant Road) setback depicted on the site plan (sheet C202) is still based on a building height of 26 feet. Please revise, 3) The development designator listed in General note 2 is still incorrect, 4) The building size shown on the the vicinity and site plans is now different than the one used in site plan notes and calculations. Revise all for consistency, 5) Revise the floor area ratio calculation to use the correct lot size, 6) The site plan is still to difficult to read. Remove non-needed information or provide two plans. In addition, some of the type is smaller than 12 point and must be revised. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/29/2005 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |