Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Permit Number - T05BU02233
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/27/2006 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 4th, 2005 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T05BU02233 PROJECT NAME: Materials Storage Yard PROJECT ADDRESS: 1315 West Miracle Mile 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 currently in review. Any changes made to the Site Plan must be reflected on the Grading Plan. The Site Plan and Grading Plan must match. 3. Indicate grade breaks. Indicate a grade break symbol in the legend. 4. Show more spot elevations to determine direction of drainage. SD 2-02.2.1.A.23. The above comment is from the first review. It is acknowledged that spot elevations have been provided and indicated on the legend. However the site plan indicates finish grades in the same location. This is confusing. Spot elevations and finish grades are two different requirements. Clarify in the response letter. Correct accordingly on the grading plan/site plan. 5. The stormwater pollution prevention plan is acceptable. Once the site plan and grading plan is approvable submit 4 copies of the grading and the stormwater pollution prevention plan. 6. Revise the cut quantities if the retention volume changes (see drainage comment below). DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. The existing and developed runoff coefficients (0.60 existing and 0.92 developed) used for calculating the 100-yr peak discharge (Q100) are different then the coefficients used (0.32 existing and 0.711 developed) for calculating the retention volume. Provide an explanation on why the same coefficients have not been used when calculating the retention volume or revise the drainage report to use the same coefficients. Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual Section 3.2.2. |
| 03/07/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Site plan approval is necessary to continue review. |
| 04/01/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 04/01/06 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section David Rivera Principal Planner Comments: 1. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning could not verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved site plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped site, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved and stamped site plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |