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
Permit Number - T05CM00279
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/06/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide SCZ approval date on the site plan including any conditions imposed. Include SCZ approval documentation with re-submittal. 2. A 5' wall to screen all residential zoned properties from the project per LUC 3.7.2-I. Include required 5' wall on site and landscape plan. |
| 12/06/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Provide SCZ approval date on the site plan including any conditions imposed. Include SCZ approval documentation with re-submittal. |
| 12/20/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/20/2005 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: December 20, 2005 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T05CM00279 PROJECT NAME: Self Storage PROJECT ADDRESS: 4980 North 1st Avenue PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert, Engineering Associate The following items must be revised or added to the site plan. Please include the redlined site plan and a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. Please note the new comments are with this review due to the fact this project has changed the Engineer of record for this development. The new engineer is Stuart W Rayburn, P.E.. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: SITE PLAN, GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION 1. The grading plan has been revised to show only one basin located on the south side of the proposed structure. The site plan indicates 2 retention basins. In addition retention basin located south of the structure the height, bottom elevation and volume are different then what is shown on the grading plan. The site and grading plan must match. Revise the site plan to show the same retention information shown on the grading plan. 2. Due to the fact the north side retention basin has been removed it is recommended to direct all the roof drainage to the retention basin located on the south side. 3. Per the response letter, response comment number 2, states a recommendation for the retention basins to be sealed. It has been requested from the Geotechnical Evaluation to provide recommended setback for the retention basin to the structure. Sealing the retention basin prevents the intent and function of the retention facilities and will not be accepted. Provide the setback distance for the building from the retention basin or a retention design that meets the requirement of the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management 14.2. GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION COMMENTS 1. Remove the verbiage regarding the site development NOT having a retention/detention basin located in Section 2.0 Project Description. 2. Per the response letter, response comment number 2, states a recommendation for the retention basins to be sealed. It has been requested from the Geotechnical Evaluation to provide recommended setback for the retention basin to the structure. Sealing the retention basin prevents the intent and function of the retention facilities and will not be accepted. Provide the setback distance for the building from the retention basin or a retention design that meets the requirement of the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management 14.2. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/04/2006 | BETH GRANT | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/04/2006 | BETH GRANT | REJECT SHELF | Completed |