Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T05CM03651
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/24/2006 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/07/2006 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: March 10, 2006 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T05CM03651 PROJECT NAME: New Duplexes PROJECT ADDRESS: 2415 North Columbus Blvd. PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert, Engineering Associate The following items must be revised or added to the site plan. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: SITE PLAN, DRAINAGE REPORT, SECOND FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT APPLICATION 1. For a collector street with a future ROW width of 64' the required sidewalk area is a width of 9'. The plan view shows a 12' future sidewalk area which is in the wrong location for the future curb. Revise the site plan to show the future curb location 9' from the future ROW (future property line). DS 2-02.2.1.A.19. 2. Because the future curb location is in the wrong location the future sight visibility triangles (SVT) are also in the wrong location. Correct the site plan to show the correct location of the future SVT. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. 3. The exiting SVT is also in the wrong location. The 20' stem for the exiting SVT must be begin at the existing curb location. Revise the site plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. 4. Include a note on the plan that the entire site is in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Zone AE. DS 2-02.2.1.A.15. The above comment is from the first review. It is acknowledged notation was added. However Zone AE was not indicated. The notation reads, "Entire Site is in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Zone Area." The notation was requested to read as follows, "The entire site is in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Zone AE." Revise the notation to include "AE." 5. Include existing drainage patterns and finish grades on the plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. The above comment is from the first review. Stormwater must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes, as encountered under natural or existing conditions. The drainage statement supports this on page 6 under the Developed Conditions Section. It is not clear why some of the existing drainage patterns (arrows) are pointing to the east when the existing direction of drainage is to the northwest. Include finish grades through the site in effort to determine the direction of drainage. Clarify in detail in the response letter and/or revise the site plan to show the correct drainage direction. 6. Include on the site plan estimated cut and fill quantities. If cut and fill quantities equal zero, please note on the plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.17. The above comment is from the first review. It is acknowledged that notation has been provided for a clarification on cut/fill quantities. However it is not clear how the structures are going to be elevated without fill. Clarify in detail in the response letter and/or revise the site plan. 7. Indicate the 25' curb return tapering into the existing curb. See greenlines. DS 2-02.2.1.A.21. 8. New projects consisting of 3 or more dwelling units will provide centralized on-site refuse storage, collection and pickup areas. Indicate refuse container location, size and access thereto fully dimensioned. Demonstrate vehicle maneuverability, dimension. Be aware refuse vehicles require 36' inside radius and 50' outside radius. Indicate a refuse enclosure detail as per D.S. 6-01.4.2 Contact John Clark of Environmental Services @ 791-3175 ext. 1136 to reach an agreement that does not meet Development Standards 6-01 and to obtain a DSMR. The above comment was from the first review. It is acknowledged that John Clark of the Environmental Services Department accepts the current design solid waste proposal. However the current proposal does not meet Development Standard 6-01 and will require a Development Standards Modification Request (DSMR). Please contact Patricia Gehlen, Community Design Review Committee (CDRC) Manager for DSMR submittal criteria. 9. The water surface elevation shown on the site plan is 2450' which is from the FIRM Map Panel 2226, datum NGVD 1929. The contour shown on the site plan appears to be from the Transportation Department Map Site where the datum used is NAVD 1988. There is a 2.3' difference between the two datums. The finish floor elevation, the contours, finish grades, spot elevations, water surface elevation must all use the same datum. Revise the site plan to used the same datum for the WSE, finish grades, contours and the finish floor elevation. 10. Please note a condition of this permit contains a requirement that the applicant, or the applicant's authorized representative, complete a FEMA Elevation Certificate and is returned to DSD Engineering prior to approval of special inspection. 11. Each structure built in a flood hazard area is required to have a Floodplain Use Permit per structure. One floodplain use permit application is in the submitted documents. Apply for a second floodplain use permit application with the next submittal. Chapter 26-11(a). DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. Indicate the datum used for the water surface elevation (WSE) found in the drainage report. Be aware the datum used for the Transportation Department Map Site is NAVD 1988 and the datum used for the FIRM maps is NGVD 1929. There is approximately a 2.3' difference between the two datums. Hence it must be clear that the WSE indicated on the site plan (which is the same elevation found in the drainage statement) has the same datum used for the contours and the finish floor elevation found on the site plan. This must be clarified prior to approval of the plan. Clearly indicate in the drainage statement the datum used for the WSE and the finish floor elevation found on the site plan. The information in the drainage statement must match the information found on the site plan. |
| 03/15/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | Exception |
| 03/15/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Show the location of refuse storage, and a 6' wall is required to screen area from adjacent residential properties per LUC 3.7.2-I. 2) The planting plan and layout calculations will include both the proper and common name of each type of plant material must be listed, include botanical name of plants indicated on landscape plan. 3) Grading, hydrology, and landscape plans are to be integrated to make maximum use of site storm water runoff for supplemental on-site irrigation purposes. The landscape plan shall indicate use of all runoff, from individual catch basins around single trees to basins accepting flow from an entire vehicular use area or roof area. Show how street landscape borders will except stormwater flow from the vehicle use area on the site and landscape plans LUC 3.7.4.3.B. 4) The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans, any changes to site plan per the engineering and zoning divisions comments must be reflected on the landscape plan. |
| 04/26/2006 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/26/2006 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Upon completion of the following revision, an over the counter review may be arranged to obtain stamped approval by the zoning review section without resubmitting the site plan. The following item must be revised on the site plan: Revise sheet A-1 and the elevation drawings on sheet A-4 to state the height of exterior building wall above design grade elevation rather than above finished floor elevation. Building setbacks are based on height of exterior building wall above design grade level. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/01/2006 | AMERY KLAPPERT | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 05/01/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |