Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T07BU00383
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/12/2007 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 03/12/07 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Terry Stevens Lead Planner Comments for T07BU00383: 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 will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved site plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
| 03/14/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Site plan approval is necessary to continue review. |
| 03/20/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: March 21, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T07BU00383 PROJECT NAME: Cendot Construction PROJECT ADDRESS: 6045 South Missiondale 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 DRAINAGE REPORT IS APPROVED 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. Provide the site address, grading and site activity numbers in the lower right hand corner of the plan, preferably in the title block. 4. All lettering and dimensions will be the equivalent of twelve point or greater in size. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that the lettering is legible when reproduced or microfilmed for record keeping purposes. Revise all lettering to be at least 12 point. 5. Provide a location map which meets the minimum requirements of D.S. 2-05.2.1.D, show the subject property approximately centered in the one (1) square mile area, identify conditions within the square mile area, such as major streets and watercourses (i.e. Airport Wash), section, township and range, north arrow and scale. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.4. 6. Provide in the legend (Symbols and abbreviations) the line weight for the existing and proposed contours. 7. The length on the near side sight visibility triangle is not correct. The correct length is 185'. Revise the site plan to show the correct length. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. 8. Show all proposed and existing walls and fences for the project. DS 2-02.2.1.A.22. 9. Clarify in the response letter if there are wall openings on the existing wall (keynote 20). If there are wall openings, provide the dimensions on the plan either by callout, detail or both. 10. Indicate grade breaks. Indicate a grade break symbol in the legend. 11. Show roof drainage (flow arrows). DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 12. Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the 10-yr. event. Add a note on the plan, "All roof down spouts on all structures must be routed under any adjacent sidewalk." Graphically indicate downspouts and sidewalk scuppers. DS 2-08.4.1.E. 13. Provide a cross section for both water harvesting areas, include the property line and the 5' sidewalk located in the ROW. Show the depth of the water harvesting area. 14. The finish grades located on the south side of the building are primarily the same. The finish grades should provide a slope towards the water harvesting areas as indicated in the approved drainage report. Be advised this may required a sidewalk scupper for the sidewalk that connects the building to the ROW. Revise the plan to show more finish grades to promote the surface drainage to flow to the water harvesting areas. 15. Delineate on the site plan the FEMA floodplain limits for Zone X (shaded). Label the line weight appropriately. DS 2-02.2.1.A.15. 16. Provide on the grading plan the existing and proposed onsite to offsite discharge discussed in the drainage report, section 4.0. SMDDFM 12.5. 17. Please note that subsequent comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/21/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 03/21/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/21/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | REJECT SHELF | Completed |