Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T11BU00742
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/09/2011 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Ensure that all Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior NPP / Landscape approval stamp. |
| 06/10/2011 | ANDREW CONNOR | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 06/10/11 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Andrew Connor: Landscape and Zoning Review Section T11BU00742 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. We cannot verify that the grading plan is in compliance with an approved site plan for this site. Please provide one copy of the stamped approved site plan with your next submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to ensure compliance with the approved site plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
| 06/10/2011 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | June 15, 2011 T11CM01744/ T11BU00742 Culligan Water Site and Grading Plans DRAINAGE REPORT 1. The Drainage Report (DR) indicates that the site is within the Airport Wash watershed. The PDSD map indicates that it is within the Rodeo Wash watershed. Both are critical basins so critical basin detention is required. 2. The DR indicates that the site doesn't need to conform to the Commercial Rainwater Harvesting Ordinance. Please provide substantiation for this statement. 3. Clarify the statement that the discharge within Ginter Road stays within the roadway. Show the drainage area, discharge and water depth to demonstrate that the roadway has capacity for the discharge or that overflow from the road will not enter the property. 4. Provide complete retention calculations demonstrating five-year threshold retention. 5. Provide details for all drainage structures along with volume calculations for each basin. SITE PLAN 1. Provide a legend for the site plan and for the grading plan which identifies the symbols used. Identify also the circular features along the east property line near the loading zones. 2. The keynotes listing indicates that key note 13 is not used. However, keynote 13 is shown pointing to the sidewalk area along the south side of the building. Please clarify. 3. Show the locations and extent of the Sight Visibility Triangles. It appears that the layer was not turned on. 4. Clarify how the decomposed granite ground cover is separated from the concrete paving. 5. Ensure that all of the keynote call-outs indicate the correct feature. 6. Ensure that all of the dimensions are correct. GRADING PLAN 1. Clarify the difference in specified materials and features between the grading and site plans. 2. Neither the site plan nor the grading plan indicate whether the sidewalk along the front of the building is raised above or flush with the pavement. Clarify. 3. Provide weir elevations for all spillways and weir openings between basins. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/06/2011 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/06/2011 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |