Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: BILLBOARD - BLDG30days
Permit Number - T12BU00589
Review Name: BILLBOARD - BLDG30days
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/12/2012 | LEERAY HANLY | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/10/2012 | GLENN MOYER | ADMINISTRATIVE | ADMIN REVIEW | Denied | Below are comments for the modification and repair resubmittal for COT ID# 8 at 2502 East Benson Highway (T12BU0589). PDSD staff should require a pre-inspection to confirm how the unipole is marked so as to assure the finished orientation matches that of the existing installation. If a special inspection is required for the butt welding work, this confirmation could be potentially included as part of that work. Sheet 1 of 2 1. Comment #3 on the original submittal was not correctly responded to; please show graphically and by legal description (with recording docket and page number reference) any easements of record that pertain to the billboard use, including access and visibility; as per: 2-02.2.0 SITE PLAN CONTENT AND SPECIFICATIONS. 2.1 Site Plan. A. The site plan is drawn at a standard engineering scale no larger than l" = 60' on a sheet(s) no larger than 30" by 42" (24" by 36" recommended) and includes, but is not limited to, the following: ... 20. All easements of record must be graphically shown on the plan together with recording docket and page reference. Sheet 2 of 2 1. Comment #4 on the original submittal was not fully responded to; in revised South Face Elevation, note that for the north face elevation the end rail and crossover are in reverse positions. 2. Comment #5 in the original submittal was not fully responded to; in Scope of Work, revised 11th paragraph, clarify the number of A-325 bolts that are being replaced that respectively connect the unipole to the extension and the extension to the head/superstructure (it appears that there are 12 for each connection, but this is not clear). 3. Comment #7 in the original submittal was not responded to; please detail the finished clearance between the upper structure and the roof of the adjacent building (the existing clearance between the south face catwalk and the adjacent building is limited; if there is insufficient clearance for the required height reduction modification as proposed, then the plan will need to be amended to provide an alternative means to achieve the reduction). 4. In Scope of Work, revised 12th paragraph, clarify that the reinstalled EMT and associated wiring are to be shortened (in the same or similar measure as the removed unipole section). |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/14/2012 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |