| Plan Review Notes For Permit 08060698 |
| Permit Number |
08060698 |
|
| Review Stop |
Z |
| Sequence Number |
2 |
|
| Notes |
| Date |
Text |
| 2008-09-26 16:39:37 | ***FAILED*** | | | | | | 1) TWO (2) COPIES OF A CURRENT AND ACCURATE SURVEY | | | SHALL BE PROVIDED. ONLY ONE (1) COPY WAS INCLUDED IN | | | THE PACKAGE. ADDITIONALLY, THE SURVEY INDICATES THAT IT | | | "SHALL NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES." | | | | | | 2) THE APPLICATION FOR THE TREE ALTERATION PERMIT SHALL | | | BE SUBMITTED TO ROBERT KUSSNER, CITY LANDSCAPE PLANNER, | | | ON THE 5TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL....NOT BE SUBMITTED AS | | | PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. ONCE APPROVED | | | BY MR. KUSSNER, A COPY OF THE TREE ALTERATION PERMIT | | | SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, | | | ALONG WITH TWO (2) COPIES OF THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE | | | PLANS. | | | | | | 3) IT IS UNCLEAR AS TO WHICH IS THE LATEST SET OF | | | PLANS. PLEASE ORGANIZE THE SUBMITTAL SUCH THAT THERE | | | ARE TWO (2) SETS OF THE LATEST DRAWINGS, AS WELL AS ONE | | | (1) SET OF ALL OLD, VOIDED SHEETS. | | | | | | 4) THE SITE PLAN WAS NOT REVISED TO SHOW THE LABELING | | | OF EXISTING VS. PROPOSED. SEE COMMENT FROM ORIGINAL | | | REVIEW. | | | | | | 5) NO NOTE WAS ADDED TO THE PLANS INDICATING THAT THE | | | FENCE WOULD BE BLACK PVC COATED. SEE COMMENT FROM | | | ORIGINAL REVIEW. | | | | | | 6) NO CURB DETAIL WAS PROVIDED AND CURBING IS NOT SHOWN | | | ON THE SITE PLAN OR LANDSCAPE PLAN. SEE COMMENT FROM | | | ORIGINAL REVIEW. | | | | | | 7) NO STIRPING DETAIL WAS PROVIDED. SEE COMMENT FROM | | | ORIGINAL REVIEW. | | | | | | QUESTIONS/COMMENTS, CONTACT JOHN ROACH, SENIOR PLANNER, | | | AT (561) 822-1435. |
|
