KCRag Forum

2 permits issued on October 19
CiSI and CISM permits I do believe.

Notes
Description Status Entered By Date
NOT IN GEN COMPLIANCE - MAKE CORRECTION DONE AB0713 16-Oct-2015
Land Development Division has reviewed the above referenced plans submitted for permit and made the following determination:

Plans are found to be "Not In General Compliance."

The following deficiency needs to be corrected:
1. Sheet C4.01 - Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis shall also include analysis of the downstream public main, inclusive of sanitary flows from all contributing upstream land use and the proposed building use, to verify there is adequate capacity within the existing sanitary sewer main to accommodate the proposed building use. Refer to APWA 5503 guidelines for estimating offsite flows.

Results of Two Light Project Review. Project has to be revised.

Just tell tenants to space out their toilet flushes.

ldai_phs wrote:Notes
Description Status Entered By Date
NOT IN GEN COMPLIANCE - MAKE CORRECTION DONE AB0713 16-Oct-2015
Land Development Division has reviewed the above referenced plans submitted for permit and made the following determination:

Plans are found to be "Not In General Compliance."

The following deficiency needs to be corrected:
1. Sheet C4.01 - Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis shall also include analysis of the downstream public main, inclusive of sanitary flows from all contributing upstream land use and the proposed building use, to verify there is adequate capacity within the existing sanitary sewer main to accommodate the proposed building use. Refer to APWA 5503 guidelines for estimating offsite flows.

Was this determination for internal city use and follow up? Or, was this remark directed to the development team?

Those of us downstream from the P&L continue to get shit on.

taxi wrote:Those of us downstream from the P&L continue to get shit on.

Aren't you Stretching things a bit....?

loftguy wrote:

ldai_phs wrote:Notes
Description Status Entered By Date
NOT IN GEN COMPLIANCE - MAKE CORRECTION DONE AB0713 16-Oct-2015
Land Development Division has reviewed the above referenced plans submitted for permit and made the following determination:

Plans are found to be "Not In General Compliance."

The following deficiency needs to be corrected:
1. Sheet C4.01 - Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis shall also include analysis of the downstream public main, inclusive of sanitary flows from all contributing upstream land use and the proposed building use, to verify there is adequate capacity within the existing sanitary sewer main to accommodate the proposed building use. Refer to APWA 5503 guidelines for estimating offsite flows.

Was this determination for internal city use and follow up? Or, was this remark directed to the development team?

This was directed to the development team(Hord Coplan Macht)

loftguy wrote:

taxi wrote:Those of us downstream from the P&L continue to get shit on.

Aren't you Stretching things a bit....?

Kansas City is really turning into a kind of Hell's burgh.

ldai_phs wrote:

loftguy wrote:

ldai_phs wrote:Notes
Description Status Entered By Date
NOT IN GEN COMPLIANCE - MAKE CORRECTION DONE AB0713 16-Oct-2015
Land Development Division has reviewed the above referenced plans submitted for permit and made the following determination:

Plans are found to be "Not In General Compliance."

The following deficiency needs to be corrected:
1. Sheet C4.01 - Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis shall also include analysis of the downstream public main, inclusive of sanitary flows from all contributing upstream land use and the proposed building use, to verify there is adequate capacity within the existing sanitary sewer main to accommodate the proposed building use. Refer to APWA 5503 guidelines for estimating offsite flows.

Was this determination for internal city use and follow up? Or, was this remark directed to the development team?

This was directed to the development team(Hord Coplan Macht)

Thanks Idai_phs.

I would hope that the issuance of this kind of analysis to a development team is simultaneously being distributed to the Mayor, the City Manager and every member of city management...........for analysis of fact and solution. Otherwise, big city development has just come to a halt.

You can't call yourself a Smart City if you can't flush your toilet.

This is not a big deal.

I've watched permits on Kiva for the better part of my 10+ years on this board. This sort of thing is common. The developers submit the plans, the city looks them over and comes back with their issues, the developers get their plans to comply and the permit gets issued.

Look over this permit for the P&L Building renovation.

Permits go back and forth with the city and developer all the time.

KCDowntown

KCDowntown wrote:This is not a big deal.

I've watched permits on Kiva for the better part of my 10+ years on this board. This sort of thing is common. The developers submit the plans, the city looks them over and comes back with their issues, the developers get their plans to comply and the permit gets issued.

Look over this permit for the P&L Building renovation.

Permits go back and forth with the city and developer all the time.

KCDowntown

Obviously there is a back and forth on development details, but how can you say it's not a big deal that the main sewer lacks capacity to accommodate the development?

Except it's not saying that at all.

The following deficiency needs to be corrected:
1. Sheet C4.01 - Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis shall also include analysis of the downstream public main, inclusive of sanitary flows from all contributing upstream land use and the proposed building use, to verify there is adequate capacity within the existing sanitary sewer main to accommodate the proposed building use. Refer to APWA 5503 guidelines for estimating offsite flows.

They simply forgot to do one of many tasks.

longviewmo wrote:Except it's not saying that at all.

The following deficiency needs to be corrected:
1. Sheet C4.01 - Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis shall also include analysis of the downstream public main, inclusive of sanitary flows from all contributing upstream land use and the proposed building use, to verify there is adequate capacity within the existing sanitary sewer main to accommodate the proposed building use. Refer to APWA 5503 guidelines for estimating offsite flows.

They simply forgot to do one of many tasks.

Ahhh. Ok. Thanks.

.....are you available to tag along and point out the obvious to me?

How long could this delay the start of construction?

JBmidtown wrote:How long could this delay the start of construction?

given there isn't a scheduled starting date and the project plan hasn't been approved yet,

the best estimate is somewhere from 0 days to permanently

loftguy wrote:

KCDowntown wrote:This is not a big deal.

I've watched permits on Kiva for the better part of my 10+ years on this board. This sort of thing is common. The developers submit the plans, the city looks them over and comes back with their issues, the developers get their plans to comply and the permit gets issued.

Look over this permit for the P&L Building renovation.

Permits go back and forth with the city and developer all the time.

KCDowntown

Obviously there is a back and forth on development details, but how can you say it's not a big deal that the main sewer lacks capacity to accommodate the development?

Loftguy.. The determination that the "main sewer lacks capacity" is not what that document states. It states that a routine development document needs to be prepared showing what the sewer loads of the new building are expected to be, and how that will contribute to the existing sewer mains. No big deal. Nobody's saying that anything is lacking capacity...

It's routine permitting work that should've already been done by the project team. It's so easy that anyone on this forum could do it, seriously. You find out the size of the main in the street, carrying capacity of that, usage of that, and how much additional usage the building adds. Boom done. The UPC lays all out all the figures for calculating sewer loads. Use it.

im2kull: Thank you.

I appreciate the extra explanation.

For comparisons sake:

One Light
NEW/ADDN COMMRCIAL BUILDING PLANS REVIEW -- Feb 11 2014
Construction Barriers Went Up -- Mar 25 2014
Groundbreaking -- Apr 14 2014
First Move-Ins -- Nov 2015

Two Light
NEW/ADDN COMMRCIAL BUILDING PLANS REVIEW -- Oct 1 2015

IF the schedule was identical (I know it is not), the remaining timeline would look something like this:
Construction Barriers -- Mid Nov 2015
Groundbreaking -- Dec 2015
First Move-Ins -- July 2017