Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP13-0151
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/02/2013 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/16/2013 | RONALD BROWN | HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/21/2013 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/22/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | An approved development plan is not to be used for construction of on-site utilities (e.g. water service to the building, building sewer, site lighting, or electrical service to the building). The construction of the on-site utilities may be included with the permit for constructing the building. |
| 10/23/2013 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 25, 2013 TO: Scott Neeley R.A., Jeff Hunt P.E. at Cypress Engineering SUBJECT: DP13-0151 Grading Development Package 2nd submittal Minor Subdivision (S13-015) Engineering Review ADDRESS: 695 S MAIN AV, Ward 6 LOCATION: T14S R13E Section 13 FLOODPLAIN: FEMA zone X-unshaded, 2279L REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E. SUMMARY: Engineering has reviewed and provided grading comments to the Development Package sheets for 18th and Main subdivision, and proposed pedestrian egress. Engineering does not recommend approval at this time. Prior to resubmittal, address the following comments. MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES/GRADING SHEET COMMENTS: 1) UDC 8.4.3.B.6, Admin Man Sec.4.9.N.4, Tech Man Sec.2-01.10.5: The Drainage Report shows that flows in 18th Street are just under the 100-year 100-cfs jurisdictional limit. Address the remaining drainage related comment: a) Any proposed depressed areas must follow geotech/soils report recommendations if positive gradients are not provided away from structures per building codes, and if swales are not impervious. Clarify detail D on sheet 4 to show geotechnical engineering compliance and show dimensions and low chord elevation of proposed deck. b) Clarify material of swale (concrete or grouted decorative rock etc), and width of swale on planview and in details. 2) Admin Man Sec.4.9.S, Tech Man Sec.2-01.4.F.b: Address the remaining grading comments: a) Add additional spot elevations along north easement area and revise some of the proposed elevations to assure positive gradients around and away from structures and to provide accessibility. b) Label existing and proposed benchmarks on planview. c) Label cover material in all pedestrian egress areas. d) Provide cross sections at all sides of project for swale and structures to show existing grades, and proposed grades, swales, and FFE. e) The following comments are in regard to the emergency pedestrian egress easement that was recently proposed in emails and appears to be a requirement based on building codes along east boundary of lot 1. This accessible route will need to show 2% max cross slope and less than 5% longitudinal slopes as well as the labeled easement recordation sequence number. Adding additional deck / scupper / pipe system, setting the swale offset on a temporary private drainage easement on lot 2/3, or showing other solution, will need to be clarified on grading plan. This will need to be addressed during grading plan stage since the easement was not shown on the Final Plat and the easement requirement could be not granted by future owners of the office lot 1 to lot 2 & 3. 3) Tech Man Secs.10-01.5.1.B.4, 10-01.5.2.B.3, 10-01.2.4.A: The existing stop bar is set back from intersection tangent line to accommodate for marked pedestrian cross walk used by nearby schools, so there is a conflict with the assumption that the southbound cars move forward to accommodate for the on-street parking. Show accurate SVT's for far- and near-side on site plan. Use of AASHTO 15-ft stem SVT's may be requested under 10-01.6.2.A. Otherwise, no building or other obstructions will be approved within the SVT's. 4) Admin Man Secs.4.9.I, 2-06.4.8.C, 4.9.H.4: Label existing right-of-way on planview. Proposed stairway for the accessibility ramp appears to be located within right-of-way. Clarify that any proposed improvements are within property boundary or within recorded private construction/maintenance easements. 5) Admin Man Sec.4.9.P1.C: Provide recordation information regarding all easements including sewer easement and emergency egress easement. Submit revised sheets, any supporting documentation, and comprehensive response letter. Please call me to set up a meeting prior to resubmittal to expedite resubmittal review, or call for clarifications at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 10/25/2013 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Depict all the easements with dimensions, uses and recording information on the plan. Please see engineering comments. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/30/2013 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/30/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |