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: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Permit Number - T04BU02272
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/25/2004 | Laith Alshami | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Differential Grading Submittal comments, 10/27/2004 1. The Differential Grading Exhibit must clearly show the contour lines elevations. 2. The Differential Grading Exhibit must clearly show and label the existing and proposed drainage structures and their elevations (i.e. the existing drainage channel, Udall Wash, the two 18" pipes, the underground detention basin and its inlet and outlet, the bubblers, etc.). 3. It seems that the second paragraph of the justification letter addresses the easterly portion of the development, but it references the westerly portion. Revise as needed. 4. The submitted justification failed to establish why the proposed drainage structures and consequently, the proposed pad elevations could not be lowered, especially when the noncompliant pads are mostly less than half a foot higher than the acceptable elevations. Address this issue in more details. 5. Is the wastewater sewer system a factor in determining the proposed pad elevations? 6. The Grading Plan and SWPPP were not included in this submittal. |
| 10/27/2004 | Andrew Connor | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit copies of the approved development plan including landscape and native plant preservation plans. Review of the plans will commence upon receipt of the requested documents. |
| 11/03/2004 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | October 12, 2004 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section David Rivera Senior Planner 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. In addition to the approved and stamped tentative plat copies, two copies of the approved and stamped landscape and NPPO plans must be included with grading plan with the next submittal. 3. The grading plan does not appear to macth the tentative plat submitted for review. The locations of the handicapped parking spaces have been relocated and are not depicted in the same location as the tentative plat. Please clarify why the locations of these spaces have been relocated. The grading plan must match the tentative plat drawing or the tentative plat must be revised accordingly. 4. Please draw the bicycle parking facilities on the grading plan. Some of the site changes that have been depicted on the grading plans may affect the placement of the bicycle parking facilities. Please revise or clarify the inconsistency. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/03/2004 | BETH GRANT | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |