Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

The login landing page when selecting 'View' is still occurring and is still pending further investigation. 

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T04CM02462
Parcel: 10711140A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: REVISION - SITE

Permit Number - T04CM02462
Review Name: REVISION - SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
03/16/2005 JIM EGAN FIRE REVIEW Approved
03/30/2005 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Passed Exception previously approved.
03/30/2005 MICHAEL ST. PAUL ZONING REVIEW Denied Please print this in monochrome, no half-tones.
03/31/2005 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied Submit previously approved landscape plans to continue review.
04/08/2005 JORTIZ3 ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: April 8, 2005
ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04CM02462-R
PROJECT ADDRESS: 350 W. Delano St
PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose Ortiz, P.E.

The following items must be revised or added to the site plan. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed.

Resubmittal Required: Modified Hydrology Report, possibly a Flood Use Permit Application, possibly a Grading Plan

General Comments

The applicant must resubmit the original Hydrology Report with proper modifications providing information on the effects that units 5 & 6 have on existing drainage conditions. The Hydrology Report will be reviewed for site plan, grading plan and floodplain permit purposes.

Site Plan and Grading Plan Comments

1. Units 5 and 6 are being added to a location labeled for "No Disturbance" on the approved plans. Therefore due to the fact that this area will most likely need grading the applicant will be required to verify whether a grading permit is required.

2. If the grading for units 5 & 6 exceeds 50 CY then a grading plan will be required. The grading information on the submitted grading sheet is unclear and it appears that the information from the older submittal was copied over. How much grading is involved with the proposed construction of units 5 & 6?

3. Need to seek approval by Jack Clark for the location of the solid waste facility. The solid waste collection area appears to be in a position that will not allow sanitation vehicles the proper mobility to access the bin.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
04/11/2005 GBONILL1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
04/11/2005 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed