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 Number: T05BU02134
Parcel: 14117005C

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL

Permit Number - T05BU02134
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/16/2006 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Denied 01/16/06

Development Services Department
Zoning Review Section

David Rivera
Principal 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. Zoning could not verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved tentative plat/development plan. Please submit one copy of the CDRC approved and stamped tentative plat/development plan, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal.

3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to ensure compliance with the CDRC approved and stamped tentative plat/development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming.

4. A site card with DSD approvals by Fire, Zoning, Handi-cap, Engineering, and Landscape/NPPO including the approved development plan stamped for site plan approval and signatures is required before the grading plan can be approved by Zoning. Two copies of the CDRC approved tentative plat/development plan, landscape and NPPO plans are to be submitted with the grading plans packet for processing and approval as a site plan. No fees are involved in re-stamping the development/tentative plat plans as an approved site plan. The tentative plat/development plan may be walked through for stamps and site card sign off. Submit the following: two copies of the stamped development plan, landscape and NPPO plans must be included with the grading plans packet processed together for site approval.
12/15/2005 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 12/19/2005

SEC Houghton/Valencia Grading Plan Comments:

Grading Plan:

1- It does not appear that the proposed roof drainage and the associated sidewalk scuppers for all buildings have been shown. Additionally, some buildings are shown with one or two sidewalk scuppers, which does not appear to be sufficient. Revise as necessary.
2- It does not appear that the Central Basin floor and side slopes are shown.
3- Show the detention/retention basin all relevant construction details (i.e. dimensions, materials, depths, slopes, locations of inlets and outlets and their structural details and dimensions, water surface elevations, etc.).
4- Provide a copy of the Geotechnical Report, which addresses proposed slope treatments and the required setbacks from the slopes and proposed detention/retention basins. Additionally, show the required setback lines on the Grading Plan in accordance with the Geotechnical Report recommendation. Please be advised that the slope setback is different from setbacks from the ponding water in the detention/retention basins.
5- Provide a profile section for the sediment control structure shown in detail 12/C10.
6- The revised Tentative Plat has not been approved yet.
7- Provide a detailed response letter with the next submittal that explains how the comments were addressed and references the exact locations/sheets where the revisions were made.


SWPPP:

The SWPPP is acceptable and it will be approved when the grading plan is approved.
12/21/2005 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Denied Submit stamped approved landscape and NPP plans included with Tentative Plat / Development Plan, review will continue upon resubmittal.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
01/19/2006 CINDY AGUILAR OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
01/19/2006 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed