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 - DP12-0018
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/30/2012 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Show how sufficient discharge volume will be directed to the basin and water harvesting area to meet the retention and detention volume requirements. |
| 05/15/2012 | RONALD BROWN | HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/17/2012 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP12-0018 320 E Medina Rd Development Package Review for a change of use from Wholesale Use to a Construction Service Use TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 17, 2012 2nd review DUE DATE: May17, 2012 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 01. This project has been reviewed for full code compliance due to 100% expansion of the site. Per the previous plans submitted by the applicant it appears that the Phase II development was never completed but the east half of the site has been used without any type of approved plan and constitutes a greater than 100% expansion. Full code compliance is required for the overall site. The following comments have been made based on the full code compliance review. Code compliance includes but is not limited to Landscaping and screening, pedestrian access, accessible routes, bicycle parking, loading zones if applicable for this use. Some of the previous comments were not addressed as requested and they have been left as previous provided. Respond to the comments and provide the information requested. 02. The mean sea level information was not listed on the plan as requested. Review section LUC section 2.8.5 for information on the AEZ requirements. Previous Comment: DS 2-01.3.7.A.b - This site is subject to compliance with the regulations of the Airport Environs Zone. The site is subject to compliance with the NCD 65-70 and Height restriction. List in general note 9 that compliance with NCD 65-70 and height restrictions have been met. Also list the LUC section number 2.8.5 for the AEZ overlay. The mean sea level of the run way that affects this location as well as the mean sea level of the site including the allowed height is to be listed on the plan. The delineation of the height and NCD layers must be drawn and labeled on the plan. Include the calculation for the height restriction that demonstrates compliance with the AEZ height restriction. 03. The comment was not addressed as requested. There was no response to whether or not storage is proposed on the property. If storage is proposed define the areas as such and indicate if the general public would have access to the storage areas. If the storage areas is are restricted to the general public and solely for staff access add a keynote stating so. If the general public is allowed and will have access to the storage area additional vehicle parking will be required. Previous Comment: DS 2-01.3.7.A.9.c and .d - As noted in and earlier comment the last approved site plan submitted as reference by the applicant indicates an approved plan for two phases. Phase on one was approved in 1993 but there is not indication of the use in the phase two portion of the site. The info on the previous approved site plan only states future phase two. Based on this information it is clear that the phase two development was not approved by any other document unless the applicant has additional information or approved drawings for the use of the phase two are zoning is considering an expansion of the use area and would require that compliance with zoning requirements such as pedestrian circulation, landscaping and screening, vehicle and bicycle parking, and loading zones if applicable are addressed per current code requirements. Additional requirements may apply by other reviewer disciplines and their respective regulations. Please indicate on the plans if storage is proposed on any portion of the site. If so, ensure that any applicable requirements such as additional vehicle parking are addressed for the use areas of the Construction Services Use. 04. This comment was not fully addressed. There was no response to the material requirements for the sidewalk. All sidewalks must be constructed of concrete. Pavement is not an approved material for required sidewalks. Previous comment: DS 2-01.3.9.S - Show on-site pedestrian circulation as required by the LUC utilizing location and the design criteria in Development Standard 2-08.0. It is not clear what type of material is proposed for the accessible/pedestrian route. DS 2-08.5.1.C - Composition, requires that a pedestrian sidewalk be constructed of Portland concrete or other smooth and durable surface. Asphalt concrete is not an allowed material for a pedestrian sidewalk. In addition the sidewalk must be provided to the street sidewalk and if no sidewalk is present on the street right of way the on-site sidewalk must be provided to the property line. The accessible route must include any truncated domes where deemed applicable by the ADA plans reviewer. 2-08.4.1 - Pedestrian sidewalks must be physically separated from all travel lanes by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, and railing or other means if the a sidewalk is to be placed adjacent to a travel lane. 05. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on the revision to plans and response to the zoning comments provided based on this first site plan (DP) submittal. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\DP12-0018.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package plans and requested documents if available. |