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: SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP12-0170
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/04/2013 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 02/05/2013 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Provide construction details and specifications for the riprap slope, including rock size thickness of the grout and toe-down depth. Show how the reservoir pad will be constructed and the extent of fill. Show representative elevations for the top and toe of the slope at representative locations. Show dust control measures for the areas where vegetation has been removed or where vehicles will be driven. |
| 02/13/2013 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/20/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/20/2013 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP12-0170 - Halcyon Acres Well Site Annex No. 2 9195 E 21st Street Development Package TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 20, 2013 DUE DATE: March 4, 2013 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. 1. An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is September 27, 2013. 2. The submitted plan was not completed per Development Standards 2-01 and no zoning related data on either of the sheets submitted for review. The next development package submittal must be completed per Development Standards 2-01. Zoning will provide comments related to the Special exception requirements on this review. Any variances that may be required will have to be processed through the Board of Adjustments Process. 3. The proposed use on this parcel, which is zoned SR,LUC Section 2.2.4.3.D.1 falls under the Utilities Use Group, Distribution System DD "6" and is allowed only through approval of a Special Exception through a Zoning Examiner Full Notice Procedure, subject to LUC Section 3.5.11.1.A, .B, .E, .H, .I and .K, Section 23-A50 and 23A-53. See the performance criteria applicable to this use for compliance with approval of a Special Exception application. 3.5.11.1 Distribution System. A. The setback of the facility, including walls or equipment, is twenty (20) feet from any adjacent residential zone. B. Where a facility is not enclosed within a building, the surrounding screen shall be used as the building wall for the purposes of setbacks in Sec. 3.2.3.2. E. The use may not have any service or storage yards. H. Any building housing such facility shall be in keeping with the character of the zone in which it is located. The Design Review Board (DRB) shall review all applications and make recommendations to the Zoning Examiner. The DRB reviews architectural style, building elevations, materials on exterior facades, color schemes, new mechanical equipment locations, lighting of outdoor areas, window locations and types, screening, landscaping, vehicular use areas, and other contributing design features. (Ord. No. 9967, ยง3, 7/1/04) I. The use must be located wholly within an enclosed building or within an area enclosed on all sides with a masonry wall or compact evergreen hedge, not less than six (6) feet, nor more than ten (10) feet, in height. K. Limited to water pumping and storage facilities, telephone exchanges, and power substations with an input voltage of no greater than one hundred thirty-eight (138) kilovolts. Development Designator "6" Criteria: Site area required is 144,000 square feet, Max. FAR allowed is .30, Max. Lot Coverage allowed is 50%, Max. Building Height Allowed, 25' Perimeter Yard Indicator is 'FF', Adjacent to SR zone is 4 x Height, adjacent to C-1 is 0' 4. Site issues that must be addressed through a Board of Adjustment process. A. The overall site area of the existing non-conforming Distribution System use is equal to .518 acres. The minimum site area required per LUC Section 3.2.3.2.A (Matrix Table) Development Designator "6" is 3.3 acres. A variance for "site area" to allow the expansion on a parcel that does not meet the minimum site area requirements will be required. B. Because insufficient information was included on the plan, it is not clear whether or not the lot coverage has been exceeded or if it is within the allowed 50% coverage. (Coverage includes all structures, and vehicle use areas.) If the 50% lot coverage is exceeded, a variance for the percentage above the allowed coverage would be required, LUC Section 3.2.3.2.A LUC Section 3.2.3.2.A (Matrix Table) Development Designator "6". The applicant must verify that the proposed lot coverage does not exceed the allowed coverage per development designator "6". C. LUC Section 3.5.11.1.B, Where a facility is not enclosed within a building, the surrounding screen shall be used as the building wall for the purposes of setbacks in LUC Sec. 3.2.3.2. Per the submitted plan, an eight-foot high wall with an additional 1-foot height of strand barbed wire is to be constructed around the facility. The wall does not enclose the overall property boundary, but along the east boundary where adjacent to SR zone, the setback requirement for the wall must be a minimum of 4 times the height. Based on the nine (9) foot wall height, the minimum setback must be a minimum of thirty-six (36) feet from the property line. The developer is proposing to construct the wall eleven (11) feet from the property line. A Board of adjustment variance will be required for the proposed setback. LUC Section 3.2.6.4 Perimeter Yard width Matrix Table - Indicator FF requires a minimum setback of four times the height when adjacent to SR zone. 5. As was noted in comment two (2), the plan submitted for review does not meet the minimum development package standards and therefore a full compliance review could not be made. The zoning review was done to try and identify the items that require a variance approval through the Board of Adjustments. If after the applicant has gone through the variance process with approvals for the identified items based on the submitted site plan and the re-submittal of a complete Development Package is found to be deficient as it pertains to development criteria or standards, additional variances may be required. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\D12-0170dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package plan |
| 02/20/2013 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 02/22/2013 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a landscape plan to document compliance with the landsape border requirements. LUC Table 3.7.2-I The project appears to indicate removal of vegetation from the Robb Wash Study Area. No development, including grubbing, grading, removal of vegetation, channelization, or other type of alteration of the land, shall occur in the resource area unless a mitigation plan, which includes a plan for the proposed wash treatment and a preservation/revegetation plan, is submitted to the development services department director and approved as provided for in TCC CH 29, Art VIII, Section 29-17. |
| 02/22/2013 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a Native Plan Preservation Plan. LUC 3.8 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/26/2013 | SHANAE POWELL | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 02/26/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |