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
Permit Number - T02CM02023
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/19/2002 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | |
| 04/29/2002 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Steve Kennedy FROM: David Rivera 4450 N 12th ST. #120 Senior Planner Phoenix, AZ 85014 (620) 264-1955 FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: T02CM02023 1575 E. 36th St New Public Library Site Plan Review (1st review) TRANSMITTAL: April 29, 2002 COMMENTS: Please attach a response letter with the next submittal, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. CODE SECTION/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. All parking spaces that abut pedestrian sidewalks, landscape borders, and property lines must be provided with wheel stops. The wheel stops must be placed two and one-half feet from the front of the parking space. The parking spaces that abut the sidewalk must be provided with wheel stops or the sidewalk must be a minimum of six and 0ne-half (6-1/2) feet in width in order to maintain the required four (4) feet wide pedestrian area. (DS 2-08.5.1.A) All parking spaces that abut landscape borders must be provided with wheel stops to prevent vehicles overhang onto the landscape border. The parking spaces may remain as is but all landscaping must placed two and one-half (2-1/2) feet from the landscape curbing. See sketch sheet A1.1. (DS 3-05.2.3.C) DS 2-02.2.1.A.8 2. Bicycle parking must be provided for this use. This use is required to provide 18 bicycle-parking spaces (15% of the total number of vehicle parking spaces provided (123). Ten percent of the spaces must be class one and ninety percent must be class two. The location of the bicycle parking facilities must be shown on the plan and dimensioned. A separate detail drawing that demonstrates compliance with D.S. 2-09 must also be added. The bicycle parking calculation must also be added. If the bicycle parking facilities will not be visible from the street directional signage will be required. Show the location of all directional signage, which will direct the cyclist to the bicycle parking facilities. DS 2-02.2.1.A.9 3. Please delineate or define the area proposed as the continuous pedestrian circulation to the existing development. DS 2-02.2.1.A.12 4. One 12' wide by 35' long loading spaces must be provided for this use. Key note 21 on sheet A1.1 states 'Truck Loading Area" but the loading space is not well defined or dimensioned. The maneuverability into and out of the loading space must be demonstrated. DS 2-02.2.1.A.14 5. This site will be comprised of two principle structures. Please provide the information such as required and provided vehicle and bicycle parking, floor area ratios, loading zones, etc for the existing use or provide a copy of the approved site plan. If this site is to be developed based on a master plan please provide a copy the master plan with the next submittal. Add all zoning data for the proposed use (Cultural, Development Designator "12"). The zoning data must include site area, floor area ratio, lot coverage, building heights, vehicle/bicycle parking, and loading space calculations. When the proposed site is part of a larger site, the calculations encompass the entire site, whether existing or proposed. If the project is being phased, calculations must show that, at each phase, requirements are being met. DS 2-02.2.2.A and DS 2-02.2.2.B If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\DSC\T02CM02023.doc |
| 04/30/2002 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit NPPO Plan or application for exception. LUC 3.8. Copies of any previously approved NPPO plans may be acceptable if applicable to the site. |
| 04/30/2002 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Revise the plans in compliance with LUC Sec. 3.7.2.7 and 3.7.2.4.A.3 which requires dust control for the site and adjacent right of way areas. Revise the plans to meet the requirement for one tree for every 33 feet of the street landscape borders. LUC Sec. 3.7.2.4 |
| 05/06/2002 | JAMES TATE | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | See engineering comments. |
| 05/06/2002 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | 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 engineering, flood plain, and solid waste comments have been addressed. The Grading Plan was reviewed for Site Plan purposes only. A Grading Permit is required. 1. Label and dimension existing right-of-way. Show, label, and dimension MS&R future right-of-way for both 36th and Kino. (Development Standard, DS, 2-02.2.1.A.19) 2. Show, label, and dimension the existing and future sight visibility triangles. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.10) 3. Show points of egress and ingress including locations and widths of all existing and proposed driveways and parking area access lanes (PAALS). (DS 2-02.2.1.A.11) 4. Clearly define pedestrian circulationfor the entire site. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.12) 5. Dimension from street centerline to existing and proposed curbs and sidewalks. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.21) 6. Show existing and proposed refuse container enclosure size and access fully dimensioned (DS 2-02.2.1.A.32). See Development Standard 6-01 for Solid Waste standards. 7. Show drainage patterns and drainage structures for the entire property including existing and proposed retention basins. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.16 & Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.A) 8. A Drainage Report is required (Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 2.1.1). See SMDDRM 2.3 for report content and format. 9. The Drainage Report must address 5-year threshold retention. (Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, SDRM, 2.2) |
| 05/06/2002 | JIM TATE | SANITATION | REVIEW | Denied | See engineering comments. |
| 05/08/2002 | DAVE MANN | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/16/2002 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |