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 - T03CM05033
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/14/2003 | Loren Makus | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: November 18, 2003 TO: Phil Swaim SUBJECT: Clements Center Phase II, Site Plan and Grading Permit Permit REVIEWER: Loren Makus ACTIVITY NUMBER: T03CM05033 and T03BU02750 SUMMARY: The Site Plan, Grading Permit application and Drainage Report were reviewed by Development Services Department Engineering Division. The Site Plan and Grading Permit can not be approved at this time. Please address the following comments. Drainage Report Comments: 1. Revise the drainage report to show freeboard calculations for the 100-year flows in the adjacent wash. The top of the cutoff wall must be at least as high as the required freeboard above the water surface elevation. (DS 10-02.8.5.1.4) 2. Provide results of percolation tests to show that the retention basins will percolate within 12 hours. (DS 10-01.3.5.1.3) Site Plan Comments 3. Make a note that the cutoff wall must be designed and permitted as a retaining wall. Grading Plan Comments 4. The Grading Plan cannot be approved until the site plan and floodplain use permit are approved. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Comments: 5. Clearly identify all operators for the project site, and the areas over which each operator has control. State which operator has control over plans and specification and which operator has control over plans and specifications. (Part IV.C.1) 6. On the site map clearly delineate areas of soil disturbance and areas that will not be disturbed. (Part IV.C.3.b) 7. Include a copy of the general permit and the NOI that was or will be submitted to ADEQ. If other agreements with any state, local, or federal agencies exist that would affect the provisions or implementation of the SWPPP, include copies of those agreements. (Part IV.F) Revise the Drainage Report, site plan, grading plan and stormwater pollution prevention plan to address these comments and resubmit two copies for review. Include a letter explaining how each comment has been addressed. Loren Makus Senior Engineering Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 11/14/2003 | Loren Makus | SANITATION | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/19/2003 | Joseph Linville | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the landscape plan/WASH Inventory/NPP Plans to include information regarding the grading/development proposed northeast of the gymnasium site on sheet C204 of the grading plans. 2) Additional mitigation is required on the landscape plan. See NPPO comments. 3) Per attachment E of the Stormwater Advisory Committee suggestions related to the WASH Ordinance a minimum of 2 mitigation Prosopis velutina shall be provided for each one removed with a basal diameter of less than 4". 3:1 mitigation is required trees with a basal diameter in excess of 4". Revise the WASH Report and landscape/mitigation plans accordingly. |
| 11/19/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the titles for Sheets N1 & N2 if necessary. 2) 2:1 Mitigation is required for the Cercidium floridum and Cercidium microphyllum proposed to be removed from the site. |
| 11/20/2003 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 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. The following comments have been based on a greater than 25% building area expansion, resulting in a full code compliance review of the entire site. All calculations encompass the entire site, whether existing or proposed. (D.S. 2-02.2.2.B) 2. Note the property legal description. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.2) 3. Maximum allowed building height per development designator "6" is 25 feet, the recreation center shows a proposed building height of 46 feet. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6) 4. Detail disabled access ramp on the handicapped parking space detail. (ICC/ANSI A117.1-1998) 5. Post disabled parking signs. (ICC/ANSI A117.1-1998) 6. Dimension the width of the sidewalk from the new vehicle parking spaces to the gymnasium. Minimum four foot width required per D.S. 2-08. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8) (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12) 7. Provide a fully dimensioned detail for both Class I and Class II bicycle parking spaces. The detail should include materials for paving, lighting, security, fully dimensioned layout, and the number of bicycles it supports. Refer to D.S. 2-09 for design criteria. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9) 8. Pedestrian sidewalk is required from the public right-of-way to the proposed facility. (LUC Sec. 3.2.8.4) (D.S. 2-08) 9. Three (3) 12' x 35' loading spaces are required for this project. The plan only provides (2) loading spaces. (LUC Sec. 3.4.5.3) ( D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14) (D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.5) 10. If applicable, all existing or proposed easements must be shown on the plan including width, type, and recording docket and page reference. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20) 11. List the existing and proposed use as a general note. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.28) 12. Remove the lot coverage expansion calculation as it is not required. 13. Provide the percentage of building area expansion. If the building/s have been previously expanded, those calculations shall be included. (D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.6) 14. If an Administrative Waiver is to be applied for, please submit a copy of the approved waiver with the resubmittal of this plan. 15. All requested changes must be made to the site and landscape plans. (D.S. 2-07.2.1.A) If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 11/20/2003 | DAN CASTRO | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Denied | Refer to Zoning Review comments 4, 5, and 6. |
| 11/24/2003 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Remove curbing at intersection of "Fire Lane" with PAAL. 2. "Removeable bollards" are not acceptable to restrict public access to fire lane. Posts and chain or gate are acceptable. |