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 - T04OT00214
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/01/2004 | Jim Egan | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/19/2004 | David Rivera | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Denied | see zoning comments |
| 04/19/2004 | David Rivera | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSC TRANSMITTAL FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: T04OT00214 Speedway Landfill - Public Drainage Channel Site Plan Transmittal date: 1st Review April 19, 2004 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with redlines and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. A. The plan submitted for site review does not include information about the existing use on the site. I realize that this site used to be a working landfill but has been closed for some time. Please clarify if the proposed drainageway is related to an ongoing site or development plan review or tentative plat approval. B. All zoning issues must be addressed if there is a change of use for this site. The Zoning Review Section cannot review this plan further, until the land use information such as use, parking, landscaping and screening etc is provided on the plan. If this submittal is specifically for the drainageway and existing or proposed development is not relevant to this project please respond with a detailed letter. C. The Zoning review section will review the re-submittal of the drawings and approve if applicable once the Engineering and Landscape Review Sections have reviewed and approved this plan. I have checked to verify whether this site is impacted by overlay zones such as ERZ, Hillside, Scenic, Major Streets and Routes, and I could not find anything that would require additional documentation or types of drawings for review. D. Please check with Glenn Hicks at the COT Parks and Recreation Department for compliance with any river park requirements that this project may impact. E. Additional comments will be forthcoming on subsequent reviews based on response letter and existing use on site and the impact this projects presents to the overall development. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and landscape plan and requested documents. |
| 04/20/2004 | Laith Alshami | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Hydrology Report Comments: 1. State the reason for the proposed drainage channel in the Drainage Report. 2. Provide the Hydrologic Data Sheets (SMDDFM 2.3.1.3). 3. Address the maintenance process and responsibility of the channel. Additionally, provide access ramp into the channel. 4. Provide the proposed gabion design information. Site/Grading Plan Comments: 1. Since the submitted plan is being reviewed under two different project numbers (i.e. site plan review and grading plan review), provide five copies of the plan in the next submittal. 2. Label the plan as "Grading/Site Plan". 3. Revise Grading Note #3 to include all missing information. 4. Provide the property description (2-02.2.1.2). 5. Provide the project address (2-02.2.1.3). 6. It is not clear why the 100-year floodplain limit is shown just out side the channel, which is designed to contain the 100-year runoff with freeboard. Additionally, it is not clear what the floodplain limits, shown on the City property (DKT 6926, PG 420), represent. Is this a discharge that enters the City property from the Haystack Apartments? 7. Show a cross section detail for the channel outlet at the Pantano and the proposed gabion. Show how deep (below the ground surface) the gabion shall be installed. 8. Provide the lot dimensions and bearings (2-02.2.1.5). 9. Show the existing and proposed limits of the 100-year floodplain limits and water surface elevations (2-02.2.1.15). 10. Provide gross and net lot area (2-02.2.2.A.1). 11. Show and label the berm and the 16' maintenance access on the plan. 12. Delineate the limits of the property used for refuse disposal in order to determine if the location and the design of the channel are adequate. If the area, underneath the proposed channel, is being used for garbage disposal, it should be completely excavated and replaced with clean fill in order to achieve the required 95% compaction. Alternatively, the channel can be built on engineered piers to ensure that channel failure does not occur in the future. SWPPP Comments: 1. Part IV.C.2.a. Clearly describe the project and its intended use after NOT is filed 2. Part IV.C.2.c. Indicate the total area of site including any areas to be used for equipment staging and material storage. 3. Part IV.C.3.d. Identify on the map locations where permanent stabilization practices are expected to occur. 4. Part IV.C.3.f. Identify on the map locations of all surface water bodies (including ephemeral waters). 5. Part IV.C.3.g. Identify on the map locations where stormwater is discharged to a surface water (e.g. ephemeral waters or dry washes) and to MS4s. 6. Part IV.D.2.c. Describe the practice and schedule to routinely remove offsite accumulation of sediment 7. Part IV.D.8.b. Describe measures to be used to minimize off-site vehicle tracking of sediments and the generation of on-site dust |
| 04/23/2004 | Joseph Linville | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the plans to include the site address and legal description and lot dimensions and bearings. DS 2-02.2.1 2) Revise the landscape plan to provide an accurate summary of native plant preservation requirements. Include the minimum required number of transplants for each species. DS 2-15.3.4.B 3) Identify the zoning of adjacent parcels and provide landscape borders and screening per LUC 3.7.2-I. 4) Revise the plans to provide dust control and paving as necessary for the access easement. If the access easement is for vehicular access it is required to be surfaced per LUC 3.3.7.3. |
| 04/26/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the NPP plan to clearly show the location of protected plants. The plans received are hard to read, only a few of the plants could be located. DS 2-15.3.1.A.3 2) Define abbreviations, such as, "sl" and "mu" used in the native plant inventory. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/03/2004 | LISA LESNY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 05/03/2004 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |