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: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Permit Number - T05CM00027
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/21/2005 | DOUG WILLIAMS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | All previous comments have not been fully addressed. Please address the comments provided below in a response letter, on revised plans and a revised drainage report. As requested previously, a Floodplain Use Permit application must be submitted with the resubmittal package, or under separate cover prior to grading permit approval. 1. Discuss whether the discrepancy in hydraulic watercourse length shown on the hydrologic data sheet for the offsite watershed (Forgeus wash - existing conditions) will affect the calculated Q100, slope, floodplain limits, and therefore the design for this project. There is a discrepancy between the individual watercourse lengths and the Lc on this data sheet. Please clarify in a response letter and in a revised drainage report. 2. Please provide a copy of the soils report, as indicated in the response letter. A soils report is required to be submitted in conjunction with the design of each surface storage facility which utilizes infiltration as a method of basin drainage. The report shall contain at a minimum, technical information on soil classification, erodibility, permeability, slope stability, groundwater elevation, infiltration rates, recommended minimum building setbacks (from basins and drainageways), whether or not hydro-collapsing soils are present, and contain the results of a minimum 30 foot deep soil boring (10-01.0, Section 3.5.1.5 and Section 14.2.6 of DS 10-02.0). 3. Grading limits are not clear on the Grading Plan - the phase line depicted in the legend appears to be grading limits as well. Please clarify on the plan and in a aresponse letter. 4. Please label and dimension all new sidewalk to be constructed within the right of way on the site and grading plans (previous site plan comment # 5 and grading comment # 4). 5. Please address previous SWPPP comment # 3 regarding Owner/Operator signatures/certifications. |
| 06/23/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS: Previous comments have not been addressed. 1. On sheet 2 of 2, font size for the back-up spur dimensions are too small. Revise to be minimum .12 size. 2. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.A, at least one sidewalk will be provided from each street on which the project has frontage. Accessible pedestrian sidewalk is also required to 36th Street and Cochise Vista. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12) 3. Label and dimension existing and future right-of-way for all streets bounding the project. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.19) 4. Review of this plan by the Zoning Review Section may be done over the counter. Please contact Dan Castro to set an appointment. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608 ext. 1180. An appointment is required to discuss these comments in person. |
| 06/23/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS: Previous comments have not been addressed. 1. On sheet 2 of 2, font size for the back-up spur dimensions are too small. Revise to be minimum .12 size. 2. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.A, at least one sidewalk will be provided from each street on which the project has frontage. Accessible pedestrian sidewalk is also required to 36th Street and Cochise Vista. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12) 3. Label and dimension existing and future right-of-way for all streets bounding the project. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.19) 4. Review of this plan by the Zoning Review Section may be done over the counter. Please contact Dan Castro to set an appointment. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608 ext. 1180. An appointment is required to discuss these comments in person. |
| 06/27/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | The following comments have not been addressed from previous review: 1. Phased Development. Where screening for phased development is required: A. The perimeter screening element and landscaping along the property lines must be installed during development of the first phase; or B. Where the undisturbed natural desert is maintained in areas to be developed in subsequent phases, a temporary screen may be erected around the perimeter of the initial phase, subject to the following. · Temporary screening may be an opaque wood fence or a chain link fence with wood slats. · Temporary screening must be replaced by a permanent screen if construction of the subsequent phases is not started within two (2) years of the date the original phase received a certificate of occupancy per LUC 3.7.3.5 2. Unless maintained as undisturbed natural desert, future building pads within a phased development shall be temporarily landscaped with vegetation from the Drought Tolerant Plant List, re-seeded with a native seed mix, or treated with an appropriate inorganic ground cover, and maintained in a clean condition as required by Sec. 7003(e) of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). 3. Provide post barricades, wheel stop, or curbing designed to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines or unpaved areas on or off site per DS 3-05.2.3.C.1. Provide protection for unpaved portions of the site. 4. Clarify on landscape and site plans the intentions of phased development. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/28/2005 | KMEDINA1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |