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 ALL
Permit Number - T05CM00279
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/28/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 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. SCZ application (SCZ-04-14) is currently under review. Site plan may not be approved prior to SCZ approval. (LUC 2.8.2) 2. Review of this plan by the Zoning Review Section may be done over the counter. Please contact Dan Castro to set an appointment. All requested changes must be made to the site and landscape plans. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608 ext. 1180. |
| 07/29/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | See Landscape comments. |
| 07/29/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Scenic Routes Buffer shall be (30) feet wide as measured from MS&R right-of-way line, per LUC 2.8.3.4.A. Dimension SCZ buffer correctly on landscape plan and remove reference to 20' buffer-yard. 2) The native plant preservation plans are to include limits of grading /disturbance per DS 2-07.2.2.B. 3) The native plant inventory and preservation plan shall include a preservation plan and salvage plan per DS 2-15.3.4. 4) A 5' wall to screen all residential zoned properties from vehicle use area is required per LUC 3.7.2-I. 5) The site plan may not be approved until the SCZ application is approved. Below are the Landscape section comments from the July 28, 2005 SCZ review. A) Revise the landscape plan to show trees T-1 through T-15 as existing to remain. B) Revise the native plant preservation and grading plans to establish a limit of grading/disturbance sufficient to preserve existing vegetation in the 30" scenic route buffer area. DS 2-15.6.0 C) Vegetation identified as preserved is to be fenced in accordance with LUC 3.8.6.7.B. Add notation to the native plant preservation plan. D) All protected native plants are to be tagged in accordance with LUC 3.8.6.7.A Add notation to the native plant preservation plan. |
| 08/08/2005 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 16th, 2005 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T05CM00279 PROJECT NAME: Self Storage PROJECT ADDRESS: 4980 North 1st Avenue PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert, Engineering Associate The following items must be revised or added to the site plan. Please include the redlined site plan and a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. Additional comments could be forthcoming due to the lack of required information. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: SITE PLAN, DRAINAGE REPORT 1. The 75' ROW is considered both existing and future ROW. Because of this the indicated SVT must also be labeled, "existing and future SVT." Revise the plan accordingly. 2. Dimension from street centerline to existing and/or proposed curbs and sidewalks. DS 2-02.2.1.A.21. This comment has not been addressed from the first review. 3. Keynote 16 calls out a concrete drainage ramp to a culvert. What size is the culvert? Show the capacity of the offsite drainage structure located at the southwest corner of the site. It must be determined that the additional flow created from the proposed development does not have an adverse impact to the offsite drainage system. What is the capacity of the offsite drainage structure? It was requested to fully describe offsite drainage system. This has not been done. This must be addressed in the Drainage Report and depicted on the site plan. Revise accordingly. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.a. 4. 100-yr peak ponding define basin limits. Structures must be set back from ponding limits. Show ponding limits and setbacks. SMDDFM 14.2.6. The above comment is from the first review have not been addressed. The 100-yr peak ponding limits must be clearly delineated on the site plan. Revise the site plan to show the defined 100-yr ponding limits on the plan and show the line weight in the legend. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. The grading plan found in Appendix A, must legible and microfilmable. All lettering and dimensions will be the equivalent of twelve point or greater in size. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that the lettering is legible when reproduced or microfilmed for record keeping purposes. 2. Provide Exhibit A referenced in Section 3.0 Proposed drainage concept. 3. Provide the size of all drainage structures indicated on the site plan. Include dimensions and elevations. This includes curb openings, concrete aprons, spillways, splash pads, rock riprap and the basins. Revise. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.A. The above comment is from the previous review. It is acknowledged that a grading and drainage plan has been provided. However (see comment number 1) enlarge the plan so it is legible. Indicate a letter or number designation for all section details for plan clarity. 4. On page two of the "Basins Operation and Maintenance Requirements," remove all references to Maricopa County. 5. Show the capacity of the offsite drainage structure located at the southwest corner of the site. It must be determined that additional flow created from the proposed development does not have an adverse impact to the offsite drainage system Fully describe offsite drainage system. This must be addressed in the Drainage Report and depicted on the site plan. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.a. 6. A minimum of one 15' wide vehicular access ramp shall be provided into each basin. Alternate means of access will be reviewed on a case by case basis by the Engineering Administrator (or designee). Keynote 25 specifies a concrete apron to be used for maintenance access ramps. A concrete apron is not shown on the plan or in a detail. Keynote 21 is indicated in the same location as keynote 25. Is the intent to use the curb opening and riprap spillway for a maintenance access ramp? The curb opening is only 18" wide and the requirements are a minimum of 15' for vehicular access. This is quite a difference. The integrity of the riprap is also in question with the use of foot traffic over a period of time. Revise the plan and drainage report to show a more suitable solution. 7. A soils report is required in conjunction with the design of each surface storage facility that utilizes infiltration as a method of basin drainage. Percolation test must show a maximum disposal time of 12 hours. Submit a soils report. SDRM 3.5.1. The response to the above comment was that a soils report was submitted. It is acknowledged that a soils report was submitted, however Section 2.0 Project Description clearly states, "We understand the site development will not have retention or detention basins." Provide a soils report (Geotechnical Evaluation) that is consistent with the proposed project. In the report, section 2 Project Description it states the development will not have retention basins or a retaining wall greater then 4' in height. This site has two retention basins and a 7.5' retaining wall. This report was written based on the fact that neither a retention basin or a retaining wall greater than 4' would not be on site. The report is not valid. This comment has not been addressed from the previous review. It appears the same report has been submitted. Submit a revised Geotechnical Evaluation. 8. Due to the fact the same Geotechnical Report has been submitted the following comment still applies. The soils report must indicate a suitable setback distance for the building from the retention basins. Structures must be set back from ponding limits. Show and dimension setbacks and ponding limits on the site plan and on grading/drainage plan found in the drainage report. Submit a revised Geotechinical report providing a recommended minimum setback from the building to basin A and B. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.d. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/17/2005 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 08/17/2005 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |