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 - T05CM00279
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/31/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) A 5' wall to screen all residential zoned properties from the project per LUC 3.7.2-I. In the event the property is rezoned the requirements may be re-evaluated. Provide a detail for the proposed retaining wall. To the extent that the retaining wall meets the screening requirements, the screen wall height may be reduced. 2) The site plan may not be approved until the SCZ application is approved. Provide a copy of the SCZ approval letter. 3) ) Revise the landscape plan to show individual trees T-1 through T-15 as existing to remain. 4) The grading plan (C1.0) included with the site plan submittal does not appear to conform to the SCZ requirements. There should be no grading in the 30 scenic route buffer area. The grading plan is reviewed under a seperate application. LUC 3.7.5.2.A |
| 08/31/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | See landscape comments. |
| 09/02/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS: 1. SCZ application (SCZ-04-14) is currently under a 20-day public comment period through September 18, 2005. Once the 20-day comment period is over and no objections are filed with the Development Services Department, the SCZ application will undergo a 14-day appeal which expires on October 2, 2005. Given this time frame, the earliest possible date of site plan approval by the Zoning Review section will be October 3, 2005 (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. |
| 09/17/2005 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: September 25, 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. Please note the new comments are with this review due to the fact this project has changed the Engineer of record for this development. The new engineer is Stuart W Rayburn, P.E.. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: SITE PLAN, GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION 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. The cut and fill quantities on the site plan are not the same cut and fill quantities as shown on the grading plan. What quantity is correct? Revise the cut and fill quantities on both plans to match. DS 2-02.2.1.A.17. 3. In addition to the above comment the retention basin height, bottom elevation and volume are different then what it shown on the grading plan. The site and grading plan must match. Revise the site plan to show the same retention information shown on the grading plan. 4. Given that a new engineer is being used for the grading/drainage plan it is recommended to remove any details on the site plan pertaining to grading and drainage from the previous engineer. 5. Due to the fact the grading and drainage for this site is extensive it is recommended to have drainage patterns, proposed finish floor elevation(s), and finish grades referenced to the grading plan by a general note on the site plan. GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION COMMENTS 1. The Geotechnical Evaluation is not acceptable based on the fact it states in the project description the project will not have retention/detention basins. Resubmit a report that is applicable to the proposed project. 2. 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. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/01/2005 | SUE REEVES | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 12/01/2005 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |