Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T06CM00511
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/24/2006 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/29/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/29/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. An approved site plan is required indicating how the project will comply with LUC requirements when the MS&R right-of-way can no longer be used as part of the site. Such plan is to be an exhibit to an executed covenant for recordation stating the responsibility of the property owner, successor, or assignee as to the removal of improvements and compliance with the LUC 2.8.3.5.F at no cost to the City. Submit completed covenant. 2. Within vehicular use areas, one (1) canopy tree is required for each 10 motor vehicle parking spaces and every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk) per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.a. Additional tree is required. 3. Vegetation or higher than thirty (30) inches must be located outside of the sight visibility triangle. Caesalpinia pulcherrima will typically grow in excess of 30" and over pruning or hedging will inhibit natural growth characteristics of vegetation, Leucophyllum candidum Thunder CloudTM would be an acceptable substitution. 4. Graphically show the correct amount of required plants within the street landscape border per DS 2-07.2.2.A |
| 09/15/2006 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | Please see the zoning review comments. |
| 09/15/2006 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Senior Planner PROJECT: T06CM00511 519 W. Ajo Way Commercial Site plan, 2nd Review TRANSMITTAL DATE: 09/15/2006 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. (Per last/current review) On detail 2 of page 3 for the handicap signage, The required height is seven (7) feet measured from grade to bottom of Reserved Parking sign. NO RESPONSE GIVEN. PLEASE REVISE. 2. (per this review) Please dimension the parking space detail drawing, wheel stops, etc. 3. (Per last review) DS 2-02.2.1.12 Access ramps at crosswalks connecting to sidewalks must be provided. In addition Truncated Dome (early warning systems) must be added to all access ramps where transitioning from the pedestrian area to the vehicular use area or at HC access aisles transitioning to the sidewalk area. RESPONSE provided truncated domes to only current site plan, and in wrong place. Truncated domes should be in a 24" wide strip in asphalt pedestrian route between handicapped ramps - at east edge - to differentiate handicapped parking access aisle from pedestrian circulation. See redlined area. Ensure notes added to both plan. 4. Correct FAR calcs to read FAR is .17 and future FAR is .23, max allowed is .75. 5. Please contact me at 791-4541x2000 to schedule an over the counter review. HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T06CM00511 w ajo 2 for terry.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan |
| 09/20/2006 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: September 20, 2006 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06CM00511 PROJECT NAME: Auto Glass Distributors PROJECT ADDRESS: 419 West Ajo Way PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert, Engineering Associate The following items must be revised or added to the site plan. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: SITE PLAN, DRAINAGE REPORT 1. Is there existing sidewalk within the ROW? Keynote 12 depicts sidewalk however it is not clear if the sidewalk is existing or proposed. Is the intent to build the sidewalk in the future sidewalk location? Clarify. The response to this comment was "Noted S-1a/S-1b." The comment has not been addressed. It is acknowledged the location of the sidewalks have been shown on the first submittal and the second submittal. However it is still not clear if the sidewalk located in the existing ROW is proposed or existing. Indicate on the site plan if the sidewalk located within the existing ROW is "Existing or Proposed." 2. The drainage report recommends the finish floor elevation of the proposed structure to be one foot above the elevation at the ROW line of Ajo Way. Provide finish grades along Ajo Way. The above comment is from the first review and has not been addressed and the response to the comment is not acceptable. It is acknowledged drainage report notes have been provided on sheet S-1b. The request was for finish grades along the perimeter of the site (along Ajo Way) to determine if the drainage report recommendation is met. Revise the plan appropriately. 3. Demonstrate vehicle maneuverability fully dimensioned. Dumpster is not accessible. Be aware refuse vehicles require 36' inside radius and 50' outside radius. It is acknowledged the Environmental Services Department accepts the current design solid waste proposal. The proposal will require a Development Standards Modification Request (DSMR). Contact Patricia Gehlen, Community Design Review Committee (CDRC) Manager for DSMR submittal criteria. The above comment is from the first review. The DSMR was submitted, reviewed and denied. The proposed site layout has no provision for onsite maneuverability. In particular, Dev. Std. 6-01.4.1.I requires solid waste containers to be placed so that the collection vehicle does not have to back into moving traffic on or off the premises. The layout shown on Sheet S-01 and Sheet S-1a requires the collection vehicle to back up into the driveway throat (onsite) and into Ajo Way (offsite). This creates an unsafe condition for the development. Revise the site plan to show a location for the solid waste pick up area in a location that provides safe and compliant maneuverability for the solid waste vehicle. 4. The water harvesting detail (number 11) shown on sheet S-03 shows a 2:1 slope, which requires the slope to be protected per the Retention/Detention Manual 4.3.1. Revise the plan and detail to show protected slopes or changes the gradient of the slope. 5. It was requested to provide the volume and the water surface elevation of the water harvesting area. This project is required to provide detention because the parcel lies within a balanced basin. Provide data supporting the required volume in the Hydrology report and provide the volume on the plan, near or within the depicted water harvesting on the plan view. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/25/2006 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 09/25/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |