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 - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D02-0035
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/09/2005 | FRODRIG2 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/17/2005 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/20/2005 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D02-0035 New Hospice Facility – TMC 05/17/05 ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-01-01 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Arcadia-Alamo Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A COMMENTS DUE BY: May 23, 2005 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: ( ) No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment ( ) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions ( ) RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies () See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: () Resubmittal Required – see comments ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: Joanne Hershenhorn 791-4505 DATE: 5/16/05 CDRC Review D02-0035 TMC – New Hospice Facility Our previous review comments, dated January 31, 2005, still apply. Staff acknowledges Mr. Stickley’s response. However, the official copy of the rezoning conditions from the Clerk’s office is what we need to base our review on. Rezoning conditions 1. a., b., c., and d. as they appear on Sheet DP-1 of the Development Plan are similar to, but not the same as, the conditions provided by the Clerk’s Office, from the Mayor and Council meeting on June 4, 2001. Because the minimum required setbacks referred to in conditions 1.a. and b. on sheet DP-1 are greater than those required as per the Mayor and Council memorandum. Please revise to comply with M/C conditions 1.c. and d. |
| 05/23/2005 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed |