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 - D07-0020
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/16/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. DP2.0 Trash enclosure - The bollards shown outside the enclosure area need to be moved inside so they provide protection to the side walls. Must provide a minimum 10 ft x 10 ft inside clear service area for each container between the side wall protectors and the center gate post and between the rear wall protectors and the front face of the CMU wall. Call out all dimensions. Please provide corrections on resubmittal. If you have any questions you may contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 ext 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov |
| 01/22/2008 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: D07-0020 Commercial Bldg for Mead Investments Development Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 22, 2008 DUE DATE: January 22, 2008 *Staff acknowledges all prior review comments have been addressed. CONDITIONAL APPROVAL GRANTED - subject to the following: COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings to address the following: *Staff apologizes, the following elements were missed in the last review, and a change in reviewers has occurred as well. As Handicapped Accessibility is a Federal Requirement, it is crucial that the following changes be made to the plan: 1. This review, please revise detail 9 on sheet DP 2 to show: A) per ANSI 502.4, a minimum 5' wide handicapped access aisle adjacent to parking space B) per T.C.C. 20-222, show location of handicapped sign to be posted in front of space - be sure that the sidewalk will not be compromised to less than 4' wide with sign placement. 2. This review, please revise detail 10 on sheet DP 2 to show: A) per T.C.C. 20-222, show location of handicapped sign to be posted in front of space - be sure that the sidewalk will not be compromised to less than 4' wide with sign placement. 3. per T.C.C. 20-222, Give detail of handicapped sign to be posted in front of space, with $518.00 fine. If you have any questions, please email me Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or call 520-837-4951. . C:\Heather\planning\development plans\D07-0020 Mead 3 ka.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan. |
| 01/24/2008 | BIANCA RAMIREZ | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: January 24, 2007 REVIEWER: Bianca Ramirez, CFM, Engineering Associate SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Commercial building for Mead Investments Development Plan. The activity number is D07-0020. SUMMARY: The Development Plan and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on November 8th, 2007. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: DEVELOPMENT PLAN GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Development Plan purposes only. 2. A Grading Plan review and Permit will be required. 3. Proposed fills in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred feet of the developing site adjacent to residentially zoned property require the procedure outlined in Development Standards 11-01.8.1. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. 4. Provide detailed response letter with next submittal. The next submittal must address the following items: DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement is to occur prior to issuance of permits. Revise the plan appropriately. DS 2-05.2.3.B. The above comment is from the previous review no response letter was provided. Because review has been assigned to another Engineering Associate, reviewer was unable to clarify. Provide what was corrected so that it can be verified. Please clarify. 2. Complied 3. Complied 4. Complied 5. Detectable warnings (truncated domes) are required at marked crossings (crosswalks). The area covered by the truncated domes shall be twenty-four (24) inch deep and extend the full width of the crosswalk, preceding the crosswalk, including the handicap access aisle. All accessible curb ramps shall have truncated domes installed that shall be twenty-four (24) inches minimum in the direction of travel and extend the full width of the curb ramp or flush surface. The domes shall be located so the edge nearest the curb line is six (6) inches to eight (8) inches from the curb line. Provide a detail on the plan and provide the locations on the plan view. ANSI 406.12, ANSI 705 The above comment is from the first review and it is not clear if the comment has been addressed. The plan does not indicate existing sidewalks within the ROW. Please clarify if there are no sidewalks, be advised 6' sidewalks are required along an MS&R Road. That said detectable warnings are required on the sidewalk ramps. Revise and clarify appropriately. Truncated domes have not been provided at appropriate locations. Modify accordingly by providing truncated domes along the future sidewalk at the transition of pedestrian circulations and vehicular areas. 6. Label the 75' half ROW, "Future 75' half ROW." Third request. DS 2-05.2.4.D.4. 7. Complied 8. Complied 9. Per review of the details provided on sheet DP2.0 - Detail 1 does not meet minimum trash enclosure requirements. Email me at bianca.ramirez@tucsonaz.gov for fax of detail. 10. See comments by Heather Thrall for HC parking space details and HC sign. |
| 01/25/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES January 25, 2008 Sam H. Robison, Architect Robison Associates Architects 759 West Panorama Road Tucson, Arizona 85704 Subject: D07-0020 Commercial Building for Mead Investments, Inc. Development Plan Dear Sam: Your submittal of December 20, 2007 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 5 Copies Revised Development Plan (Engineering, Wastewater, Zoning, ESD, DSD) 3 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Engineering, Zoning, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. Sincerely, Patricia Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 742-1285 |
| 12/20/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/24/2007 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | December 21, 2007 To: Sam Robison, Robison Associates Architects Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality Subject: Commercial Building for Mead Investments, Inc. Development Plan – 3rd Submittal D07-0020 The proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. Sheet 3: Label the existing public sewer with the construction plan #S-397-1 and pipe size. Sheet 3: A private cleanout can not be placed in the public ROW as you are proposing. Sheet 3: The existing sewer line running to the Shurgard Storage Center is mislabeled per the symbol in the Legend. Subject to the above, the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the development plan. The required revision(s) may be shown on the Mylars. Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval To Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me . |