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: REVISION - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D08-0005
Review Name: REVISION - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/21/2013 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/23/2013 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: D08-005 (Revision 6) Southgate Shopping Center Development Package - (Minor site modifications to portion of the northeast section of the development) TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 23, 2013 DUE DATE: June 5, 2013 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is May 22, 2014. The following comments have been made based on the proposed revisions to the site as presented on the revised sheets. Please address the zoning comments with a response letter. 2. AM 2-06.4.9.H.1 and .5 - Traffic Circulation and Design, include the direction of travel for the one way PAAL around building 1. The previous plan sheet 19 included a direction arrow to be painted on the pavement indicating a south direction of travel. Please lighten the crosshatching added to depict the pavement area. The crosshatching should be removed or depicted in an opacity that allows the text within the paved areas to be legible. 3. AM 2-06.4.9.H.5.c - For clarification purposes respond as required to the loading zone requirements. Were the number of loading recalculated based on the new UDC requirements or are the number of required loading zones be left as approved under the LUC requirements? Per the data table on sheet 2A 1 loading zone is required for building 2 yet there is not loading zone depicted on the plan. Clarify if the loading zone adjacent to building 1 is intended for both uses for both or just building 1 or 2. The table should reflect this loading zone requirements change. If any sections of the LUC such as the vehicle parking are being changed to revise the development requirements all references to development criteria should be changed. The development criteria cannot include sections of the LUC and UDC mixed, it should be one or the other. 4. AM 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - The bicycle parking must be revised to comply with the ratio requirements as listed in the UDC. Revise the tables to accurately list the number of class 1 and 2 facilities based on the current UDC requirements. If additional facilities are required they will have to be added and the locations will have to be drawn on the plan or a waiver from the Depart of Transportation Bicycle Coordinator will be required based on his / her observation of the existing conditions. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D08-0005dprev.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan |
| 05/24/2013 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/30/2013 | KBROUIL1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 05/31/2013 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET 19 1. At the marked crossing from building 2 to the South: a. Provide detectable warning strips at both endS of the marked crossing as per the 2009 Edition, ICC A117.1, serction 406.12, 13 and 14 as applicable. b. Note 5 references to detail 1/3 which is not relevant to curb ramps. c. At the south end, detail the flared sides to have a minimum of 1:10 slope or eliminate the flared sides. 2. At the marked crossing from building 1 to building 2, draw in the curb ramp as per note five at the west end. SHEET 20 3. At the marked crossing continuning from the new building 2 to the parking island that serves as a "T" accessible route intersection: The location of this marked crossing could not be in a more hazardous automobile intersection. Please relocate the accessible route to cross the various PAALs in a simpler, more direct and safer pathway. 4. Note 59 referencing at two curb ramps at both side of an island accessible route, will not work. DOT STD Detail 212 is a wedge curb with a slope of 1:6. For an accessible curb ramp, the maximum slope of 1:12. 5. For all flared sides of a curb ramp, the maximum slope is 1:10. Please detail the proper 1:10 angle of all flared side shown at the curb ramps. GENERAL COMMENTS 6. For all marked crossings: a. Provide detectable warnings as per the 2009 Edition, ICC A117.1, section 406.12, 13 and 14 as applicable. b. All detectable warnings are to be 2' deep, in the direction of tarvel and is to extend to the full width of the marked crossing. 7. It would certainly be nice to have detail sheets 3 and 4 included in thiss submission for reference. END OF COMMENTS |
| 05/31/2013 | LEERAY HANLY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Passed | changes to entry drive only |
| 06/03/2013 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 06/05/2013 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Submit the approved landscape plans. |
| 06/05/2013 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Stantec provided reference plans. Revision is acceptable. Revise the plans as requested by other agencies. |
| 06/06/2013 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items: 1) Two rolled sets of the plans 2) All items requested by review staff 3) All items need to approve this plan. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/20/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |
| 06/06/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 06/06/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 06/06/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |