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 - D09-0022
Review Name: REVISION - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/03/2011 | MPADILL1 | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D09-0022 Gospel Rescue Mission () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other - Elevations CROSS REFERENCE: SE-08-17 - Gospel Rescue Mission NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO COMMENTS DUE BY: 01/07/2011 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 (X) Proposal Complies with Rezoning (Special Exception) Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies () See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: REVIEWER: msp 791-5505 DATE: 01/07/2011 |
| 01/04/2011 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/06/2011 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | The Engineering Division recommends approval of this revised development plan. |
| 01/06/2011 | FRODRIG2 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | Date Case Number Project Address January 6, 2011 D09-0022 New Building for GRM Development Plan Comments: Denied, The proposed Development Plan for the New Building for GRM, Case No.09-0022, Dose not meets the minimum requirements for the Environmental Services Solid Waste and Recycle Disposal Standard 6-01. All containers enclosures shown on the Development plan must be labeled to indicate their intended use, being Solid Waste or Recycle materials. The Proposed Development plan must state the physical address in the title block for each sheet. Environmental Services Department Development Plan Review Reviewer: Tony Teran Office Phone (520) 837-3706 E-mail: Tony.Teran @tucsonaz.gov |
| 01/12/2011 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#213687 January 12, 2011 Dear Mr. Watson : SUBJECT: New Bldg. for GRM “Gospel Rescue Mission” Revised D09-0022 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted December 20, 2010 It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. All relocation costs will be billable to the customer. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, offsite and electrical load plans. Include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Richard Harrington New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Please call the area Designer Mike Riesgo at (520) 917-8764 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Henrietta Noriega Office Specialist Design/Build hn Enclosures City of Tucson (Email only) cc:M. Riesgo |
| 01/13/2011 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES January 13, 2011 Dean Saxton Gospel Rescue Mission 707 W. Miracle Mile Tucson, Arizona 85705 Subject: D09-0022 NEW BUILDING FOR GRM REVISION Development Plan Dear Dean: Your submittal of December 21,2010 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 set of 3 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 3 Copies Revised Development Plan (Landscape, Env Svcs, PDSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4893. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: (520) 622-8585 |
| 12/22/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/23/2010 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 12/28/2010 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: New Building for GRM Development Plan (Revision) D09-0022 TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 28, 2010 DUE DATE: January 07, 2011 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 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. The Zoning Review Section approves the development plan for this project. However, should there be any changes requested by other CDRC members, the Zoning Review Section approval is void, and we request copies of the revised development plan to verify that those changes do not affect any zoning requirements. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ D09-0022 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: |
| 12/29/2010 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Revise the parking lot striping in the west parking lot to exclude the existing palm trees from the parking spaces in order to provide protection to the vegetation. Stripe islands or no parking areas to better manage the potential conflict between parking and planting areas or add curbing. |