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: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP12-0070
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/28/2012 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/02/2012 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner Reviewed the re-submittal for Terry Stevens PROJECT: DP12-0070 2900 N. Swan Rd. Development Package TRANSMITTAL DATE: 07/02/12 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. This comment was not addressed as requested. The LUC subject to sections for each existing use was not listed as requested by Terry Stevens on the previous comment. Review the existing uses listed on the plan and review the C-2 zone uses in the LUC and list the appropriate subject to sections for each use. The subject to sections are listed after the development designator. Previous Comment 3: DS 2-01.3.7.A.4 Identify the existing uses of the property as classified per the Land Use Code. List all Land Use Code sections each proposed use is subject to. 2. Revise general note 29 to state that the site has been designed to meet the Major Street and Routes (MS&R) criteria, LUC Section 2.8.3 setback zone. Previous Comment 4: DS 2-01.3.7.A.6.b List the overlay zones that are applicable to this project such as: Sec. 2.8.3, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R). 3. This portion of the previous comment 6 was not addressed by a response or change to the plan. The light symbol is depicted in the center of a parking space. The response to the previous comment did not specify how this was to be addressed, i.e. relocate the light pole, remove the light pole etc. A portion of previous Comment 6: DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.a There is a note #6 near the northeast corner of building #2910 indicating a light to remain in the middle of a parking space. Clarify. 4. The previous comment was left for information purposes related to the loading zones. Based on the previous comment it appears that the loading zone depicted on the last set of plans has been relocated tot eh northeast corner of the site. It appears that the long term bicycle parking has also been depicted in the same area yet there are five parking spaces shown on the plan. Does the relocation of the loading zone and addition of the bicycle parking in this area reduce the number of parking spaces; if so revise the parking calculations and the drawing. Previous Comment 7: DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.c The indicated 12 x 35 loading zone appears to reduce the required 24' width of the PAAL. Clarify. 5. The short term bicycle parking locations have not been provided to all building to meet the minimum distance from the public entrances to each building. It is suggested that each building is provided with a short term facility that meets the minimum distance from the public entrance. It is also acknowledged that there may be several suites with main entrances and that not all suites would be covered. While this is a retro fit for the bicycle parking I do believe there are locations where the bicycle facilities can be placed and meet the distance requirements. This does not mean that additional short term facilities need to be added, the facilities just need to be better distributed around the site. The long term bicycle parking facilities seem to be bunched in one or two areas. These long term facilities should be distributed through out the overall site as well. The long term bicycle parking facilities in the northeast corner of the site do not appear to be an appropriate location. Relocate these facilities closer to the buildings. (Long term bicycle parking may also be provided within a secure are of the buildings such as a closet.) If this is an option for the owners please add a note that states that long term bicycle parking facilities are to be provided within a secure area of the buildings. Please keep in mind that access to long term bicycle parking facilities must be provided. The bicycle parking details, specifically all the short term were not drawn with the design and dimension requirements asked for in the last comment. Revise the details and add the requested information. Previous Comment 8: The locations of the short term bicycle parking does not meet LUC Sec. 3.3.9.3. Review and comply. Provide the location of the required long term bicycle parking spaces per LUC Sec. 3.3.9.4. Provide a detail of the short term and long term bicycle parking spaces indicating spacing. dimensions, access aisle. etc. Review LUC Sec. 3.3.9.3, 3.3.9.4, & 3.3.9.5 for required criteria. 6. The comments are minor and Terry Stevens is willing to review the revisions over the counter with an appointment once the changes have been made to the plan. Please call in advance for an appointment if you wish to have zoning review the plans over the counter. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 C:\planning\cdrc\DSD\DP12-0070.doc |
| 07/05/2012 | RONALD BROWN | HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/09/2012 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Revise the landscape planand development/grading plans to correspond. Provide dimensioned details for tree planting locations. Planters are to be sized per LUC 3.7.2.3 and may not be located such that parked vehicles are located in the parking area access lanes. |
| 07/09/2012 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved |