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/GRADING ALL
Permit Number - DP12-0171
Review Name: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/15/2012 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Obtain permission for use of ROW by the City Engineer or designee. 2. All plant material used for landscaping shall be selected from the Drought Tolerant Plant List in Development Standard 9-06. Pistacia leniscus is not on the low water plant list. http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/WaterManagement/AMAs/documents/2007_Plant_List_apha_botanical.pdf Provide an acceptable substitute. 3. The Water Harvesting Implementation Plan shall consist of a separate sheet with a plan view layout of the site. Rename irrigation plan as necessary. 4. The Implementation Plan shall include a table detailing information for each identified Water Harvesting Infiltration Area (WHIA) at the site, and for the site as a whole, as described below. " General WHIA information: Include all the following information on Implementation Plan: a. WHIA identifier (Delineate area) b. Spatial size (square feet) of WHIA c. Average depth (feet) of WHIA d. Capacity (gallons) of WHIA e. Type and general location where any sensors that control the irrigation system will be placed. 5. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed 6. Additional comments may apply |
| 11/16/2012 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/16/2012 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET C3.1 1. Show complete accessible parking striping and accessible parking aisles. 2. Show markings for both marked crossings. DETAIL 12/C0.1 3. Change note about sign heights to read 7'-0" in both conditions. END OF REVIEW |
| 11/20/2012 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: David Rivera for Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: DP12-0171 8825 E. Broadway Blvd. Development Package TRANSMITTAL DATE: 11/20/12 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. Place the assigned case number above the Signature Stamp. The location of the case number outside the borders of the drawing is a not the preferred location. The activity case number should be placed above the title block or the signature text block. Previous Comment #2- DS 2-01.3.3, this project has been assigned case number DP12-0171. Place this case number near the lower right corner of all sheets. 2. The general note F.1 is to include the actual overlay sections applicable to the project site. In this case both the MS&R and the Gateway Route. Remove the words 'That are applicable' and replace them with the "LUC Sec. 2.8.3, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone; Sec. 2.8.4, Gateway Corridor Zone" Previous Comment #3 - DS 2-01.3.7.A.6.b, Provide a general note indicating that this project has been designed to meet the criteria of the overlay zones that are applicable to the property, such as Sec. 2.8.3, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone; Sec. 2.8.4, Gateway Corridor Zone 3. No easements could be found or verified, drawn or noted on the site plan or any other plan sheets. Clarify if there are any utility easements on the property. If no easements are applicable indicate as such. Previous Comment #4 - DS 2-01.3.8.S, if applicable, all easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. 4. The documentation must be provided prior to approval of the development package. Previous Comment #5 - DS 2-01.3.9.H.1, provide documentation of the implied vehicle cross access agreement with the property to the west. 5. While there may be no plans to widen the roadway at this time or in the near future there is a future cross section that is applicable to this roadway based on the 200-foot right of way. The future sight visibility triangles must be drawn and labeled based on that proposed cross section. Previous Comment #6 - DS 2-01.3.9.H.2, show the future and existing sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. 6. Under the General Notes text block specifically note 8, remove the text '1 Car/213 SF GFA Provided'. The actual ratio is not required to be listed as long as the parking is provided based on the required Parking Ratio of 1/300 GFA, in this case there is excess parking. Previous Comment #7 - DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.a, as a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. See LUC Sec. 3.3.4 for criteria. 7. The location of the bicycle parking facilities does not provide for a five-foot wide access aisle in front of the long term facility. It appears that it may be possible to rotate the facilities in the north south direction and would provide for sufficient area for the required five feet. Review the location and dimensions to see if the facilities can be arranged in a manner that will provide for the required access aisles and separation. Previous Comment #9 - DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.d, provide dimensioned details of the long and short term bicycle parking spaces and type of racks and enclosures. Clearly indicate the size of the parking space, size and location of the access aisle, type of racks. The bicycle rack indicated on detail 5 of CO.1 is not an approved type of short term bicycle rack. See LUC Sec. 3.3.9.5 for criteria. See LUC Sec. 3.3.9.4 for criteria for long term bicycle parking. Provide in the calculations the number of required and the number of provided short and long term bicycle parking spaces. See LUC Sec. 3.3.8.2. 8. Clarify if the height labeled on the building footprint on sheet C2.1 is the height of the roof or the height of the wall. This height does not match the height listed on the cover sheet. Setbacks are based on the tallest part of the wall facing the property line. If needed to distinguish the heights on sheet C2.1 add the north wall height on the building footprint or as a note sheet C2.1. Previous Comment #10 - DS 2-01.3.9.O, provide the height of the north wall of the building above adjacent grade. This is required in order to determine the required setback from the north property line. Required setback is 1 ½ times the height of the wall from the R-1 zoned property adjacent to the north property line. 9. This comment was not addressed in its entirety. List under general note 11, the allowed building height based on the development designator 28. (The allowed height is 30 feet the proposed height is 25 feet.) Previous Note #11 - DS 2-01.3.9.Q Provide the allowed height and proposed height of the building. See LUC Sec. See LUC Sec. 3.2.3.2.B with development designator 28. Also provide the height of the proposed building within the footprint on sheet C2.1. 10. After discussion about the pervious concrete with PDSD Senior Engineering Staff there are some issues that probably need to be addressed. While the materials proposed are acceptable by the Land Use Code there is a question about ponding of water with the proposed pervious area. Their does not appear to be any type text nor is their any drawing that indicates how this issue may be addressed. The following text is from our Senior Engineer Elizabeth Liebold. Please read and follow up with Elizabeth 520-837-4934 with regards to this issue. If you have any further questions specifically related to this comment please feel free to call me. Unit weight of pervious concrete is similar to standard concrete, assuming no additives are added and uniform aggregate is used with the cement. Per Land Use Code section 3.3.6.9.A.2, vehicular use area (including parking spaces, PAALs, and any areas necessary to provide maneuvering, refuse collection locations, or loading spaces), may be surfaced with pervious cement concrete. However, the proposed design plan view and details show compacted sub-grade that will not provide sufficient infiltration and no outlet is shown on plans at down stream side of area proposed for pervious concrete. Development Standard section 10-01.3.5.1.3.a requires maximum drain down time of 12 hours. I would suggest asking the consultant to explain or revise the details to show how stormwater runoff will not exceed maximum drain down time. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera (520) 837-4957 or Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 C:\planning\cdrc\DSD\DP12-0171.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 11/23/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/26/2012 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | The development package cannot be approved as submitted. 1. The solid waste enclosure details are still not consistent with the development standard 6-01. As previously stated, if a modified design is desired, a DSMR may be submitted. I recommend contacting Jeff Drumm (Jeffrey.Drumm@tucsonaz.gov) to discuss any proposed change from the DS diagram. 2. Although the 80-ft backup distance is shown on the plan, the plan doesn't show how the service vehicle will maneuver from that position to exit the site. It appears that significant additional backing will be required. Show complete maneuverability diagrams for this purpose. Jeff Drumm may also be able to clarify the requirements or allow for a modification. 3. Show future sight visibility triangles based on the MS&R plan diagrams. I acknowledge Broadway is not likely to be widened within the foreseeable future, but the requirement can be met by using the standard profiles provided in the development standard and in the MS&R plan. |
| 11/27/2012 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 11/27/2012 | KEN BROUILLETTE | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | The measurement from the fire hydrant is to all of the exterior walls. The fire hydrant proposed is still further than 300 feet from all portions of the exterior wall of the proposed structure. Please relocate fire hydrant closer. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/07/2013 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/07/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |