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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/17/2013 | 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: 01/17/13 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. As noted in the previous comment related to cross access documents, zoning cannot approve the development package (site and grading) until the recordation of the cross access agreement is noted on the plan and copies of the recorded documents are provided to PDSD (zoning). Zoning is willing to review the DP over the counter with an appointment once all the other review agency comments have been addressed and plans modified. If this is something the applicant wishes to pursue please call me in advance to set up a date and time for the over the counter zoning review and approval. (Previous Comment 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. 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 |
| 01/22/2013 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET C3.1 1. It appears that the 5% slope indicated for the concrete drainage swale crosses the marked crossing at 5%. Please insure that the marked crossing complies with ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% maximun running slope and 2% maximum cross slopes. END OF REVIEW |
| 01/23/2013 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Screens required or not along a street frontage must be located on the development side of the street landscape border so that they do not obstruct the view of the street landscape border from the street LUC 3.7.3.2.B. Move required screen to the back of landscape buffer along Broadway Blvd. 2. WATER HARVESTING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DS-10-03.4.2. A. The following general information will be provided on the Implementation Plan. " The case number located in the lower right corner of the plan. " The means by which monthly rainfall data will be obtained and recorded " The means by which monthly irrigation data will be obtained and recorded " Soil pretreatment techniques, locations and schematics " Maintenance notes " Monitoring and Annual Reporting Requirements. B. 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. Each WHIA must be included on Water Budget work sheet http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/sites/default/files/dsd/water_budget_spreadsheet.xls. Note: Smaller WHIA's can be excluded from data. C. The Implementation Plan shall graphically show the following information drawn from tabulated data. " Use arrows to show water flow directions within WHIA, including flow direction at inlets and outlets. " Show location where any sensors that control the irrigation system will be placed (Irrigation systems shall be fitted with irrigation controllers and shall be capable of monitoring and responding to plant water needs through the use of soil moisture gauges, tensiometers, weather stations and/or evapotranspiration data). 3. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed 4. Additional comments may apply |
| 01/24/2013 | KEN BROUILLETTE | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/24/2013 | 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 maneuverability diagrams show more than 80 feet of backing. Jeff Drumm may also be able to clarify the requirements or allow for a modification. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/06/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |