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: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP12-0176
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10/2012 | CAGUILA1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/11/2012 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 10/15/2012 | KEN BROUILLETTE | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | Approved per MHB on 10-12-12 |
| 10/26/2012 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Please note that the slopes of all new accessible routes are to comply with the ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% max running slopes and 2% max cross slopes. 2. Please show dimensions on the ramp detail 1/3 of 4. That includes all landings and ramp run. 3. At detail D/4 of 4 please show a 4" max dimension for the height of the top of the bottom horizontal rail. END OF REVIEW |
| 10/31/2012 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP12-0176 2221 N Rosemont Boulevard Adult Care Services Facility - Demo and Rebuild TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 1, 2012 DUE DATE: November 06, 2012 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 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a Development Packager site plan. If, at the end of that time, the development package site plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is November 4, 2013. 2. DS 2-01.3.1 - List the email address for the owner/developer of the project. 3. DS 2-01.3.3 - This project has been assigned the Development Package case number D12-0176. List the case number on all plan sheets. 4. DS 2-01.3.4 - The project location map shall cover at least a one square mile. Revise the location map to cover one square mile form the subject site, per development standards. 5. DS 2-01.3.7.A.4 - Revise General note 3 to state correctly the LUC Subject to sections. Review the O-3 Zone specific use in the land Use Code and list the correct and applicable subject to sections as listed in the LUC. (LUC Sections 3.5.7.8.C.4, .D , .H) 6. DS 2-01.3.7.A.6.b - Add a general note that states that this project has been designed to comply with the LUC Section 2.8.3, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone requirements. 7. DS 2-01.3.7.A.9.a, .b, .c, .d - Under general note 13, the existing FAR is listed as 156,392 sq ft. Per the square footage of each building as listed on the plan, I calculated a total of 158,779 sq ft. Revise general note 13 to identify the correct existing FAR. It is important to note that having the correct information will make a difference in the building expansion and lot coverage calculations. For this project and this development designator lot coverage for purposes of the LUC requirements is not required. It may be necessary to include it in the calculations for engineering purposes but if it is included it should correctly include all square foot of enclosed building and vehicular use areas. Include a building calculation as a general note that is clear and exact in square footage of existing building area, building area to be removed or demolished and then include the overall building square which shall include the new building area. Also, the overall building expansion as of the last full code compliance must be included. If the overall expansion as of the last full code compliance review and approval is greater than 25% the entire site will have to be brought up to current LUC code compliance as well as current develop0ment standards. If the building expansion is less than 25%, only the new areas of construction including parking areas will have to meet current code and standards requirements. List the expansion calculation based on the appropriate case as noted above. 8. DS 2-01.3.9.L - All proposed easements or relocation of utilities and abandonment of existing easements must occur prior to approval of the development package site plan. Provide the documentation of abandonment or recordation of new easements. The location widths and purpose of each easement must be drawn and labeled and dimensioned on the plans. 9. DS 2-01.3.9.M - The grading plan has been reviewed by zoning for compliance with the zoning purview only and finds that the grading plan is in substantial compliance with the site plan subject to any necessary modifications that my be necessary due to PDSD Engineering review comments. Once the development package is approved the grading plan is also approved by zoning unless significant changes are necessary. 10. DS 2-01.3.9.O - The required building setback along the west property boundary is based on one and one-half the times the height times of the structure wall (of the new building) from the property line. Per the Zoning Setback detail on sheet 2 the setback has been depicted as 58 feet from the zoning line. The setback line is depicted incorrectly and should be depicted from the site boundary property line. The minimum setback based on the listed building height (yet to be fully verified) is 45 feet. A design development option must be applied for and approved prior to approval of the development package. This comment is for processing the DDO. The setback along the west property boundary is based on one and one-half times the height of the building wall along the west side of the new building. The height of the wall is measured from design grade to the tallest point of a parapet wall. Based on the height listed on the plans as 30 feet, the required setback from the west property line is 45 feet. Section 3.2.6.4, Perimeter Yard Indicator DD adjacent to MH-1 Zone, 1-1/2 times the height. The plans do not provide the actual distance from the property line to the wall of the new structure. Draw and label the distance from the new structure to the west property line. The DDO application case number, date of approval and conditions of approval will have to be listed on the cover sheet. Contact Michael Taku for information related to the DDO process. 11. DS 2-01.3.9.H.d - Draw, dimension, and label the locations of the long and short term bicycle parking facilities on the plan. The facilities must comply with the design requirements in LUC section 3.3.9 design criteria. The key notes referenced for the bicycle parking facilities could not be verified on the plan. 12. DS 2-01.3.9.O - A sidewalk must be provided between the new building and the PAAL. The width of the sidewalk must be a minimum of four (4) feet in width. Draw, label and dimension the required sidewalk. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\DP12-0176dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, and additional requested documents. |
| 11/02/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/05/2012 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/05/2012 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | |
| 11/05/2012 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/26/2012 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |