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 - RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - DP12-0195
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/05/2013 | SPOWELL1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/06/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | Project not approved by Environmental Services. There is no access to enclosure from the east. Notes 1 and 2 on plan sheet call out exiting east fence and wall to remain. Wall and fence block approach access to enclosure. |
| 03/07/2013 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: March 7, 2013 SUBJECT: Couston Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review TO: Metro TED Attn: Lisa Bowers LOCATION: 4280 N 1st Ave; T13S R13E Sec24 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP12-0195 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Statement (Oracle Engineering Group, Inc., 15NOV12). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under Development Standard 2-01. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN: 1) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.2: Revise the development plan document to correctly dimension the near side SVT for Speedway Blvd and PAAL intersection. It is acknowledged that this is a one way entrance and the SVT is not required however if the architect is placing it on the plan the correct dimension should be used. 2) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.T: Due to the gallon per week volume of refuse generated for the multi family residences (> than 95 gal/wk) the proposed use of the APC (roll outs) will require a DSMR and approval through the respective Departments for use. Provide a Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) application and verify that once approved the development plan document provides a note with date of approval and any imposed conditions. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package once the DSMR has been submitted and approved that addresses the comment provided above. For expedite purposes the development plan package can be reviewed over the counter (PDSD Engineering Division comment only) for stamp approval once all items have been addressed. Please call to schedule an appointment when ready. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 03/12/2013 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Couston Rezoning Development Package (2nd Review) DP12-0195 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 12, 2013 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. This project was reviewed for full code compliance with the Land Use Code and Development Standards. The following comments are based on Development Standard 2-01.0: 1. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide the zoning for the parcels on the north side of Speedway and east side of 10th.D.S. 2-01.3.9.F All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. 2. This comment was not addressed. Provide the number of required and provided accessible vehicle parking spaces within the vehicle parking space calculation. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Per Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. 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. That said provide the number of physically disabled spaces required and provided in the vehicle parking space calculation. 3. This comment was not addressed. The requirements of LUC Section 3.3.9.2.A.5, 3.3.9.2.B.6, .8 are not shown on the plan. Also it is not clear that LUC Section 3.3.9.3.B.1 is met. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.d Provide a detail that shows how the requirements of LUC Sections 3.3.9.2 and 3.3.9.3 are met for the required Short-term bicycle parking. 4. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.d Remove all references to Class 1 & 2 from detail 5, sheet 3 as the reference is no longer applicable. This reference should be long and short term. 5. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.d If the long term bicycle parking is to be provided within the building and lockers are to be used as shown on detail 5, sheet 3 show the location within the building. For your information per LUC Section 3.3.8.2.A.1 No long-term bicycle parking is required on a site where there is less than 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. 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/ DP12-0195 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package & written approval from the Zoning Administrator. |
| 03/27/2013 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET 1 1. Delete all detectable warning strips shown. 2. At the concrete walkway located at the North side of the duplex: a. Extend the concrete walk to the east edge of the marked crossing. b. This now becomes a landing at the bottom of the sidewalk ramp. c. Provide a surface mounted curb at the most easterly edge of this landing. 3. The marked crossing is now defined from the south end of the accessible aisle, accross the 16.8' PAAL to the edge of the sidewalk landing as defined in comment 2b: a. Provide detectable warning strips at both ends of the marked crossing, in the direction of travel and just outside the edge of the 16.8' dimension of the PAAL. 4. Delete the curb ramp and detectable warning strip shown at the standard parking spaces west of the existing building. It leads to no where and is not required to be accessible. SHEET 2 5. At detail 7A: a. Please add the accessible route note to page 1 where the accessible routes are shown. b. Please define the starting points of all three ramps and define the landing area. c. Please delete all detectable warning strips. d. Show the marked crossing and the detectable warning strips as directed by comment 3. 6. At detail 6: a. Delete all detectable warning strips shown. b. Show the accessible parking aisle c. Dimension the run of all ramps at 6'-0" long and draw to the proper scale on the detail. d. Show the 3rd ramp at the "T" intersection. END OF REVIEW |
| 04/01/2013 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 04/02/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | The required backflow preventer for the water service was not found on the site plan / utility drawing. [Original comment: Verify the need for a backflow preventer for the water service with Tucson Water.] |
| 04/02/2013 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Revise the landscape plan to clarify compliance with rezoning condition 15 (Sheet DPO). Obtain approval in writing of this version of the landscape plan. Cantact Gary Wittwer at TDOT. |
| 04/03/2013 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | This review has been completed. Resubmittal is required. With the resubmittal please include the following items: 1) 2 rolled sets of the plans 2) a disk containing all items resubmitted. 3) all items requested by review staff 4) all items approved during the 1st and 2nd reviews. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/03/2013 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |