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 - DP13-0040
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/16/2013 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/31/2013 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 3, 2013 SUBJECT: SEC Grant/Campbell Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review TO: Rick Engineering Co.; Attn: Dan Castro LOCATION: 1900 E Grant Road; T14S R14E Sec05 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP13-0040 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Report (Rick Engineering Co., 08MAR13 revised 15MAY13). Engineering Division recommends conditional approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. The following items need to be addressed prior to final approval: SITE PLAN: 1) New: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Due to the new right hand turn lane and reconfiguration of the access drive from Grant Road on the 2nd submittal revise the development plan document to dimension both proposed entry and exit lanes to verify minimum one way access per UDC Sec.7.4.6.D. 2) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: Revise the development plan document to include the SEQ # for the proposed public sidewalk easement as shown by separate instrument. Provide the SEQ # in plan view for verification. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package that addresses the comments 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 |
| 06/05/2013 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Retail Development - 1900 E. Grant Development Package (2nd Review) DP13-0040 TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 6, 2013 DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administrative Manual (AM) & Technical Standards Manual (TSM) were addressed. 1. This site was reviewed for full code compliance for the entire site. The following comments are based on Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) 2-06.0: 1. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5 Provide a width dimension for the vehicle entrances/exit off of Grant Road. 2. This comment has not been completely addressed. Zoning acknowledges that a parking agreement has been provided but this agreement does not account for total of fourteen (14) spaces at all times and does not provide documentation that the fourteen (14) spaces are over and above the required spaces for the development to the south. Provide documentation that shows that there are a minimum fourteen (14) vehicle parking spaces available within the parking structure. Provide the last approved site plans for the site to south that include vehicle parking calculations. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a Provide documentation that the adjacent parking garage has 18 spaces available for this site to use. 3. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a If it can be shown that fourteen (14) vehicle parking spaces are available at all times in the parking structure a revised parking agreement will be required 4. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d The bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.8.-1 RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP* *The required number of bicycle parking spaces for multiple or mixed use development composed of more than one building are be calculated on a per building basis using the formulas provided above. That said building 2 requires three (3) short-term bicycle parking spaces 14,600/5000 = 2.92 or 3. 5. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d Detail E sheet 5 references the LUC. Remove the LUC references and provide the correct UDC references. 6. A.M. 2-06.4.9.L Provide the sequence number for the proposed "PUBLIC SIDEWALK EASEMENT" on the plan. 7. A.M. 2-06.4.9.R Provide width dimension for the sidewalk south of building 1. 8. There are numerous references to "DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS" through out the development package. Remove these references and provide the correct UDC, AM or TSM references. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ DP13-0040 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package & Revised parking agreement. |
| 06/07/2013 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 06/10/2013 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | SHEETS 3, 4 AND 5 1. Delete the detectable warning strips at the top of the accessible access aisle located next to building 1 and also at detail F/5. SHEETS 3 AND 4 2. Show the slope direction arrows for all ramps. END OF REVIEW |
| 06/11/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The rim elevation (27.85') for the upstream sanitary manhole for Building 1 is higher than the first floor elevation (24.1'). Indicate that the building sewer will require a backwater valve. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. 2. The rim elevation (23.11') for the upstream sanitary manhole for Building 2 is higher than the first floor elevation (21.8'). Indicate that the building sewer will require a backwater valve. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 06/12/2013 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. The development package must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between plans. Ensure that all changes to the site and grading plans are reflected on the landscape plan. 2. The landscape plan will contain relevant case number or descriptive data for reviews or modifications that affect the site AM 2-10.4.1.b.2.f. Include permission in writing that future MS&R as depicted on sheet 3 of 11 is in accordance to a specific referenced plan. 3. Additional comments may apply. |
| 06/13/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Approved | This project is approved by Environmental Services for solid waste and recycle storage and services based on revised site plan, sheet 3. Jeff Drumm, P.E. Environmental Manager City of Tucson Environmental Services 520-837-3713 |
| 06/17/2013 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed. Resubmittal is required. Please include the following items: 1) Two rolled copies of the plans 2) All items requested by review staff 3) All items used to approve these plans. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/26/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |