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: SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP13-0052
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/28/2013 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 04/01/2013 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: L.A. Fitness Expansion @ Park Place Development Package (1st Review) DP13-0052 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 2, 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. 2. As this is a new development package, DP13-0052, remove all revision clouds from the plan. The following comments are based on Development Standard 2-01.0: 1. D.S. 2-01.3.2.E Provide the page number and number of pages, "X of X", etc. within the title block on all sheets. This includes all sheets i.e. civil, landscape, irrigation, etc. Based on the number of sheets submitted the total number of sheets should be 10. 2. D.S. 2-01.3.3 Provide the following relevant case numbers on all sheets, DP13-0052, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 3. D.S. 2-01.3.5 The sheet index should include the landscape and irrigation sheets. 4. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.6.b D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.6.b Provide a general notes stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE CRITERIA SEC. 5.4, MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK". 5. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.a The square footage for existing building shown on this plan do not match what was shown on DP12-0190, clarify the difference. 6. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.c Provide a building area expansion calculation on the plan. This calculation should include the recent expansion of Texas Roadhouse. 7. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Provide back-up spur dimensions for the proposed back-up spur shown west of the LA Fitness expansion. See LUC Section 3.3.6.6.D. 8. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.d The Short-Term bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.3.8.2.B RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP, Retail Trade Uses Less Than 50,000 sq. ft. GFA: 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. That said the minimum number of Short-Term bicycle for "SHOPS (3,600/5000)' is two (2). 9. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.d The Long-Term bicycle parking space calculation for "SHOPS (3,600/12,000)" is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.3.8.2.B RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP, Retail Trade Uses Less Than 50,000 sq. ft. GFA: 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. That said the minimum number of Long-Term bicycle parking spaces is two (2). 10. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.d The Long-Term bicycle parking space calculation for "RESTAURANT PAD (8,560/12,000)" is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.3.8.2.B COMMERCIAL USE GROUP, Food Service: 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. That said the minimum number of Long-Term bicycle parking spaces is two (2). 11. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.d The Long-Term bicycle parking space calculation for "TEXAS ROADHOUSE (7,427/12,000)" is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.3.8.2.B COMMERCIAL USE GROUP, Food Service: 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. That said the minimum number of Long-Term bicycle parking spaces is two (2). Also the square footage shown for this calculation, "7,427" is not the same square footage shown for vehicle and Short-Term bicycle parking, clarify. 12. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.d It dose not appear that the L.A. Fitness proposed Short-Term bicycle parking meets the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.9.3.B.1. 13. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.d It is not clear that the proposed location of the Short & Long - Term bicycle parking shown for the Texas Roadhouse meets the minimum requirements. Provide a detail showing how the required four (4) Short-Term and two (2) Long-Term bicycle parking spaces meet the requirements of LUC Sections 3.3.9.2, .3 & .4. 14. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.d It is not clear that the proposed location of the Short & Long - Term bicycle parking shown for the Building 3 meets the minimum requirements. Provide a detail showing how the required four (4) Short-Term and two (2) Long-Term bicycle parking spaces meet the requirements of LUC Sections 3.3.9.2, .3 & .4. 15. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.d Show the required Short & Long - Term bicycle parking for Building 2. Provide a detail showing how the required two (2) Short-Term and two (2) Long-Term bicycle parking spaces will meet the requirements of LUC Sections 3.3.9.2, .3 & .4. 16. D.S. 2-01.3.9.Q Provide the proposed height for the L.A. Fitness expansion within the footprint of the building. 17. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Provide a width dimension for the sidewalk shown along the north side of the existing L.A. Fitness expansion. Clearly dimension the area north of what appears to a ramp at the northeast corner of the expansion. 18. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Provide a width dimension for the sidewalks shown along the north, west and east side of the L.A. Fitness. Clearly dimension the area north of what appears to a ramp at the northeast corner of the expansion. 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/ DP13-0052 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 04/04/2013 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/04/2013 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all changes to the site and grading plans are reflected on the landscape plan. 2. Ensure that all Zoning and engineering comments and concerns are addressed. 3. Additional comments may apply. |
| 04/05/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/08/2013 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/09/2013 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET 2 OF 4 1. At the note 11 reference to the apparently new concrete curb ramp located at the two existing accessible parking spaces, delete the requirement for detectable warning strips. The accessible aisle is a safe zone. 2. At the new marked crossing: a. Show a maximum running slope of 5% in the marked crossing area as per 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 403.3. b. Show the detectable warning strips, as stated in the reference note, at the bottom of both curb ramps. END OF REVIEW |
| 04/09/2013 | KEN BROUILLETTE | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. ON SHEET 2 OF 4 I SEE THE INDICATION THAT THE FIRE SERVICE LINE IS NOT GOING TO BE USED. WHERE IS THE NEW LINE LOCATED FOR THE BUILDING? 2. ARE THE EXISTING LINES GOING TO BE REMOVED? |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/18/2013 | SHANAE POWELL | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |