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 - DP13-0148
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/08/2013 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 08/12/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Revisions to a private sewer collection system will require review of the sewer design by the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality. |
| 08/16/2013 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Please indicate location of existing and proposed fire hydrants. Refer to Chapter 5 of the 2012 IFC for spacing requirements. Also, please show the proposed location for the fire sprinkler service underground that will be required to serve the new retail building. |
| 08/20/2013 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Palo Verde Plaza - Expansion Development Package (1st Review) DP13-0148 TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 21, 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 areas of expansion and change to the last approved plan. 2. Provide a copy of the last approved site plan with your next submittal 3. Remove all references to the Land Use Code (LUC) and Development Standards (DS) from the plan, see highlighted. The following comments are based on the requirements of Administrative Manual (AM) 2-06.0. Development package review comments; 1. A.M. 2-06.4.3 Provide the following relevant case numbers on the plan adjacent to the title block on all sheets, DP13-0148. 2. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.4 Revise General Note 3 to read "GENERAL MERCHANDISE SALES - SHOPPING CENTER, SUBJECT TO USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS 4.9.9.B.1". 3. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.6 Provide a general notes stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA SEC. 5.4, MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE & Sec. 5.5, GATEWAY CORRIDOR ZONE (GCZ)". 4. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.8.a The floor areas listed in General Note 5 do not add up to what is shown on sheet 2, and sheet 2 does not match sheet 3, clarify. The new enclosed loading dock is to be included in the square footage. 5. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.8.c Until comment 4 has been addressed the building expansion calculation cannot be verified. The new enclosed loading dock is to be included in the square footage. 6. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.8.d General Note 4 excludes the PIP Boys from the lot area. PEP Boys is not a stand alone site and therefore is included. 7. A.M. 2-06.4.9.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. That said provide the zoning for the parcels south of 22nd and west of Kolb. 8. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5. Provide a parking area access lane (PAAL) width dimension for the PAAL located south of the proposed 3,520 sq. ft. addition. 9. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.a Provide a vehicle parking space depth (C) dimension for the three (3) vehicle parking spaces show south of the proposed 3,520 sq. ft. addition. 10. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.a Until comment 4 has been addressed the required number of vehicle parking spaces cannot be verified. 11. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.d As you have elected to use the new 1/300 GFA vehicle parking calculation and this shopping center was approved prior to this change in the code, per a determination the required bicycle must meet the current UDC requirements. Provide a Short & Long term bicycle parking space calculation for the entire site and demonstrate on the site plan how the required number of Short & Long term bicycle parking is met. 12. A.M. 2-06.4.9.R Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.B A sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located. That said provide a sidewalk along both sides of the access lane between the proposed addition and proposed building. 13. A.M. 2-06.4.9.R It is not clear that sidewalks are proposed along the front of the proposed buildings, clarify. 14. A.M. 2-06.4.9.R Provide width dimensions for the ramp shown near the southwest corner of the proposed building. 15. A.M. 2-06.4.9.R Show the required pedestrian circulation path to the proposed dumpster location. 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/ DP13-0148 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package. |
| 08/23/2013 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | DS 7.6.2 APPLICABILITY: 1. On sites where the gross floor area of the existing building(s) is more than 10,000 square feet, expansion in square footage of land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area as follows: a. If the expansion is less than 25%, the standards of this section apply only to the proposed expansion. Existing development on the site is subject to the zoning standards in effect at the time the existing development received zoning approval. b. If the expansion is 25% or greater or if expansions as of February 15, 1991, cumulatively result in a 25% or greater expansion in land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area, the standards of this section apply to the entire site. 2. Provide a copy of the last approved site and landscape plans with next submittal for reference. 3. Provide the relevant case numbers adjacent to the title block on all development package sheets A.M. 2-06.4.3. 4. Ensure that all Zoning & Engineering comments and concerns are addressed and appropriate revisions are made to all the plans within the development package 5. Additional comments may apply |
| 08/26/2013 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/03/2013 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET 3 1. At the marked crossing please reference the two curb ramps to the large scale detail 16/5. 2. Please provide a large scale detail of the access ramp shoiwing all accessible requirements. Please reference to this new detail from this site plan. 3. At note 4: a. Please add "Parking" to the note b. Change detail reference to 5/5 SHEET 4 4. At note 7 please add a compliance note to the effect that all new accessible route slopes are to comply with 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% maximum running slopes and 2% maximum cross slopes. SHEET 5 5. At detail 5 change the sign reference to 5/1. 6. At detail 16, add 8'-0" width dimension line as noted on sheet 3. END OF REVIEW |
| 09/04/2013 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Clearly show on the site plan the location of wall openings described in the drainage statement by Jeff Stanley, PE. AM 2-06.4.N.3. Show ground elevation contours for the site. The contours should substantiate the drainage patterns shown. AM 2-06.4E. Provide dimensions for maneuverability in the new service vehicle area. AM 2-06.4.H.5.c. Show Sight Visibility Triangles for all existing driveways. AM 2-06.4.O. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/12/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |