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 - DP14-0182
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/10/2015 | AROMERO4 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/11/2015 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP14-0182 6803 S Palo Verde Road Development Package - Home Goods Distribution Center TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 11, 2015 DUE DATE: March 17, 2015 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. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Development Package Standards listed in section 2-06 of the City of Tucson Administrative Manual. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC). 1. Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is October 15, 2015. 01. Comment - Follow-up to Previous Comment 4: This comment will remain until the Lot Combo has been completed and the documents are provided with the next DP. 2-06.4.2.C - The number of proposed lots and common areas are to be noted. If the subdivision is a Flexible Lot Development (FLD), a condominium, or a similar type of residential subdivision utilizing special provisions of the UDC, it shall be so noted; 04. Previous COMMENT: A Pima County Tax Parcel Combination (that combines all the parcels into one Assessors Tax parcel number) will be required prior to approval of the development package. ********************************************************************* 02. COMMENT - Follow-up to Previous Comment 5 - List the Annexation case number C15-88-01A next to the DP case number on all sheets. 2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 05. Previous COMMENT: This project has been assigned the PDSD DP case number DP14-0182. List the DP case number in the lower right corner and above the Approval Stamp Box of all plan sheets. List all applicable case numbers to include rezoning, annexation, or other process case numbers. List as a general note, on the cover sheet, the annexation case number and conditions of the annexation. I understand that there is a request to M and C for change to one of the conditions. If the change is approved provide a copy of the document and add the condition on the plans as a general note. ********************************************************************* 03. COMMENT - Follow-up to Previous Comment 30: Prior to approval of the DP the recordation of the easement for the public sidewalk on private property will be required. The recordation information must be labeled on the plans. Copies of the recorded documentation must be included with the DP submittal. 2-06.4.9.L - All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. The easements may have to be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval. 30. Previous COMMENT: A portion of the Street sidewalk along the Corona Road is depicted on private property. A recorded easement will be required for the sidewalk area proposed on site. There is a conflict between the keynotes attached to a rectangle depicted along the back of the sidewalk that is depicted on the site, sheet A1.1. Keynote 1019 on sheet A1.0 notes a bus Shelter, Keynote 1018 on sheet A1.1 notes a Guard house for the same location. Clarify which keynote is correct and revise the keynote as required. ********************************************************************* If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents. |
| 03/13/2015 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Detail 2/A1.6: As per the 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 502.5, grade elevations at the accessible parking space and ailse are to be a maximum in all directions. 2. Detail 5/A1.6: The bottom of the main accessible parking sign is to be 7'-0" above finished grade. 3. PREVIOUS COMMENT 4: NON RESPONSIVE "4. Provide large scale details of all the different types of ramps used on this project showing all the accessible requirements such as dimensioning, slope percentages, directional slope arrows, widths, ramp runs, elevations, handrails as required and landings. All ramps must comply with the 2009 ICC A117.1, Sections 405 and 406". a. The addition of detail 4/A1.6 shows only a detail and specification for truncated domes. Detectable warnings(truncated domes) are required at transportation platforms only. They may be omitted from this project with in the boundaries of the property line. If used however, they must be installed as per the 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 403.12, 13 and 14 and Section 705 as applicable. b. Please provide curb and sidewalk ramp details as per the 2009 ICC A117.1, Sections 405 and 406. END OF REVIEW 4. Provide large scale details of all the different types of ramps used on this project showing all the accessible requirements such as dimensioning, slope percentages, directional slope arrows, widths, ramp runs, elevations, handrails as required and landings. All ramps must comply with the 2009 ICC A117.1, Sections 405 and 406. END OF REVIEW |
| 03/13/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 03/16/2015 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS Identification and Descriptive Data All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan. The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet: Rezoning case; Subdivision case; Board of Adjustment case; Design Development Option case; Development Review Board (DRB) case; and/or, Any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply |
| 03/17/2015 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | The Engineering Section recommends approval of this development package on the condition that the TSMR is approved and the TSMR case number is added to the list of applicable cases on each sheet and any conditions for the TSMR are listed in the general notes. |
| 03/18/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Reqs Change | Please see the following comments. In addition, I called the EOR (Mark Beck, Beck Consulting Engineers) for this project, and went over these comments: 1. The proposed left turn lane must be designed in accordance to the City of Tucson and Pima County Pavement Marking Design Manual, in particular Details 4.1 and 4.2. 2. The left turn width must 12-feet wide. 3. The referenced left turn detail (Detail 12, Sheet A1.6) does show taper lengths, but it must also include the following info: a. Dimension left turn width b. Dimension both north and south bound lane widths c. Show existing curbing and sidewalk d. Show proposed entrance, including curb returns c. Show existing utilities such as power poles, valve boxes,..etc. d. Dimension existing right-of-way width 4. As mentioned in the last comments the reaming improvements (along Corona and Alvernon) are in Pima County jurisdiction (this including row permitting), written comments, and/or approvals should be obtained from the County. 5. The proposed improvements along Palo Verde (left turn lane and opening) will need to be submitted via the PIA process. |
| 03/18/2015 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items 1) 3 rolled sets of the plans 2) A disk containing all items submitted 3) All items requested by review staff 4) All items needed to approve these plan |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/25/2015 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |