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
Permit Number - DP15-0204
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/07/2015 | BVIESTE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/07/2015 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | I checked all of my e-mails & this is the 1st time we have seen this project, however, since this is not a Tentative or Final Plat Review, our section has not comments to make on this. Sherry Hyde Sr. Property Technician Pima County Assessor's Office (520)724-6629 |
| 12/07/2015 | BVIESTE1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | August 17, 2015 Baker & Associates Engineering, Inc. 3561 E. Sunrise Dr. Ste 225 Tucson, AZ 85718 Attn: Michael John Baker, P.E. SUBJECT: Water Availability for project: TMC Medical Services Facilities at Civano, APN: 141019260, Case #: WA1799, T-15, R-15, SEC-12, Lots: 16, Location Code: TUC, Total Area: 4.9ac Zoning: PAD-12 WATER SUPPLY Tucson Water will provide water service to this project based on the subject zoning of the above parcels. Tucson Water has an assured water supply (AWS) designation from the State of Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). An AWS designation means Tucson Water has met the criteria established by ADWR for demonstration of a 100-year water supply - it does not mean that water service is currently available to the subject project. WATER SERVICE The approval of water meter applications is subject to the current availability of water service at the time an application is received. The developer shall be required to submit a water master plan identifying, but not limited to: 1) Water Use; 2) Fire Flow Requirements; 3) Offsite/Onsite Water Facilities; 4) Loops and Proposed Connection Points to Existing Water System; and 5) Easements/Common Areas. Any specific area plan fees, protected main/facility fees and/or other needed facilities' cost, are to be paid by the developer. If the existing water system is not capable of meeting the requirements of the proposed development, the developer shall be financially responsible for modifying or enhancing the existing water system to meet those needs. This letter shall be null and void two years from the date of issuance. Issuance of this letter is not to be construed as agency approval of a water plan or as containing construction review comments relative to conflicts with existing water lines and the proposed development. If you have any questions, please call New Development at 791-4718. Sincerely, Richard A. Sarti, P.E. Engineering Manager Tucson Water Department |
| 12/07/2015 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Passed | Per okay to submit, Addressing does not need to see this plan |
| 12/10/2015 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | TEP 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 December 10, 2015 Baker & Associates Engineering, Inc 3561 E Sunrise Dr, Ste 225 Tucson, AZ 85718 To Whom It May Concern: SUBJECT: TMC MEDICAL SERVICES FACILITY AT CIVANO DP15-0204 WO #6098320 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted to our office. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Mr. Richard Harrington New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer, Mike Riesgo, at (520) 917-8764. Sincerely, Natalie R Nava Scheduling Coordinator Design/Build |
| 12/11/2015 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Reqs Change | Please indicate location(s) of existing and proposed fire hydrants. Refer to section 507 of 2012 IFC for spacing requirements. This project will have a high required fire flow (per appendix B of the 2012 International Fire Code), especially if no fire sprinklers are installed. Verify with architect and Tucson Water that fire flow requirements can be met. FYI, fire sprinklers can reduce the fire flow requirements by 75%. |
| 12/15/2015 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 12/16/2015 | BVIESTE1 | POLICE | REVIEW | Approved | I have no issues with this proposal. CSO Becky Noel #37968 Tucson Police Dept. 1100 S. Alvernon Tucson, AZ 85711 520-837-7428 |
| 12/21/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (MH #1, 2891.82') is less than 12" below the first floor elevation (2892.5'). Provide a note on the plans requiring the installation of a backwater valve. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 12/21/2015 | 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: Any case number for reviews including the one assigned to this plan. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply |
| 12/21/2015 | BVIESTE1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Passed | |
| 12/21/2015 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Michael St Paul Planning Technician PROJECT: DP15-0204 10350 East Drexel Road TMC Medical Service PAD 12 Civano Pavillions TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 21, 2015 DUE DATE: December 21, 2015 1) COMMENT: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code, The Administrative and Technical Manuals 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). The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above 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 . 2. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) Section 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 2-06.1.1 PURPOSE This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews. The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property. This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes. 2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review. 2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided. The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application: 2-06.2.1 Application Form A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee; 2-06.2.2 Development Package A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein; 2-06.2.3 Related Reviews In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the; 2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and, 2-06.2.5 Fees Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.1 - The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided on the right half of the cover sheet. The applicable registration or license number shall be provided if prepared by or with the assistance of a registered professional, such as a surveyor, architect, landscape architect, or engineer. All sealing shall be consistent with Arizona Board of Technical Registration guidelines. 2) COMMENT: Provide the email address for the owners and all of the consultants, as described above. 2-06.4.6 - If the project is located within the boundaries of a Planned Area Development (PAD) zone, include a reduced-scale map of the PAD on the first sheet, indicating the location of the portion being developed. 3) COMMENT: Provide the PAD map, as described above. 2-06.4.9.W - Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Indicate if there are any existing billboards on site. Compliance to the Sign Code, Chapter 3 of the Tucson Code, is required. 4) COMMENT: All signs shall require separate permits. 2-06.4.9.X - Show compliance with landscaping and screening requirements by locations, material descriptions, and dimensions. Specific plant or hardscape material shall be detailed on a landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan is required. In accordance with Section 2-11.0.0, Landscape Plan Requirements. 5) COMMENT: See landscaping review comments by Andrew Conner. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Michael St. Paul, (520) 837-4959. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents. |
| 12/21/2015 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 12/21/2015 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/21/2015 | BVIESTE1 | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | No existing or proposed Tucson Parks and Recreation facilities are affected by this development. Howard B. Dutt, RLA Landscape Architect Tucson Parks & Recreation (520) 837-8040 Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov |
| 12/21/2015 | BVIESTE1 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Reqs Change | Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department Jackson Jenkins Director 201 N. Stone Ave., 8th Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 PH: (520) 740-6500 FAX: (520) 620-0135 December 16, 2015 To: Michael J. Baker, P.E. Baker & Associates Engineering, Inc. Thru: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson Development Services ____________________________________ From: Tom Porter, P.E., PCRWRD (520) 724-6719 Subject: TMC Medical Services Facilities @ Civano Development Plan - 1st submittal P15WS00048 The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer design for the above-referenced project. The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department has found the following deficiencies in the above referenced submittal of the Preliminary Sewer Layout (PSL), based upon PCRWRD Engineering Design Standards (EDS) 2012. 1. Sheet 1: Include the following General Note: THE ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN APPROVED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, IF REQUIRED. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT. 2. Sheet 3: Call out the slope and length of proposed public sewer between manholes. 3. Sheet 3: Call out the pipe size for the proposed BCS connection to MH #1. This office will require a revised set of plans, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. All comments cited in this letter are based upon PCRWRD Engineering Design Standards 2012 and PCRWRD Standard Specifications and Details for Construction 2012. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the Preliminary Sewer Layout. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per Sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50.00 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next plan submittal will require a review fee of $100.00 made payable to Pima County Treasurer. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at your convenience. |
| 12/21/2015 | BVIESTE1 | UTILITIES | CENTURYLINK | Passed | |
| 12/21/2015 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | COMMENTS Plan Tucson on the Future Growth Scenario Map identifies the project site as "Existing Neighborhoods." Existing neighborhoods are characterized in Plan Tucson as largely built-out residential neighborhoods and commercial districts in which minimal new development or redevelopment is expected in the next few decades. The goal is to maintain the character of these neighborhoods while accommodating some new development and encouraging reinvestment, services, and amenities that contribute to further neighborhood stability. Plan Tucson policy directs that the application of the Pima County Conservation Land System designation and requirements be considered in rezoning reviews. Plan Tucson supports the utilization of solutions and strategies outlined in the Design Guidelines Manual to provide an improved level of community design such as methods to conserve and enhance habitat when development occurs and accessibility to open space that connects with surrounding public natural areas. Plan Tucson supports an interconnected urban trail system throughout the city to meet the recreational needs of pedestrian, bicyclist, and equestrians. The Civano Master PAD provides land use policy direction for this area and identifies the development area as within the commercial pavilions area and is designated as Major Medical. Additionally, the plan states other permitted land uses for this area such as specific types of commercial, wholesaling, and industrial uses. Project in compliance with Plan Tucson and the Civano Master PAD. |
| 12/21/2015 | BVIESTE1 | UTILITIES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Passed | |
| 12/21/2015 | BVIESTE1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Reqs Change | The Development Plan has been reviewed on behalf of the Environmental Services Dept. and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal: 1. Change the note in Detail 4 on Sheet 3 to state the enclosure will be constructed per the Figures 2 and 3A in TSM section 8-01.9.0 and omit the reference to the previously used Development Standards. Correct the notes and dimensions in the detail to agree with the Figures. For instance, the rebar is to be 12" on center, both ways, etc. 2. Perform the waste stream calculations and include them in the note next to Detail 4 on Sheet 3 per TSM 8-01.4.0.B 3. There appears to be a grade shown on the enclosure on Sheet 5 that does not allow drainage to flow away from the enclosure and apron. Please review and correct if needed. The enclosure floor and apron are to slope at a minimum of 1 percent away from the enclosure per the notes in Figure 3A. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net |
| 12/21/2015 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports its acceptance. Thank you. |
| 12/21/2015 | BVIESTE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | See additional documents in PRO. No objections/adverse comments. See attached. |
| 12/21/2015 | BVIESTE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Passed | |
| 12/21/2015 | BVIESTE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 12/22/2015 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | TO: Baker and Associates Engineering, Inc. SUBJECT: TMC Medical Service PAD 12 Civano Pavillions Development Package Engineering Review submittal PROJECT: Civano TMC Medical Development Package LOCATION: 10350 East Drexel Rd, 85747, 141-01-9260, T15S R15E Sec12, Ward 4 IMPACT FEE AREA: Southeast REZONING / PAD: C9-05-02 / PAD-12 FEMA PANEL: 2320L, Zone X-Unshaded REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold P.E., CPM, CFM ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP15-0204 SUMMARY: The submittal of the Development Package that includes the Site/Grading/SWPPP development for TMC Medical Service. Planning and Development Services Department Engineering Division does note recommend approval until the following comments are addressed. BASE PLAN SHEETS COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Administrative Manual Section (Admin Man Sec.) 2-06.4.7.6.a, B.2.b: Explain how in response letter and show on plans how the project meets requirements for the PAD. 2) Admin Man Sec.2-06.3: Add DP15-0204 case number to Development Package sheets. MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES: 3) Tech Man Sec.4-04.14.3.2(a)-(d) and 14.3.3: Add these sections as general notes for maintenance for drainage facilities. Note may be edited to read "detention basin and drainage facilities" (to exclude 'retention'). SITE PLAN SHEET COMMENTS: 4) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.8.A, Tech Man. Sec.10-01.5.3: Clarify SVT's along Houghton Road - the improvements for Houghton Road should have made future and existing SVT's coincidental. Confirm accurate SVT information on plans. 5) Tech Man Sec 8-01.5: Clarify solid waste area trash enclosure detail 4 on sheet 3 showing dimensions. Assure a minimum 10-ft clear between bollards and gate for solid waste pick-up area, and minimum 20-ft clear between interior side bollards. Label minimum 2% grade away from enclosure. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 6) Tech Man Sec.4-04.2.3.1.1.F: Provide seal and signature of Arizona Registered Civil Engineer responsible for the preparation of the report. 7) Tech Man Sec.4-04.2.3.1.1: Add the following date to the cover page of the report: a) DP15-0204 to cover page. b) Address of the project. c) PAD case number. d) Phone number of the client for whom the report was prepared. e) Submittal number (i.e., first submittal) 8) Tech Man Sec.4-02, Tucson Code Sec.26-5.2.11, UDC Sec.7.14.1&4, Tech Man Sec.4-04.2.2, 2.3.1: Address the following Drainage Report comments: a) Revise basin design to meet the following requirements: i) Human activity Zone 8:1(H:V) slopes shall be provided at north and south areas of basin per Tech Man Sec.4-03.4.3.1. ii) Per UDC 7.11.2, basins may not have slopes steeper than 4:1(H:V) where basin depths exceed 2-feet. Revise basin. iii) Basin indicates a depth over 3 feet and using the percolation rates, and by using the elevations provided in report and plans, the infiltration rate appears to exceed the maximum disposal time of 12 hours for this watershed area. iv) It is unclear from planview on sheet 4 where outlet weir is as indicated in drainage report. Clarify that volume, below elevation of outlet, meets drain down time. b) Provide table showing 2-yr, 10-yr, and 100-yr pre- and post developed outflow rates. c) On page 3, remove statement regarding Pima County basis for determining riparian habitat, since City of Tucson has various methods of determining riparian floodplain areas aside from onsite environmental/biological studies, there are also City of Tucson classification areas shown on GIS Map areas indicated by TSMS Riparian, Shaw, and PC Riparian areas. Clarify that an Environmental Resource Report and review for Protected Riparian Area is not required since no riparian floodplain exists at the site. d) Explain how flow enter adjacent stormdrain system in Houghton Right-of-way. e) Add to section for Operation & Maintenance on page 4, that "The certified annual inspection report shall contain at minimum the following summaries: i) A statement saying that either no maintenance work is needed at that time, or a list of repairs and work to be done to correct deficiencies, to avoid potential problems, and/or to restore the aesthetics. Also state that this work shall be followed by a Letter of Certification from an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer verifying that the recommended work has been satisfactorily completed. The Engineer shall notify the City Engineer, in writing, should safety-related maintenance not be completed within a reasonable period of time. ii) A statement either indicating that watershed conditions have not changed since the previous inspection report, or stating that specific changes have occurred which alter or eliminate some of the design features - thereby affecting the level of service of the drainage and detention/retention systems. In addition, the City Engineer is to be immediately notified, in writing, if watershed conditions have changed to the extent that drainage and detention/retention systems no longer satisfy the requirements of the City Floodplain Regulations." 9) Tech Man Sec.4-04.2.3.1.5.G, Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.9.N.5: Provide in report verification that any drainage solutions which occur outside the boundaries of the development area are constructed with adjacent owners' permission. (Additional notarized documentation of that approval will be submitted with the drainage report.) GRADING, PAVING, DETAIL SHEET COMMENTS: 10) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.9.M.1, Tech Man Secs.4-04.2.3.1.6.B.1, 2-01.4.1.C, 8-01.5.2.G: Address the following grading comments: a) Show how project runoff flows enter adjacent stormdrain system in Houghton Right-of-way. b) Revise grade spot elevations near solid waste enclosure area to assure positive gradient away from enclosure including 2% slope away. c) Revise grading for basin per drainage comments above, including detention requirement - show outlet structure with details. d) Show roof drainage direction and locations of associated scuppers beneath walk areas. e) Show on site and grading plan sheets basin access ramp and human activity zone slopes. On human activity zone slope may be concurrently located with the ramp. SURVEY RELATED COMMENTS: 11) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.8.A, Tech Man. Sec.10-01.5.3: Label and depict on grading sheet planview sheets or on sheet 1 index map, a local Basis of Elevation. UTILITIES / EASEMENTS COMMENTS: 12) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.8.B, 2-06.4.9.L: On site and grading planview sheets, show any easements on and immediately adjacent to or overlapping the project site parcel. All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided. Assure complete information is provided for easements on the site. All proposed easements are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. Any easements should be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval. Provide title report with next submittal. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN COMMENTS: 13) Provide seals for SWPP and new report jackets that fit pages - the binders do not close and pages are missing. SOILS/GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS: 14) Tech Man Sec.4-04.14.2.6: Provide addendum or revised report from geotechnical engineer addressing: a) Hydro-collapsing soils (30-ft boring or discussion); b) And the associated setbacks for parking and buildings from basin. For resubmittal, provide one copy of the most recent soils report and addenda in next submittal, with comprehensive response letter, revised drainage report, other documents, and revised plan sheets. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Dept |
| 12/23/2015 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | The above listed review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items: 1) Two 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 plans |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/30/2015 | KROBLES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |