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 - DP18-0124
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/17/2019 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/28/2019 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 01/28/2019 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/06/2019 | ELISA HAMBLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department, Plans Coordination Office FROM: Elisa Hamblin, AICP; Principal Planner PROJECT: Starbucks Coffee, 65 W. River Rd. Development Package (3rd Review) DP18-0124 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 5, 2019 DUE DATE: February 5, 2019 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM). 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 May 24, 2019. 1. Per previous comments, the entire sit has been illustrated on sheet 2. Provide an outlined area demonstrating the extent of this project. It is not necessary to include survey legal descriptions of the parcels. 2. 2-06.3.8 - Per previous comments, the north arrow, contour interval, and scale as applicable to each sheet should be placed together in the upper right corner of each sheet. Sheet 3 of 22 does not meet this standard. 3. 2-06.4.4 - Per previous comments, the project-location map to be located on the first sheet of the development package in the upper right corner. It is not necessary to include the location map on multiple sheets. 4. 2-06.4.9.F - Per previous comments, 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. The zoning boundaries have not been defined. Additionally, a C-1 zoned area to the southeast of the large project site has not been labeled on sheet 2. Also indicate the R-6 zone is a Pima County zoning designation. 5. Formatting comment. Correct sheet numbers on sheets 8 thru 16. Each sheet must have the actual sheet number, such as 8 of 22, not a range as listed and repeated on multiple sheets. 6. Formatting comment. Remove the bubbles and deltas used to show changes on the plan set. These are typically only used after an approved plan set goes through formal revisions to indicate the changes between approved plan sets. 7. When changes have been made and a new plan set has been submitted, please contact me for an over-the-counter or scheduled review. Final review should be minimal and can be completed outside the standard review period. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at (520) 837-4966 or Elisa.Hamblin@tucsonaz.gov. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 02/06/2019 | EHAMBLI1 | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/07/2019 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PLAN RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS NOTICE Activity Number: DP18-0124 Project Description: E SITE/GRADING/SWPPP - STARBUCKS NORTHMALL CENTRE The review has been completed and a resubmittal is required. To see review comments, visit PRO at www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO, then search by Activity Number. (If new comments aren't shown yet, check back later as data flows to PRO periodically throughout the day.) Prepare a Comment Response Letter detailing changes to the plan and which review comments are being addressed. After the necessary corrections have been made, submit the following items to the PDSD Filedrop at https://www.tucsonaz.gov/file-upload-pdsd. Please enter the Activity Number in the Project Description field and name the file as directed, for example, 4th submittal: 4_Plan_Set.pdf. The plans will then re-enter a 20-working-day review cycle. 1) Comment Response Letter 2) Corrected plan set with all documents 3) Items requested by review staff The current fee balance is $0 (zero). Thank you. Sharon Beasley City of Tucson Planning and Development Services 201 N. Stone Avenue, First Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 |
| 02/07/2019 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. As previously commented: General notes 10 and 11 on sheet C1 provides bases of bearing and elevation from benchmarks a long distance from the site. Correct or remove these notes. 2. In the first review, a general comment indicated there were inconsistencies in the plans that need to be corrected. The inconsistencies were not listed. Please completely review and quality check the plans. For example on sheet C3, section callouts refer to sheet C6. Sheet C6 is not in the plan set. I will not catalog all of the discrepancies in this plan set but expect they will be found and corrected by the design team. 3. Show dimension for sidewalk connection from the property line to the street front sidewalk. The minimum width is 4 feet. 4. Since there is a median break at the driveway location the Sight Visibility Triangle must be the full far-side dimension. Correct on all sheets. 5. Sheet SD1.0 shows a transformer located within an area shown as a water-harvesting basin on sheet C3. Ensure consistency on all sheets. 6. As previously commented: revise the retention statement to explain how water harvesting will be maximized per UDC 7.6.6.C.2. |
| 02/07/2019 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/07/2019 | SBEASLE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |