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.
Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: REVISION - TENT PLAT & CORE RESUB
Plan Number - S11-044
Review Name: REVISION - TENT PLAT & CORE RESUB
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/12/2015 | KROBLES1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/12/2015 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: S11-044 R7 9046 S Houghton Road Tentative/Development Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 24, 2015 DUE DATE: August 24, 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. 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 August 13, 2016. 01. COMMENT: The following zoning comments have been made based on the proposed revision letter and issues that have resulted due to the changes. The revision letter must be revised to include all changes or additions made to the plans. Such as adding an outside patio, removal of bicycle parking, relocation of bicycle parking, changes made to accessible routes locations etc. Revise the revision letter and include it with the next submittal. ****************************************************************************************** 02. COMMENT: Address the following items: A. BICYCLE PARKING: The Long term Bicycle parking facility for the stand alone Food Service building has been located next to the drive-through. This presents a safety concern as the person using the locker facing the south would have to walk onto the drive-through lane to get to the locker. Relocate the facility away from the drive-through area to a location that is more visible from the entrance and safe. The long term bicycle parking facility for the Food Service / Retail Building has been relocated to the back of the building next to the trash enclosure. The location is not visible from the access lanes. It also appears to be in a secluded area which would make for a safety concern. Consider relocating the facility to a more visible location. For both types of Bicycle parking facilities, ensure that the General Criteria in UDC Section 7.4.8.A, .B, .C are demonstrated on the plans. Refer to the UDC sections mentioned and demonstrate compliance on the plans. Provided dimensioned and detailed drawings where required. The previously revised TP included two short term bicycle parking facilities for the Food Service/Retail Building. This revision only includes one facility and it does not meet the 50-foot distance to all suite entrances depicted on the plan. Relocate the facility to meet the distance requirement or provide the second facility as previously provided and ensure that the 50 foot distance is covered to all suites. B. SIDEWALKS ACCESSIBLE ROUTES: Label the widths of the sidewalks around both buildings, especially the sidewalks around the Food Service/Retail Building. The minimum clear with must be four (4) feet. A sidewalk connection from the east side of the Food Service/Retail Building to the north south access drive appears to run into the newly proposed outside dining patio. The accessible path must be located so as to provide a clear path to the continuous pedestrian circulation path located in front of the building and not through the patio area. As noted above, dimension the width of the sidewalks for the Food Service/Retail Building. Of concern is the projecting canopies; columns are depicted in three (3) locations of the canopies and it is not clear if the other canopies are cantilevered. Clarify if all the canopies will be supported by columns or if some will and others be cantilevered. The width of the pedestrian / accessible sidewalk area shall be clearly defined and dimensioned. The HC parking spaces for the Food Service building should be relocated to the north so as to align the crosswalk from the sidewalk system from Food Service/Retail Building. (The HC parking spaces are not required to 20 feet in depth unless requested by the developer.) (Truncated domes are not required on private property. They would still be required on the main access lane sidewalk system where accessible ramps are provided on the overall site.) C. The calculations sheet has been updated with the latest information as has been requested in the past. The new Brake Masters information has been added in the calculations as a new use on portion of lots 7 and 8. However the Automotive Service and Repair Major use is not allowed in the C-1 zone and a special exception cannot be processed for the proposed use. The C-1 portion of the site must be rezoned to a minimum of C-2. While it is not clear what the intentions of the developer or property owner are at this time it may be premature to include the Automotive Service and Repair Major use in the table. An option for the developer is to look at the possibility of a lot reconfiguration and if that is not an option a possible re-plat of the lots to configure a lot that is solely in the I-2 zone which does permit the Automotive Service and Repair Major use. Depending on the decision of the Brake Masters, the TP shall be revised to include the Brake Masters use based on the location and the design. 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. |
| 08/13/2015 | DAVID RIVERA | HC SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See zoning comments. |
| 08/17/2015 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 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. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply |
| 08/20/2015 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/24/2015 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/25/2015 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items: 1) Two rolled sets of the plans 2) All items requested by review staff 3) All items needed to approve this plan |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/26/2015 | KROBLES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |