|
|
|
|
||
Has the Preliminary Plan Check process been helpful to you? |
|
AMS |
posted :06/14/2006 Ifeel this process was a complete waste of time. The people reviewing for preliminary didn't even seem to know what they were looking for. I was the one pointing out where everything was. They had no clue! Please don't bring this process back. |
dan |
posted :06/13/2006 stop this process, it's ridiculous |
Justin |
posted :06/13/2006 This is a great process to keep Joe Homeowner from clogging up the system with hand sketched 8.5x11's but GREATLY discourages and wastes HUGE amounts of time for people that submit plans on a regular basis. Don't remove the system, just revise it. |
VINCENT M. |
posted :06/12/2006 MANY EMP. ARE RUDE THEIR REQUIREMENTS ARN'T CONSISTANT I'M ALWAYS HEARING PEOPLE COMPLAIN THE COUNTER EMPLOYEES ARE PROVIDING A SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC NOTHING LESS THEY REPRESENT PIMA CO AND THEY NEED TO GROW UP. TIRED OF BITING MY TONGUE. |
Randy |
posted :06/12/2006 Has a set of plans ever been accepted on the first attempt? It depends on who is working and what mood they are in. Dealing with you is about the same as going to the DMV, a DREADFUL experience. I hope this program helps you because it did not help me. |
TCK |
posted :06/08/2006 This would be a great service to first-timers, but give a pass to those of us who have thorough knowledge of the process and requirements. Many items on the prelim list are N/A to some projects. e.g. FFE on an addition to exg. home? |
GH |
posted :06/08/2006 CANCEL THIS PROCESS. |
GB |
posted :06/07/2006 Access to an actual plan check reviewer within each department would be much more helpful. Also, the reviewers being cooperative and consistent with one another and the public would be refreshing. |
DC |
posted :06/07/2006 WHAT A JOKE, WHY TRY AND REVIEW AS PART OF "PRELIMINARY" PLAN CHECK" THIS SHOULD ONLY LOOK TO BE SURE ALL REQUIRED PAGES/DRAWINGS ARE INCLUDED. THE REST IS UP TO THE APPROPIATE REVIEWERS ANYWAY!!!1 |
Ken Knighton |
posted :06/07/2006 I thought it was helpful until I brought in the plans and ended up redoing them twice so far. Why say you are building to the IHC code and then ask for every detail known to man? The word for the whole process is subjective. |
Bill |
posted :06/06/2006 It's not a bad procedure. I see where it is frustrating. The alternative is quick acceptance and rejections later. One problem is skilled staff that know what is needed and in all fairness the abilities of the plan providers to know what to submit. |
JOQUIN |
posted :06/06/2006 PLEASE GET RID OF THIS PROCEDURE, GIVE US LESS PROCEDURES AND MORE EASE OF ACCESSING PLAN CHECK MEMBERS. |
KK |
posted :06/06/2006 I can see that this would be a very helpful process for someone who is unfamiliar with the process. It is truly a hinderance for those of us who submit plans on a regular basis. |
JIM G. |
posted :06/04/2006 THIS WAS AN EXERCISE IN EXHIBITING THE DEPT'S. CONTINUING EFFORTS AT CREATING MORE ADMINISTRATIVE OBSTACLES DUE TO INCOMPETENT PERSONELL AND REFUSING TO ACCEPT PROFESSIONAL OPINION AND RESPONSABILITIES. PROVIDE LESS ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL IS THE ANSWER. |
Donald Clemons |
posted :06/02/2006 waste of time. the reviewers do not know what is supose to be on plans |
Stephen |
posted :06/02/2006 It is a waist of time since they are looking to see if you have imformation on the sheet, but it has nothing to do with whether or not the information is correct. Just do everything at the same time. Why do something twice? |
TParsons |
posted :06/02/2006 Each of my sumittals was checked and approved quickly. For the unitiated, it is probably helpful. For more complicated submittals it could be helpful if the reviewer has lots of experience understanding the interplay between BC, Zoning, and other depts |
RHONDA RAWSON |
posted :06/02/2006 REPEAL THIS PROCESS, THIS HAS ADDED CONSIDERABLE TIME AND EFFORT NEEDLESSLY. |
BOB HULL |
posted :06/01/2006 SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS ARE MEANINGLESS. THIS SHOULD ONLY BE FOR APPLICANTS THAT ARE FIRST TIME CUSTOMERS. |
Richard |
posted :06/01/2006 I think the idea is a great one but could use some changing for example, the houses off of models are being held up double time and putting a strain on the other departments when we have to pull them to walk thru. |
Kelli King Bednar |
posted :05/31/2006 Preliminary Process when getting a permit off of a model is truly a hinderance. |
DM |
posted :05/31/2006 I HAD NO TROUBLE WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAN CHECK . AND IT COULD SAVE PEOPLE ALOT OF TIME . BUT THEN YOU SENT MY PLANS TO PHOENIX FOR REVIEW . WHAT A JOKE THEY ARE HAVING TO LEARN WHAT PIMA COUNTY WANTS AT THE TAX PAYERS EXPENSE .EST 10 WEEKS PULL PERMITS |
BG |
posted :05/31/2006 A review that verifies that all basic components are included in the package keeps the "line" waiting to be reviewed shorter, and free of the "wasting our time" submittals. |
Rob |
posted :05/31/2006 I found it to be very helpful. Although a novice, it did not seem to delay my process. The entire process, including the plan review, only took about two weeks. |
michael |
posted :05/30/2006 It is a good check even for those of us who 'think' we know what we are doing. I think it is helpful as long as there is consistency with what is being required/reviewed. |
RPM |
posted :05/30/2006 A very good idea in my opinion. The information required is basic and general. It saves time in the long run, the reviewer doesn't have to deny the review for the lack of basic info and can focus on the specifics of each project, decreasing review time. |
JOE |
posted :05/30/2006 RIDICULOUS, DON'T CREATE ANOTHER HURDLE, GET RID OF SOME OF THEM... |
valerie |
posted :05/30/2006 I would use it and anything that would help to make the permitting process faster!!! |
MPE |
posted :05/30/2006 IT SHOULD BE AN OPTION FOR THOSE OF US WHO KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING |
JTH |
posted :05/30/2006 The checklist was just another way to delay progress-caused unnecessary revisions and disregarded info that was not contained in the exact loaction dicated by the checklist. Let's not forget "Pima County" is supposed to work for the public, not vice-versa |
Gwyn Higbee |
posted :05/30/2006 It would be helpful if when you drop off the plans they could give you an estimate of what all your fee's would be . The process still takes WAY to long. 2-3 weeks turn around would be more realistic instead of 2-3 months |
JO |
posted :05/30/2006 NOT ONLY A JOKE BUT THEY DIDN'T EVEN LOOK AT EVERYTHING AND JUST SIGNED OFF ON IT. |
ANON |
posted :05/30/2006 THIS IS A JOKE |
 |
Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | Webmaster | Director |  |
Copyright ©2004,
All rights reserved, Revised:
Thursday, May 3, 2007 6:38 PM
|