Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP12-0092
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/27/2012 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Termagon Addition Development Package (2nd Review) DP12-0092 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 27, 2012 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 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. 1. This development package was reviewed for full code compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC) for the entire site Due to a gross floor area expansion greater than 25%. 2. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide the zoning for the parcels located west of Anita Avenue. D.S. 2-01.3.9.F 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. Provide the zoning information for the parcels to the east and west. 3. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 As the relocated gate, shown under keynote 17 will block access to required vehicle parking, provide a note on the plan that the gate is to remain open during business hours. 4. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Based on the square footage shown within the foot print of each building the vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. The vehicle parking space calculation shows a square footage of 1,647 and when added up "BUILDING 'A' & the two (2) 5. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Provide a bicycle parking space calculation that includes the number required and provided. For your information per LUC Section 3.3.8.2.A.1 No long-term bicycle parking is required on a site where there is less than 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. 6. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d As you have elected to use the new vehicle parking space calculation you are required to meet the new bicycle parking requirements. That said provide a detail that shows how the requirements of LUC Sections 3.3.9.2 & 3.3.9.3.A are met. 7. D.S. 2-01.3.9.Q The "EXSTING PORCH" shown on the north end of the building is larger than what is shown on the 2012 aerial. Clarify the difference. 8. This comment was not addressed. D.S. 2-01.3.9.Q Provide the height of each commercial, industrial, or business structure within the footprint of the building(s). 9. This comment was not addressed. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Per D.S. 2-08.3.1 Provide a continuous pedestrian circulation/accessible path is required between all buildings. 10. This comment was not addressed. Based on the most current aerial photos it appears that this use is also using the two (2) Pima County owned parcels to the east 115-18-037A & 115-18-036A. Either provide documentation that permission has been granted by Pima County for the use of these parcels and include them on your development package or show how access to these parcels will not be allowed on the development package. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ DP12-0092 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 12/06/2012 | RONALD BROWN | HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | DETAIL 1 AND 2/C1.2 AND 2/C1.2 1. The curb ramp may not be located within the accessible aisle space as per ICC A117.1, Section 502.4.3. 2. Detectable warnings strips as per note 15 are not required for accessible parking aisles. These are safe zones. 3. Show the accessible route access to new garage. 4. Assure that all new accessible routes slopes comply with ICC A117.1, section 403.3, 5% max running and 2% max cross. 5. Any pedestrian ways required by zoning must be accessible. Rerference zoning comments. END OF REVIEW |
| 12/06/2012 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Required Street landscape borders shall be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee, up to five (5) feet of the required ten (10) foot width be placed within the adjacent right-of-way area or within the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) right-of-way area on MS&R streets. Obtain permission for use of ROW. 2. One (1) canopy tree must be provided for every thirty-three (33) linear feet of landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4. 3. Revise note pertaining to decomposed granite: All disturbed, grubbed, graded, or bladed areas not otherwise improved shall be landscaped, reseeded, or treated with an inorganic or organic ground cover to help reduce dust pollution. LUC 3.7.2.7. 4. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. All changes to the site plan shall be reflected on the landscape plan. 5. Additional comments may apply. |
| 12/12/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Verify the rim and invert elevations of sanitary manhole 9855.01; the invert elevation is generally not 3-feet higher than the rim elevation. If the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (2333.73') is correct, it is higher than the first floor elevation (2333.63'). Provide note on the site plan stating that any future plumbing work for this address will require the installation of a backwater valve. Reference: Section 710.1, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 12/13/2012 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/11/2013 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | REJECT SHELF | Completed |