Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP12-0151
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/10/2012 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 09/12/2012 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | New structure (and existing structure) appear to be too far from existing fire hydrants. Please refer to C.O.T. amendments to the 2006 IFC (section 508.5.1) for spacing requiredments. |
| 09/13/2012 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. At detail 4, please detlete the 6'-0" dimensions and add a new 7'-0" dimension from finished grade to the bottom of the main sign. 2. At detail 3: a. Add the marked crossing to the end of the access aisle and provide a width dimension of the marked crossing. b. Relocate the signs to a position just inside the curb line. c. Reference Zoning comments, the new concrete accessible route is to be a minimum of 4'0" wide. d. Add Sections 406.12, 13 and 14 to the detectable warning note. Please change the detectable warning to meet these requirements as applicapable. 3. At note 8 please add the following: "All slopes for accessible routes are to comply with ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% max running slope and 2% cross slope". END OF REVIEW |
| 09/17/2012 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Old Pueblo Gymnastics Academy - Expansion Development Package (1st Review) DP12-0151 TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 20, 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 project was reviewed for full code compliance, Land Use Code & Development Standards, for the entire site due to a building expansion of greater than 25%. The following comments are based on Development Standard 2-01.0: 2. D.S. 2-01.3.2.D Zoning acknowledges that D.S. 2-01.3.2.D states that an administrative street address is to be provided in the title block. After discussion with Pima County Addressing the administrative street address is to be provided adjacent to the title block. That said provide an administrative address adjacent to the title block. 3. D.S. 2-01.3.3 Provide the development package number, DP12-0151, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 4. D.S. 2-01.3.4 Identify the section corners on the location map. 5. D.S. 2-01.3.A.4 Per LUC Section 2.5.3.2.C.5 there is no subject to section for this use. That said remove "SUBJECT TO SECTION 6.3.4 OF THE LUS" from "DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NOTES #3. 6. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.6.b Provide a general notes stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE CRITERIA SEC. 2.8.3, MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE". 7. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.a Sheet G1.0 under "PARKING CALCULATION" the square footage of the addition is called out as 3,740 GSF and on sheet A1.0 within the footprint of the addition it is called out as 3,790 GSF, clarify which number is correct. 8. 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. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. That said provide the zoning for the property north of Wrightstown. 9. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Sheet G1.1, under the "DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NOTES" #3 the use is called out as "INSTRUCTIONAL SCHOOL'. Sheet G1.0 under "PARKING CALCULATION" the vehicle and bicycle parking calculations are based on a use of "RECREATION USE GROUP - GYMNASIUM". Per LUC Section 2.5.3.2.D, Recreation Use Group a GYMNASIUM is not an allowed use. Revise the calculation to reflect the correct use and required number of bicycle parking both short and long term. 10. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Provide a width dimension for the cross walk shown north of the accessible vehicle parking spaces. 11. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Per D.S. 2-08.5.1.A All sidewalks will be a minimum four (4) feet wide. That said the 3'-0" sidewalk along the north side of the proposed building does not meet this requirement. A Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) is required to reduce the with of the sidewalk. If the DSMR is approved provide the following information on the site plan; DSMR number, date of approval, what was approved and any conditions of approval. 12. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.a & D.S. 2-01.3.9.R The proposed accessible signs shown within the vehicle parking spaces cannot reduce the vehicle parking space to less than 18' or reduce the sidewalk to less than 3'-0". Zoning recommends that the signs be mounted on the building. 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/ DP12-0151 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package. |
| 09/26/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/01/2012 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Landscaping requirements apply to expansion of existing development as follows: " On sites where the gross floor area of the existing building(s) is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, expansion in square footage of land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area as follows: " If the expansion is 25% or greater or if expansions as of February 15, 1991 cumulatively result in a 25% or greater expansion in land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area, the requirements of this Division apply to the entire site per LUC 3.7.1.2.B. 2. Provide previous approved site and landscape plans for reference. 3. Provide the following information if necessary: " Location, size, and name of existing vegetation to remain in place. " Both the proper and common name of each type of plant material. 4. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all Zoning comments and concerns are addressed and reflected on the plans. 3. Additional comments may apply |
| 10/02/2012 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/05/2012 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 5, 2012 TO: Charles Marcus Poster, R.A. SUBJECT: Old Pueblo Gym Academy Expansion Development Package submittal Engineering Review ADDRESS: 7670 E WRIGHTSTOWN RD REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E. ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP12-0151 SUMMARY: Engineering has reviewed the Development Package. Please address the following comments in resubmittal. COMMENT: 1) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5: For site plan sheet A1.0, adjust design to assure minimum 4-ft sidewalk width is provided at north side of new structure addition. Also, assure PAAL width and stall dimensions at the north parking area provide the minimum required length/widths. Keep in mind that the north drainage area may not be encroached by fill. Please call to discuss solution prior to re-submittal. Provide response letter with resubmittal. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division, Planning & Development Services Department City of Tucson |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/18/2012 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | REJECT SHELF | Completed |