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

Permit Number: T02CM01003
Parcel: 13303315D

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T02CM01003
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
02/22/2002 PHIL SEADER HANDICAP-SITE REVIEW Approved
03/04/2002 DAN CASTRO ZONING REVIEW Denied COMMENTS: Please attach a response letter with the next submittal, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed.
CODE SECTION/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARD

1. Lot combination is required for this site. Attached is a copy of the covenant prepared by the City Attorney's Office which must be recorded prior to site plan approval.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.2

2. Add the north lot line with dimensions to the site plan.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.5

3. Label height of proposed storage building.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.1

4. a) County address certificate submitted with this site plan indicates there are two separate tax codes making up this property which will required a lot combination as described in above comment number one (1). City zoning maps indicate that the zoning classification for the property west of tax code 315D is SR zoning. Revise zoning classification and setback requirements noted on the plan.
b) To verify compliance with building setback requirements please note the exterior building wall height of all buildings or provide an elevation drawing for all buildings.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7/ D.S. 2-02.2.1A.28

5. a) Under the parking calculations block on sheet C-1, the number of vehicle parking spaces provided should add up to 75 not 76.
b) Fully dimension all vehicle drop-off spaces on the plan.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A8

6. a) Based on 315 students and 15 employees, the number of bicycle parking spaces required is 33 not 32. Revise calculation as required.
b) A minimum of five (5) feet is required for maneuverability in front of the bicycle parking space. Demonstrate on the site plan or detail the required five (5) feet of maneuverability.
D.S. 2-02.2.1A.9/ D.S. 2-09

7. a) Note the number of loading spaces provided under the calculations block on sheet C-1.te plan.
b) Delineate the required 12' x 35' loading space on the plan.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14/ D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.5

8. If applicable, all existing or proposed easements must be shown on the plan including width, type, and recording docket and page reference.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20

9. Revise the proposed use note under the calculations block on sheet C-1 to: "Educational Use: Elementary School, Development Designator 5, subject to: Sec. 3.5.3.7."
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A

10. Provide the lot coverage calculation (building area plus vehicular use area divided by the gross site area).
D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3

11. This project is within the Environmental Resource Zone (ERZ). A separate review is required for the ERZ. The case number for this review must be noted in the lower right corner of each sheet of the tentative plat, landscape and NPPO plans. All required elements of the ERZ as shown on the approved ERZ plan must be added to the tentative plat, along with date of approval and any conditions placed on that approval.

The ERZ requires separate review for an Environmental Resource Report (which is to be submitted by the applicant) as established in Development Standard 2-13.0. This report presents a study of the resource corridor and documents locations of the resource corridor and critical habitat. This report is to include a mitigation plan, which is reviewed in accordance with Land Use Code Sec. 5.4.3.9, Type IX Administrative Procedure. Please refer to Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.6.5 and 2.8.6.6.
L.U.C. 2.8.6

12. All requested changes must be made to the site and landscape plans.
D.S. 2-07.2.1.A
03/15/2002 PAUL MACHADO SANITATION REVIEW Approved
03/15/2002 PAUL MACHADO ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied To:Wayne E. Swan, P.E.
Intertech 6089 E. Grant Rd.


SUBJECT: Tag Elementary School,
Site plan T02CM01003 (First Review)
T14S, R15E, Section 2


RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan

The Site Plan (SP) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal.


Site Plan:


1. The Drainage report was reviewed for Site Plan purposes only.
2. The existing sight visibility distances of 378'-4" and 158'-3" are acceptable, however, for the record how were these distances computed?
3. The sight visibility triangle at the west entrance (near side) should be measured 20' back of the point of intersection of the face of curbs.
4. Future sight visibility triangles must be drawn assuming the Major Streets and Routes criteria
5. It is recommended but not required, that a 10'x10x6" thick concrete apron be placed in front of the refuse container due the weight of the service vehicle.
6. A private improvement agreement may be necessary for work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Department of transportation at (520) 791-4249.
7. Please list the cut and fill, not the difference between the two per D.S. 2-02.17.
8. Call out depressed curb openings along the extruded curb, width and interval distances.
9. List what type of curb per COT SD 209 on key note 14.
10. Please show a typical cross section of the P.A.A.L.
11. Add to general notes "Maximize water harvesting by depressing landscaped areas a maximum 6".
12. Please show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks. Please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S 3-01.4.4.F
13. Why is the legal description on twice?
14. Rewrite general note 15.
15. Key note no. 37 points to proposed contour line, is this correct?
16. Omit "Drain onto adjacent streets where possible" in General Grading and Drainage note no. 1. Perhaps "maintain existing drainage where possible" would pertain.
17. There are three legends on the plans, why?
18. Edit the symbol legend to reflect civil drawing instead of architectural.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 or pmachad2@ci.tucson.az.us

Paul Machado
Senior Engineering Associate
03/15/2002 PAUL MACHADO FLOODPLAIN REVIEW Denied
03/19/2002 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied Development on this property is subject to ERZ regulations. See DS 2-13.2.0 for submittal requirements. Locate the 100 yr. floodplain of the Tanque Verde. Add appropriate notes regarding ERZ compliance. LUC 2.8

5' high masonry screen walls are required on the east and west property lines adjacent to the development. The screen wall along the west boundary line is required to extend to screen the existing building, if used for storage and maintenance as indicated on the site plan. LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Provide wall details per DS 2-07.2.2.

List by genus and species any seeds proposed for use on the site. DS 2-07

Clarify the nature of the ground surface treatments along the Speedway buffer. The plans include references to both deceomposed granite and seeding. DS 2-07

The transformer and electrical distribution panel may not be located within the street landscape border. These items must also be screened from view along Speedway. See LUC table 3.7.2-I

The landscape plan may require revision in compliance with the Native Plant Preservation requirements. See NPPO comments.
03/19/2002 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Denied The general notes on the landscape plan indicate that a native plant preservation plan has been completed. Other than the plant inventory list, none of the required elements of a preservation plan were received. Please refer to DS 2-15 for plan requirements. Please call for additional information if necessary. J. Linville 791-5640 Ext. 118
03/20/2002 JIM EGAN FIRE REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
03/22/2002 MONICA VALDEZ OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed