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
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: REVISION - SITE
Permit Number - T06CM06319
Review Name: REVISION - SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/14/2008 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/14/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/14/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/24/2008 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 25 JULY 2008 T06CM06319/CENTRAL CITY BUSINESS PARK REVIEWED BY RON BROWN ACCESSIBLE REVIEW 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 DENIED: SEE COMMENTS BELOW I. SHEET A1.0 A. Detail 4: Because of the rounded corners of the 2x12 steel tube sign post, the edges of a 12" wide steel sign plate will stick out and be a possible hazard for people cutting themselves on the edge. How about using a 4x14 where the sign can be mounted flush? B. Detail 4 conflicts with detail 2/A.2. Which one are you to use? C. Change the Fine on either or both accessible parking signs to $532.00. D. Detail 11: 1. Plan "A": The wings are to be a minimum of 1:10 slope 2. Plan "B": This ramp configuration is not as per 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1. Reference Section 406 for approved plan configurations. An alternate plan would be to use a sidewalk ramp in the middle of a peninsula with in turning curbs, reference section 405. E. At Detail 12: Relocate the accessible parking signage to a point just behind the curb line in the concrete walkway. II. SHEET A1.1: A. There are approximately 11 curb ramps that are referenced to detail 11B/A.1.0 which are not in compliance with 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1. Reference comment I.A.2 above and make corrections accordingly for all 11 ramps. B. The Southern most ramp of the marked crossing located at the North West corner of the property (intersection of Park and 12th) does not have sufficient turning space for a ramp landing. Reference ICC 117.1, Section 405.7.4. C. For both grouped accessible parking spaces shown and located NE of Building 5 (the two newly added spaces) and SW of Building 8, relocate both groupings to a location closer the accessible entrance of both buildings. Reference 2006 IBC, Section 1106.6. D. There are 4 marked crossings indicated by note 20 as being new marked crossings at existing buildings; building 3 to building 5, building 3 to building 2, building 4 to building 1 and building 1 to the Public R.O.W. at Park Av. No curb/sidewalk ramps and detectable warnings are indicated to be provided at either end of these crossings as required by ICC 117.1, Section 406. Please show access of all marked crossings. E. The new marked crossing added from building 6 to what I assume is an existing accessible parking space with an accessible aisle does not exactly show how access is provided from the existing aisle to the accessible route concrete walkway. F. At Detail 2: Relocate the accessible parking signage to a point just behind the curb line in the concrete walkway. END OF REVIEW |
| 07/30/2008 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Department, Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall, Senior Planner PROJECT: T06CM06319, 401 S. Euclid Avenue Office, warehouse uses REVISION to commercial site plan, 1st review TRANSMITTAL DATE: 08/01/2008 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings with redlines and a response letter, which states how Zoning comments were addressed. 1. This project was reviewed for compliance with the Land Use Code (LUC) and Development Standards (DS). This project was reviewed for full code compliance. 2. Per LUC 2-02.2.1.6, regarding buildings: A) I noted the height changes to all three buildings, and increase in size and change of use areas meeting LUC requirements, thank you. B) Please show any roof overhangs/canopies with a dashed line if applicable. 3. Per LUC 2-02.2.1.8, regarding parking: A) I acknowledge the change in parking calculations, changes in type and tenant use areas meet code. 4. Per DS 2-02.2.1.9, regarding bike parking: A) appears multiple tenants will be within each building. To meet DS 2-09.4.1, disperse bike parking more evenly between building entries, still within 50' of as many main building entries as possible. B) I acknowledge changed class 2 bike parking meets code, thank you. 5. Per DS 2-02.2.1.12, see comments by Ron Brown for handicapped, and subsequently pedestrian affected, access. 6. Per DS 2-02.2.1.13, please call out any additional free standing signage. 7. Per DS 2-02.2.1.20, please ensure any/all easements are shown with recordation data. 8. Per DS 2-02.2.1.25, please call out any free standing lighting with height, base width. HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T06CM06319 401 s Euclid revision.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan |
| 08/05/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | DATE: August 4, 2008 SUBJECT: Central City Business Park Revised Site Plan- Engineering Review TO: Metro Permits Express Attn: Lisa Bowers LOCATION: 401 S Euclid, T14S R14E Sec18 Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T06CM06319 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised site plan (T06CM06319) and Drainage Statement (DCC, 03JUL08) that supplements the last approved Drainage Report (Castro Engineering, Corp, 03APR07) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division recommends conditional approval of the site plan at this time. " Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap and ANSI Standard requirements that apply to this project. " Ensure that the revised Grading Plan reflects the minimum 18-inch RCP with manhole for the basin bleeder pipe per Site Plan keynote # 14 on Sheet A1.2. Per the last submitted revised Grading Plan the pipe within the right of way was called out as HDPE which is unacceptable. " Due to the required changes on the site plan per the comments under the Handicap review folder (minimum at time of review) the site plan must be re-submitted for stamped engineering approval. The conditional approval of the plan does not ensure that additional comments will not be forth coming depending on how the Handicap and Zoning comments are addressed. Please provide the revised site plan addressing all comments from other departments for stamped engineering approval. If any site layout or required dimensions change that effect the overall site an additional review through engineering may be warranted. If you have any questions or to schedule an appointment I can be reached at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 08/06/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. A separate permit is required for the installation of a private sewer collection system. Reference: Title 18, R18-9-E302, 4.02 General Permit, Arizona Administrative Code. (Activity # T07PL01670 has expired) 2. Provide the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (or cleanout) for each new building. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 710.1, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson and if required, note this on the drawing |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/21/2008 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |