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 - T07CM01474
Review Name: REVISION - SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/29/2010 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | December 1, 2010 T07CM01474 -Revision T08BU02004- Revision The revision to the plans cannot be accepted as submitted. 1. The revised plan shows the southwesterly basin with a depth of 2.5 feet with side slopes of either 2/1 or 1/2. The basin requires a security barrier. 2. The tops of the basin slopes are shown directly abutting the solid waste enclosure, the screen wall at the property line and the sidewalk at the back of the building. The basin slopes must be at least two feet from any property line and must be set away from the enclosures and curbing to allow adequate space for footings and stability. 3. The site plan doesn't accurately depict the location of water supply lines as they are being installed at the site. The lines are currently installed in the areas depicted as basins. The plan will need to be revised to show the location of these lines and to provide for adequate cover. 4. Show on the plan how the water harvesting areas along the street frontage will be constructed. The adjacent spot grades show that the sidewalk in the right of way is approximately a foot higher than the parking surface. Note: It is likely that the changes to the site plan will require a revised drainage report. |
| 12/07/2010 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Veterans Plaza T07CM01474 Site Plan (Revision) TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 8, 2010 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. This site plan was reviewed for compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC) for full code compliance for the areas of change only. 2. The project is located on an Major Street and Route (MS&R) and the proposed project has been designed within the future right-of-way (ROW). Provide a future site plan that shows how this project will work once the ROW is taken. The future site plan should meet all requirements of D.S. 2-02.0. 3. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 The handicapped Detail 12, Sheet SI-4 does not appear to match what is proposed on the site plan, clarify. 4. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 The bicycle parking Detail 2, Sheet. SI-4 does not meet the requirements of D.S. 2-09.0, see figures 2-6. Review the revised standards and revise the detail. 5. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 The bicycle parking shown at the northeast corner of the project does not meet the requirements of D.S. 2-09.4.1 & D.S. 2-09.5.2. Review the revised standard and revise the site plan and detail as needed. 6. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.10 Show the future sight visibility triangles (SVTs) on the site plan. 7. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13 The sign shown under keynote 12 will require a Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) to be approved prior to approval of the site plan due to the sign being location within the future right-of-way and within the future SVT. 8. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.28 Provide the zoning for the parcel(s) located on the east side of 6th. 9. D.S. 2-02.2.2.4 The vehicle parking space calculation is very confusing and appears to be incorrect. Based on the site plan there are 44 vehicle parking spaces provided but this is not stated anywhere on the plan. Provide a clear vehicle parking space calculation that provides the number required and the number provided. 10. D.S. 2-02.2.2.4 Provide a bicycle parking space calculation the provides the number required and provided. Based on the site plan provide forty-four (44) vehicle parking spaces provided requires four (4) bicycle parking spaces. 11. D.S. 2-02.2.2.5 Provide a loading space calculation that provides the required and provided number of loading spaces. Per LUC Section 3.4.4.1.B.1 & 2 two (2) loading spaces are required. If the use will be entirely Retail than two (2) 10 x 18 are required. If Retail and Wholesale area proposed than one 10 x 18 and one (1) 12 x 55 are required. Clarify what is proposed. 12. Depending on how the above comments are addressed addition comments may be forth coming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\site\t07cm01474 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents. |
| 12/07/2010 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/07/2010 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the grading and landscape plans. Additional comments may apply. |
| 12/14/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Please provide larges scale details of al the different types of accessible parking design groups. Show all dimensions, slopes, ramps, sign, concrete wheel stops and integrated marked crossing, detectable warning strips. 2. Provide a large scale detail of the two way corner ramp design with the flared side. Something doesn't look quite right with the flared side. Please reconcile. 3. Depending on how the above comments are addressed addition comments may be forth coming. END OF REVIEW |
| 12/21/2010 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Provide an updated site utility drawing that shows how the locations of the water service piping and backflow preventers relate to the water harvesting basins. The backfill compaction requirements for the water service piping may be contradictory to the permeability requirements of the water harvesting basin. Backflow preventers shall not be installed where any part of the unit could become submerged in standing water. Reference: Sections 310.4 and 315.4, UPC 2006. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/22/2010 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 12/22/2010 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |