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: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T07CM01666
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/05/2007 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/13/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/13/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Alley refuse service shall be provided where the alleys are constructed in accordance with Development Standard 3-01.0 Specify if alley meets requirements of development standard or choose alternate location. DSMR may be necessary. 2. If necessary: Include with re-submittal DSMR approval documentation. Indicate on the lower right hand corner of the site plan, the case number, date of approval, and any conditions imposed. 3. 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 landscape plan. 4. All landscape areas will be depressed to accept water flow from roofs, PAAL, and parking areas. Revise planting details or spot elevations how landscape areas will accommodate water harvesting. |
| 09/13/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See Zoning comments |
| 09/13/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Mountain Coffee Roasters T07CM01666 Site Plan (3rd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 13, 2007 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. 2. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9. Provide the specific type of bicycle rack that is to be used on the plan. 3. The truncated domes shown at the handicapped access aisle are not shown correctly. Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13.1 the truncated domes shall extend the full width of the flush surface in the direction of travel. This said the truncated domes should run north/south along the area where the curb is flush with pavement. 4. This comment was not addressed. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20. Provide the docket and page for the easement shown under keynote L. 5. This comment was not addressed. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.32 Provide documentation from Solid Waste that this type of refuse containers has been approved. A DSMR may be required. 6. Zoning is willing to provide an over the counter review once all the above comments have been addressed. Please call or email for an appointment 7. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan. 8. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsoanaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\site\t07cm01666-3rd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 09/21/2007 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Comment not addressed. Provide the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 710.1, UPC 2003. |
| 10/02/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 2, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T07CM01666 PROJECT NAME: Tucson Mountain Coffee PROJECT ADDRESS: 501 West Grant Road PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert, Engineering Associate The following items must be revised or added to the site plan. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: SITE PLAN 1. Clarify if keynote C the existing fence is to be removed. 2. Be advised there are several discrepancies with the sight visibility triangles (SVTs) provided on the plan. This office recommends a meeting to discuss corrections. See comments below. 3. All of the provided SVT stems scale to 15'. The stem side must be 20'. Reivse accordingly. DS 3-01.5.0. 4. Provide a far side existing and future sight visibility triangles (SVTs) at the northeast corner of the parcel. For Grant to 13th Ave. Second request. It appears there is a sign within the area where the required SVT is located. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. 5. The shown future SVTs for the entrance and exit drives on Grant Road are not correctly drawn on the plan. The stem side length is drawn from the front of the future curb. It appears the near side future SVT stem side is drawn from the property line and is only 15'. The far side future SVT appears to be drawn from the front of future curb but only has a 15' stem length. The stem side must be 20'. Revise the SVTs appropriately. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. 6. Be advised the length for the existing and future far side SVT for the entrance/exit drive to Grant Road only needs to be 30' long. The Development Standards only requires a length of 30' when a median is within the road. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. 7. Be advised a grading review and permit is required for this project. DS 2-02.2.1.A.17. 8. Is the intent to provide 6' sidewalks along the street frontage of 13th Avenue? A 5' sidewalk is required on all local streets. Keynote H indicates a 6' sidewalk width. Approval from the Department of Transportation is required to allow 6' sidewalks along 13th Avenue. 9. All easements of record must be graphically shown on the plan with recordation data; docket and page. Provide required information if applicable. Third request. See zoning's comment number 4. DS 2-02.2.1.A.20. 10. Keynote C indicates an existing fence located along the alley. The fence is blocking access to the solid waste enclosure. Clarify how the solid waste vehicle will access the solid waste dumpster. 11. Provide a detail of the solid waste enclosure. Second request. DS 6-01. 12. It is not clear why detention is shown on the plan when a detention basin is not required. Clarify the need in a drainage statement or remove the detention basin. This office recommends providing a water harvesting are for a drainage solution. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/24/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/24/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | REJECT SHELF | Completed |