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: SITE
Permit Number - T07CM01919
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/09/2007 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/24/2007 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise the site drawing to include the size of the water meter. Reference City of Tucson Development Standard No. 2-05.0 and Section 103.2.3, UPC 2003. 2. Indicate the direction, distance from the property line, and the size of the nearest public sewer. Reference City of Tucson Development Standard No. 2-05.0. |
| 05/25/2007 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Canopy trees must be evenly distributed throughout the vehicular use area. Every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk). Revise the landscape plan so that all parking spaces are within 40 feet from the trunk of a canopy tree. LUC 3.7.2.3.A 2) An unpaved planting area, which is a minimum of thirty-four (34) square feet in area and four (4) feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree. The interior (unpaved) dimension of the parking lot planter along the east property line does not meet this code requirement. Revise the landscape plan to comply and dimension the planting area adjacent to the parking spaces along the west property line to show a minimum 4-foot width is provided for a canopy tree. LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.c 3) For consistency, in the Plant Symbol table on sheet LS-1, label the minimum size for the blue palo verde trees proposed. 4) Indicate the methods by which water harvesting/ storm runoff is used to benefit planting areas on the site. LUC 3.7.4.3.B |
| 05/25/2007 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The math in the FAR calculation is incorrect. It is not clear what the figures of 13,475 and 111,934 are intended to represent as they do not match either the building area or the site area as given. Revise to be accurate. DS 2-02.2.2.A.2 2. Revise the maximum allowed building height to read "50 feet" per Development Designator 33. In addition to the maximum allowed building height provide the proposed building height on the site plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.6 3. Label with an arrow the proposed new chainlink fencing along the east property line to clearly show that there is no cross access between the subject site and the property to the east. 4. Provide a striped 5-foot pedestrian refuge area on the pavement along the east side of the warehouse between the building and the "warehouse access" or PAAL. Label this area on the plan to be "for employee access only". 5. Clearly show and label the location of proposed Class 2 bicycle parking on the plan. Class 2 bicycle parking facilities will be located no more than 50 feet from the main entrances to buildings. DS 2-09.4.1 6. Add to the site notes the "subject to" restrictions (Sec. 3.5.10.1 and Sec. 3.5.5.1.H) for the proposed commercial storage use. |
| 05/29/2007 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Refer to DS 2-15 for all requirements and specifications for Native Plant Preservation Plans. Also, for clarity and archiving purposes, use the site plan scale and format with a single full size sheet (24' x 36") for the NPP Plan. The Salvage and Mitigation Report must include calculations used to determine, by genus and species, the number of replacent plants, if any. The native plant preservation plan is required to include grading limits. Delineate the grading limits clearly on the plan to verify that all plants to be preserved can be retained in accordance with LUC 3.8.6.7.C. Add a general note on the NPPO plan specifying that the Plant Inventory Methodology was used as the selected method of NPPO compliance. LUC 3.8.4.1.A |
| 05/29/2007 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The h/c parking detail, which shows an adjacent pedestrian sidewalk, is not consistent with the site plan, which has no sidewalk shown at the h/c spaces. Revise for consistency and show a striped pedestrian crosswalk at this location leading from the h/c parking spaces to the building. 2. In the disabled parking detail reference compliance with ANSI Chapter 4, Sec. 406.12 and 406.13 for tactile warning devices (truncated domes). Revise detail to depict the truncated domes. 3. Revise the h/c parking calculation to indicate that for between 26 and 50 total parking spaces provided, 2 h/c spaces are required. IBC |
| 07/19/2007 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | T07CM01919 Site Plan Review July 20, 2007 This site plan cannot be approved. Address the following comments in your next submittal. 1. The site was created from a parcel greater than one acre since September 4, 1984 so retention and detention requirements must be met. Provide a complete drainage report addressing critical basin detention and retention for this site. The drainage statement that was submitted doesn't have the required calculations and doesn't provide sufficient information to provide a complete review. 2. Since this project and the adjacent project meet the definition of a "larger common plan of development or sale," a grading permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be required. One SWPPP may be provided to encompass both projects or each may be provided its own. 3. Provide clear dimensions and recordation data for Bilby Road. Bilby Road is an MS&R collector. Show existing and future right of way information for Bilby Road, including effects of intersection widening. 4. Show and label sight visibility triangles for the PAAL entry to Bilby Road. 5. Provide 25-foot curb returns on Bilby. 6. The plan doesn't provide adequate dimensioning and elevation data. Provide sufficient information to establish drainage patterns both on and off the project site. The drainage report must also address offsite drainage that may affect the site. 7. Describe the purpose and provide a description of the tank and reserve that appears to the west of the building. If these are underground features, indicate such on the plan. 8. Provide a legend that identifies the symbols used. 9. Provide cut and fill quantities. 10. Review Development Standard 2-02 and make sure that all of the required elements of the site plan are provided. Since the drainage issues have not been addressed and since the site plan does not provide sufficient information to perform a complete review, additional comments on new issues are likely on future reviews. Include a detailed response letter with the next submittal. Give a complete explanation and description of how each comment has been addressed. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520.837.4927 or loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov. Loren Makus, EIT Senior Engineering Associate |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/04/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/04/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | REJECT SHELF | Completed |