Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T09CM00862
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/29/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. At the marked crossing shown on detail nos. 1/C-1, 1 and 2/C-2 and 1/C-4 and all associated other disipline site plans, please provide a detectable warning strip as wide as the marked crossing as per ICC/ANSI 117.1, Sections 406.12 and 406.14. 2. At Detail 2/C-2: a. As per the aerial photo, there are columns that support the roof structure above the front entrance landing. Please show all the columns accurately so a proper accessible evaluation may be conducted. b. Please provide handrails at all the ramps to the front entrance landing as required by ICC/ANSI 117.1, Section 405.8. c. Verify entrance access clearance once all columns are added for ICC/ANSI 117.1, Sections 404.2.3.1 (a), (d), (c) and (f). END OF REVIEW |
| 07/01/2009 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: T09CM00862 3333 E. Grant Rd. Site Plan - 2nd Review TRANSMITTAL DATE: 07/06/09 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with redlines and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. DS 2-02.2.1.5 Darken all property lines, sidewalks and the foot prints of buildings for reproduction purposes. 2. DS 2-02.2.1.9 Clearly indicate the location of the class one bicycle parking space along with a dimensioned detail of the bicycle locker and access aisle or per the LUC when less than 50 vehicle parking spaces are required all bicycle parking spaces can be class two type racks. (remove notes indicating provided class one bicycle parking spaces). 3. DS 2-02.2.1.11 The vehicle use area west of the existing building and north of the proposed loading zone does not meet the criteria of a PAAL and must be physically separated from the vehicular use area. This can be done by wheel stop curbing or removable bollards near the loading zone. The north and west side of the loading zone is also required to have wheel stop curbing or bollards. A backup spur per DS 3-05.2.2.D is required at the west area parking spaces along the south edge. DS 3-05.2.2.D Back-Up Spur. A back-up spur will be provided at the end of a row of parking if no ingress or egress is provided at that end. The spur will be a minimum of three (3) feet in depth, will have a three (3) foot radii, and will have a wheel barrier to prevent encroachment onto any unsurfaced areas. A minimum distance of three (3) feet will be provided between the back of spur and any wall, screen, or other obstruction over six (6) inches in height. 4. DS 2-02.2.1.12 Clearly indicate the widths of all sidewalks (existing and proposed) required for the pedestrian circulation path. (min. 4'). 5. DS 2-02.2.1.31 List the proposed use as follows: Educational Use: Postsecondary Institution "28", subject to: Sec. 3.5.3.3 6. DS 2-02.2.2.A.3 Provide the correct Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations, the allowed FAR for this site is 0.35 not 0.70 as indicated.. Revise the FAR calculations. 7. Percentage of building coverage and lot area expansion calculations are not required. Remove from sheet G-1. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 C:\planning\cdrc\DSD\T09CM00862-2.doc |
| 07/10/2009 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Indicate the location of the crest of the earth berm to be used for screening along the Grant Road frontage. Per LUC 3.7.3.2.C.4, where earth berms are used, the crest of the berm must be located on site and no closer than one (1) foot from the street property line or, on sites such as this one which is subject to the MS&R zone, the MS&R right-of-way line. In addition, the height of the berm may not exceed 30 inches if it falls within a sight visibility triangle per DS 3-01.5. The plan note reads "height=36 inches" and it is not clear that the location of the berm crest is outside the future SVT since its location is not labeled on the landscape plan. Revise height and label the location of the ridge of the berm to be used as required screening. 2) Any changes shown on the site plan based on other reviewers' comments must also be reflected on the landscape plan. |
| 07/17/2009 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/21/2009 | RICK MYERS | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide the rim elevation of the next upstream manhole and the first floor elevations of both buildings. Determine the need for a backwater valve per section 710.1 2006 UPC, as ammended by the City of Tucson. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/23/2009 | THAUSER1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/23/2009 | THAUSER1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |