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 - T09CM01223
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/14/2009 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Show the location of the closest fire hydrant. It s impossible to determine the use of the building from the General Notes. If the second floor is intended for residential use the entire building must be sprinklered per IFC Chapter 9. If the top floor is only office it must have a second exit per IFC Chapter 10. In either case the IRC cannot be used because it is not scoped for B/R3 uses or B uses. |
| 05/14/2009 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | NOT A COT OWNED/OPERATED PROPERTY |
| 05/14/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | The addition to the existing structure is more than 25% which requires a 100% site review. 1. Provide accessible parking spaces, ramps, signage and etc as per the 2006 IBC, Chapter 11 and ICC/ANSI 117.1, Section 502. Providfe a large scale plan and detail. 2. Provide an accessible route to 6Th Av. 3. Show compliance with accessible route minimum slopes as per Section 403.3. 4. Lettering fount size mimimun size is 3/32", all capts. 5. |
| 05/21/2009 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: T09CM01223 627 N. 6th Ave. Site Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: 5/22/09 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. Per the description on the permit application this project is a change of use, SFR to Office, which will require full code compliance with the LUC and Development Standards. Even if it is not a change of use, provide documentation to verify, the expansion of building area appears to be greater than 25% which will require full code compliance. No expansion calculations have been provided. The storage building does not appear to be included in the square footage of existing structures. Provide correct expansion calculations. Provide a copy of the last approved site plan. 2. Provide a site plan that complies with DS 2-02 and any relevant sections of the LUC. The site plan as submitted does not meet minimum code requirements for either full code compliance nor for code compliance for the new additions. 3. I am available to discuss this project any time but please call and set an appointment. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 C:\planning\cdrc\DSD\T09CM01223.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 05/26/2009 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | Exception, per previous plans and site photo. |
| 06/02/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Revise the site drawing to include the following information: a. the location and size of the water meter b. the location of the main water lines and fire hydrants c. the location and size of the public sanitary sewer and d. the location, invert, and rim elevation of all nearby manholes and cleanouts. Reference: City of Tucson Development Standard No. 2-05.0 2.3 and Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. |
| 06/03/2009 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The site plan must be accompanied by a landscape plan with information specified in Development Standard 2-07.0. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. The review will continue when documents are included with re-submittal. 2. Within a vehicular use area, one (1) canopy tree is required for each ten (10) motor vehicle parking spaces or fraction thereof. The canopy trees must be evenly distributed throughout the vehicular use area and 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). LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.a 3. 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. 3.7.2.3.A.1.c 4. Landscape plan shall include irrigation specification design and layout per DS 2-06.5.4.A & DS 2-06.5.4.B including source of irrigation, sleeves for driveways and sidewalks, locations of valves, low-flow bubblers or drip irrigation. 5. Provide details and calculations for required street landscape border on landscape plan. A street landscape border, per Sec. 3.7.2.4 of the LUC, is a landscape area with a minimum width of ten (10) feet, running the full length of the street property line(s) bounding the site except for points of ingress-egress and pedestrian access routes. On streets designated as Major Streets and Routes (MS&R), the street landscape border is measured from the MS&R right-of-way line as determined by LUC 2.8.3.4. 6. Correct the zoning designation on sheet A0.00 to read HC-1 rather than HZ-1. 7. Additional comments may apply upon submittal and review of a landscape/irrigation plan. |
| 06/09/2009 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 10, 2009 SUBJECT: MURPHY 1 Site Plan- Engineering Review TO: Alexandra Murphy LOCATION: 627 N 6th Ave REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T09CM01223 (Site Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the site and building plan (T09CM01223) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan application at this time. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Provide a copy of the last approved site plan. 2) Provide a site plan that complies with DS Sec.2-02 and any relevant sections of the LUC. Per a discussion with Terry Stevens, Zoning Plan Reviewer a new site plan will be submitted that differs from the one that is currently in for review. The new proposed site plan will be reviewed by the Engineering Section once submitted. 3) If the Zoning Section determines that the improvements warrant a full code compliance review provide all required information from DS Sec.2-02, 3-01, 3-05, 6-01, etc. 4) The building plan application will be approved concurrently with the site plan application once all comments have been addressed. 5) Be advised that further comments may be forth coming on resubmittal of the site plan. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. For questions or to schedule an appointment I can be reached at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/16/2009 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 06/16/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |