Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T09CM01836
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/11/2009 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/13/2009 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Please provide accessible seating at all seating areas as required by ADAAG Section 4.1.2 (19), and comply with sections 4.33.2, 4.33.2 and 4.33.4. 2. The new concrete sidewalk connecting to the joint use parking area does not slope sufficient to be classified as a ramp and does not require handrails however, the grade does slope away fron the sidewlk to present an elevation differentiation of 3'. Section 1013 of the 2006 IBC requires a gard rail for any accessible route 30" higher than the adjacent grade. Please provide a large scale detail of this crossing. 3. Please provide a parking layout of the joint use parking lot and show the accessible parking as required by ADAAG, Section 4.1.2, 4.6.4 and 4.6.5. Please show accessible route required by Section 4.3. 4. Please insure accessibility for all functions of the concession building. END OF REVIEW |
| 08/14/2009 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: T09CM01836 1770 W. Copper Site Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: 08/18/09 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 2-02.2.1.2 Provide the legal description on the site plan. 2. DS 2-02.2.1.3 Provide the project address on the site plan. 3. DS 2-02.2.1.4 On the location map on sheet C-0 provide the section corners. 4. DS 2-02.2.1.6 Provide the location, size, height of the proposed concession/storage building. 5. DS 2-02.2.1.8 The last approved site plan provided does not indicate the parking lot located on the east side of the lot. Provide documentation that the parking lot has been approved and how many of the parking spaces are leased out to another use and how many are available for use for the park. The parking calculations provided do not include the required parking for the proposed concession / storage building. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.4 each batting cage requires one parking space. These have not been included in the parking calculations. Provide the number of required parking spaces and the number of provided parking spaces. In the proposed parking calculations the number of existing parking spaces required is not correct. Revise. Additional parking spaces added to this site may require additional handicap parking spaces being provided. 6. DS 2-02.2.1.9 Please provide a plan view detail of the proposed class 2 bicycle parking spaces. Single rack spaces placed in a row will allow a minimum of seventy -two (72) inch length per bicycle parking space and a minimum of thirty (30) inches between outer spaces of racks. A five (5) foot wide access aisle measured from the front or rear of the seventy-two (72) inch long parking space will be provided beside each row. Lighting will be provided such that all facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent sidewalks, parking lots, or buildings, during working hours. The surface of the facility can be surfaced the same as for motor vehicle parking or with a minimum of one (1) inch thickness of one-fourth (1/4) inch aggregate material. DS 2-09.5.1, DS2-09.5.2, DS 2-09.5.4, & DS 2-09.6.2 This project is considered full code compliance and therefore the existing ribbon type class two bicycle rack does not meet DS 2-09 requirements. Revise. Bicycle parking provided on the site does not meet the requirements of revised DS (Development Standard) 2-09. Per DS 2-09.4.1 Class 2 bicycle parking facilities will be located no more than fifty (50) feet from the main building entrance(s) and will be along the front side of the building as well as along other sides of the building that has an entrance. Revise bicycle parking spaces to within 50' of the concession stand. The number of bicycle parking spaces required may change if additional vehicle parking spaces are required. 7. DS 2-02.2.1.11 Provide widths of all PAALs and indicate parking spaces for the parking area noted in comment #5. 8. DS 2-02.2.1.12 The last approved site plan indicates a pedestrian circulation path being provided to the basketball court, drinking fountain, along the front of the parking spaces, etc. Per the aerial photos these sidewalks have not been installed. Pedestrian circulation path is required to connect to all areas of public use including picnic tables, batting cages and areas list in the above comment. Provide the widths of all sidewalks. (minimum 4') Clearly indicate the minimum widths around the all bleachers. 9. DS 2-02.2.1.14 If applicable provide the location, type, size and height of all signage. 10. DS 2-02.2.1.28 Provide the adjacent zoning of the property along the north side of the proposed site. 11. DS 2-02.2.1.31 The Recreation Use indicated is not subject to any sections of the LUC. Revise. 12. DS 2-02.2.2.A.3 Lot coverage calculations are not required for this use in this zone. Remove. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 C:\planning\cdrc\DSD\T09CM01836.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 08/18/2009 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | The plan set submitted for the 2nd review was the same redlined plan set submitted for the 1st review. No comments under the first review (grading plan comments) were addressed. See comment dated July 27, 2009. |
| 08/31/2009 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/31/2009 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Note: According to the Santa Cruz River Corridor Master Plan # 63, the minimum estimated corridor width is 100' and could encroach into proposed new field. Revise plans to accommodate corridor or future adjustments may be necessary. |
| 09/01/2009 | RONALD BROWN | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The minimum slope for a 6" building sewer is 1/8" per foot. Reference: Section 718.1, UPC 2006. 2. Clarify how the "FLAT HCS" is to be constructed. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. 3. Provide the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole and the first floor elevation of the proposed concession building. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 710.1, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/09/2009 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 09/09/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |