Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: REVISION - SITE
Permit Number - T09CM02738
Review Name: REVISION - SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/11/2010 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Fire comments: The new requirements are due to the area and occupant load increasing to over 100 occupants, fire sprinklers will be required. Refer to 2006 IFC, table 1004.1.1 for occupant loads, section 903.2.1.2 for sprinkler requirements. Additionally, allowable distance from existing fire hydrants is exceeded. Fire Department will accept fire sprinklers in lieu of new hydrant. Please show location and size of fire sprinkler supply line.Be advised that if kitchen cooking appliances locations have, or are going to be changed, kitchen exhaust hood fire suppression system may need to be revised. |
| 02/11/2010 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Comment not resolved. Revise the site drawing to include the following information: a. the location of the main water lines and fire hydrants b. the location and size of the public sanitary sewer and c. the location, invert, and rim elevation of all manholes and cleanouts. Reference: City of Tucson Development Standard No. 2-05.0 2.3 and Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006 |
| 02/11/2010 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Ensure that all Zoning comments and concerns are addressed prior to Landscape approval stamp. |
| 02/11/2010 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: May's Counter Restaurant T09CM02738 Site Plan (3rd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 11, 2010 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 for the areas of expansion and revision to the last approved site plan. 2. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 Per LUC Section 3.2.6.4, C-1 Zone, Food Service, subject to: Sec. 3.5.4.6.A and .C, Development Designator "28", Perimeter Yard Indicator "DD" the required perimeter yard setback is 1-1/2 the height of the exterior wall. Exterior wall height 8'-0" therefore the required perimeter yard setback from the proposed shed covering the new beer cooler to the north property line is 12'-0", proposed setback, 7'-0". A Design Development Option (DDO) will need to be processed and approved prior to approval of the site plan if the 8'-0" perimeter yard setback is to remain as shown on the site plan. 3. This comment was not addressed. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 The wheel stop dimension shown on the plan is not correct. See Development Standards 3-05.2.3.C.2 and Figure 5 for correct location. 4. This comment was not addressed. This is a requirement for a commercial site plan and is not based on percent of expansion. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3 Provide a floor area ratio per LUC Section 3.2.11 on the site plan. 5. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Provide a dimension from the proposed handicapped signage to the edge of the ramp. This dimension should show a minimum 4'-0" clear. 6. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 The provided vehicle parking calculation is not correct. There is a square footage of 2840 shown but the existing building is shown as 2890 else where on the plan, clarify. The "PARKING SPACES PROVIDED 34" is not correct, the plan shows 36 vehicle parking spaces. 7. The following comments are to clarify items shown on the site plan: a. There is a keynote 22 pointing to what appears to be a sidewalk along Speedway. No keynote 22 has been provided on the plan. b. There is a keynote 2 pointing to what appears to be a sidewalk along speedway. Keynote 2 calls out "EXISTING CURBING TO REMAIN". Please clarify. c. There is a a keynote 8 near the southeast corner of the building, that appears to be existing sidewalk, please clarify. d. There is a parking area, located just west of the proposed accessible access aisle, that appears to have some curbing that is to be demolished. There are keynotes 5 and 19 that appear to address other issues, please clarify. e. There is a keynote 15, "EXISTING CONCRETE BUMPER TO REMAIN" called out along the west side of the building. There area also shows additional concrete sidewalk that is to be added. With the addition of the sidewalk how can the concrete bumpers remain in the original location. f. There is a keynote 16 "EXISTING PARKING SPACE STRIPPING TO REMAIN" called out along the west side of the building. Based on the current aerial photos there are only eight (8) vehicle parking spaces currently on site with nine (9) vehicle parking spaces proposed for this area, how can the stripping remain as is? g. There is a keynote 16 "EXISTING PARKING SPACE STRIPPING TO REMAIN" called out along the west side of the property that is pointing to dashed lines that appear to be removed. This area appears to be restriped, please clarify.. 8. Depending on how the above comments are addressed addition comments may be forth coming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\site\t09cm02738 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents. |
| 02/12/2010 | BIANCA RAMIREZ | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Letter for Tier 1 not provided as promised by applicant. Resubmit with appropriate documentation. |
| 02/16/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | SPECIAL NOTE: The written respose comments are not revelant to the review comments for Zoning H/C. I belive they are in response to the building comments. Please provide comments related directly to the Zoning H/C Review Comments. RESDUBMITTAL RESPONSE: NO WRITTEN RESPONSE SUBMITTED, PLEASE SUBMIT The previous review comments still stand as the drawings show no revision in reponse: 1. Provide a large scale detail of the accessible parking plan showing compliance with ICC (ANSI), Section 502, including slopes, signage, ramps, aisles, all dimensions required and "Van Accessible" space identification. RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS: a. Accessible parking plan design layout is not the same as the blow detail. Please show ramp and accessible route and slopes both ways. b. Accessible ramp at the parking aisle shown on plan does not work. The end of the flared sides of the ramp end with a vertical edge to the curb. Please redesign. 2. OK 3. OK END OF REVIEW |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/16/2010 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 02/16/2010 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |