Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T10CM01245
Parcel: 111050770

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL

Permit Number - T10CM01245
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/22/2010 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Denied SITE ACCESSIBLE REVIEW
SHEET T1.0
1. The accessible parking sign is in the wrong place.
2. Please coordinate all site design and changes with sheet C1.0
SHEET C1.0
3. Please show location of accessible parking sign.
4. Please provide detectable warnings strips at both end of the marked crossing.
5. Note 9 refers to the marked crossing as an ADA compliant ramp.
a. Please delete all references throught the drawings to ADA. The governing accessible code is the 2006 IBC, Chapter 11 and ICC (ANSI 117.1).
b. Ramps require handrails as per section 405.8. Handrails will not work in the middle of the PAAL. All slopes for a marked crossing can not exceed 5% as per section 403.3. Please redesign your ADA ramp crossing the PAAL to a marked crossing complying with ICC (ANSI 117.1), Sections 106.5, 402, 403.3, 406.12 and/or 406.14.
c. Please clarify access to the accessible route at both end of the marked crossing. Show and define flush areas and show and define curb ramps as required. Please show spot grade for elevation differentiation.
d. Please provide a large scale detail showing all accessibility requirements for the marked crossing including slopes, ramps, detectable warnings, markings, flush access and dimensions.
SHEET C2.0
6. Detail 2 is non compliant. The accessible parking aisle length does not meet Section 502.4.3.
a. Please show accessible route and how it is accessed from the aisle.

END OF REVIEW
10/25/2010 DAVE MANN FIRE REVIEW Approv-Cond Fire Comments:

A new fire hydrant is required. The addition is over 300 feet from the existing hydrant.

A hydrant inspection has been added to the inspections. Provide an approved Tucson Water Plan to Fire Department. see note on G1.0
10/26/2010 BIANCA RAMIREZ ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: October 26, 2010
SUBJECT: Site Plan Review
TO: Alex Enoch
LOCATION: 3137 N Palo Verde, T13S, R14E, Section 33, Ward 3
REVIEWERS: Bianca Ramirez, CFM
ACTIVITY: T10CM01245 (Second Review)


RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed site plan for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan at this time. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal.

Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the site plan.

Site Plan:

1. Complied
2. Complied
3. Complied
4. Complied
5. Show all points of egress and ingress including locations and width of driveways and parking area access lanes (P.A.A.L.) per D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11. Since the only access to the parking for the site is an adjacent parcel, provide cross access agreement or provide recordation information for vehicle access agreement on site plan.
Response: Provide Cross Access Recordation information on site plan.
6. Complied
7. Complied
8. Complied
9. Complied
10. Complied
11. Provide dimensioned the required onsite maneuvering area(s) for the loading zone that is identified adjacent to the proposed building per D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14. DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.14.
Response: See zoning comment in regard to maneuverability for loading zones.
12. Complied
13. Clearly indicate the estimated cut & fill quantities on site plan per D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.17. If no cut and fill is taking place indicate the quantity of zero (0) on the plan. Estimated cut and Fill: Cut = 0 and Fill = 0 will suffice.
Response: Provide cut and fill quantities on site plan. There is no current grading application with submittal. Provide requested information or apply for grading plan and reference on site plan with information and sheet number for reference.
14. Complied
15. Complied
16. Complied
17. Complied
18. Complied
19. Verify that all fences, walls, and/or vegetation for screening and sight visibility are identified by type, material, height, location and spacing per D.S. 2-02.2.1.27.
Response: Show that permit was issued for existing 5' wall identified on site plan, located within site visibility triangle.
20. Complied
21. Show refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0. OR Provide approval from Environmental Services for roll out containers.
Response: Unable to locate letter referenced in submittal package. Please provide letter from Environmental Services for roll out containers.
22. Complied
23. Complied
24. Complied
25. Complied
26. Complied
27. Complied
28. Complied
29. Complied
30. Complied
31. Additional comments may be forthcoming.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4928 or Bianca.Ramirez@tucsonaz.gov

Bianca C. Ramirez
Engineering Associate
City of Tucson/Development Services Department
201 N. Stone Avenue
P.O. Box 27210
Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210
(520) 837-4928 office
(520) 879-8010 fax
10/26/2010 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied PDSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Outer Limits School - Classroom Addition
T10CM01245
Site Plan (2nd Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 26, 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..

2. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 Per Development Designator "29 and Perimeter Yard Indicator "DD" the required perimeter yard to the south property line is 1 ½ the height of the proposed building wall. Per LUC Section 3.2.6.3 the perimeter yard requirement is based on the exterior building wall at the wall's highest point measured to grade. That said the proposed building wall of 11'-6 does not meet the required perimeter to the south property line. The required perimeter yard is 17'-3" and provided is 16'-6" a Design Development Option (DDO) is required.

3. This comment was not addressed correctly. Review the most current Development Standard 2-09.5.0 and revise the layout shown on Detail 7/C2.0 accordingly. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 Demonstrate on the plan/detail how the requirements of D.S. 2-09.5.2 Provide a five (5) foot wide access aisle for the Class 2 bicycle parking, see Figure 9.

4. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Per the last approved site plan, provided with T10CM01237, the parking and PAAL area shown on this plan located on the adjacent parcel has not been permitted. Either provide a plan that shows this parking and PAAL area or show this as to be permitted.

5. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14 The proposed vehicle parking space shown in the southwest corner of this parcel cannot be used for maneuvering into the proposed loading space. Remove the striping from the parking space or revise the parking calculation to shown 9 space provided.

6. This comment was not fully addressed. Show the "CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT" graphically on the site plan along with the docket and page. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20 If applicable all easements of record must be graphically shown on the plan together with recording docket and page reference.
7. 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\t10cm01245

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents.
11/08/2010 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
11/08/2010 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. Indicate the correct scale of landscape plan as 1"=10'

2. A 5' wall is required to screen the entire site from adjacent residential properties per LUC Table 3.7.2-I.

3. A 10' interior landscape border is required along site boundaries of the adjacent residential properties per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Remove note that buffer-yard is not required.

4. One (1) canopy tree must be provided for every thirty-three (33) linear feet of interior landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4. additional tree is required within the south interior landscape border

5. Plant materials located within sight visibility triangles should consist of ground cover or low-growing vegetation of a species that will not grow higher than thirty (30) inches. Some Leucophyllum species will grow in excess of 5' whereas Leucopphyllum candidum Thunder Cloud will only reach a height of 3'. Specify species of plants and if necessary revise location.

6. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan.

7. Additional comments may apply
11/16/2010 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied Comment not addressed. Provide the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole and the first floor elevation. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 710.1, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. (Where the finish floor elevation is less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer or private sewer collection system, a backwater valve shall be installed in the building drain or branch of the building drain serving that floor. Floors discharging from above that reference point shall not discharge through the backwater valve.)

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
11/22/2010 GERARDO BONILLA OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
11/22/2010 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed