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 - T11CM00381
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/03/2011 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | Not a COT owned or operated property |
| 02/04/2011 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/08/2011 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | February 15, 2011 T11CM00381 1. It appears that the lots constituting this parcel have been combined. For clarity remove the obsolete or superseded lot lines from the site plan. 2. The site plan shows significant structures for retention/detention purposes. The site has been developed with paved surfaces for a fairly long time. Taking into account the existing conditions, we recommend that you consider providing water harvesting wherever possible on the site instead of the retention/detention systems. 3. A grading permit is required for this project. Submit a grading permit application for review and approval. (The site plan may be approved before the grading plan has been reviewed and approved. However, the grading permit must be issued before site work is started.) 4. Check the call-outs and details to ensure that the references are correct and the descriptions are accurate. For example on sheet C1.1 is a reference to C/C1.4. The relevant detail is not given letter C. 5. Clarify the description of the wall around the proposed storage area. The keynote indicates the wall will include a 2-foot metal fencing barrier at the top. Clarify whether this is in addition to the 6-foot CMU wall. Ensure that the detail referenced also reflects this clarification. 6. Ensure that the grading plan and SWPPP is revised to match any revisions to the site plan. |
| 02/15/2011 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Wildcat House Site Improvements T11CM00381 Site Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 15, 2011 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. This site plan was reviewed for compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC). This project has been reviewed for full code compliance for the entire site. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.5 There appears to be lots line shown within the property boundary that are left over after the lot combination, remove these lot lines from the plan. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Per D.S. 2-08.3.1 a continuous pedestrian circulation path/accessible route, sidewalk, is required to all adjacent streets. That said there does not appear to be the required continuous pedestrian circulation path/accessible route, sidewalk, to N. 9th Avenue. Either provide the required sidewalk to N. 9th Avenue or apply for a Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR). Zoning will support the DSMR to use the existing sidewalk along W. Lester Street as the connection to N. 9th Avenue. If a DSMR is applied for and approved provide the following information on the plan; DSMR Number, Date of Approval, What was Approved, Any Conditions of Approval. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 It appears that the concrete sidewalk along the east and south sides of the loading space is flush with the loading space. The loading space must be physically separated from the adjacent sidewalks and bicycle parking by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings, or other means. Once the above comments have been addressed Zoning is willing to provide and over-the-counter review. Please call or email to schedule an appointment for this review. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\site\ T11CM00381 |
| 02/24/2011 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Zoning requires a separation from pedestrian accessible routes and paved vehicles areas. The use of truncated domes for this separation is an acceptable separation method however when used in conjunction with marked crossings as designed here, the truncated dome separation strip negates the detectable truncated dome warning for the marked crossing. The use of concrete wheel stops, also shown here, is also an accepted separation method. a. All that in consideration, please delete the strip of truncated domes at the front edge of the accessible parking areas except at the accessible parking aisle being used as part of a marked crossing. 2. The accessible route running around the bicycle parking and loading zone seems a bit excessive. How about relocating the bike lockers and moving the loading zone to the South thereby creating a continuous pedestrian route around the loading zone to the landing of stair set 5Y/C1.2. This would eliminate three marked crossings and 6 detectable warning strips. 3. Delete the marked crossing from the island to the dumpster. Relocate this crossing to the middle of the island to the dumpster at a 90 degree angle to the island. Please provide detectable warnings at each end of the marked crossing. 4. Provide detectable strips at both North and South ends of this same island. 5. Note 34 refers to COT, DOT STD DTL 207 for curb ramps shown in the public right of way and in the boundaries of the private property lines. This detail is for COT DOT accessible construction in the public right of way only and may not be used for private property. a. Delete all reference to note 34 for all the ramps shown within the boundaries of the property lines. Add a new note referencing the 2006 IBC, ICC (ANSI 117.1, 2003 Edition), Section 405 and/or 406 for all interior curb and sidewalk ramps as required. 6. Please provide large scale details of the different types of private property sidewalk and curb ramps. Please show all required dimensions, slopes, connection to accessible routes and marked crossings and detectable warnings as per 406.12 and 406.14. 7. Please show all accessible route slope compliance with the ICC (ANSI 117.1), Section 403.3. 8. One of every six accessible spaces is to be "Van Accessible". Please provide 2 "Van Accessible" parking spaces as per the 2006 IBC, Section 1106.5 and ICC (ANSI 117.1), Section 502. 9. The last two marked crossing to the North are inaccurately referenced to Note 10. 10. Zoning will required a pedestrian access to 9th street. This will have to be accessible. Please provide all required accessible route with proper slopes as per Section 403.3 and all marked crossings, ramps and detectable warnings as required. 11. At detail 4/C1.2 please provide a "Van Accessible" Sign. END OF REVIEW |
| 02/28/2011 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The entire site must meet full code requirements. 2. A street landscape border is an area with a minimum width of ten (10) feet, as measured from the street property or MS&R lines running the full length of the property bounding the site except for points of ingress-egress per LUC 3.7.2.4. Street landscape border shall be located entirely on site except that, if approved by the City Engineer per LUC 3.7.2.4. Obtain permission for use of ROW. 3. Fifty (50) percent or more of all the street landscape border area must have shrubs and vegetative ground cover per LUC 3.7.2.4. 4. One (1) canopy tree must be provided for every thirty-three (33) linear feet of landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4. 5. Change note pertaining to dust control to read: All disturbed areas including adjacent right of ways shall be treated with ground cover such as decomposed granite to help reduce dust pollution per LUC 3.7.2.7. 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. |
| 03/01/2011 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/02/2011 | 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 fire hydrants c. the location of the gas meter (if one exists or is planned) d. the location and size of the public sanitary sewer e. the location of the building connection to the public sewer f. the location, invert, and rim elevation of all manholes and cleanouts Reference: City of Tucson Development Standard No. 2-01.0.0, Section 3.8 D and Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/17/2011 | SUE REEVES | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/17/2011 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |