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: T11CM01744
Parcel: 140280170

Address:
2209 E GINTER RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T11CM01744
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/03/2011 CARL SCHULTZ FIRE REVIEW Denied Please indicate existing fire hydrant location(s), with dimensions to buildings and/or property lines. Refer to City of Tucson amendments to the 2006 International Fire Code (section 508) for spacing and location requirements.

Fire sprinklers are required. Add note to plan indicating sprinklers will be installed.
06/07/2011 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. A Site Water Budget shall be submitted with all applications for commercial developments at which landscaping is required The plan shall detail the landscape water demand and the harvested water supply needed to meet 50 percent of landscape demand DS 10-03.4.0

2. A water budget format is shown in Exhibit A, along with the background data and assumptions used to develop it. This water budget format is available to applicants as an Excel spreadsheet @ http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/What_s_New/what_s_new.html>.

3. Applicants may use this water budget format to enter site-specific data to develop their Site Water Budget. Alternatively, applicants may develop their own Site Water Budget format. Whichever format is used, the submitted Site Water Budget shall incorporate and provide the following information:

A. Water Demand. Applicants shall use plant water demand categories and data provided in Exhibit A unless alternative assumptions are provided and satisfactorily justified.

B. Water Supply. Applicants shall use the effective monthly rainfall assumptions shown in Exhibit A unless alternative assumptions are provided and satisfactorily justified.

C. Output. Output of the Site Water Budget shall include calculations showing how 50 percent of landscape water demand as an average across the site will be met using harvested rainwater, and shall include assumptions and supporting calculations as necessary to document these outputs. Output of the Site Water Budget shall include total water demand and rainwater supply calculations for each Water Harvesting Infiltration Area at the site.

4. 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.

5. Additional comments may apply.
06/09/2011 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
06/09/2011 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Denied 1. Provide detectable warnings at either side of the marked crossing prior to entering the PAAL as required by ICC.ANSI 117.1, Sectios 406.12 and 406.13.
2. Provide an accessible route from the back side of the building connecting to the accessible route at the front of the building.
3. Insure the slope of the accessible route complies with ICC/ANSI 117.1, Section 403.3.
4. On Sheet 3 of 4:
a. Ditto Comment 1
b. Please correct the note number 14 explanation to the same as Note 14, Sheet 1 of 4.
END OF REVIEW
06/09/2011 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed
06/10/2011 ANDREW CONNOR ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Andrew Connor: Landscape and Zoning Review Section

PROJECT: T11CM01744

TRANSMITTAL DATE: 06/10/2011

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.
DSD TRANSMITTAL

1. Remove any reference to future expansion or development on this submittal

2. Provide all proposed structures, including location, size, height, and setback. Indicate as to what the 4 circles shown on the southwest portion of the site plan represent.

3. Provide required zoning setbacks for stairway to the west of the proposed building

4. Graphically show on the site plan Existing and future sight visibility triangles.

5. Provide the location, type, size, and height of existing and proposed signage.

6. If applicable show all easements of record must be graphically shown on the plan together with recording docket and page reference.

7. Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas or unpaved areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site LUC 3.3.2.6.8.A.

8. Indicate existing and proposed lighting layout and type.

9. Identify all fences, walls, or vegetation for screening by type, material, height, location, and spacing.

10. The correct bicycle parking calculation for industrial use is 1 space per 15,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. Revise note as necessary and show required parking on the plan LUC 3.3.8.2.B.

11. 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.

12. Additional comments may apply on subsequent reviews.

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents
06/10/2011 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied June 15, 2011
T11CM01744/ T11BU00742
Culligan Water Site and Grading Plans

DRAINAGE REPORT
1. The Drainage Report (DR) indicates that the site is within the Airport Wash watershed. The PDSD map indicates that it is within the Rodeo Wash watershed. Both are critical basins so critical basin detention is required.
2. The DR indicates that the site doesn't need to conform to the Commercial Rainwater Harvesting Ordinance. Please provide substantiation for this statement.
3. Clarify the statement that the discharge within Ginter Road stays within the roadway. Show the drainage area, discharge and water depth to demonstrate that the roadway has capacity for the discharge or that overflow from the road will not enter the property.
4. Provide complete retention calculations demonstrating five-year threshold retention.
5. Provide details for all drainage structures along with volume calculations for each basin.


SITE PLAN
1. Provide a legend for the site plan and for the grading plan which identifies the symbols used. Identify also the circular features along the east property line near the loading zones.
2. The keynotes listing indicates that key note 13 is not used. However, keynote 13 is shown pointing to the sidewalk area along the south side of the building. Please clarify.
3. Show the locations and extent of the Sight Visibility Triangles. It appears that the layer was not turned on.
4. Clarify how the decomposed granite ground cover is separated from the concrete paving.
5. Ensure that all of the keynote call-outs indicate the correct feature.
6. Ensure that all of the dimensions are correct.


GRADING PLAN
1. Clarify the difference in specified materials and features between the grading and site plans.
2. Neither the site plan nor the grading plan indicate whether the sidewalk along the front of the building is raised above or flush with the pavement. Clarify.
3. Provide weir elevations for all spillways and weir openings between basins.
06/16/2011 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Provide the rim elevation of the new sanitary manhole. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 710.1, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson.
2. 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 of the gas meter (if one exists or is planned)
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
07/06/2011 CPIERCE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
07/06/2011 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed