Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T11CM02851
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/27/2011 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: T11CM02851 4701 E. 22nd St. Site Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: 10/27/11 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. This project appears to require a lot split with the adjoining property to the east. Because of the changes required to the parcel to the east, this site plan cannot be approved until the lot split has been approved by the City of Tucson. Demolition permits must be secured for the adjacent property as well, prior to approval of the site plan. 2. DS 2-02.2.1.A.8 The parking spaces along the sidewalk where the sidewalk is indicated as 5' in width will require wheel stop curbing or change the sidewalk to a width of 6'-6". Near the southeast corner of the building the sidewalk is indicated as being 6' in width not the required 6.5'. Revise. 3. DS 2-02.2.1.A.9 Per LUC Sec. 3.3.9.3.B.1 Clearly indicate the location of the long term bicycle parking spaces. Cross reference the detail on the site plan. 4. DS 2-02.2.1.A.20 Provide recording sequence numbers for all easements which are to be abandoned. 5. The above comments are minor in nature and can be approved over the counter by setting an appointment with me. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 C:\planning\cdrc\DSD\T11CM02851.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 10/27/2011 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. In first submittal comment number 5, it was required that all slopes be shown on the accessible parking detail as per Section 502. Section 502.5 calls for the maxium slopes in all directions be 2% maximum. As per sheet 3, you have a 3.3% slope at the westerly side of the accessible parking space. 2. As per the first submittal comment number 6, all slope requirements for the curb ramp was to be shown. Missing in this detail is the center ramp slope of 1:12 maximum as per ICC~ANSI 117.1, Section 406.1, 502.2. END OF REVIEW |
| 11/02/2011 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/09/2011 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Fences or walls constructed in a single continuous line shall extend into a street landscape border no more than the actual width of the fence or wall. Where a fence or wall incorporates offsets or similar design features, a screen may extend a maximum of three (3) feet into the street landscape border LUC 3.7.3.2.C.3. Relocate 30" screen wall to the back of the landscape buffer or provide off sets. 2. The site, grading and landscape plans must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between plans. Revise wall location(s) on the site and grading plans |