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: Requires Resubmit
Review Details: PERMANENT SIGN REVIEW v.3
Permit Number - TS-PRM-0424-00151
Review Name: PERMANENT SIGN REVIEW v.3
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/25/2024 | Signs | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | RE: freestanding sign review For: Cubesmart AT: 2424 N Oracle Rd Sign Permit: TS-PRM-0424-00151 Reviewer: Heather Thrall (Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov) Date: 4/22/24 (1st review) June 5, 2024, 2nd review July 25, 2024 3rd review Codes applicable to signage include: Unified Development Code (UDC, 7A, Sign Standards), National Electrical Code (NEC), Tucson - Pima County Outdoor Lighting Code (OLC), International Building Code (IBC) 1. UDC: A) Understood project proposal shifted from a pole sign to now presentation of a low profile sign, thank you. B) In prior review comment, it was noted that setbacks and sign area for the type of sign (either monument or low-profile) would have to be met. While the sign location is 11’ setback from face of curb to leading edge of the sign, the height proposed for the sign is 7’9” and is too tall for that setback provided. C) Please review this criteria for the low-profile sign and see if possible to adjust design to work within the code criteria: max 60 square feet, height no greater than half the setback provided, keep a 2’ tall “base” running full length of the cabinet. UDC 7A.10.2.c The setback provided – at 11’ overall – requires that sign height is half of that setback dimension. Therefore, the maximum height that the sign may be is 5’6” overall. Revise or apply for an SDRC case for increased height, and design the sign with embellishments per the SDRC process. See comment E below. Be sure, in your revision, to provide a 2’ tall base running full length of the sign cabinet. D) last review the setback from property line was also provided, at 1’6” – please verify and add that on plan again to show on site and not in right of way. The sign location is same position as nonconforming sign presently at the site, and is not an issued for parking space adjacent if protection for the sign is provided (i.e. planter, curb, bollard, etc.) E) (repeat comment – applicable to any request to vary the design criteria, such as increased height or reduced setback) The City of Tucson has a Master Sign Program process available to allow applicants to seek variations to code criteria (i.e .height or setback for example), providing good design is shown for the sign (requires a top, middle and base, architectural compatibility with site buildings and in alignment with other freestanding signs in the geographic area for the code variation requested. Please review UDC 7A.7.1. E and G, and purpose for the Sign Standards 7A.7 and purpose for the master sign program for additional information. Note that redesign would be required for the sign structure. (i.e. base and topper to have architectural components of the building added to it) F) (NEXT STEPS) Revise sign height to meet code and all other criteria for a low-profile sign. Or: revise the plan set to show a topper and a base for the sign that architecturally compliments the building on site – and add note for property line setback to sign cabinet. Next, apply on our TDC portal for a “Master Sign Program” for the proposal for allowance of a pole sign and at a reduced setback. Staff is attaching the applications for you in this permit, under attachments. Please review them in detail and respond to each question. Only after an SDRC review is done, and a potential approval is issued, would a structural review be done for the sign (redesigned with a base / topper). 2) NEC / OLC A) add note that replacement sign is using existing power to prior freestanding sign 3) IBC - A) thank you for engineering for footer and pipe with 105 mph capabilities; note though, that due to the height comment, the engineering provided was not reviewed in detail for this structure at this time. Please feel free to email me with any questions. Thank you. (Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov) |