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: DEV PKG - OK TO SUBMIT (SITE)
Permit Number - DP12-0081
Review Name: DEV PKG - OK TO SUBMIT (SITE)
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/29/2012 | CPIERCE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/30/2012 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | From: David Rivera, Principal Planner Zoning Review Section Date: May 30, 2012 Project: Tucson Botanical Gardens, New Sign/Wall Address: 2150 N Alvernon Way Site plan has been review by Zoning for variance comments. At this time zoning cannot approve the site plan until the following comments are addressed by making changes to the plans that demonstrate compliance or variances for the items listed below must be approved through a Board of Adjustment variance process. Variance Comments: This review was for variance comment only. (The Zoning Review Section has no comments related the requested variance for the sign.) A. However the Zoning Review Section does refer the proposal to the Board of Adjustments for reduced building setbacks. LUC Section 3.2.5.2.H, the maximum height of a wall or fence within a perimeter yard is six (6) feet; however, the wall or fence may be higher than six (6) feet, but no higher than ten (10) feet, if: (See Illustration 3.2.5.2.H.) 1. At least seventy-five (75) percent of the area above six (6) feet in height is left unobstructed and open through the use of architectural elements, such as arches, columns, or wrought iron, or 2. Part of, or located on top of, a retaining wall no higher than ten (10) feet measured from design grade and no higher than six (6) feet measured from the top of the retaining portion of the wall, or 3. A greater height is required through the rezoning process or the Special Exception Land Use process, or The proposed steel fence includes two Columns at the entrance and is proposed at a maximum height of 14'-1" which includes an illuminated lamp on each column. The Arch at the entrance is proposed at a maximum height of 18'-2.37". A Variance for the proposed height of 8'-2.37' above the allowed ten (10) feet is required. B. Minimum Height Clearance along access lanes. Luc Section 3.3.6.5 Additional Access Lane and Parking Area Access Lanes (PAAL) Design Criteria 3.3.6.5.B. Height Clearance. The minimum height clearance along access lanes and PAALS is fifteen (15) feet. Exception. The minimum height clearance within parking garages may be less than fifteen (15) feet as permitted by the City's adopted Building Code. C. It is not clear from the documents submitted for review whether or not the building setback for the steel fence/columns has been met. The drawings do not include existing and future roadway dimensions from the existing or future back of curb location based on the Mayor and Council Approved Major Streets and Routes Map. The following comment is made based on the assumption that the setback from the existing or future back of curb cannot be met. 1. The setback requirement for a building setback along the Alvernon Way street frontage is based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure. The required setback for this proposal from the existing and/or future back of curb location is 21 feet, LUC section 3.2.6.5.B, ADT 1,000+. If the 21 foot setback cannot be met the applicant must apply for a Board of Adjustment variance for the proposed building setback. 2. If the walls do not meet the minimum setbacks from the back of curb it is likely that the walls may also interfere with the sight visibility triangles. Until the correct right of way information is included on the plans it is assumed that a DSMR for Development Standard 3-01.5.1.A, (Lines of Sight Encroachment/SVT ) will be required. |
| 05/30/2012 | CPIERCE1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 07/24/2012 | CHAD AMATEAU | WWM | REVIEW | Passed |