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 - T01CM04187
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/16/2002 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS: Provide a response letter with the next site plan submittal that states how all the Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. CODE SECTION/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Copy of recorded affidavit was not found in the resubmittal package. Previous comment: Since this is comprised of more than one lot, a lot combination is required prior to the approval of this site plan. Please provide the following documentation to the Zoning Review Section for review: signed, notarized, and recorded affidavit (copy attached to the review comments), copy of recorded legal descriptions (Exhibit "A" in affidavit), and approved Pima County Tax Combination Form. 2. Under the required vehicle parking calculation on sheet CS-1, Please revise and/or clarify the following: a) A minimum of two (2) vehicle parking spaces are required for the manager of the apartment. b) Is the commercial storage portion of "commercial building A" for the future personal and food services indicated on the plan. If so, vehicle parking is based on the principal use and should not be noted separately. c) If the office use is for the apartments i.e. leasing office, the office use does not required vehicle parking. If it is intended for a future office tenant please revise the note as so. d) Be more specific with the term "tenants use". Will it be for the apartment residents use or for a future tenant. If it is intended for the apartment residents indicate what will be provided in the area. If it is for a future tenant, vehicle parking will be required based on the principal use. e) The total number of vehicle parking spaces shown on the site plan totals 188 while the vehicle parking calculation notes 189 (160 existing plus 29 new). Please revise for consistency. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8/ L.U.C. 3.3.7.2/ D.S. 3-05.2.3.C/ D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 3. Previous comments have not been addressed: a) Provide a fully dimensioned bicycle parking space detail. Refer to D.S. 2-09 for requirements. b) List the type and number of bicycle parking spaces required and provided on sheet A1.0. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9/ D.S. 2-09/ D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 4. Previous comment has not been addressed properly. Previous comment: Far west PAAL width located near newly striped parking spaces does not meet the minimum 24 foot width. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11 5. The following handicap comments are from the first review done by Phil Seader on 11/13/01 and have not been clearly addressed on the plan. a) Detail disabled parking spaces and access aisles including access to sidewalks. b) Post disabled parking signs. c) Detail access ramps in disabled pedestrian access paths. 6. All requested changes must be made to the site and landscape plans. D.S. 2-07.2.1.A |
| 08/16/2002 | DAN CASTRO | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Denied | Refer to Zoning Review comment number five (5). |
| 08/20/2002 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | The far west PAAL width located at the new parking area does not meet the required minimum 24 ft. width. |
| 08/20/2002 | JIM TATE | SANITATION | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/20/2002 | JAMES TATE | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/30/2002 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/30/2002 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/03/2002 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |