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: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T03CM05653
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/27/2004 | Joseph Linville | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) One canopy tree must be provided for every thirty-three (33) linear feet of street landscape border. Revise plan to included a minimum of 3 trees per LUC 3.7.2.4 2) A 30' continuous screen is required along Speedway Blvd per LUC 3.7.2-I. Screening locations are subject to the requirements of LUC 3.7.3.2.C. Currently the plans show screening within the MS&R right-of-way area. The screening is required to be located behind the street landscape border which is located behind the MS&R righ-of-way line. Revise the plans to locate the landscape border and screening correctly. 3) Show the landscape border location based on the MS&R right of way line. LUC 3.7.2.4 4) All disturbed, areas including adjacent ROW shall be treated with ground cover such as decomposed granite to help reduce dust pollution per LUC 3.7.2.7 5) Provide a correct legal description on the site and landscape plans. DS 2-05., DS 2-07.2.2 6) New and existing development on Lot 4 may be subject to landscape and screening regulations. Revise plans as necessary and as requested by the Zoning Section. LUC 3.7.1.2 7) Include pictures of vegetation on the entire site with the NPP Application for Exception. Include close ups of individula plants. Aerial photos indicate existing vegetation. 8) Remove keynote #9 on site plan, Landscape will be required prior to final C of O per Luc 3.7.7.4.A 9) Revise the plans to correctly locate and depict improvements at Speedway Boulevard. Show the correct sidewalk location and existing landscaping. |
| 07/27/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | See landscape comments. |
| 08/05/2004 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 4, 2004 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T03CM05653 PROJECT NAME: Site: Car Lot PROJECT ADDRESS: 3427 East Speedway Blvd. PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert, Engineering Associate The following items must be revised or added to the site plan. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: SITE PLAN 1. A minimum setback distance of five (5) feet for a pedestrian refuge area must be maintained between any enclosed structure and a PAAL. Sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any PAAL on the side where buildings are located. On the east side of the structure there is a 4' sidewalk. A 4' sidewalk and pedestrian access which is unobstructed and is set back one (1) foot from the PAAL (for a total of 5') is required and has not been provided. Provide a sidewalk and pedestrian refuge between existing drive and existing structure. Dimension the 5' pedestrian refuge and the 4' sidewalk. Revise plan as necessary. DS 3-05.2.2.B.1., Figure 1 and DS 2-08.4.1.B. 2. The access to the proposed solid waste enclosure location is not approvable by the standards found in 6-01. For current location of the solid waste enclosure a Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) is required. Please contact Patricia Gehlen at 791-5608, for information on how to process the DSMR. 3. From review of an aerial photo it appears that there are walls and/or fences that are not depicted on the plan. Specifically on the eastside of the property. Clarify the discrepancy. 4. The proposed fill quantities seem unrealistic. 10 cubic yards of fill is proposed for the entire site. At the proposed grade break there is a grade difference of approximately 3' to 2.5' from the existing grades. Check the calculations of the fill quantities for accuracy. 5. To determine if the structure is going to flood more grades are needed to determine the drainage. Give more existing and proposed grades around the existing structure to clarify the drainage of the site. The redlines for the previous submittal have not been submitted, consequently it is difficult to determine if "more grades" have been shown. The current proposal directs the drainage to the structure. This is not acceptable. From review of an aerial photo with contours the direction of drainage goes to the northeast and northwest. Stormwater must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes, as encountered under natural or existing conditions. The current proposal does not meet this requirement. Some of the onsite drainage is being directed to the south towards the landscape border. Is the landscape border going to capture this flow and prohibit the water from getting to the ROW (sidewalk and road)? Submit a drainage statement with the next submittal addressing offsite to on site flows and onsite to offsite flows. 6. Show contours and/or spot elevations for the adjacent properties. DS 2-02.2.1.A.23. This comment from the previous review was not addressed. TO determine the overall drainage of the area, offsite contours and/or spot elevations are required to be shown on the plan. Reivse the site plan to show contours and/or spot elevations for the adjacent properties. 7. It is acknowledged that the size of wall opening has been shown on the plan. However calculations of the flow amount have not been given on the site plan or in a drainage statement. Give the calculations for the amount for flow going through the wall opening located at the north wall (keynote 18). |
| 08/31/2004 | David Rivera | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSC TRANSMITTAL FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: T03CM05653 Auto Sales Lot 3427 E. Speedway Boulevard Site Plan Transmittal date: 2nd Review September 1, 2004 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. It is still not clear what has actually occurred with the lot reconfiguration. Is the lot to be split, reconfigured or is has the lease agreement been re-written to include the portion of the north lot for the car sales use. No documentation could be found with the new submittal packet explaining the lot reconfiguration. I am Attaching a copy of the lot combo covenant that must be recorded if a survey with a new legal description describing the combined lot is not recorded. Call me if you have any questions regarding this comment. ***Per William Balak, If the lot is reconfigured or split so that the two lots stand alone full code compliance for the entire site will be required. Previous Comment: The legal description does not match the proposed development area. The legal description for parcel two does not describe any portion of the site to be developed. Revise the legal description as required. In addition if a lot reconfiguration is proposed, a separate lot split/reconfiguration application and a 54-dollar fee will be required prior to approval of this site plan. Approval of the lot reconfiguration will be contingent upon the existing uses on the property meeting LUC and D.S. criteria requirements. In order to ascertain whether the existing uses on the property meet code requirements, all existing uses as well as code related data for each use must be listed on the plan. Additional comments may forthcoming based on the subsequent site plan submittal and proposed lot reconfiguration. DS 2-02.2.1.A.2 2. The location map must cover a one square mile area. Label the major streets that fall with the described mile. (Previous Comment: The location map must be drawn at a scale of "three inches equals one mile". The location map must include the major street names, section corners, and the project location shown and labeled. The section Township and Range must be listed under the location map along with the north arrow and scale of the map. DS 2-02.2.1.A.4 ) 3. See related comment no. 1. (Previous Comment: If a lot reconfiguration is proposed and is approved by the City of Tucson, a new legal description will be required and the new distance and bearings must be labeled. DS 2-02.2.1.A.5) 4. The information regarding the existing uses of the buildings on the north lot must be listed as shown on the redline copies. (Previous Comment: All existing structures must be dimensioned, the use for each building listed, the building setbacks labeled, and building heights listed. DS 2-02.2.1.A.6 and .7) 5. The parking spaces have been provided both for the customers and the vehicle display areas, and the handicapped parking space for a van. What has not been addressed correctly is the access ramp. When an access ramp is required and placed as shown on this drawing a landing behind the access ramp that is four feet wide is required. This has been discussed in prior reviews and has been shown as redlines on the previous site plans. The number of parking spaces have been addressed and are not an issue. Previous Comment: Based on the building square footage and the proposed site area as reconfigured, this site is to be provided with a minimum of four (4) vehicle parking spaces for customer use. Of the four vehicle-parking spaces one (1) space must be a van handicap space with an eight (8) foot wide access aisle. Under the parking calculations text block 25 vehicle parking spaces have been listed as provided. It is necessary to indicate on the plan which spaces are to be reserved for the customers and which spaces are to be used for displaying the vehicles that will be for sale. The spaces that are to be used for the parking and displaying the vehicles that are for sale do not count towards the number of required parking spaces. All vehicular use areas must meet the requirements for two way traffic (24 feet wide) and required back up spurs. Label the width of all PAAL areas. The minimum width for two-way traffic is 24 feet. Back-up spurs are required at the end of row of parking, where the row of parking ends at the property line, three (3) places on this site. DS 2-02.2.1.A.8 6. See also related comment 5. Although the location of the proposed sidewalk is acceptable as shown on the plan all pedestrian sidewalks must be physically separated from the vehicular use areas. The sidewalk must be raised or some form of barrier must be provided between the sidewalk and parking spaces along the northwest and back-up spur area on the west side of the site to keep the vehicles from overhanging over the sidewalk. A five (5) foot pedestrian refuge area with a four (4) foot sidewalk is required along the east side of the building and must connect to the on site pedestrian circulation. The sidewalk must be physically separated from the vehicular use area. See Development Standards 2-08.4 and 3-05 for more information of sidewalk and refuge area requirements. DS 2-02.2.1.A.12 7. See redlines. (Previous Comment: List the existing and proposed uses. The proposed use is to be listed as "Vehicle Rental and Sales DD '31', Subject to LUC sections 3.5.9.5.A and .B". DS 2-02.2.1.A.31) 8. See redlines. As stated in comment one, this development is proposed over the south parcel and a portion of the north parcel. The parcel on the north has existing uses that have not been defined on this plan. The subsequent plan must include drawing, calculations, and required data code info for the existing uses on the north parcel. By reconfiguring the lot lines the required calculations such as building setbacks, floor area ratios, lot coverage, density etc could be affected and must be addressed. It is important to provide an accurate drawing of the existing uses and information. Additional comments will be forthcoming based on the subsequent submittal. Add a Land Use Code Data text block that lists all the relevant data for the proposed use and existing uses. See Development Standards 2-02.2.2.A.1 - .6 9. See redlines. When the proposed site is part of a larger site, the calculations encompass the entire site, whether existing or proposed. If the project is being phased, calculations must show that, at each phase, requirements are being met. DS 2-02.2.2.B If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and landscape plan and requested documents. |
| 09/02/2004 | DAVID RIVERA | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Denied | see zoning comments. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/07/2004 | BETH GRANT | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 09/07/2004 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |