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 - T03OT01991
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/04/2003 | David Rivera | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM:David Rivera Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: T03OT01991 The Hammeroff Law Firm 135 West Council Street Site Plan Transmittal date: 1st Review, December 5, 2003 COMMENTS: Please attach a response letter with the next submittal, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. Previous redlines must also be included. 1. The site plan must be drawn at a standard engineering scale no larger than l" = 60' on a sheet(s) no larger than 30" by 42" (24" by 36" recommended). Please revise the scale to an engineering scale as required per D.S. 2-02.2.1.A 2. The building setback from the street (Council Street) perimeter property line for this project must be based on the greater of 20 feet or one and one-half times the height of the structure. Based on the proposed building height of 18.33' the building setback from the street property line must be 27.5'. A separate review and approval through a Lot Development Option review process must be applied for starting with the Zoning Review Section. An application with the proposed site plan and building elevations with building heights labeled must be submitted for comments prior to submitting the plans to Frank Podgorski for the LDO review. In addition, this site is zoned historic O-3 and C-3 and the proposed addition must be reviewed for historic compliance and approval. DS 2-02.2.1.A.7 3. This site plan has been reviewed for full code compliance based on the 25.11 percent expansion calculated using the existing and addition building dimensions. Please review the dimensions again to verify expansion calculation percentage and revise as required. Revise the Floor Area ratios for each zonining classification or use the most restrictive FAR of the most restrictive Zone O-3 and apply the allowed FAR for the entire site. Because the proposed building expansion is greater than 25 percent, the entire site must be brought into full L.U.C. code compliance including compliance with all applicable development standards. The following comments are based on full code compliance required. 4. This parcel is not within the downtown redevelopment district boundary and does not qualify for the parking ratio of one space per 400 square feet of gross floor area. Based on the building square footage (3,584.92) and the parking ratio for an Administrative and Professional Office use of one space per every 200 square feet of gross floor area, the total parking spaces required are 18. The spaces must be within 600 feet of the El Presidio boundary. The proposed site on which the vehicle-parking is proposed per the lease agreement is within the El Presidio boundary and would be satisfactory as long as the site has sufficient parking for the existing use(s). A copy of the approved site plan for the proposed site on which the parking spaces are to be provided must be submitted for review prior to approval of the lease agreement. The plan must demonstrate adequate parking for the existing use(s) and must have excess parking spaces that meet today's code for width and length as well as the PAAL area widths for one way or two way traffic. All maneuvering into and out of the parking spaces must be made entirely on site. Please demonstrate on the plan which vehicle-parking spaces including handicap-parking spaces will be reserved for the law offices. In addition to the lease agreement requirement a separate City of Tucson Parking agreement form must be filled out and approved by the DSD Director or Designee. For your convenience, I have attached a copy of the City of Tucson Parking agreement to the yellow site card. DS 2-02.2.1.8 5. A minimum of two bicycle parking spaces, both spaces may be class two and must be provided on site. Draw a detail drawing that demonstrates compliance for the bicycle parking facility requirements. Draw on the site plan, the location of the bicycle-parking facility. See D.S. 2-09 for more information regarding the bicycle parking facility criteria. Revise the bicycle-parking calculations as required. DS 2-02.2.1.A.9 6. Dimension the width of the new sidewalk at the property line. The minimum width required is four feet. The sidewalk must also be a handicap accessible route. Indicate on the plan if the sidewalk is handicap accessible at the building's front door. DS 2-02.2.1.A.12 7. Based on the full code compliance requirements, a 12-foot by 35-foot loading zone will be required for this project. The loading zone must be provided on site and the maneuverability must be within the site. It is obvious that a loading zone cannot be provided on the site and that a Board of Adjustment variance will be required to eliminate the loading space. DS 2-02.2.1.A.14 8. If applicable show on the plan any proposed freestanding lighting layout and type. DS 2-02.2.1.A.25 9. See landscape review comments regarding landscape borders, screening and NPPO requirements. DS 2-02.2.1.A.27 10. All other approvals such as Historic, Lot Development Options, Board of Adjustments etc must occur prior to approval the site plan by the DSD Zoning Review Section. Submit approval letters from all other review and approval processes with the site plan re-submittal. The date, conditions of approvals, and case numbers must be listed on the site plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.38 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. |
| 12/04/2003 | David Rivera | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See Zoning comments |
| 12/09/2003 | Joseph Linville | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Landscaping. Plantings and other ornamental features shall reflect the historic period of the subject structure. Revise the proposed plantings and wall design to assure that the type and placement of plant materials is compatible with the character of the subject property and the development zone. A ten foot wide street landscape buffer is required per LUC 3.7.2.4. If necessary the buffer requirement may be partially waived upon satisfaction of the criteria cited above after completion of the review of the appropriate historic district advisory board. 2) Revise keynote 20. The HDZ does not apply. 3) Wall locations are governed by LUC 3.7.3.2.C.3 Revise the plan to meet the criteria or as necessary to make the design compatible with the historic district. |
| 12/09/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a native plant preservation plan or application for exception. |
| 12/10/2003 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/10/2003 | Loren Makus | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: December 10, 2003 TO: Mr. Andrew Ogas SUBJECT: Site Plan Hammeroff Law Firm REVIEWER: Loren Makus ACTIVITY NUMBER: T03OT01991 SUMMARY: The Site Plan was reviewed by Development Services Department, Engineering Division on December 10, 2003. The site plan was not approved. Please address the following comments. Site Plan Comments: 1) Revise the site plan to use a standard engineering scale per City of Tucson Development Standard (DS) 2-02.2.1A. 2) Revise the site plan to show the roof drainage patterns. Show that sidewalks and pedestrian area shall be flood free for all storm discharges of up to a ten (10) year flood event. (DS 2-08.3.1 and 2-08.5.1.E) 3) Revise the site plan to show how that stormwater harvesting will be maximized in accordance with the Land Use Code of the City of Tucson sections 3.7.1.1.A, 3.7.4.3.B and 3.7.4.5.B. Revise the Site Plan to address all of these comments and resubmit two copies for review. Include a letter explaining how each comment has been addressed. Loren Makus Senior Engineering Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/11/2003 | TAMI ACHONG | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 12/10/2003 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |