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 - T03OT02253
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/12/2004 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Bob Lanning 922 S. 7th Ave. Tucson, AZ 85711 FROM: David Rivera/Peter McLaughlin, Senior Planners FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: T03OT02253 Puntenney Office Building 305 S. 4th Avenue Site Plan Transmittal date: 1st Review January 16, 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. This site is Zoned HO-3 and the proposed use is for Professional and Administrative Office use. In addition to review of the site plan by DSD staff, the site plan must be submitted to Frank Podgorski for review by the Historic Review and approval. The following comments must be addressed and a revised plan submitted to DSD for review. You may submit a copy of the revised plan to Frank Podgorski if all DSD staff's comments have been addressed and the plan reflects the changes required in order for DSD to grant approval. As a caveat if the plan is submitted to Frank Podgorski prior to required changes made to the plan, DSD will require that the revised site plan be re-approved and re-stamped by Frank Podgorski before final approval by the DSD staff. 2. A small, project-location map shall be drawn on the first sheet of the development plan, preferably in the upper right corner. The map should cover approximately one (1) square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of 3" = 1 mile, and provide the following information. a. Show the subject property approximately centered within the one (1) square mile area. b. Identify conditions within the square mile area, such as major streets and watercourses. c. Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled. DS 2-02.2.1.A.4 3. Label all building dimensions. The building square footage cannot be verified. DS 2-02.2.1.A.6 4. The building setback adjacent to the south property line which is zoned HR-2 is to be based on one and one-half (1-1/2) times the height of the building. The proposed building height is listed, as 26 feet therefore the required building setback is 39 feet from the south property line. The notes list the required south building setback as ½ the height, which is incorrect. Please revise the note and provide the correct building setback on the drawing. A Lot Development Option (LDO) review and approval would be required to allow the proposed south building setback. If a Board of Adjustment variance is approved (see comment 7) the setback issue may be addressed as part of the variances requested. DS 2-02.2.1.A.7 5. A minimum of two (2) class two bicycle-parking spaces is required for this use. A fully dimensioned detail drawing of the facility, which includes surfacing material, type/manufacturer, lighting, and the number of bicycles the facility supports must be labeled. Add the bicycle parking calculations to the plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.9 6. A loading zone is required for the site based on the proposed office use and the proposed building gross floor area of 2,660 square feet. Revise plan to show a loading zone, fully dimensioned. Add a loading zone calculation stating the number of loading zones required and provided. If no loading zone is to be provided a Board of Adjustment variance is required. If a variance application is submitted and approved, place the case number, date of approval, variances approved and conditions on the site plan. LUC 3.4.5.5, DS 2-02.2.1.A.14, DS 2-02.2.2.A.5. 7. Minimum PAAL width required is 24 feet for two-way traffic. Pedestrian circulation may not be located within the proposed entrance drive from 13th Street as shown. Also, pedestrian sidewalks must be physically separated from vehicle use areas by raised concrete curbs or other means as described in DS 3-01.3.3.B.5. Revise to provide a direct continuous pedestrian sidewalk connection to 13th St. that is not located within the 24' access drive. DS 2-02.2.1.A.12 & DS 2-08 8. Revise the pedestrian sidewalk connection to 4th Avenue so that it provides h/c accessibility, i.e. an access ramp. DS 2-08.3.1 & American National Standards Chapters 3 & 4. 9. An access ramp is required at the handicapped parking aisle. Show the access ramp and provide the maximum slope of the associated aisle and the ramp. 10. It appears that the dimension of the backup spur at the south end of the PAAL is somewhat less than 3 feet relative to the h/c parking space, which is located slightly to the south compared to the standard parking space on the opposite side of the PAAL. Dimension the backup spur to show a minimum 3 feet for the h/c parking space. Also, in addition to the required 3-foot back up spur, an additional minimum distance of 3 feet will be provided between the back of the spur and any obstruction over six (6) inches in height. Dimension the distance between the curb of the backup spur and the existing olive tree which is located immediately to the west of the h/c parking aisle. DS 3-05.2.2.D 11. Correct the Township, Section and Range to read; T 14 S, R 13 E, Sec 13. 12. Add existing near and far-side sight visibility triangles at the entrance drive location along 13th Street. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10 If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera or Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
| 01/12/2004 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See zoning review comments |
| 01/20/2004 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/21/2004 | ACONNOR1 | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Site plans to include: 1) Native Plant Preservation Plan or Application for Exception including documentation per DS 2-15.2.0 |
| 01/21/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Revise site plans to indicate: 1) DS 2-20.2.1.A.10 SVT for driveway entrance on 13th. Street. 2) LUC 3.7.3.4 Moving screen plants over 30" outside the SVT's. 3) LUC 3.7.2.4.A.1 "Street landscape borders shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet wide as measured from the street property line"... 4) LUC 3.7.4.5.A "A water-conserving irrigation system is required for all new landscape plantings" ... 5) 2-06.0.3.7 "The use of vegetation to satisfy the screen requirement is allowed only to provide for alternative treatment and is not in any way meant to imply that the vegetative screen can also be used to meet the landscape requirement"... 3.7.2.4.A.4 "Fifty (50) percent or more of the area of the street landscape border must be covered with shrubs or vegetative ground cover" 6) LUC 3.7.2.7 "All disturbed, grubbed, graded, or bladed areas, including right of way areas not otherwise improved shall be landscaped, reseeded, or treated with an inorganic or organic ground cover to help reduce dust pollution"... 7) 3.7.4.3.B "Grading, hydrology, and landscape structural plans are to be integrated to make maximum use of site storm water runoff for supplemental on-site irrigation purposes. The landscape plan shall indicate use of all runoff, from individual catch basins around single trees to basins accepting flow from an entire vehicular use area or roof area"… 8) A 5' masonry wall is required per LUC Table 3.7.2-I to screen parking area from east property. Exception: LUC 3.7.3.6.C maybe granted if it is determined that the requirements are not compatible with the character of the historic district. Provide documentation of any incompatibilities. |
| 01/21/2004 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: January 21, 2004 TO: Mr. Bob Lanning SUBJECT: Puntenney Office Building Site Plan Review REVIEWER: Loren Makus ACTIVITY NUMBER: T03OT02253 SUMMARY: The Site Plan was reviewed by Development Services Department Engineering Division. The Site Plan was not approved at this time. Please address the following comments. Site Plan Comments: 1) Show drainage patterns for the proposed development. Provide a sufficient number of existing and final grade spot elevations to determine drainage patterns will function as shown on the site plan. Clearly indicate whether the spot elevations are existing or proposed. Clarify the drainage patterns and finish grades. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.16) 2) Show roof drainage patterns and show that 10-year flows will not be discharged across sidewalks. (DS 2-08.4.1.E) 3) Provide sight visibility triangles for the driveway. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.10) 4) Show the refuse container location, size and access, fully dimensioned. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.32) 5) Show how flows will be directed to the landscaped water harvesting areas to the maximum amount possible. (LUC 3.7.4.3) Revise the site plan 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/22/2004 | LISA LESNY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/21/2004 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |