Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T04OT00405
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/05/2004 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Fire hydrant required. 2. Submit code review checklist. |
| 03/29/2004 | Andrew Connor | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/29/2004 | Andrew Connor | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Landscape borders are required to be located based on MS&R right of way line per LUC 3.7.2.4.A.1 2) Show on landscape plan existing and future SVT's 3) Any screen higher than thirty (30) inches must be located outside of the sight visibility triangle. Height of Oleander 'Petite Pink' when mature is 4' wide by 4' tall. LUC 3.7.3.4 4) Screens may be located in the landscape border if the criteria indicated in LUC3.7.3.2 are met. Revise the plans such that screening elements are located in compliance per notes. 5) Indicate irrigation system design and layout including the location of source of irrigation water, sleeves, valves, controller, drip irrigation, and hydro-seed irrigation per DS 2-06.5.4.A 6) Indicate botanical name of "Silver oak" on landscape plan per DS 2-07.2.2. 7) Applying pre-emergent to hydro-seeded areas is not recommended revise general note #4 on landscape plan as needed. 8) Show on landscape plan wrought iron fence detail per DS 2-07.2.2.D.2 9) A minimum of 2" of decomposed granite is required per DS 2-06.5.2.C 10) Show basin slopes on Landscape plan per DS 2-07.2.2.B.5 |
| 04/01/2004 | DAVID RIVERA | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Denied | see zoning comments |
| 04/01/2004 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSC TRANSMITTAL FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: T04OT00405 Grejen Properties - Office Building 1765 W. Prince Road Site Plan Transmittal date: 1st Review March 30, 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. Based on the property description listed on sheet one of the site plan submittal packet, it appears that several lot splits of the original parcel with the tax code number ending with 0170 have been processed without approval by the City of Tucson Development Services Department or CDRC (Community Design Review Committee). Upon further review of the Pima County Tax records at least four splits have occurred within the past three years. The City of Tucson Land Use Code allows up to two splits for three parcels within a twenty-year period. If a third split for a fourth lot occurs a subdivision plat is required. This site plan may not be approved until the lot-split issue is resolved. The plan will be reviewed as if the lot split or subdivision has been approved by the City of Tucson CDRC committee but final approval cannot be granted. 2. Please adjust the text height used to label the street names and section corner numbers on the location map to a minimum of 12 point. DS 2-02.2.1.A.4 3. Please label the building the dimensions of the building footprint on sheet two. Also please indicate if the building height is to the top of a parapet or gable etc. The building square footage listed under general 7 does not match the square footage listed for use with the parking calculations, floor area ratio and labeled for the building footprint on sheet two. Please revise to match. DS 2-02.2.1.A.6 4. The off street parking has been provided as required. The vehicle parking calculations must be revised to correctly list the number of vehicle parking spaces actually provided, per the plan. The number of accessible parking spaces required is based on the total number of vehicle spaces provided. Per the 2000 I.B.C. section 1106.1 table 51 t0 75 vehicle parking spaces provided 3 handicapped spaces are required of which one of the handicapped spaces must be van accessible. Show and label the required handicapped parking signs for the three handicapped parking spaces. Under the bicycle parking calculations the number of bicycle parking spaces was calculated on 63 vehicle parking spaces. Although the number of bicycle spaces required is four spaces the calculation should be revised to be consistent. Also the calculation used to determine the number of handicapped spaces required must be revised as indicated in the above paragraph. Dimension the length and width of the parking stalls and label as typical. In addition all parking stalls that abut the sidewalks must be provided with wheel stops that are to be placed two and one-half feet from the front of the parking stalls. If wheel stops are not to be provided the sidewalks must be a minimum of six and one-half feet wide. This width provides for a four sidewalk with a two and one-half-foot overhang. Parking stalls that abut a wall along a property line such as the stalls that are located along the southwest lot line or abut screen walls must be provided with wheel stops. If the parking spaces are not provided wheel stops as noted above, the extruded curb must be relocated to provide two and one-half feet from the wall. Revise as required. DS 2-02.2.1.A.8 5. Bicycle parking is based on eight percent of the total number of vehicle spaces provided, of which 75 percent of the bicycle spaces required must be class one and 25 percent of the spaces must be class two facilities. Based on the total number (54) of vehicle parking spaces provided four bicycle parking spaces are required, three of the spaces must be class one and one of the spaces must be class two. Please demonstrate that both types of facilities have been provided. Per the plan a location has been labeled with a note indicating a bike area. The note does not state the type of facility that will be provided. Please add a fully dimensioned detail drawing that depicts the type of facility in this location. The detail drawing must include the type of facility i.e. class one or two, number of bicycles the facility holds, manufacturer/model type, dimensions, type surfacing material, how the facility is to be anchored to the ground or concrete, and lighting. A fully dimensioned and labeled detail drawing for a class one and class two facilities must be added. Revise the bicycle parking calculations accordingly. DS 2-02.2.2.1.A.9 If a class two facility is not visible from the street directional signage that directs the cyclist to the facility, is to be provided. Show and label the bicycle directional signage if applicable. 6. A four-foot wide concrete sidewalk is required along the entire south side of the building. The sidewalk must be a minimum of four wide. Parking spaces that abut this sidewalk must be provided with wheel stops or the sidewalk must be constructed to a six and one-half feet width. Please add a keynote indicating the required four-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the south side of the building. A painted crosswalk is required to create a continuous pedestrian circulation from the street sidewalk to the sidewalk along the perimeter of the building. The crosswalk can be painted from the handicapped access aisle to the sidewalk adjacent to the driveway entrance. The crosswalk must be a minimum of four feet wide. Also please label the width of sidewalks. DS 2-02.2.1A.12 7. If applicable indicate the location, type, size, and height of existing or proposed freestanding signage including billboards. 8. Dimension the existing and future Prince Road right-of-way. Also dimension the existing and future curb to property line distance. DS 2-02.2.1.A.19 9. All easements of record or proposed easements must be drawn, dimensioned and labeled. DS 2-02.2.1.A.20 10. If applicable, draw the proposed freestanding lighting layout. DS 2-02.2.1A.25 11. See the landscape review comments regarding the requirements for landscape borders, screening and NPPO. DS 2-02.2.1.A.27 12. Please revise the development designator from 28 to 31 and revise the subject to section number to 3.5.13.5. DS 2-02.2.1.A.31 13. Review and revise all LUC calculations such as floor area ratio, vehicle and bicycle parking, building square footage etc, see redlines. DS 2-02.2.2.A.1 - .6 14. Additional comments may be forthcoming due to revisions to the plan or based on required response letter to the zoning comments. 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. |
| 04/02/2004 | Loren Makus | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: April 5, 2004 TO: Timm Dixon, Arcadis SUBJECT: Grejen Properties, Site Plan Revies REVIEWER: Loren Makus ACTIVITY NUMBER: T0OT00405 SUMMARY: The Site Plan and Drainage Report were reviewed by Development Services Department Engineering Division. The Site Plan can not be approved at this time. The drainage report is accepted for Site Plan review purposes. Please address the following comments. Site Plan Comments 1. Show accessibility and maneuverability for the solid waste container location and for the loading zone. Show maneuverability for both entering and leaving. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.14) 2. Revise General Note 20 to indicate that the water surface elevations are based on the drainage report prepared by Arcadis, date 24 February 2004. 3. Dimension existing and future right-of-way. Clearly label the existing and future sight visibility triangles. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.19 and DS 2-02.2.1.A.10) 4. Provide estimated cut and fill quantities. If fill quantities exceed 50 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.17) 5. Show drainage patterns including roof drainage and show that sidewalks will be kept flood free for all events up to a 10-year storm. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.16 and DS 2-08.4.1.E) 6. Clarify the number of sheets. The Sheets are labeled as 1 of 3 and 2 of 3. Sheet 3 was not included. Revise the Site Plan to address these comments and resubmit two copies for review. Include a letter explaining how each comment has been addressed. Include the drainage report in subsequent submittals. There is a $150 drainage report review fee for the Floodplain Use Permit. Loren Makus Senior Engineering Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/08/2004 | LISA LESNY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 04/06/2004 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |