Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T05CM01041
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/10/2005 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/25/2005 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 03/29/05 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section David Rivera Principal Planner Comments: The orginal site plan, which was approved August 7, 2001, by Zoning Review section has expired. This plan has been reviewed as a new submittal for any new LUC or development standard changes. In addition to the full code compliance review, site plan review fees have been assessed based on the acreage of the overall site. Please address the folling comments and resubmit the plan for review. 1. Provide a handicapped access ramp at the H.C. access aisle and the sidewalk. 2. Dimension the wheel stop from the front of the parking spaces. 3. Revise the parking calculation to correctly list the number of parking spaces provided for the uses. (The combined number of parking spaces required is 12.) Per the plan the number of spaces provided is listed as 17. The actual number of spaces provided is 16. Revise the parking calculation as required. Revise the dimension of the H.C access aisle from 5'-0" to 8'-0". 4. Note 15 states that the gates are to be locked because it is a secondary access. the gate must remain open during working hours because the parking spaces for the residential and the auto sales are within the corner lot parking area. Also the required sidewalks that are to provide pedestrian circulation to both sites are in the area of corner development behind the locked gates. The gates must be removed or the note must be revised to state that the gates will remain open during working hours. The pedestrian circulation must be accessible to all three uses during working hours. 5. All exisitng curb cuts must be closed except for the two curb cut locations with driveways entrances as shown on the plan. 6. Dimension the corner building to verify the square footage. 7. Note 5 states that an exisitng corrugated fence is to remain along the perimeter of teh site. The wall is not on a perimeter lot line. Please revise note accordingly. 8. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on other comments by other agency reviewers. |
| 03/29/2005 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | see Zoning comments |
| 03/30/2005 | DOUG WILLIAMS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Site review - 438 West Ajo Way DATE: 30 March 2005 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T05CM01041 T14S, R13E, Section 25 Engineering Division has reviewed the Subject site plan, and approval is not recommended at this time. Please provide a revised site plan addressing the comments provided below, and include a response letter addressing each comment provided. 1. The proposed refuse provision does not appear to meet current Development Standard 6-01.0. Please contact John Clark, P.E. with Environmental Services Dept. (791-3175 x1136) for approval of the proposed provision, or other configuration(s) deemed appropriate for this site. The site plan must show onsite storage areas in addition to pick-up locations/configurations if different from the onsite location (DS 2-02.2.1 A 32). 2. Depict roof drainage flow arrows and corresponding sidewalk scuppers where any site drainage may be concentrated, for conveyance of 10-year flows (min) under sidewalk areas (DS 2-08.5.1 E & DS 3-01.4.4 F). 3. Clarify whether sidewalk currently exists on Clark Ave., or if new sidewalk is to be installed (keynote 6). If new sidewalk is to be installed, revise this keynote to specify new FIVE (5)' wide sidewalk to be constructed (2 feet from the back of curb) on Clark Ave., in accordance with Development Standard 3-01.3.3 A. 4. New SIX (6)' wide sidewalk, 2' from back of curb is required on all major streets and routes, in accordance with Mayor and Council Policy directive. Revise the plan accordingly, with depiction, labeling and dimensioning for new 6' sidewalk along Ajo Way street frontage (slight modifications in distance from back of curb to clear existing utilities or other similar obstructions in the right of way may be appropriate). 5. Identify all curb cuts in the adjacent public rights of way, and provide clear notation that all unused curb cuts are to be closed (Chapter 25, Tucson Code). Please note that subsequent comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, ext. 1189 or via email at Doug.williams@tucsonaz.gov. Douglas Williams Sr. Eng. Associate Engineering Division Development Services Department |
| 03/31/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. This plan has been reviewed as a new submittal any LUC or Development Standard changes will apply. 2. Within a vehicular use area, (1) canopy tree is required for each 10 motor vehicle parking spaces and every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk) per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.a. Additional trees are required for vehicle use area. 3. Any plant material higher than thirty (30) inches must be located outside of the sight visibility triangle per LUC 3.7.3.4. Leucophyllum frutescens and Caesalpinia pulcherrima will typically grow in excess of 4'. Relocate any plants within SVT's or choose appropriate plant materials such as Leucophyllum candidum Thunder Cloud and Agave geminiflora. 4. A minimum distance of two (2) feet must be maintained between a PAAL and any wall or screen per DS 3-05.2.2.B.3 Move and dimension 30" screen walls along Ajo way and Clark Ave. 5. The planting plan and layout calculations will include both the proper and common name of vegetation to remain in place per DS 2-07.0. Include the names of tress to remain in place. 6. Provide documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. Such documentation includes photographs of the site taken from all sides of the property and a signed statement from the property owner that Protected Native Plants are not located on the subject site. Photographs of the site are necessary for NPPO approval per DS 2-15.2.0.C |
| 04/01/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Provide documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. Such documentation includes photographs of the site taken from all sides of the property and a signed statement from the property owner that Protected Native Plants are not located on the subject site. Photographs of the site are necessary for NPPO approval per DS 2-15.2.0.C |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/15/2005 | JMORALE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 04/15/2005 | JMORALE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |