Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T06CM05090
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/02/2007 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/13/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: May 13, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06CM05090 PROJECT NAME: Seaver Franks New Office Building PROJECT ADDRESS: 2552 North Alvernon Way 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 Please be advised this review was conducted by a different review than previous. 1. Please provide a recorded access easement through the property to the west to ensure permanent access from Alvernon. The letter from the developer as the owner of both parcels does not ensure permanent access in perpetuity. The above comment is from the previous review and will continue to be stated until the recordation data is provided on the plan. 2. Please provide a recorded access easement through the property to the north that clearly indicates the use, construction and maintenance of the affected area to ensure permanent access. The Letter of Understanding provided with the resubmittal does not ensure permanent access in perpetuity. The above comment is from the previous review and will continue to be stated until the recordation data is provided on the plan. 3. Revise the site plan to reflect the proposed drainage scheme; provide at minimum the location of the basin. 4. Private Drainage/Basin Easement is required given that the basin is located entirely on a different parcel. Provide description, dimensions and recordation data (docket and page). 5. This office requests written documentation of acceptance of the basin location from the owner of the parcel. 6. For drainage report comments please see the grading review comments, activity number T06BU02304. 7. Be advised any significant changes to the grading plan the site plan must be revised to reflect changes. |
| 05/14/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 2552 N. Alvernon Way - Office Building T06CM05090 Site Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 15, 2007 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 plan was reviewed for compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.), Land Use Code (LUC) & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 2. This comment has not been fully addressed. A cross access, for vehicle and pedestrian, and cross parking agreement, that allows access to both parcels and also allows for parking for both parcels. It is not clear how these parcels can work as stand alone parcels. With property lines as shown, the proposed building cannot function as a stand-alone parcel. This site contains two (2) separate parcels therefore you will need to show how the parcels can work as stand alone parcels if sold separately or provide a Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property. Copies of the lot combo covenant & tax combo attached. 3. This comment has not been fully addressed. The document is an easement only that provides access across the west parcel, this does not allow the use of the parking located along the east end of Building 1 to be used by Building 2. Also access to the required handicapped parking for Building 1 would require access across the east parcel. This said, zoning recommends that a cross access, for vehicle and pedestrian and cross parking agreement be used which allows access to both parcels. This comment has not been fully addressed. A recorded legal document with docket and page will need to be provided to Development Services prior to approval of this site plan. If the parcels are to remain separate, then a cross access agreement will be needed for vehicle, pedestrian and parking. 4. This comment has not been fully addressed. Per D.S. 2-09.4.1. Class 2 bicycle parking will be located no more than 50 feet from the main entrance and will be along the front side of the building, the proposed location does not meet this requirement. Per D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 the specific type of rack will be called out. Per D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 provide the specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports. Demonstrate how the proposed Class 2 bicycle parking meets the requirement for the "TWO-POINT SUPPORT SYSTEM" per D.S. 2-09.2.3, Supplement 9. Also demonstrate how the layout for both Class 1 & 2 meet D.S. 2-09.5.0, Supplement 9. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 5. Zoning acknowledges the receipt of the proposed cross access easement. Show the easement on the plan along with the docket and page. This easement allows for left turn only when exiting this parcel. Demonstrate on the site plan how you proposed to prevent vehicles from turning right as they exit the Seaver Franks property. Provide a cross access agreement for the proposed entrance onto the property to the north. 6. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8. Per D.S.3-05.2.2.B.2 a one (1) foot setback is required to be maintained between any open structure, such as a carport, and a PAAL. This said the covered parking noted along the east end of Building 1does not appear to meet this setback. 7. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8. Per D.S.3-05.2.2.B.2 a one (1) foot setback is required to be maintained between any open structure, such as a carport, and a PAAL. This applies to the existing covered parking shown along the south property line. Provide a site plan that approved this covered parking. 8. The provided Concrete Wheelstop detail dimension from vertical curb is incorrect. Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.2 and Figure 5 this dimension is 30". 9. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape & grading plan. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 C:\planning\site\t06cm05090-3rd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 05/15/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See Zoning Comments |
| 05/16/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. This comment has not been fully addressed from previous submittal: Verify if the two parcels are going to combined or remain separate, if combined then the landscape plan must verify that entire site meets current minimum requirements. (See Zoning comments). 2. The site plan has been reviewed by the Landscape / NPPO Section but cannot approve the plan until all Zoning, comments, concerns, and appropriate revisions have been addressed. |
| 05/17/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/18/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 05/18/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | REJECT SHELF | Completed |