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: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T06CM05677
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/04/2007 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/16/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See Zoning Comments |
| 05/17/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Tucson Dodge T06CM05677 Site Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 17, 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 full code compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC). 2. This comment has not been fully addressed. Provide the approved Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property. It appears that this project is comprised of two (2) different parcels. Prior to approval of the site plan the parcels will need to be combined. Provide a Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property. 3. This comment was not fully addressed. The building setback to Columbus Blvd. is not shown correctly. Per LUC 3.2.6.5.B. Setback requirement for Columbus Blvd. is 21' or the height of the exterior building wall, which ever is greatest, measured from the back of existing/future curb. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 Until the building heights for all buildings are provided, Zoning is unable to verify that the provided setbacks meet the minimum requirements of the LUC. The setbacks shown under the LUC PROJECT DATA, Perimeter Yard are incorrect. LUC 3.2.6.5.B. Setback requirement for both 22nd St. and Columbus Blvd. is 21' or the height of the exterior building wall, which ever is greatest, measured from the back of existing or future curb. The setback to the south and west property line is 0'. Provide the dimensions for the building setbacks. 4. This comment was not fully addressed. It is not clear what the extent of the building overhang is. Also the height is not clear. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 It appears that there is some type of canopy or overhang located on the north end of the "NEW SALES AND SERVICE FACILITY". Please clarify and provide the height. Additional comments maybe forth coming. 5. This comment has not been fully addressed. Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 502.5 provide the maximum slopes allowed for the handicapped parking space and access aisle. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Provide typical vehicle parking space details for the standard space. 6. This comment has not been fully addressed. Zoning acknowledges the dimension for the width of the sidewalk that runs from 22nd to the proposed building. Zoning acknowledges the dimension for the width of the sidewalk which runs along the south side of the "NEW CAR DELIVERY". Provide a dimension for: the sidewalk which runs along the east side of the "NEW CAR DELIVERY"; sidewalk that runs from Columbus Blvd; sidewalk adjacent to the east wall of the "NEW SALES" building. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Provide dimensions for the width of all proposed sidewalks, this includes the area around buildings if sidewalks are proposed, so that the pedestrian circulation/accessible routes can be verified. 7. This comment was not fully addressed. Per D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13 provide the location, type, size and height of existing freestanding signage. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13 If applicable provide the location, type, size and height of existing and proposed freestanding signage and billboards. 8. This comment was not addressed. Per D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.25 provide existing and proposed freestanding lighting layout and type on the site plan. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.25 If applicable provide existing and proposed freestanding lighting layout and type. Provide a detail; list the height of pole and type of lighting. 9. This comment has not been fully addressed. On the LUC Project Data there is a "BUILDING AREA: 65,360 SF" and there is a "GROSS FLOOR AREA: 21,479 SF" listed. Based on the square footage listed on sheet C1.1 there should be a gross floor area of 43,881, clarify. Also list the building building square footage for each building in this calculation. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.2 Provide the square footage for each building. There is no square footage listed for the DTL/BTLR AUTO/WASH CAR building. This square footage needs to be added to the total building area listed on sheet T.1 10. This comment has not been fully addressed. Based on the square footage listed on sheet C1.1 the total gross floor area appears to be 43,881 sf, it appears that the floor area ration is incorrect. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3 The floor area ratio (FAR) shown on the plan is incorrect, see comment 4. Revise the FAR to show "ALLOWED = 0.90, PROPOSED = ??. Include the DTL/BTLR AUTO/WASH CAR square footage. 11. Zoning acknowledges the revised parking calculation. It appears that the PROVIDED PARKING 129 is incorrect. Zoning counts 131 spaces, revise. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 Per a determination from the Zoning Administrator parking requirements for "Vehicle Rental and Sales" will be based on the areas as follows. The square footage of areas within a structure where vehicles have direct access, such as service bays, paint shop, detail car wash area, will not count toward the total gross floor area for parking calculation. Areas that do count for parking will be the office areas, sales area, parts/storage areas. Clearly delineate the areas within the structures that vehicles have access too. Provide the number of required and provided vehicle parking spaces in the Parking Calc. Clearly delineate between required vehicle parking and vehicle display area, see comment 18. Additional comments may be forth coming. If you need additional information in regards to this comment please contact David Rivera @791-5608 ext. 1181 12. This comment has not been addressed. Per the IBC Sec 1106.1, based on 131 vehicle parking spaces provided, 5 handicapped vehicle parking spaces are required, 1 being van accessible. Revise the plan. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 Per the IBC 8 handicapped spaces are required, 2 van accessible, show this on you calc. 13. Based on a determination by the Zoning Administrator the number of required loading spaces is based on the gross square footage (GSF) of the proposed parts department. Until the gross square footage of the parts department is clarified zoning can not determine the required number of loading spaces. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.5 Until the total building square footage is revised the required number of loading zones cannot be verified. See comments 39 & 40. 14. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape & grading plan. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\site\t06cm05677.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 05/23/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. A street landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4, is an area running the full length of the street property line bounding the site except for points of ingress-egress, display areas indicated in Keynote #25 on Sheet C1.1 can not be located within street landscape borders. 2. A 30" continuous screen along entire street frontages must be provided for vehicle use area and display areas per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. 3. Within a vehicular use area, one (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. Verify that tree requirements are met for parking areas. 4. Vegetation or structures higher than thirty (30) inches must be located outside of the sight visibility triangle. Plant materials located within sight visibility triangles should consist of ground cover or low growing vegetation. Verify plant material within SVT will not grow higher than 30". 5. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan. 6. Additional comments may apply. |
| 06/08/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 12, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06CM05677 PROJECT NAME: Tucson Dogde PROJECT ADDRESS: 4220 East 22nd Street 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. Please note a different reviewer conducted the second submittal Engineering review. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: SITE PLAN 1. Revise the site plan to label the dimensions for the proposed back-up spur provided at the end of the PAAL located at the new car delivery area that is shown on the proposed site plan. The spur must have a minimum of a 3-foot radii and 3 feet in depth, but must also provide a minimum of 3 feet between the back of spur and any wall obstruction that is over 6 inches in height. DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8 The above comment is from the first review and has not been provided on the site plan. Provide the requested information. 2. Dimension the sidewalk located by the new car delivery. DS 2-02.2.1.A.8. 3. Clarify keynote 8. The description is "4 Pavement Striping," it is not clear what the striping represents. A parking space? Please clarify and if appropriate revise the plan view. 4. Indicate the width of the sidewalk in the ROW. DS 2-02.2.1.A.8. 5. Dimension from the street centerline of 22nd to the existing curb and sidewalk location. Label accordingly. DS 2-02.2.1.A.21. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/15/2007 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 06/15/2007 | GERARDO BONILLA | REJECT SHELF | Completed |