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 - T07CM00016
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/12/2007 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/18/2007 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: T07CM00016 7150 East 22nd Street - Desert Toyota Site Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 19, 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. On sheet 17 of 17 please provide dimension of PAALs to assure minimum two-way width of twenty-four (24) feet has been provided. If typical please call out as such. Dimension space between last parking stall and parallel wall of structure. This space should be a minimum of three (3) feet such that is used in a back-up spur. Any parking space that abuts a wall or vertical object greater than six (6) inches tall the parking space must be a minimum of ten (10) feet in width. DS 3-05.2.1.C.1, DS 3-05.2.2.D, & DS 3-05.2.1.B.3 2. Please provide detail for Class 1 spaces and provide the location for Class 1 bicycle parking on the site plan. Include any required lighting, paving, and security, and the location and type of directional signage. Remove or amend keynote 12 to refer to bicycle lockers or secured area instead of bicycle racks. Class 1 long-term bicycle parking can be bicycle lockers, check-in facilities, or monitored parking provided by the employer. DS 2-092.0 3. Please provide the GFA of the parts department and provide the number of loading spaces based on Table 3, LUC Sec. 3.4.5.3 accordingly. Clearly identify the location of the spaces on the site plan, fully dimensioned (12'x35'), with required maneuvering area in and out of each space. 4. Please add note to site plan that gates will remain open during business hours. 5. This site contains five (5) separate parcels therefore you will need to provide a Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and a record covenant regarding development and use of real property. Forms may be found at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/applications.html DS 2-05.2.4.A If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 791-5550, ext. 1197. S:\zoning review\planning\site review\T07CM00016r.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 04/19/2007 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/02/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) The property boundaries shown on the site and landscape plans differ from the current configuration. Provide recording data for the new parcel and a revised legal description if applicable. The landscape borders are required to be at least ten feet wide as measured from the street property line, except as provided in LUC 2.8.3.5. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.1, DS 2-01.2.1.A.2 2) Revise the site and landscape plans to include consistent parking calculations. The "Parking Provided" totals differ. The site plan also indicates 114 on grade parking spaces, while the landscape plan totals 121. Provide an accurate calculation for the number of at grade parking spaces and the number of canopy trees required per DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.c 3) We have reviewed the screen plan approved by Zoning Administration on 1/03/07. The landscape calculations on LDP-1 indicate that the trellis is proposed to meet the screening requirement. We suggest that the trellis and additional screening vegetation should work in conjunction to meet the requirement, as this was apparently a basis for the previous Zoning Administration determination. A) Provide clarity on the landscape plan by stating in the calculation that the screening requirement is met by the combination of the trellis and plant materials. 4) The required height of a screen along a street frontage is the vertical distance measured on the development side of the screen from the finished grade at the base of the screen at all points along the screen to the top of the screen. LUC 3.7.3.3.A Provide spot elevations for the screening areas and adjacent display areas on the Grading/Paving Plan. DS 2-07.2.2.A.3 5) Revise the landscape plan to preserve the required sight visibility plane between thirty and seventy-two inches west of the eastern driveway on Twenty-Second Street. Dasylirion longissimum should be located outside of the SVT (due to height) as well as the Palo Brea (due to the potential for multiple trunks and the current alignment). The following note is the standard for review of trees in SVT's for Development Services: Other than trees as noted below, plant materials located within existing and future sight visibility triangles shall be limited to ground cover or low-growing vegetation of a species that will not grow higher than thirty inches. Trees may be located within existing and future sight visibility triangles only if clear of leaves and branches to a height of at least six feet above grade upon installation, and at all times thereafter. The trunk caliper of any species selected may not exceed twelve inches in diameter at maturity. Trees with multiple trunks are not allowed. Trees may not be planted in a line that could result in a solid wall effect when viewed at an acute angle. The number and location of trees within existing and future sight visibility triangles may be restricted or modified by the City of Tucson in order to preserve visibility. |
| 05/02/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | If applicable, submit a signed application that Viable Protected Native Plants are not located on the subject site or include a native plant preservation plan. No documents have been received. |
| 05/02/2007 | MATT FLICK | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Please note that several comments from the 1st review were not addressed. DSD Engineering Comments for Desert Toyota 2nd Submittal DSD Engineering Offers The Following Comments: DSD Engineering Comments for Desert Toyota 2nd Submittal DSD Engineering Offers The Following Comments: 1. Page 2 - Provide the recording data for the 22nd St. roadway abandonment/sale. 2. Page 2 - Show the boundaries of the floodplain for both existing and proposed conditions. 3. Page 2 - Provide the 100-year flow value and contributing drainage areas for the flow entering and leaving the property. 4. Page 3 - Show the boundaries of the floodplain for both existing and proposed conditions. 5. Page 6 - Portions of the storm drain within the public drainage easement shall be of material acceptable to the City Engineer. Steel or corrugated metal pipe is not an acceptable material. 6. Page 7 - Portions of the storm drain within the public drainage easement shall be of material acceptable to the City Engineer. Steel or corrugated metal pipe is not an acceptable material. Please note that the site lies within a City of Tucson flood hazard area as shown on mapping available at the DSD Engineering counter. A Floodplain Use Permit application ($50 for application, + $150 for drainage report) is necessary. The grading permit will not be issued prior to approval of the floodplain permit. |
| 05/10/2007 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | The presence of manholes in a private sewer collection system will require review of the sewer design by the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality. Submit the design to PDEQ at 150 W Congress St, 1st Floor (740-3340). A separate plumbing permit from Development Services will be required for construction of the private sewer collection system. |