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 - T07CM01642
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/11/2007 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/14/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | PLEASE SEE ZONING REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 09/14/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Department, Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall, Senior Planner PROJECT: T07CM01642, 1538 W. Prince Road New Parking Garage Commercial Site plan - 2nd review TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 14, 2007 COMMENTS: PLEASE CONTACT ME PRIOR TO RESUBMITTAL TO SCHEDULE A MEETING ABOUT THIS PROJECT. 1. (per last review) Per DS 2-02.2.1.6, clarify how height is measured - from grade to top of wall, flat roof, parapet, pitch? 2. (Per last review) Per DS 2-02.2.1.7, with regards to setbacks A) the correct Development Designator for this project is "31", please revise, listing the required building setbacks as 0 against surrounding C-2 zoned sites - then provide actual building setbacks (for records and inspections) - dimensioned on the site plan. Darken adjacent zoning, too light to read on this printout. 3. (Per last review) Per DS 2-02.2.1.11, show points of ingress/egress and PAALs dimensioned. -If there is to be garage door openings on the building, with vehicular access, as suggested by traffic circulation arrows, please keynote doors and widths. 4. Per DS 2-02.2.1.12, with regards to handicapped, pedestrian and vehicular circulation: A) Point out any handicapped ramps with slope and truncated domes. If vehicular entry to occur into building, this design of a sidewalk along the front of the garage doors is not applicable. Instead, striping of the vehicular use area is permitted, with ramps and truncated domes as applicable. Please clarify. 5. (Per last review) Per DS 2-02.2.1.31, list existing use and state demolition will occur. The response indicates no demolition is to occur. Per a 2005 aerial photo, two buildings were on the site. Have they been demolished without a demolition permit? A 2005 Demolition permit was issued and has expired. A new demolition permit is required. It appears that demolition of a building is required for this project to proceed. 6. Per DS 2-02.2.2.A.2. Per 3.2.11, a parking garage does not have a Floor Area Ratio - however - any area of the building that is not a parking garage use will count towards a Floor Area Ratio calculation. The response provided a FAR, without a floor plan of the building to explain how that FAR was obtained. It is staff's understanding this is for vehicular parking. Please clarify. 7. (Per last review) Staff noted that note 10 expresses that there will be wastewater fixtures. Please explain this note and provide a floor plan of the garage - labeling any offices, etc. Wastewater fixtures suggest and office use, which requires parking. Clarify. 8. PLEASE CONTACT ME TO MEET WITH ME BEFORE RESUBMITTAL. Please note that depending upon the responses provided, further review comments may be forthcoming. I may be reached at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 837-4951. HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T07CM01642 1538 w prince 2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 09/20/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | exception |
| 09/20/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Needs Review | 1. 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. The ROW lines on the landscape plan are not correctly drawn. Revise landscape plan as necessary. 2. On streets designated as Major Streets and Routes (MS&R), the street landscape border is measured from the MS&R right-of-way line as determined by LUC 2.8.3.4. 3. An approved site plan is required indicating how the project will comply with LUC requirements when the MS&R right-of-way can no longer be used as part of the site. Such plan is to be an exhibit to an executed covenant for recordation stating the responsibility of the property owner, successor, or assignee as to the removal of improvements and compliance with the LUC at no cost to the City. 4. Additional comments may apply. |
| 10/03/2007 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/09/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 9, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T07CM01642 PROJECT NAME: Parking Project PROJECT ADDRESS: 1538 East Prince Road 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, DRAINAGE REPORT 1. Call out the lengths for the SVTs provided on the plan. Be advised the future far side SVT is not the correct length. Revise appropriately. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. 2. Dimension the backup spurs in the PAAL area. Second request. DS 2-02.2.1.A.11. 3. Be advised a floodplain use permit will be required for the site improvements within the floodplain boundaries. DS 2-02.2.1.A.15. 4. A grading review and permit is required based on the cut and fill quantities. It is recommended to submit for a formal grading review with the next site plan submittal. DS 2-02.2.1.A.17. 5. It is acknowledged that the location of the future ROW and future curb location has been shown on the plan. However it is a requirement to show the locations dimensioned from centerline. Dimension from the centerline of Prince Road the future ½ ROW width and future curb location. DS 2-02.2.1.A.19. 6. When the future ROW is taken the site will be significantly changed. That said a future ROW plan is required to show how the site will function and meet minimum requirements. Two areas of concern is the basins and the landscape border. Either the landscape border must be shown from the future property line or a Future Site Plan and Landscape Plan must be submitted, reviewed and approved. The requirements for a development within a critical basin must also still be met. Second request. 7. Provide an on site solid waste container and if required enclosure. Provide a detail of the enclosure. Second request. This property is a commercial development and is still required to provide on site solid waste pick up. DS 2-02.2.1.A.32. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. The drainage report is again, acceptable. It is acknowledged the drainage report to provides a drainage solution for the future ROW taking. However the site plan has not accounted for the required 10' landscape border that is to be located at the future ROW line. Currently the proposal shows the landscape border at the existing ROW line. Depending on how this issue is resolved the basin size could change. Revise the drainage report accordingly if applicable. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10/2007 | THAUSER1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/10/2007 | THAUSER1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |