Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T07CM04148
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/07/2008 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/08/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/08/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Horticulture Unlimited Inc. T07CM04148 Site Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 8, 2008 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings 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.) and Land Use Code (LUC) for full code compliance for the area of expansion only. 2. This comment will need to be addressed prior to approval of the site plan. It appears that this project is comprised of two (2) different parcels. There are two (2) options in regards to utilizing the two (2) parcels as one site. Prior to approval of the site plan provide; 1) A Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property, or 2) Provide a site plan for each parcel that shows how the parcels can stand alone, if sold separately, and meet the requirements of the LUC if sold separately along with a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property. 3. Zoning acknowledges that the majority of lettering that did not meet the twelve (0.12) point requirement has revised. There is still lettering that does not meet this requirement, see redline. All lettering and dimension shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size to facilitate reproduction and photographically reduced (microfilm) for record keeping. There are text strings and lot line distances that do not meet this requirement. 4. A demo permit is required for removal of the existing carport and storage building. 5. This comment has not been addressed. Provide the property description on this site plan. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.2 Provide a property description (legal description) on the plan. 6. This comment was not fully addressed. Label the section corners on the location map. The majority of the text on the location map does not meet the twelve (0.12) point requirement, see comment 3 above. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.4 Provide a location map that meets the minimum requirements of D.S. 2-05.2.1.D, identify conditions within the square mile area, such as watercourses, section, township and range, section corners, and scale. 7. Zoning acknowledges the two new vehicle parking spaces. As the paved parking area has been expanded provide a vehicle use area expansion calculation on the plan. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Based on the 420 sq. ft. expansion two (2) additional vehicle parking spaces are required. Show the location for the additional parking spaces on the plan. Based on the aerial photos an expansion of parking area (paved area) will be required to accommodate the two (2) required parking spaces, provide an expansion calculation for this expansion. Provide a typical vehicle parking space detail for a standard space on the plan. 8. Zoning was unable to find the Class 2 bicycle parking detail on the plans. Provide a bicycle parking detail; including materials for lighting, paving, and security; fully dimensioned layout; specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports. This detail should meet the requirements of the revised D.S. 2-09. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 Based on the aerial photos it does not appear that the bicycle parking shown on the plan is existing. If this is the case provide off-street bicycle parking detail; including materials for lighting, paving, and security; fully dimensioned layout; location; specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports; and the location and type of directional signage if required. Ensure that the play layout meets the current requirements of D.S. 2-09. 9. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Provide dimensions for the proposed backup spur located at the west end of the new vehicle parking spaces, see D.S. 3-05.2.2.D 10. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\site\t07cm04148-2nd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 01/09/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: January 9, 2008 SUBJECT: 3237 N Richey Blvd Site Plan- 2nd Engineering Review TO: MPE Attn: Lisa Bowers LOCATION: T14S R14E Sec18 Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T07CM04148 (Site Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised site plan (T07CM04148) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan application at this time. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 1) A Demolition Permit is required for removal of the carport and storage building. Provide the approved demolition plan with activity number for verification. This comment was not fully addressed from the first site plan review. 2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A: Verify that all lettering and dimensions are equivalent to twelve (0.12) point font or greater in size. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that all lettering is legible when reproduced or when photographically reduced (microfilmed) for record keeping purposes. This comment was not fully addressed from the first site plan review. 3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.2: Provide a property description (legal description) on this site plan. Providing the description on the last site plan does not meet the requirements for new site plans. All requirements within DS Sec.2-02 must be provided on the proposed site plan. This comment was not fully addressed from the first site plan review. 4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.4: Revise the location map on Sheet 1 to provide for conditions within the square mile area such as the section corners. This comment was not fully addressed from the first site plan review. 5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.7: A lot combination is required prior to site plan approval. The lot combination must be recorded and approved by the Zoning Section prior to site plan approval. This comment was not fully addressed from the first site plan review. 6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to provide dimensions for the proposed back-up spurs with a minimum of 3 feet in depth, a 3-foot radius, and a 3 foot separation between curb and any proposed walls or unsurfaced areas. Refer to DS Sec.3-05.2.2.D for clarification. 7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.10: Revise the site plan to dimension the proposed sight visibility triangles. Verify that all dimensions meet the requirements within DS Sec.3-01.5.1. This comment was not fully addressed from the first site plan review. 8) DS Sec2-02.2.1.A.16: Provide flow arrows on the site plan to identify drainage patterns within the vehicular use area and for the roof drainage to verify drainage concentration locations. This comment was not fully addressed from the first site plan review. 9) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Provide the recordation information for Richey Blvd to verify the shown right-of-way widths that are shown on the site plan. Clarify on the site plan whether Richey Blvd is a private or public street. This comment was not fully addressed from the first site plan review. 10) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.20: Verify that all existing and proposed easements are drawn with recordation information, location, width, and purpose of on the site plan. This comment was not fully addressed from the first site plan review. 11) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.21: Provide dimensions from the street monument lines to the proposed curb, sidewalk, driveway and any utility lines. This comment was not fully addressed from the first site plan review. 12) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.23: Provide existing topographic contours at intervals not exceeding two (2) feet and/or spot elevations as pertinent and Bench Mark based on City of Tucson Datum, including City Field Book and page number. Provide contour interval on plan. This comment was not fully addressed from the first site plan review. 13) Be advised that further comments may be forth coming on resubmittal of the site plan. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Enclose "redlines" with the resubmittal package. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site plan review. If you have any questions, or to schedule an appointment, I can be reached at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Development Services |
| 01/14/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/14/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Locate the loading area with within a paved vehicular use area. The proposed loading area is shown in a gravel yard. LUC 6.2.22 |
| 01/28/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/31/2008 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/31/2008 | SHANAE POWELL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |