Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T07CM04220
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/08/2007 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/09/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See Zoning Comments |
| 11/14/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. 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. 2. Street landscape borders shall be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee. Provide approval for landscape within ROW 3. Fifty (50) percent or more of the street landscape border within required 10' area must have shrubs and vegetative ground cover per LUC 3.7.2.4. Verify that coverage within required 10' area is adequate. Boldly delineate plant material so it is easily discernable 4. A 10' interior landscape border is required along site boundaries of the adjacent residential properties per LUC Table 3.7.2-I 5. A 5' wall is required to screen residential properties from vehicle use area per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. 6. If a new development is using an existing screen on an adjacent property to meet screening requirements, a copy of the recorded covenant locating the existing screen(s) on adjacent property is required. Provide appropriate documentation for use of screen wall on adjacent property. 7. Submit a native plant preservation plan or application for exception per LUC 3.8.4.2 § If application for exception is submitted: Provide acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. Such documentation includes photographs of the site taken from all sides of the property per DS 2-15.2.0.C 8. 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. 9. Additional comments may apply |
| 11/14/2007 | SSHIELD1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 11/14/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 1005 & 1015 East Fort Lowell Road T07CM04220 Site Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 13, 2007 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 entire site. 2. It appears that a lot split is proposed for this parcel. The lot split must be completed prior to approval of the site plan. Also some type of access easement or access agreement, vehicle and pedestrian, will need to be recorded prior to approval of the lot split. This easement/agreement needs to include the pedestrian circulation, sidewalk that runs along the west property line and the pedestrian circulation and the southern portion of the parking area access lane (PAAL) located between the proposed buildings. 3. Add a note to the plan stating "THIS SITE PLAN IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OVERLAY ZONES CRITERIA: SEC. 2.8.3 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE". 4. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.4 Provide a location map which meets the minimum requirements of D.S. 2-05.2.1.D, show the subject property approximately centered in the one (1) square mile area, identify the section corners. 5. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 Under "SETBACK REQUIRED 1005 & 1015: EAST & WEST (SIDES) the setback is listed incorrectly for the east property line. Per LUC 3.2.6.4, Perimeter Yard Indicator "BB", the setback to the east property line is the height (H) of the proposed exterior building wall. 6. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 Provide building elevations so that all setbacks can be verified. 7. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 Per LUC Sec. 3.3.4, RESIDENTIAL USE GROUP, for any multifamily project of four (4) or more units, bicycle parking is required at the following ratio: eight (8) percent of the provided number of vehicle parking spaces, fifty (50) percent Class 1 & fifty (50) percent Class 2. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.3.5 If the calculated number of bicycle parking spaces is less than two (2), the minimum number of required spaces is two (2). Per LUC Sec. 3.3.7.8.A Any use providing less than fifty (50) motor vehicle parking spaces may substitute Class 2 for Class 1 spaces. This said, show the location, on the plan, of the two (2) Class 2 bicycle parking spaces. Also provide a detail that includes; 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. 8. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Detectable warnings (truncated domes) will be required at all curb access ramps per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13. Provide a detail for any access ramp that does not fall under the COT Standard Details. If planning to use COT Standard Details provide a reference on the plan. 9. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.18 Label Fort Lowell as an MS&R ROUTE. 10. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20 If applicable show all easements of record graphically on the plan together with recording docket and page reference. 11. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 The parking calculation is not correct. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.4, RESIDENTIAL USE GROUP, Multifamily Dwellings 0-70 units/acre, Four or More Bedrooms, 2.5 vehicle spaces are required per dwelling unit. This said, the parking calculation for the six (6) bedroom unit is incorrect, it should be 3 vehicle parking spaces required. The (3) x 4-bedrooms = 7.5 should read 8 required. 12. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 Provide a bicycle parking calculation on the plan, see comment 7 above. 13. 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\t07cm04220.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 11/14/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a native plant preservation plan or application for exception per LUC 3.8.4.2 § If application for exception is submitted: Provide acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. Such documentation includes photographs of the site taken from all sides of the property per DS 2-15.2.0.C |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/21/2007 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |