Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T07CM04510
Parcel: 12008781A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE

Permit Number - T07CM04510
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
04/03/2008 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Edmund Marquez - Suzuki Dealership Expansion
T07CM04510
Site Plan (2nd Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 3, 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 due to a greater than twenty-five (25) percent expansion of building area.

The following comments are in regards to sheet AS102.

1. Zoning was not able to locate a north arrow on this sheet. Per D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.1 Provide a north area on the site plan. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.1 Provide a north arrow on the plan.

2. Zoning acknowledges that it was agreed that a recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property would meet the requirements of this comment and acknowledges that a note has been added to the plan in regards to the recorded document. Provide a copy of the recorded document along with a copy of the Assessors receipt. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.5 It appears that this project is comprised of four (4) different parcels. There are two (2) options in regards to utilizing the four (4) 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. Also once the parcels have been combined the lot dimensions should reflect the overall distance along each property line.

3. Zoning is unable to locate the overall dimensions for both the existing and proposed buildings, provide the information on the site plan. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6 Provide overall dimensions and label the height for both the existing and proposed buildings on site. Also if applicable show and label and overhangs and canopies.

4. Zoning acknowledges the building setbacks shown on the plan. The building setback shown to Irvington Road is shown incorrectly. Per LUC Section 3.2.6.5.B and Table 3.2.6-I ADT of a 1000 or greater the required setback is measured from the back of future curb. Show the future curb on the plan and dimension the building setback from the back of future curb. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 Provide all zoning setbacks on the plan. It does not appear that the proposed building, based on a 16' height, meets the requirement of a 1-1/2 times the height of the building setback.

5. The ADA parking space and access aisle detail does not meet the requirement for and van accessible vehicle parking space. Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 502.2 the van accessible vehicle parking space and access aisle can be either a 132 inch parking space with a 60 inch access aisle or a 96 inch parking space with a 96 inch access aisle. Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 502.5, show the 1:48 maximum slopes for the handicapped vehicle parking space and the access aisle on the handicapped parking space detail. For both parking space details provide a dimension for the wheel spot per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.2. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Provide a typical parking space detail for both handicapped and standard parking spaces.

6. Based on the circle with a number inside, which appears to delineate required parking only 14 spaces are called out. Provide a fully dimensioned parking area. An example would be "8 spaces at 8'-6" = 68'-0". D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Fully dimension all proposed required parking. Clearly delineate between required/provided parking and display area.

7. The thirty-six (36) inch is not shown any where on the plan, provide this dimension per D.S. 2-09.5.1.B. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 Clearly demonstrate that the existing bicycle parking meets the requirements of D.S. 2-09.5.1.B minimum thirty-six (36) inches provided between a bicycle parking space and the proposed building. Provide a fully dimensioned layout.

8. This comment has not been addressed. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.10 Provide future sight visibility triangles (SVT's) on the plan.

9. This comment has not been fully addressed. There are no dimensions shown for the entrance PAALs off of 13th or 15th Avenues. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11 Provide a dimension for all entrance parking area access lanes (PAALs) on the plan.

10. This comment has not been fully addressed. Clearly delineate the required twenty-four (24) foot PAAL long the proposed parking shown along the north property line. Demonstrate that the required 24' access will be maintained with vehicles are displayed. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11 The proposed two-way PAALs and/or PAALs adjacent to the required ninety (90) degree parking spaces do not meet the minimum required width, see D.S. 3-052.1.C.1, 3-05 Table 1 and LUC Table 3.3.7.I. A minimum width of twenty-four (24) feet is required. The areas in question are, the PAAL south of the "EMPLOYEE/CUSTOMER PARKING" along the northwest property line, and the PAAL located south of the parking shown south of the existing building.

No response to comments 21 through has been provided some of the following comments maybe duplicates of existing comments. Provide a response letter addressing all comments with the next submittal.

11. 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.

12. The comment has not been addressed. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.19 Provide dimensions for all ROWs on the plan, include future ROW is applicable.

13. This comment was not fully addressed. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.3.5 the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces is 2. Revise the parking calculation to show 2 spaces required. For your information the inverted "U" can support 2 bicycles. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 The provided bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.3.5 the required number of bicycle parking spaces is based on the total number of vehicle parking spaces provided, once the provide number of vehicle parking spaces is provided the bicycle parking calculation can be verified. For your information based on LUC Sec. 3.3.3.5 the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces is 2. Provide the number of bicycle parking spaces provided.

14. This comment was not fully addressed. Zoning acknowledges that required number of loading spaces is one (1) provide the provided in the calculation. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.5 Provide the required and provided loading space calculation.

15. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.5 Due to the fact that you have elected not to combine all lots and use the Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property, show all lot dimension and bearing for all lots on the plan.

16. There is a heavy line shown dimensioned at "15'-1 9/16" from the existing ROW line, please clarify what this line is.

17. Per D.S. 2-08.3.1 A continuous pedestrian circulation path/accessible route is required to connect all public access areas of the development and the pedestrian circulation path located in any adjacent streets. This said it is not clear that the sidewalk around the proposed addition connects to the existing sidewalk that runs along the north property out to 15th Avenue, please clarify.

18. Remove the property line that is located near the west side of the proposed building as this site is acting as one site.

19. The provided "BUILDING AREA INCREASE" percentage is not correct. The percentage should read 146%.

The following comments are for sheet AS103. It appears that is a future site plan where the three parcels (120-08-773A, 120-08-7750, 120-08-7760) have been sold and not available for development.

1. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.1 Provide a north arrow on the plan.

2. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.2 Remove lots "10, 11 & 12" from the legal description.

3. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.3 Provide a project address on the plan.

4. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.5 Provide the lot dimension and bearing for the west lot line.

5. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6 Provide overall dimensions for both the existing and proposed buildings.

6. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 Zoning acknowledges the building setbacks shown on the plan. The building setback shown to Irvington Road is shown incorrectly. Per LUC Section 3.2.6.5.B and Table 3.2.6-I ADT of a 1000 or greater the required setback is measured from the back of future curb. Show the future curb on the plan and dimension the building setback from the back of future curb.

7. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Provide a fully dimensioned parking area. An example would be "8 spaces at 8'-6" = 68'-0".

8. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 The ADA parking space and access aisle detail does not meet the requirement for and van accessible vehicle parking space. Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 502.2 the van accessible vehicle parking space and access aisle can be either a 132 inch parking space with a 60 inch access aisle or a 96 inch parking space with a 96 inch access aisle. Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 502.5, show the 1:48 maximum slopes for the handicapped vehicle parking space and the access aisle on the handicapped parking space detail.

9. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 For both parking space details provide a dimension for the wheel spot per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.2.

10. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 Clearly demonstrate that the existing bicycle parking meets the requirements of D.S. 2-09.5.1.B Show that the minimum thirty-six (36) inches is provided between a bicycle parking space and a perpendicular wall. This dimension is measured from the end of the bicycle rack to the wall.

11. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.10 Show the future sight visibility triangles on the plan.

12. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11 Dimension the entrance PAAL off of 13th Avenue.

13. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Provide a dimension for the PAAL directly south of the parking location south of the existing building.

14. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Provide dimension for all PAALs in the east parking area. It does not appear that there is sufficient space between the proposed loading space and the landscape island.

15. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14 Demonstrate the required maneuvering area for the proposed loading space.

16. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.18 Provide all adjacent street names on the plan. Irvington should also be labeled as MS&R.

17. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.19 Provide dimensioned right-of-way, including any applicable Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan right-of-way on the site plan.

18. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20 All easements of record must be graphically shown on the plan together with
19. recording docket and page reference should be shown on the plan.

20. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.25 Provide the existing and proposed lighting layout and type.

21. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 The provided bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.3.5 the required number of bicycle parking spaces is based on the total number of vehicle parking spaces provided, Per the provided vehicle parking calculation the total number provided is 35. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.3.5 the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces required is 2. Revise the parking calculation to show 2 spaces required. The proposed inverted "U" can support 2 bicycles.

22. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.5 Provide the number of provided loading space in the calculation.

23. There is a heavy line shown dimensioned at "15'-1 9/16" from the existing ROW line, please clarify what this line is.

24. The provided "BUILDING AREA INCREASE" percentage is not correct. The percentage should read 146%.

The following comments are for sheet AS104. It appears that is a future site plan where the future right of way has been taken.

1. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.1 Provide a north arrow on the plan.

2. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.3 Provide a project address on the plan.

3. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.5 Due to the fact that you have elected not to combine all lots and use the Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property, show all lot dimension and bearing for all lots on the plan.

4. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.5 Clearly show where the south property line is for all lots on the plan.

5. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6 Provide overall dimensions for both the existing and proposed buildings.

6. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 Show the building setback to Irvington Road. Per LUC Section 3.2.6.5.B and Table 3.2.6-I ADT of a 1000 or greater the required setback is measured from the back of future curb. Show the future curb on the plan and dimension the building setback from the back of future curb.

7. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Provide a fully dimensioned parking area. An example would be "8 spaces at 8'-6" = 68'-0".

8. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 The ADA parking space and access aisle detail does not meet the requirement for and van accessible vehicle parking space. Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 502.2 the van accessible vehicle parking space and access aisle can be either a 132 inch parking space with a 60 inch access aisle or a 96 inch parking space with a 96 inch access aisle. Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 502.5, show the 1:48 maximum slopes for the handicapped vehicle parking space and the access aisle on the handicapped parking space detail.

9. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 For both parking space details provide a dimension for the wheel spot per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.2.

10. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 Clearly demonstrate that the existing bicycle parking meets the requirements of D.S. 2-09.5.1.B Show that the minimum thirty-six (36) inches is provided between a bicycle parking space and a perpendicular wall. This dimension is measured from the end of the bicycle rack to the wall.

11. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.10 Show the future sight visibility triangles on the plan.

12. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11 Dimension the entrance PAAL off of 13th & 15th Avenue.

13. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Clearly delineate the required twenty-four (24) foot PAAL long the proposed parking shown along the north property line. Demonstrate that the required 24' access will be maintained with vehicles are displayed.

14. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Per D.S. 2-08.3.1 A continuous pedestrian circulation path/accessible route is required to connect all public access areas of the development and the pedestrian circulation path located in any adjacent streets. This said it is not clear that the sidewalk around the proposed addition connects to the existing sidewalk that runs along the north property out to 15th Avenue, please clarify.

15. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Clearly demonstrate how the proposed handicapped access ramp that provides access from the pedestrian circulation on site to the future sidewalk along Irvington Road, works with the curb access ramp. It appears that the proposed ramp runs into the side of the curb access ramp at the entrance PAAL.

16. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Provide one-way signage or pavement markings for the proposed one-way PAAL.

17. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14 Demonstrate the required maneuvering area for the proposed loading space.

18. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.18 Provide all adjacent street names on the plan. Irvington should also be labeled as MS&R.

19. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.19 Provide dimensioned right-of-way, including any applicable Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan right-of-way on the site plan.

20. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20 All easements of record must be graphically shown on the plan together with
21. recording docket and page reference should be shown on the plan.

22. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.25 Provide the existing and proposed lighting layout and type.

23. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 The provided bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.3.5 the required number of bicycle parking spaces is based on the total number of vehicle parking spaces provided, Per the provided vehicle parking calculation the total number provided is 38. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.3.5 the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces required is 2. Revise the parking calculation to show 2 spaces required. The proposed inverted "U" can support 2 bicycles.

24. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.5 Provide the number of provided loading space in the calculation.

25. There is a heavy line shown dimensioned at "15'-1 9/16" from the existing ROW line, please clarify what this line is.

26. The provided "BUILDING AREA INCREASE" percentage is not correct. The percentage should read 146%.

The following comments are for sheet AS105. It appears that is a future site plan where the three parcels (120-08-773A, 120-08-7750, 120-08-7760) have been sold and not available for development and the future right of way has been taken.

1. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.1 Provide a north arrow on the plan.

2. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.2 Remove lots "10, 11 & 12" from the legal description.

3. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.3 Provide a project address on the plan.

4. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.5 Provide the lot dimension and bearing for the west lot line.

5. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6 Provide overall dimensions for both the existing and proposed buildings.

6. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 Zoning acknowledges the building setbacks shown on the plan. The building setback shown to Irvington Road is shown incorrectly. Per LUC Section 3.2.6.5.B and Table 3.2.6-I ADT of a 1000 or greater the required setback is measured from the back of future curb. Show the future curb on the plan and dimension the building setback from the back of future curb.

7. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Provide a fully dimensioned parking area. An example would be "8 spaces at 8'-6" = 68'-0".

8. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 The ADA parking space and access aisle detail does not meet the requirement for and van accessible vehicle parking space. Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 502.2 the van accessible vehicle parking space and access aisle can be either a 132 inch parking space with a 60 inch access aisle or a 96 inch parking space with a 96 inch access aisle. Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 502.5, show the 1:48 maximum slopes for the handicapped vehicle parking space and the access aisle on the handicapped parking space detail.

9. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 For both parking space details provide a dimension for the wheel spot per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.2.

10. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Provide a dimension for the vehicle parking space located adjacent to the trash enclosure. Per D.S. 3-05.2.1.3 when the side(s) of a parking space abuts any vertical barrier over six (6) inches in height, other than a vertical support for a carport, the required width for the space is ten (10) feet to provide extra width to allow passengers to enter and exit the vehicle on the side where the barrier exists.

11. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 Clearly demonstrate that the existing bicycle parking meets the requirements of D.S. 2-09.5.1.B Show that the minimum thirty-six (36) inches is provided between a bicycle parking space and a perpendicular wall. This dimension is measured from the end of the bicycle rack to the wall.

12. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.10 The future sight visibility triangles (SVTs) are not shown correctly on the plan. The SVTs should line up with the PAAL curb.

13. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11 Dimension the entrance PAAL off of 13th Avenue.

14. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1 A vehicular use area must be provided with post barricades or wheel stop curbing designed to prevent parked vehicles from extending beyond the property lines. This said some type of barrier is required along the west property line.

15. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 The proposed handicapped parking space, access aisle and access ramp shown on the site plan does not match the detail provided, please clarify.

16. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 It appears that a sidewalk line has been removed from the property along the east side of the existing building, please clarify.

17. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 There is a "12'-6" PAAL ONE WAY PAAL" called out directly south of the proposed building. Clarify if this is to remain a PAAL. If this is to remain a PAAL then how vehicles will be able to maneuver with this PAAL.

18. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14 Demonstrate the required maneuvering area for the proposed loading space.

19. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.19 Provide dimensioned right-of-way, including any applicable Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan right-of-way on the site plan.

20. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.25 Provide the existing and proposed lighting layout and type.

21. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 Based on the provided parking calculation a Board of Adjustment for variance will be required for the two required vehicle parking spaces not provided.

22. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 The accessible spaces calculation is not correct. Per the International Building Code Table 1106.1 When 22 spaces are provided only 1 accessible space is required, revise the calculation.

23. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 The provided bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.3.5 the required number of bicycle parking spaces is based on the total number of vehicle parking spaces provided, Per the provided vehicle parking calculation the total number provided is 22. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.3.5 the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces required is 2. Revise the parking calculation to show 2 spaces required. The proposed inverted "U" can support 2 bicycles.

24. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.5 Provide the number of provided loading space in the calculation.

25. There is a heavy line shown dimensioned at "15'-1 9/16" from the existing ROW line, please clarify what this line is.

26. The provided "BUILDING AREA INCREASE" percentage is not correct. The percentage should read 146%.

General Comments

After discussions with Ron Brown, Structural Review, City of Tucson, Development Services Department, in regards to the ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 and the requirements for detectable warnings (truncated domes), it has been determined that some locations previously requiring truncated domes may no longer require them. The following comments are a direct result of these discussions. If you have any questions in regards to the requirements for truncated domes contact Ron Brown @837-4908.

1. Truncated domes are required at the south end of the accessible vehicle parking spaces access aisle and at the access ramp at the south end of the crosswalk for sheets AS102 & AS103.

2. Truncated domes are required at the north and south access ramps that provide access to the crosswalk that provides the pedestrian circulation/accessible route to Irvington Road, sheets AS104 & AS105.

3. Ensure all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan.

4. 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\t07cm04510-2nd.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents
04/03/2008 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied See Zoning comments
04/08/2008 PETER MCLAUGHLIN LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. It is unclear which plan is being submitted for review. There are plans labeled as being without parking and others with a parking lot in the west portion of the site. It is unclear which plan is being submitted for review--the ones with or without parking. Please clarify in the response comments what each proposal represents. There is no screening shown for the loading zone location proposed on sheets L-1 and L-2 Revise plans to be consistent. Any loading zone must be screened from adjacent rights-of-way and residentially zoned properties with a 6-foot high masonry wall per LUC Table 3.7.2-I.

2. Revise the landscape plan to indicate the minimum width and square footage of tree planters in vehicular use areas. Planters are to be measured from their inside edges. An unpaved planting area, which is a minimum of thirty-four (34) square feet in area and four (4) feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.e, LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.c

3. Revise areas of text overstrike within the parking lot area so that plans are clear and legible.
04/23/2008 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Activity has been denied prior to review per customers request. Joe Peterson with ABA Architects has requested that engineering deny their site plan review without engineering reviewing it so that they can correct all of the zoning issues and then resubmit. Per client zoning and engineering comments were alike and they realize that this is on a "AT RISK" basis. If other correction are required through engineering comments will be forth coming.

Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineering Associate

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
04/28/2008 CPIERCE1 APPROVAL SHELF Completed
04/28/2008 CPIERCE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
04/28/2008 GERARDO BONILLA REJECT SHELF Completed