Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T08CM01526
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/14/2008 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/14/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The legend and drawing show the symbol for striped asphapt to be the same as the symbol for sales vehicle display area. For clarity use a different legend symbol for each designation. 2. The legend symbol for striped asphalt should not be used for the required sidewalk area between the handicapped parking rows as this area is required to be concrete. For clarity, in addition to the label, provide a different legend symbol here or use no symbol at all (other than the label itself). 3. Revise the parking calculation (or drawing) to indicate the correct number of parking spaces provided for customers and employees. The drawing indicates a total of 85 parking spaces provided but the calculations indicate only 83 spaces. 4. Revise the calculation for required number of bicycle spaces to be based on the actual number of vehicle space provided rather than the number of vehicle spaces required per LUC 3.3.3.5. 5. The existing fence may not be located as shown within the PAAL to the east of the entrance drive along 22nd Street. Per DS 3-05.2.2.B.3 a minimum shy space of 2 feet must be maintained between a PAAL and any wall, screen or other obstruction. Revise to place the fence at least two feet from the concrete curbing along the PAAL. In addition, for clarity label the purpose of the north to south trending lines shown within the PAAL (on the asphalt) in this area which look like undersized parking space striping. 6. Dimension the vehicle overhang dimension between the ends of the parking spaces and the chain link fencing. A minimum distance of 2-1/2 feet must be maintained for vehicle overhang clearance per DS 3-05.2.3.C.2 7. Correct the areas of text overstrike for the bicycle parking label so it is easier to read. |
| 07/15/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. There are two different shrub symbols as well as palm trees shown on the landscape plan which are not identified by specific type in the legend. One of them may be the "existing shrub" although this is indicated with a much larger symbol in the legend. The legend symbols for the yellow sage and the pampas grass do not show up on the drawing. Revise as necessary. All plants, including shrubs and palm trees and saguaro cactus, must be identified by common name and proper (latin) name on the landscape plan. Revise landscape plan to indicate all plants by common name, genus and species. Also, the latin names of the shrubs/ground cover do not line up correctly with the common names in the legend. Revise to be on the same line. DS 2-07.2.2.A.1.d 2. Indicate in the legend by common and proper name the type of plant represented by a symbol of a cross within a circle located near the vehicle display areas. If these are intended to be Texas rangers they should be made to be the same size as the others shown on the plan drawing and in the legend. DS 2-07.2.2.A.1.c 3. One (1) canopy tree must be provided for every thirty-three (33) linear feet of landscape border or fraction thereof per LUC 3.7.2.4. Not enough canopy trees are shown within the street landscape borders. Palm trees and ocotillo do not meet the requirement of a canopy tree. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.f 4. The area between the sidewalk and the curb, if not covered with vegetation, shall be covered with an appropriate inorganic ground cover, such as decomposed granite. Revise the lanscape plan/legend to clarify compliance. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4 5. Revise landscape requirements/calculation on sheet 2.3 to show that within the vehicular use area, one (1) canopy tree is required for each 10 motor vehicle parking spaces or fraction thereof. With a total of 83 parking spaces provided, a total of 9 parking lot canopy trees are required per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.a |
| 07/24/2008 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/05/2008 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: cdg Architects DATE: August 5, 2008 Architects 2102 N. Country Club Road Tucson, Arizona 85716 SUBJECT: O'Rielly Truck Center, 4780 E. 22nd Street Site plan T08CM01526 (Second Review) T14S, R14E, Section 23 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan. The Site Plan (SP) and Drainage Report (DR) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Site Plan: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the SP. 2. Provide the contour intervals by the north arrow and scale per D.S. 2-02.2.1. 3. Please provide property description per D.S. 2-02.2.1.3. I couldn't find the property description. Being a little more specific in the rep 4. A Bench Mark based on City of Tucson Datum, including City Field Book and page number per D.S. 2-02.2.1.23. The plan shows two different bench marks. Which one is correct? 5. Show refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0. The width of the refuse enclosure is too narrow for two containers. A10' clear area is also required from the back bollard to the front gate. 6. The SVT's as shown 12' from the property line are correct. Drainage Report: 1. The DR has been accepted for Site plan purposes only. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4932 or Paul.Machado@tucsonaz.gov Paul P. Machado Senior Engineering Associate City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 837-4932 office (520) 879-8010 fax C:\4780 E. 22nd St. Site2 |
| 08/05/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Revise the site drawing to include the following information: a. the location and size of the public sanitary sewer b. the location, invert, and rim elevation of the upstream and downstream manholes Reference: City of Tucson Development Standard No. 2-05.0 2.3 and Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/21/2008 | DELMA ROBEY | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 08/21/2008 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 08/21/2008 | GERARDO BONILLA | REJECT SHELF | Completed |