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: Active
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T08CM02677
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Active
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/03/2008 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Please verify address. TDOT ariel view seems to indicate differnt address. |
| 10/03/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Pizzazz Pizza Bistro T08CM02677 Site Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 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 the area of expansion only. The area of expansion would be the "EXISTING PATIO (DINING AREA)" and the additional 400 sq. ft. not accounted for in the provided plans. 2. Based on the provided "BUURGER KING RESTAURANT" drawings dated 11/04/98 there has been an expansion of floor are of approximately 400 sq. ft., provide documentation of permits for this expansion. 3. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.6 Provide a building expansion calculation that includes the entire shopping center, based on the last approved plan. 4. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 Provide a parking calculation including the "EXISTING PATIO (DINING AREA)", that includes the entire shopping center, based on the last approved plan. 5. Remove the property lines shown on the plan as the existing building does not site on its on parcel. 6. The handicapped vehicle parking space access aisle cannot be part of the loading zone as shown on the plan. 7. 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\t08cm02677 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents. |
| 10/07/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. If the expansion is less than 25%, the requirements of this Division apply only to the proposed expansion. Include expansion calculation on the site plan. 2. Submit a landscape plan to verify that the site meets minimum requirements. 3. A street landscape border, per Sec. 3.7.2.4 of the LUC, is a landscape area with a minimum width of 10 feet, running the full length of the proposed expansion. 4. Fifty (50) percent or more of the street landscape border area must have shrubs and vegetative ground cover per LUC 3.7.2.4 5. Indicate square footage of all landscaped areas and calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage per DS 2-07.2.2.2.g. 6. One (1) canopy tree must be provided for every thirty-three (33) linear feet of landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4. A minimum of one (1) canopy tree must be provided within a required landscape border. 7. A 30" continuous screen along street frontages for vehicle use area must be provided per LUC Table 3.7.2-I 8. Planting Plan. The planting plan and layout calculations will include the Location, size, and name of existing vegetation to remain in place. Include material and areas of inert ground cover. 9. Landscape plan shall include irrigation specification design and layout per DS 2-06.5.4.A & DS 2-06.5.4.B including source of irrigation, sleeves for driveways and sidewalks, locations of valves, low-flow bubblers or drip irrigation. 10. All landscape areas will be depressed to accept water flow from roofs, PAAL, and parking areas. Show by detail or spot elevations how landscape areas will accommodate water harvesting. 11. 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. 12. Additional comments may apply. |
| 10/08/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/27/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Passed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/28/2008 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | RECEIVED |