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: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Permit Number - T09CM02029
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/09/2009 | ERIC NEWCOMB | ADA | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/16/2009 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/20/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Comment not addressed. Revise the site drawing to show the location and size of both the water meter and the reduced pressure backflow preventer assembly. Reference Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. 2. Comment not addressed. Provide the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole and the first floor elevation. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 710.1, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 10/20/2009 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Cherry Avenue Center T09CM02029 Site Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 20, 2009 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 25% expansion of building area. 2. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide the heights and identify all overhangs and canopies, existing and proposed on the site plan. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6 For all existing and proposed buildings and structures provide the size (overall dimension), height, overhangs, canopies, and use on the site plan sheet C-2A 3. Based on the information provided on Sheet C-1 under NOTES AND CALCULATAIONS: #5 BUILDING HEIGHT, PROPOSED, 29'-6" the proposed building exceeds the maximum height allowed within an R-1 Zone. A Board of Adjustment for Variance maybe required. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6 For your information per LUC Section 3.3.7.2 the building structural height is measured from the mid point of a pitched roof. This said it appears that the listed building height maybe incorrect. 4. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 Sheet C-1 under NOTES AND CALCULATAIONS: #5 WEST STREET FRONTAGE, the PROPOSED setback distance shows 92.28' and on the plan the dimension shows 99'-9". Clarify which distance is correct. 5. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide typical parking space details for both handicapped and standard spaces D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Provide a fully dimensioned parking layout and typical parking space details for both handicapped and standard spaces, together with access thereto. Sheet C-2A is not dimensioned and Sheet C-2B is unreadable. 6. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Provide a length dimension for the parallel vehicle parking spaces. 7. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 There are eight (8) vehicle parking spaces shown at the east end of the double row of parking that do not appear to meet the minimum 8'-6" width requirement. Please clarify. 8. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 The PAAL width of 22'-9" shown behind the "EXISTING HP-SPACES" does not meet the minimum PAAL width of 24' when 90 degree parking is used. See LUC Table 3.3.7-I. A Board of Adjustment for Variance maybe required. 9. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 The PAAL width of 21-5" shown between the parallel vehicle parking spaces and the 90 degree vehicle parking spaces does not meet the minimum PAAL width of 24' when 90 degree parking is used. See LUC Table 3.3.7-I. A Board of Adjustment for Variance maybe required. 10. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 At the northwest end of the double row of vehicle parking spaces provide a PAAL dimension for the PAAL located between the last vehicle parking space and the striped area to the northwest. Also clarify if this is at two-way or one-way PAAL. If One-way demonstrate on the plan how this will be controlled, i.e. signage, pavement markings, etc. 11. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Provide a PAAL dimension from the curb shown just east of the handicapped vehicle parking spaces to the parking spaces located to the north 12. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 The vehicle parking space calculation shows 64 provided, Zoning was only able to count 63 on site including the 8 vehicle parking spaces shown at the east end of the double row of parking that do not appear to meet the minimum 8'-6" width requirement. 13. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 Based on the provided vehicle parking space calculation 178 required and 64 provide A Board of Adjustment for Variance maybe required. 14. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 The bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.3.4 RECREATION USE GROUP, Neighborhood Recreation; Recreation the required number of bicycle parking spaces is based on 15% of the provided vehicle parking spaces, all Class 2. Revised the calculation and show the 15 required spaces on the plan. For your information a single inverted "U" can support two (2) bicycles. 15. Depending on how the above comments are addressed addition comments may be forth coming. 16. All variances must be approved prior to approval of the site plan. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\site\t09cm02029 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/26/2009 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/26/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |