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: T09CM03405
Parcel: 125076220

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL

Permit Number - T09CM03405
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/03/2010 PAUL MACHADO ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied To: Cardell Andrews II DATE: June 9, 2010
3025 W. Ina Rd.
Tucson, Arizona 85741

Subject: Sam Hughes Court, 502 N. Campbell Ave
Site plan T09CM03405 (Second Review)
T14S, R14E, Section 08

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan.

The Site Plan (SP) 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. Perhaps a meeting between both parties to discuss the problem issues would be beneficial for future re-submittals. Contact Paul P. Machado to schedule appointment.
3. Also see the site plan for redlines along with these comments.
4. A pedestrian esmt. will be required where the sidewalks encroach onto private property.
5. Label existing and future sight visibility triangles per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10. Show the SVT on Campbell Ave. and 6th Street.
6. Fully dimensioned loading space(s) and maneuvering area(s) per D.S. 2-02.2.1.14. Refuse enclosure is not accessible. Per previous comment.
7. Show refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0. If the title of detail G on sheet 2 is correct, (Double enclosure) than the width of the refuse enclosure is too narrow. Provide documentation from Environmental services for the required width of the enclosure.

Drainage Statement:
1. The DS has been accepted by engineering.

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:/502 N. Campbell Ave site 2
06/08/2010 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied 5DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Sam Hughes Court
T09CM03405
Site Plan (2nd Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 8, 2010

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. This comment was not addressed. This site is comprised of two (2) separate parcels. As neither parcel can stand alone and operate separately from the other a lot combination is required. Prior to approval of this site plan provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combination Request Form, and a copy of the recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property along with the recordation information, docket and page.

3. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 The following items are comments regarding perimeter yard setbacks;
4. This comment was not addressed correctly. Per LUC Section 2.5.3.2E.1 Residential Use Group, Family Dwelling Development Designator "O", Perimeter Yard Indicator "CC" and LUC Section 3.2.6.4 Perimeter Yard Width Matrix, the required perimeter yard setback from proposed Building 1 to the east property is the height of the building wall. As a dimension was not provided for the exterior building wall at the wall's highest point the required perimeter yard setback could not be determined. See LUC Section 3.2.6.3 for the correct way to measure exterior wall heights for perimeter yard setbacks. East setback listed for Building 1 is based on a perimeter yard indicator "CC". Per LUC Section 3.2.6.4 the required perimeter yard to the east, commercial zone, is (H) the height of the structure.
5. This comment was not addressed correctly on either the site plan or future site plan. The measurement is from the back of curb. On the future site plan provide a street perimeter yard setback from the southwest corner of Building 1 to the back of future curb along 6th and from the northwest corner to Campbell Ave. South and West Setbacks listed for Building 1 to the street are based on LUC Section 3.2.6.5.B & Table 3.2.1.I, ADT of 1,000 or greater, 21' or the height of the structure measured from the back of future curb for both Campbell and 6th.

6. This comment was not addressed correctly. Per LUC Section 2.3.5.2.A.2 Residential Use Group, Family Dwelling Development Designator "K", Perimeter Yard Indicator "BB" and LUC Section 3.2.6.4 Perimeter Yard Width Matrix, the required perimeter yard setback from proposed Building 2 to the east property is the height of the building wall. As a dimension was not provided for the exterior building wall at the wall's highest point the required perimeter yard setback could not be determined. See LUC Section 3.2.6.3 for the correct way to measure exterior wall heights for perimeter yard setbacks. East setback listed for Building 2 is based on a perimeter yard indicator "BB". Per LUC Section 3.2.6.4 the required perimeter yard to the east, R-2 zone, is 10' or 3/4(H), the height of the structure, which ever is greatest. Based on a 25' wall height the required setback is 18'-9"

7. This comment was not addressed correctly on either the site plan or future site plan. The measurement is from the back of curb. On the future site plan provide a street perimeter yard setback from the west exterior wall of Building 2 to the back of future curb along Campbell Ave. West Setbacks listed for Building 2 to the street are based on LUC Section 3.2.6.5.B & Table 3.2.1.I, ADT of 1,000 or greater, 21' or the height of the structure measured from the back of future curb for both Campbell and 6th.

8. This comment was not addressed correctly. Per LUC Section 2.3.5.2.A.2 Residential Use Group, Family Dwelling Development Designator "K", Perimeter Yard Indicator "BB" and LUC Section 3.2.6.4 Perimeter Yard Width Matrix, the required perimeter yard setback from proposed Building 2 to the east property is the height of the building wall. As a dimension was not provided for the exterior building wall at the wall's highest point the required perimeter yard setback could not be determined. See LUC Section 3.2.6.3 for the correct way to measure exterior wall heights for perimeter yard setbacks. North setback listed for Building 2 is based on a perimeter yard indicator "BB". Per LUC Section 3.2.6.4 the required perimeter yard to the east, R-2 zone, is 10' or 3/4(H), the height of the structure, which ever is greatest. Based on a 25' wall height the required setback is 18'-9"

9. Based on your response to comment 2 a lot combination is not planned just the Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property. If the property line shown south of Building 2 is to remain Building 2 is required to meet the perimeter yard setbacks per LUC Section 2.3.5.2.A.2 Residential Use Group, Family Dwelling Development Designator "K", Perimeter Yard Indicator "BB" and LUC Section 3.2.6.4 Perimeter Yard Width Matrix which is the height of the exterior building wall. See LUC Section 3.2.6.3 for the correct way to measure exterior wall heights for perimeter yard setbacks.

10. For any street perimeter yard setback that does not meet the requirements of the LUC a Board of Adjustment for Variance is required. The variance must be approved prior to approval of this site plan. If approved provided the following information on the site plan; variance number, date of approval, what was approved, and any conditions of approval.


11. This comment was not addressed correctly. The striped 5' pedestrian refuge shown along the east side of the vehicle use area is required to be a sidewalk physically separated from the vehicle use area. Also this refuge encroaches into the vehicle access for the trash enclosure. Zoning acknowledges that a Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) is proposed. If the DSMR is approved provide the following information on the site plan; DSMR number, date of approval, what was approved, and any conditions of approval. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Per D.S. 2-08.3.1 within all development, a continuous pedestrian circulation/accessible route, sidewalk, is required. This continuous pedestrian circulation/accessible route must connect all public access areas of the development and pedestrian circulation path located in any adjacent streets. The areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings, all bicycle and vehicle parking areas, all recreation areas, all dumpster areas, and all other common use areas. That said clearly show on the plan how the required continuous pedestrian circulation/accessible route, sidewalk, is provided to 6th Avenue and the required connect between the two builds.

12. This comment was not addressed. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 As this project is considered a commercial site all vehicle use areas must meet commercial standards. That said the access to the single vehicle parking space shown just west of Building 2 does not meet these requirements. Per LUC Section 3.3.7.2 the minimum width for a two-way parking area access lane is 24'-0"

13. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Sheet 6, future site plan, it appears that the three (3) vehicle parking spaces shown along Campbell block access to the double garage door, as shown on the provided building elevations. Zoning acknowledges that the parking calculation shown on sheet 5 has two (2) less vehicle parking spaces and it appears that one of the garage spaces has been eliminated. That said based on the building elevations the double garage is to be changed to a single demonstrate on the plan how this will be accomplished.

14. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20 As public sidewalk is shown on site along Campbell Ave and at the corner of Campbell and 6th an access easement is required. Show the easement and provide the recordation information (Docket and Page) on the plan.

15. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3 Sheet 5 lot coverage for the south lot exceeds the allowed 75% a board of adjustment for variance is required. The variance must be approved prior to approval of this site plan. If approved provided the following information on the site plan; variance number, date of approval, what was approved, and any conditions of approval.

16. Depending on how the above comments are addressed addition comments may be forth coming.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956.

C:\planning\site\t09cm03405

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents.
06/09/2010 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Denied 1. The new accessible route connecting the two buildings appears to be part of the access to the dumpster. It can not be part of the vehicle access and must have it's own clearance.
2. Reference zoning comments for the required finish of the accessible route and separation from the vehicle paving.
a. Provide all necessary curb ramps for access to Building 2 accessible routes.
END OF REVIEW
06/10/2010 JOSE ORTIZ DOT TRAFFIC REVIEW Approved
06/15/2010 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. A street landscape border, per Sec. 3.7.2.4 of the LUC, is a landscape area with a minimum width of ten (10) feet, running the full length of the street property line(s) bounding the site except for points of ingress-egress. 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. Approved site and landscape plans are required indicating how the project will comply with LUC requirements when the MS&R right-of-way can no longer be used as part of the site. Such plan is to be an exhibit to an executed covenant for recordation stating the responsibility of the property owner, successor, or assignee as to the removal of improvements and compliance with the LUC at no cost to the City. Submit future landscape plan with re-submittal.

3. 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.

4. Additional comments may apply.
06/23/2010 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Comment not addressed. Clarify the note on sheet 4 of 4 that calls for the use of "…a 4" x4" manufactured T or Y fitting…" at the HCS. Is this for the private sewer collection system only?
2. Comment not addressed. The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (2444.5') is less than 12" below the first floor elevation of building 1 (2445.37'). Note that a backwater valve per Section 710.1, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson will be required for plumbing fixtures on the first floor of building 1.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
11/04/2010 CPIERCE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
11/04/2010 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed