Permit Review Detail
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/05/2010 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/08/2010 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Sam Hughes Court T09CM03405 Site Plan (3rd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 12, 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. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6 Per LUC Section 3.2.7.2.A Measurement. Buildings. The vertical distance of a building is measured from design grade elevation, at any individual point within the building footprint, to the highest point of a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof; or to the middle (between the eave and ridge) of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. That said the building height dimensions provided on the elevations are measured from finished floor not design grade. It appears that the proposed building height once shown correctly will exceed the allowed height for both the R-2 and C-1 zoned portion of this site. A Board of Adjustment for Variance will be required or revised your building plan. 3. 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". A possible solution for this issue would be to remove this parking area from the plan and apply for a Design Development Option to eliminate one (1) vehicle parking space based on the future site plan. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 The following items are comments regarding perimeter yard setbacks. Per LUC Section 3.2.6.3 Measurement. The width of the perimeter yard is the distance measured horizontally from a specified point to the face of each exterior building wall at the wall's highest point. The specified point is the property line when it is an interior property line. This measurement is clarified in LUC Figure 3.2.6.3 Perimeter Yard Measurement. This measurement is from design grade. The definition of design grade is as follows: The minimum modification of natural or existing grade that allows safe and appropriate access, drainage, and buildable areas. That said the dimensions provided on the elevations do not addressed the highest point of the wall. Either revise the building plans or site plan so that the required perimeter yard setbacks or met or apply for a Design Development Option to reduce the required setback. 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. 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. 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 north 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. 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. |
| 11/10/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/17/2010 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. 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 within the vehicle use area. The future landscape plan indicates a planter not shown on the future site plan dimension planter on both plans 2. Note: The planter and tree is not required and can be removed. 3. Include with re-submittal DSMR or variance approval documentation. Indicate on the lower right hand corner of the site plan, the case numbers, date of approval, and any conditions imposed. 4. 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. 5. Additional comments may apply. |
| 11/18/2010 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/29/2010 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Cardell Andrews II DATE: November 30, 2010 3025 W. Ina Rd. Tucson, Arizona 85741 Subject: Sam Hughes Court, 502 N. Campbell Ave Site plan T09CM03405 (Third 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. This comment was made on the grading plan and should not create any major problems on the site plan either: Provide a curb return (min. 18'R) with an access ramp for the south side of the north entrance. 3. Label future sight visibility triangles per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10. Show the SVT on Campbell Ave. and 6th Street. The future R/W intersection widening nor the future SVT's are shown properly or not shown at all. Per previous comments. 4. Show refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0. A DSMR is still required if the enclosure does not meet development standards. 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 3 |
| 11/30/2010 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/01/2010 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 12/01/2010 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |