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 ALL
Permit Number - T11CM00518
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/23/2011 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/23/2011 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Borst Automotive T11CM00518 Site Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 26, 2011 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). This project has been reviewed for full code compliance due to building area expansion exceeding 25%. 2. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Per D.S. 3-01.5.1.A.1 Lines of sight will not be obscured between thirty (30) inches and six (6) feet through a triangular area adjacent to a driveway, a PAAL, an alley, or a street, where such access ways intersect with another street in a T-configuration. That said the accessible vehicle parking space and the vehicle parking space shown at the southwest corner of the property may not be located within the sight-visibility-triangles (SVTs). There are two possible ways to address this issue; 1. Contact COT Traffic Engineering and apply for a Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) to reduce the SVT stem to 15' or 2. Apply for a Board of Adjustment for Variance using LUC Section 3.2.13 3. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Per LUC Section 3.2.8.4.B & D.S. 2-08.5.1.A the minimum width of a sidewalk is four (4) feet. That said the sidewalk shown along the south side of the office area does not meet this requirement. 4. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Per LUC Section 3.2.8.4.B & D.S. 2-08.5.1.A the minimum width of a sidewalk is four (4) feet. That said the striped area shown along the south side of building #1 service bays does not meet this requirement. For your information per LUC Table 3.3.6.4.A-III allows for a twenty (2) foot two-way access lane. The area shown between buildings 1 & 2 service bays can be consider an access lane. 5. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Per LUC Section 3.3.3.9 Parking spaces shall not be located under, or within five (5) feet of, a vertical line intersecting the ground and any structural element extending from a billboard, including, but not limited to, overhangs, cantilevered beams, and elevated walkways. That said the proposed vehicle parking spaces located just to the north of the billboard may not be located as shown. Board of Adjustment for Variance required. 6. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 The proposed Off-Site parking is does not meet the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.6.2.A.1 therefore the parking does not meet the 18 required vehicle parking spaces. This issue can be addressed one of two ways; 1 Apply for and get approval of an Individual Parking Plan that meets the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.5.1 or 2. A Board of Adjustment for Variance is required Based on LUC Section 3.3.4.2. 7. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 Revise the vehicle parking calculation to reflect the total Gross Floor Area of 5,528 as vehicle parking is based on GFA. 8. As you have elected to use the revised vehicle parking calculations you must also use the revised bicycle parking calculations. Per LUC Section 3.3.8.2.B Commercial Use Group, two (2) Short-Term and two (2) Long-Term bicycle parking spaces are required. Show the bicycle parking on the plan and provide a detail for both Short and Long Term bicycle parking. 9. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.5 Per LUC Section 3.4.5 one (1) 12' x 35' loading space is required for the billboard, zero (0) are provided. A Board of Adjustment for Variance is required. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\site\2011\t11cm00518 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan. |
| 08/29/2011 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. At detail 9/S-1, please have the bottom of the sign mounted at 7'-0" from finished grade. 2. For the Site Plan Detail and detail 8/S-1, please show all the slopes for the accessible route complying with ICC/ANSI 117.1, Section 403.3. Any slopes exceeding 1:20 (5%) is subject to compliance with section 405 Ramps and requires handrails. 3. Please provide a large scale detail of the curb ramps at the accessible parking aisle complying with Section 406, curb ramps. END OF REVIEW |
| 08/30/2011 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. On a project with an existing or a proposed new billboard on site, the loading space required for the billboard must be located immediately adjacent to the billboard and outside the area defined by a vertical line intersecting the ground and any structural element extending from the billboard, including, but not limited to, overhangs, cantilevered beams, and elevated walkways.(Variance request) 2. A 6' continuous screen along street frontages for billboards must be provided per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. (Variance request) 3. Include with re-submittal variance approval documentation. Indicate on the lower right hand corner of the site plan, the variance case number, 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. |
| 08/31/2011 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/06/2011 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/20/2011 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Comment not resolved; provide the invert, and rim elevation of the upstream and downstream manholes. Reference: City of Tucson Development Standard No. 2-01.0.0, Section 3.8 D and Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/23/2012 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/23/2012 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |