Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: REVISION - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D11-0008
Review Name: REVISION - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/01/2011 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/04/2011 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 04/11/2011 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 04/19/2011 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: April 19, 2011 SUBJECT: Mintec Development Plan- Engineering Review TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: 3544 E Fort Lowell Road, T13S R14E Sec33, Ward 3 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: D11-0008 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning Development Services Department has received the proposed development plan and Drainage Statement (JAS Engineering, 23MAR11) for the proposed project. Engineering Division has reviewed the submitted development plan and does not recommend approval at this time. The following items need to be addressed: DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 1) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.D.2: Revise the project location map on Sheet 1 to correctly label the major water course within the area shown. The Rillito Creek not the Santa Cruz River is adjacent to the site within Section 28. 2) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.K: The new Development Plan number (D11-0008) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan sheets. Include the past Development Plan number D07-0035 also in the title block. 3) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.B: Revise the Development Plan to remove the easement that is to be or is abandoned per Keynote #32. If the easement is already abandoned it should not be shown on the plan sheet. If the easement is proposed to be abandoned then remove it from the sheet and provide the recordation information for abandonment. 4) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C: Revise the Development Plan to clarify Keynote #16 in plan view. Clearly label the centerline of the roadways with the Keynote. 5) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Revise the Development Plan to clearly label the minimum PAAL widths adjacent to the proposed parking canopies. Per DS.Sec.3-05.2.2.B.2 a PAAL adjacent to a canopy is required to have an additional 1-foot space. Either label the PAAL dimensions as 26-feet for the interior PAALs and 25-feet for exterior PAALs or label the 1-foot space from the edge of the canopies to the end of the parking stall stripes. 6) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Revise the plan sheet to include the minimum 5-foot radius at the new PAAL intersection into the parking area. Per DS.Sec.3-05.2.1.C.3.b a minimum unobstructed radius of 5-feet is required for all PAAL intersections if not used for fire access. 7) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Revise the Development Plan sheets to include a vehicular separation from the parking area and parking spaces and the proposed retention basins/landscape areas. Per DS Sec.3-05.2.3.C.1 a vehicular use area must provide barricades, wheel stops or curbing to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the unpaved areas on or off site and to prevent vehicles from driving onto unimproved portions of the site. If curbing is used provide location and details for all required curb cuts to allow onsite drainage into the required retention areas to satisfy the retention requirements onsite. 8) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.1: Revise the plan set to clearly label all areas of retention and landscaping to verify that both the 6-inch depressed areas on either side of the wall is used for retaining the required volume of water to satisfy the retention requirements. 9) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Revise Keynote #85 to clearly label the dimensions for the proposed wall openings. Detail 13 Sheet 3 labels the opening as 4-inches x 4-inches, verify the Keynote reads the same. 10) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Revise Keynote #86 on the plan sheet to clearly label PC/COT Standard Detail for Public Improvement #205 for the proposed Type 2 scupper. Clarify in plan view, in the Keynote or by separate detail the width of the scupper along with the height of the scupper opening. 11) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.I: Revise the plan set to include the sight visibility triangle (SVT) for the intersection of Presidio Road and Richey Boulevard. Verify that the proposed section of the wall that are being raised from 30-inches to 5-feet do not fall within the SVTs. No structure is allowed to encroach within the SVT that would obscure the line of sight between 30-inches and 6-feet through a triangular area adjacent to a PAAL, alley or a street intersection. 12) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.K: Revise the Development Plan to clarify the hashed area along the north side of the proposed parking area. If the area is a required pedestrian access Keynote with a label and provide the required separation between the parking spaces and access. 13) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.K: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for any handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan and Drainage Statement that address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the Development Plan and Drainage Statement reviews. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services |
| 04/21/2011 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: MINTEC - Revision Development Plan (1st Review) D11-0008 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 21, 2011 DUE DATE: May 02, 2011 DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. Zoning Review Section conditionally approves the development plan for this project, subject to the following changes on the sign-off copies. However, should there be any changes requested by other CDRC members, the Zoning Review Section approval is void, and we request copies of the revised development plan to verify that those changes do not affect any zoning requirements. 2. This development plan was reviewed for full code compliance for the parking expansion and revision to existing parking along the south side of the existing building. 3. D.S. 2-05.2.1.H Provide the contour interval adjacent to the north arrow and scale on sheet 2 of 4. 4. D.S. 2-05.2.1.K List the rezoning case numbers, C9-77-32, in the lower right corner, next to the title block. 5. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2 List the development plan case numbers, D11-0008, in the lower right corner, next to the title block. 6. D.S. 2-05.2.3.B Site Plan Keynote #32 calls out "ABANDONED EASEMENT". Is this easement abandoned or to be abandoned. If it has already been abandoned remove it from the plan. 7. D.S. 2-05.2.3.B Site Plan Keynote #53 calls out "60'-0" INGRESS/EGRESS PRKG. ESMT. DKT 9594 PG 2344 (PRIVATE). This keynote appears to point to the same easement as shown under Site Plan Keynote #32, please clarify. 8. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Per Ordinance #10886 LUC Section 3.3.6.6.B.2 Access lanes and PAALs shall be setback at least two (2) feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction. That said there appears to be some type of wall or fence along the PAAL at the west side of the proposed new parking. Provide the required two (2) foot setback between the PAAL and the west property line. 9. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Per Ordinance #10886 LUC Section 3.3.6.6.B.2 Access lanes and PAALs shall be setback at least two (2) feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction. That said provide the two (2) foot setback between the "NEW 2'-6" HIGH C.M.U. SCREEN WALL." called out under keynote 71 at the northwest corner of the proposed parking. 10. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Per Ordinance #10886 LUC Section 3.3.6.6.B.2 Access lanes and PAALs shall be setback at least two (2) feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction. That said provide the two (2) foot setback between the existing CMU wall, arched areas, and the south PAAL. 11. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Per Ordinance #10886 LUC Section 3.3.6.6.B.1.a Access lanes and PAALs shall be setback at least one (1) foot: an open structure, such as a carport or covered pedestrian access path as measured from the closest part of the structure of roof overhang. That said show the required one (1) foot setback to all proposed covered parking on the plan. 12. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Per Ordinance #10886 LUC Section 3.3.6.8.A Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, damaging adjacent landscaping, walls , or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas or unpaved areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. That said some type of barrier is required along the entire south and east area of the proposed parking area. 13. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.B A sidewalk will be provided adjacent and parallel to any PAAL on the side where buildings are located. That said due to the changes to the existing parking, additional accessible parking, shown near the south end of the building, provide a sidewalk along the south side of the building that meets the requirements of D.S. 2-08.4.1 & D.S. 2-08.5.1.A. 14. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Per D.S.2-08.4.1 Sidewalks within a project must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings, or other means, except at crosswalks. That said a sidewalk is required at the following areas; west end of the existing parking area adjacent to the proposed accessible parking, just south of the existing building, along the north end of the proposed parking area. 15. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K The angled pedestrian crosswalk shown at the west end of the existing parking along the south side of the building presents a safety hazard as vehicles will be backing out directly on to the crossing. Realign the crosswalk. 16. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Provide a crosswalk from the two (2) proposed accessible parking spaces, shown in existing parking area south of the existing building, to the required sidewalk along the south side of the building. 17. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Clearly indicated on the plan how a handicapped person and pedestrians will gain access to the building from the two (2) proposed accessible parking spaces and the proposed parking area. 18. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O The loading space calculation appears to be incorrect. The calculation calls out "2 SPACES" provided but only one (1) space is shown on the plan, please clarify. For your information Ordinance #10884 LUC Section 3.4.5 Commercial Service Use Group no loading space is require for this use. 19. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P The wheel stop location shown on detail 2 sheet 3 is not correct See Ordinance #10886 LUC Section 3.3.6.8.C for correct location. 20. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P As you have indicated on your letter provided with this submittal that you are using the requirements of Ordinance #10886 all section of the ordinance must be met. That said the vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Per Ordinance #10886 LUC Section 3.3.4.2, Commercial Service Use Group 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of GFA is required. Revise the vehicle parking calculation to reflect this ratio. 21. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Provide a accessible vehicle parking calculation that shows the number of required and provided spaces. 22. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P As you have indicated on your letter provided with this submittal that you are using the requirements of Ordinance #10886 all section of the ordinance must be met. That said the bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Per Ordinance #10886 LUC Section 3.3.8.2.B Commercial Use Group two (2) Short-term (Class 2) and two (2) Long-term (Class 1) are required. Zoning acknowledges that the Short-term requirement has been exceeded. Show the proposed Long-term on the plan and provide a detail. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ D11-0008 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan. |
| 04/28/2011 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | 1. As per Zoning determination a 100% code review is conducted for the expanded parking and revision to the existing parking along the south side of the existing building. PAGE 2 2. Note 20 reference to the two South side accessible parking spaces is not relevant to their design layout, totally different. 3. The parking aisles of both these accessible spaces have no accessible connection to the accessible route connection to the building. Please provide such. 4. An accessible route to the new parking is not required. Please delete the most southerly marked crossing. 5. Add detectable warning strips at the northerly marked crossing as per ICC (ANSI 117.1), Sections 406.12 and 406.14. 6. Any pedestrian connection required by Zoning to the Richey Blvd right of way is to be accessible. 7. Provide a large scale detail of the two accessible parking spaces south of the building. Please show all dimensions, slopes, signage location, aisles, connection to accessible route, marked crossings as required and identify "Van Accessible" spaces. END OF REVIEW |
| 05/02/2011 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES May 2, 2011 William L. Ford WLFA Associates 1227 N. 3rd Avenue Tucson, Arizona Subject: D11-0008 MINTEC Development Plan Revision Dear William: Your submittal of March 31, 2008 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a set of 4 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 4 Copies Revised Development Plan (Engineering, Zoning, Zoning HC Site, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Statement (Engineering, PDSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4893. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 623-0360 |
| 05/02/2011 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved |