Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL
Permit Number - DP12-0033
Review Name: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/28/2012 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/29/2012 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP12-0033 6720 S. Alvernon Way Development Package - Whole Sale Use TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 29, 2012 DUE DATE: April 02, 2012 COMMENTS: Zoning has reviewed the DP and finds that there are three outstanding items that need to be addressed before zoning will sign off on the Development Package. Please address the comments 3, 5, 6. Comment 1 and 2 are acknowledgement comments and comment 4 is approval of the grading plan pending any changes made to the site plan. Please resubmit final revised drawings along with a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development package plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is March 11, 2013. 2. It is acknowledged that The PDSD Director Ernie Duarte has given an ok to allow permits to be issued prior to approval of the lot split. It is further acknowledged that the lot split is to processed and completed prior to final of the development. A notice will be placed in permits plus related to this item and will be removed to allow final approval of the building for C of O once the documentation for the lot split is completed. Previous comment 8: DS 2-01.3.7.A.8 - The owner is proposing to subdivide the parcel per a separate lot split application. While this lot split will not require a recorded subdivision plat at this time a separate lot split application (separate fees) will have to be reviewed and approved by PDSD Staff prior to approval of the development package. All documentation for the lot split must be reviewed, approved, stamped, and signed off by the applicable PDSD review staff before the documentation is taken to the Pima County Recorders Office for recordation. Typically 3 copies of all documents is required for review and stamps or the applicant may choose to provide one copy and once the reviewers have reviewed, approved, stamped, and signed the documents, the applicant may take the documents and reproduce an additional two copies for PDSD archiving. Requirements for submittal include a current Title Report (Engineering Request), survey drawing, and written legal descriptions. The survey drawing must include all distance and bearing information, existing or proposed easements, any applicable drainage-ways, etc. The survey should also include any adjacent street information and current plat information, lot numbers, square footage in acres and feet, etc. The legal description when written should match the distance bearing info on the survey drawing. The lot split application case number must be listed in the lower right corner of all plan sheets. As of this review date there has been no request for a lot split application. Ensure that when the lot split application is applied for and the activity number is available to you include the activity number on the plans sheets. 3. The bicycle parking facilities were not fully dimensioned as requested. The facility includes the aisles that are necessary to access the actual short and long term facility must be dimensioned as well or added to the detail drawing. The specific location for both the long and short facilities should be detailed. Previous comment 14: DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Land Use Code Section 3.3.8. Provide, as a note, calculations for Class I and Class II bicycle spaces required and provided. A dimensioned detail of the bicycle parking facility can be provided on the site plan sheet four (4) or on the detail plan sheet (8). 4. Zoning has conditionally approved the DP site plan and also approves the grading plan as it pertains to the Zoning review purview. Ensure that any changes that are requested to be made to the site plan are also made to the grading plan and landscape plans sheets. Previous comment: DS 2-01.3.9.M - The grading plan has been reviewed by zoning as part of the development package review and as it relates to zoning review purview. From a zoning review perspective the grading plan matches the site plan but cannot be approved until the site plan is approved. Any changes that are made to the site plan must be made to the grading plan. Once the site plan is approved the grading may be approved if there are no pending comments from any reviewer. 5. Within the City of Tucson limits signs are not allowed with the right of way without special process approvals. Alvernon is a Pima County Right of Way and I'm sure that they have similar regulations. All signs related to the development must be on private property and should be placed in locations where the signs do interfere with pedestrian circulation, vehicle or bicycle parking, loading zones, etc. In addition, locating the sign on the site plan allows for the review of the sign by the Sign Review section when the applicant6 for the sign comes in for the separate sign permit. Previous Comment 18: DS 2-01.3.9W - If applicable, indicate the location, size and type of any proposed freestanding signs. 6. After reviewing the details sheet I noticed that the Handicap sign is not dimensioned correctly. While it is no longer a Zoning purview to comment on the ADA items I noticed that Ron Brown has already approved the site plan but did not make this comment. Therefore I told him I would make the comment to ensure that the changes are made. The height of the pole from grade to the bottom of the sign is to be a minimum of 7'-0". The detail on sheet 8 lists the height of the pole from grade to the bottom of the pole at 4'-6". Revise the dimension to 7'-0". If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\DP12-0033B.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package and additional requested documents. |
| 03/29/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/30/2012 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | TO: Jim Roth, P.E., COLE Engineering SUBJECT: Tire Warehouse Development Package 2nd submittal Engineering Review ADDRESS: 6720 S ALVERNON WY 85756, Ward 5 LOCATION: T15S R14E Section 16 FLOODPLAIN: FEMA zone X, 2293L REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E. ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP12-0033 SUMMARY: Engineering has reviewed the revised Development Package, title report paperwork, and revised Proposed Warehouse Drainage Report, SWPPP Report, and response letter, and recommends conditional approval of the Development Package and the Drainage Report. Please address the following remaining comments prior to resubmittal. CONDITIONAL APPROVAL COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.2-01.3.7: Address the remaining Development Package general note comments. Add to sheet 2: a) Contractor shall remove fine materials from bottom of any detention/retention basin and scarify basin bottom once construction activities are completed in order to remove any material build up caused by construction and to restore soil percolation. Alternatively, contractor may utilize BMP's at basin inlets to prevent fines from entering any basins. 2) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: Regarding base layer, assure SVT's on landscape plan planviews match sheets 4, 5, & 6. 3) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I, 10-01.4.3.1: Address the remaining drainage report comments: a) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.1.B: CD of the final approved drainage report will be requested. b) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L, 2-03.2.3.J.2: Correct FIRM panel number 2293L in the report. c) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.1: In drainage report Appendix G, pre-and post construction outlet conditions at north property line are labeled on drainage area map. Depth of 3-ft is listed at flume outlet. Spillway should be provided to dissipate energy and lower depth to closer to existing conditions. Revise exhibit and provide outlet spillway for flume outlet area. d) DS Sec.10-02: Exhibit F is not clear - it appears that the post developed conditions are not meeting the 15% reduction requirement. Revise design to assure that the 2-yr post-developed condition shall be reduced by a minimum of 15% from existing runoff conditions for basin requirements. Clarify/revise table showing both existing and design values for 2-yr, 10-yr, and 100-yr. Revise report / calculations / basin outlet detail and other associated information on plans. e) DS Sec.10-02.1.5.1,10-02.14.3.3: Revise maintenance checklist according to the following comments: i) Include watershed - check to see whether watershed conditions have changed, notify City Engineer (or similar verbiage). ii) Add to Basin Rip Rap item 18, check Filter Fabric for wear and function - replace as needed (or similar). iii) Include Basin Access Ramp - check to see if sufficient access is available and traversable. f) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.A: Label post developed 100-yr event flowrates where flows exit subject property. g) Clarify whether the developed condition flows exiting the site are combining soon after exiting the project site in the downstream riparian areas. 4) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I: Address the remaining comments for the Site/Grading/SWPPP sheets: a) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.T, 6-01.3: Sheet 9, revise solid waste pick-up area enclosure detail and add dimensions for minimum 10-ft between enclosure gate and inside rear bollards. b) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.2, E, &L: Add note to plan that, future improvements (future entrance) are schematic and will require additional review for approval at time of future improvement by applicable jurisdictions. c) Clarify concrete header along curb returns at entrances on sheets 4 & 5. d) DS Secs.2-01.3.8.E, 2-03.2.3.A: Show and label datum for local benchmark at NE corner on planview. e) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.M: Remove portion of notations on the plans referring to the owner verifying engineering requirements, such as for pavement structural design, including details 5 & 7 on sheet 8. f) DS Sec.10-01.3.3.4, COT Spec.913-3.02: Per discussions on the phone, provide filter fabric for rip rap areas. g) For clarification of proposed conditions, show on planview on sheet 5 or details for sheet 5, more spot elevations clarifying grading or drainage from and around proposed building in PAAL areas and waterharvest areas. i) Specifically add spot elevations at corners of pavement in PAAL and curves of paved fire access lane. ii) The medians in the parking area at the SE portion of the site needs section or planview details to show openings to these waterharvesting areas. iii) Detail F-F indicates 8-ft vertical in 5-ft horizontal grade change. This is exceeds 3:1(H:V). Correct or clarify detail. h) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Show and label locations of Q100 entering and exiting site on sheet 5. i) On SWPPP sheet 11, silt fence is not recommended downstream of basin berms; provide BMP such as wattle along north property line. 5) The following comments are recommendations for your consideration to assist in construction and inspection activities: a) Tucson Code Chap.26 Article II: It is recommended that SWPPP note, regarding spill notification, be placed on sheet 11 and in large font: Operator shall report to ADEQ any noncompliance (including spills) which may endanger human health or the environment. The operator shall orally notify the office listed below within 24 hours: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 1110 W. Washington, 5th floor (5515B-1), Phoenix, AZ 85007, Office: 602-771-4466; Fax 602-771-4505 b) CGP Part III.D.3: Add note to SWPP sheet 11 or report: "Signatures from Operators must be on site copy of SWPPP Report at or before commencement of construction. All Operators shall be identified and have separate certification statements." Assure these certifications are available on-site. c) Label dimensions for basin area for inspection purposes. Specifically, for the detail 8 on sheet 9, label dimension between top of basin berm and the "100-year ponding limits" for inspection purposes. d) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.E: Proposed sewer manhole is on the edge of the entrance pavement. Consider adjusting location of manhole so as to not be in conflict with edge of pavement header curb improvements. 6) Items that the Applicant or Contractor would need to bring in to pick up the grading permit: a) Reseeding bond $17,968.50 b) Any remaining fees - this amount should be available after the 2nd review is completed and approvals are provided. c) DEQ air quality permit - front counter Permit Clerks will make a copy and need the DEQ # d) Lot Split documentation, OR, notarized letter authorizing improvements from the owner of the parcel e) Contractor License - if not Arizona licensed, there is additional paperwork - Bond Exemption Certificate f) Any additional documentation as determined from Reviewers 7) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.G: Provide documentation from owner authorizing work on the portion of the parcel as shown on the approved plans DP12-0033, if lot split paperwork is not provided. Please provide revised Development Package plan sheets, revised Drainage Report, lot split legal description, owner authorization letter, geotechnical report, revised SWPPP report, and comprehensive response letter that addresses the conditional approval comments provided above. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division, Planning & Development Services Department City of Tucson |
| 03/30/2012 | KEN BROUILLETTE | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/02/2012 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | See landscape comments. Revise the landscape plan summary table. |
| 04/02/2012 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Resubmittal required. Please provide a transmittal with responses to the comments. 1) Revise the rainwater harvesting plan to clearly define the boundaries of each subwatershed. The line work on the drawing appears to be overlapping or missing. A) Use arrows to indicate the flow path water will take from the subwatershed to the WHIA. Design the infiltration areas to convey water to the planting areas. B) Indicate spot elevations for the bottoms of water harvesting structures, at spillways, and to define other grades as necessary. C) Indicate the location of all surface or subsurface infiltration structures, pipelines, spillways, French drains, scuppers, curb cuts and other infrastructure elements needed to convey, store or overflow passively supplied water, or to control erosion. DS 10-03.4.2.B 2) Revise the Water harvesting plan to limit the values for Line 16 and 25, Rows A and H to100%. Excess harvested water above 100% of the demand for a single infiltration cannot be transferred to a different, unrelated infiltration area. DS 10-03.4.1.C 3) Landscape plans shall include a summary of Protected Native Plants. DS 2-15.3.4.B. Revise the summary table to conform to the Native Plant Preservation Plan. Revise the TOS value for Prosopis velutina. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/04/2012 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 04/04/2012 | GERARDO BONILLA | REJECT SHELF | Completed |