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: SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP14-0030
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/27/2014 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: FedEx Ground Cl-Location Development Package (1st Review) DP14-0030 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 5, 2014 DUE DATE: March 12, 2014 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. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM). The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is August 20, 2013 . SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) Section 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 2-06.2.2 Development Package A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein; 2-06.2.3 Related Reviews In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the; 2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and, 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.5 - A three-inch by five-inch space shall be reserved in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for an approval stamp. 1. COMMENT: Provide the PDSD Development Package approval stamp on all sheets. The stamp can be found at http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/files/dsd/CDRC/acad-cot_stamp_model_1.pdf 2-06.3.12 - An index of sheets in the development package shall be provided on the first sheet. 2. COMMENT: Zoning acknowledges that there was some confusion during submittal of this project about concurrent reviews, ie, site, with grading or grading as separate submittal. If this set of plans is to include site, grading, stormwater, landscape and irrigation plans the sheet index should include all of these sheets. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet: 2-06.4.2.D - The page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx). 3. COMMENT: The total number of pages should reflect the total number submitted, i.e. site, grading, stormwater, landscape and irrigation, see comment 2 above. 2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 4. COMMENT: Remove the street address from the title block and provide it adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 5. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP14-0030, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 6. COMMENT: Depending on which sheets are finally approved with this set additional case numbers, such as the grading plan case number DP14-0031, may be required on this set of plans, see comment 2 above. 2-06.4.7 - General Notes The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. 2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses. 7. COMMENT: Development Package Note 3 remove the reference to "4.9.5" as it is not applicable. 8. COMMENT: Development Package Note 3 lists the proposed use as "TRANSPORTATION SERVICE LAND CARRIER", under "PARKING SPACE CALCS" you list "INDUSTRIAL USE GROUP". Transportation Service Land Carrier is a use within the Commercial Services Use Group not Industrial Use Group. Clarify what your proposed use group and use will be. 2-06.4.7.A.6 - If a plan or plat is prepared in conjunction with other applications or overlays or the parcel being developed is subject to conditions of an application processed previously, additional information must be added to the plan. Such applications and overlays include, but are not limited to: annexations; rezonings; special exceptions; Board of Adjustment variances; Design Development Options; Technical Standard Modification Request; overlays (Airport Environs Zone, Environmental Resource Zone, Gateway Corridor Zone, Hillside Development Zone, Historic Preservation Zone, Major Streets and Routes, Rio Nuevo District, Scenic Corridor Zone, WASH); Modification of Development Regulations through the Downtown Area Infill Incentive District or Rio Nuevo District; Downtown Heritage Incentive Zone; or, Design Review Board. Provide the following information on the plan. 9. COMMENT: A Technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) application was provided with this submittal. Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.A a sidewalk will not be required and Per TSM 8-01.5.2.I * J a trash compactor is allowed. A TSMR is not required for these two items. Remove Development Package Note 4 from the plan. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Percentage and area in square feet of building and accessory building coverage; 10. COMMENT: Remove Development Package Note 6 as it is not applicable. 2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided. 2-06.4.8.B - All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided. 11. COMMENT: There is a "10' UTILITY EASEMENT BK 9 M&P PG 6 TO BE VACTED BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT" shown on the plan that runs under the proposed building. This easement will need to be abandoned prior to approval of the development package. 2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes. 2-06.4.9.E - Proposed land splits or existing lot lines shall be drawn on the plan with dimensions and the identification number and approximate square footage of each lot. (Please be aware that, if land division occurs and the number of lots falls within the definition of subdivision, a subdivision plat is required.) Land splits require a separate permit and review. 12. COMMENT: As this site is made up of three parcels, 140-41-1300, 140-41-8660 &140-41-8670, a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combination Request form with your next submittal. 2-06.4.9.F - All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. The basis for this requirement is that some zoning requirements on a project are based on the zoning classification of adjacent property. Also, in some instances, each zone has to be taken into consideration on property that is split by two or more zoning classifications, as each may have different requirements. 13. COMMENT: Provide all existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 14. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1 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, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. That said some type of barrier is required for the following areas; a. Sheet 4 along the north & west perimeter of the vehicle parking area. b. Sheet 5 along the north, south & east perimeter of the vehicle parking area and along both sides of the access lane. c. Sheet 6 along the north side of the access lane. d. Sheet 7 along the north side of the 12 x 30 parking spaces and along the north side of the access lane. e. Sheet 8 along all access lanes. f. Sheet 9 along the access lane that runs north off of Cororna Road to the building and along the access lane near the southwest corner of the building. g. Sheet 10 along both sides of the access lane. h. Sheet 11 along both sides of the access lane. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 15. COMMENT: Provide a typical vehicle parking space detail for a standard vehicle parking space. 16. COMMENT: The wheel stop location dimension shown on detail 17 sheet 21 is not correct, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3. 17. COMMENT: The vehicle parking space calculation appears to be incorrect. Transportation Service Land Carrier should be parked at a ratio of 1 space per 300 sq. ft of GFA 2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Show all loading zones, vehicle maneuverability fully dimensioned, and access route. Provide as a note the number of loading spaces required, the number provided, whether the loading space is a Type A or B as provided in UDC Section 7.5.4. 18. COMMENT: The loading space calculation is not correct. Based on Commercial Services Use Group, Transportation Service Land Carrier, the number required should be "0". Provide the number provided. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided. 19. COMMENT: The long term bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. on Commercial Services Use Group, Transportation Service Land Carrier, the number required should be based on 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft. GFA. or 18 long term bicycle parking spaces required. 20. COMMENT: Provide a detail that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC article 7.4.9.D are met. 2-06.4.9.L - All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. The easements may have to be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval. 21. COMMENT: Sheet 9 shows public sidewalk on private property where the access lane meets Corona Road. A pedestrian access easement will be required. 22. COMMENT: Sheet 8 shows private sidewalk that appears to cross on to the adjacent property to the east. A pedestrian access easement will be required. 2-06.4.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual. 23. COMMENT: Sheet 6 & 7 shows what appears to be vehicle parking spaces along the north side of the building. If these are vehicle parking spaces per TSM 7-01.4.1.C a sidewalk is required between the building and the vehicle parking space. 24. COMMENT: Sheet 8 shows what appears to be vehicle parking spaces along the east side of the building. If these are vehicle parking spaces per TSM 7-01.4.1.C a sidewalk is required between the building and the vehicle parking space. 25. COMMENT: Sheet 7 at what appears to be the main entrance there appears to a sidewalk flush with the pavement, based on detail 2 sheet 20. Per TSM Section 7-01.4.2 this sidewalk must be physically separated from the vehicle use area. 2-06.4.9.W - Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Indicate if there are any existing billboards on site. Compliance to the Sign Code, Chapter 3 of the Tucson Code, is required. 26. COMMENT: If applicable show any/all proposed signs on the plan. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package & Approved Pima County Lot Combo form. . |
| 02/27/2014 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 03/07/2014 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: March 7, 2014 SUBJECT: FEDEx Ground Development Plan Package- Engineering Review TO: DOWL HKM; Attn Thomas Meehan, PE LOCATION: 7050 S Palo Verde Rd; T15S R14E Sec16 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP14-0030 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Drainage Report (DOWL HKM, 26FEB14), Geotechnical Engineering Report (Pattison-Evanoff Engineering, LLC, 24OCT13) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (DOWL HKM, 26FEB14). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administration Manual (AM) and Technical Standards Manual (TSM). Refer to the following link for further clarification: http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN: This plan was reviewed for site only. The grading plan sheets were reviewed for only informational purposes. The grading plan was submitted under a separate application (DP14-0031) and grading comments will be provided under that number. The grading plan can not be approved prior to approval of this DP Package (site only) application. 1) AM Sec.2-06.3.4: Revise the development plan package to include the Title Block in the lower right quadrant of each sheet. 2) AM Sec.2-06.3.5: Revise the development plan package to include the approval stamp in the lower right quadrant of each sheet. The link to the stamp can be found here: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/cdrc-rezoning/cdrd-stamp 3) AM Sec.2-06.3.12: Revise the drawing index to only include the Site Plan and Landscaping Sheets. Since this review has been submitted for Site Review only the grading and SWPPP sheets should not be included within the Index but submitted as supplemental information, verify the sheet index matches the page number and total number of pages. 4) AM Sec.2-06.4.1: Revise the development plan package to provide the email addresses for the primary property owner, architect, civil and contractor of the project. Information shall be provided under the appropriate section. 5) AM Sec.2-06.4.2.D: Revise the development plan package and the Title Block to include the correct page number and the total number of pages in the package. To include the Site Plan and Landscape Plan Sheets only. 6) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Plan Package case numbers (DP14-0030 and DP14-0031) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets. 7) AM Sec.2-06.4.7: Revise the development plan package to remove all Grading notes from the site plan review. Since the development plan package was submitted for site review only it should only reflect site plan notes. All Grading and Drainage Notes must be included on the grading plan submittal. 8) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.A.6: Revise the development plan package to remove DP Note #4. A Technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) application was provided with this submittal however a sidewalk will not be required per TSM Sec.7-01.4.1.A and a trash compactor is allowed versus the refuse enclosure per TSM 8-01.5.2.I and J. A TSMR will not be required for these two items. 9) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.B: Provide the easement abandonment for the existing 10-foot utility easement that is shown to be in conflict with the proposed building. All easements that are to be abandoned shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided. 10) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Revise the development plan package to dimension the existing type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks for all adjacent streets. Label all roadways as "Public." 11) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.E: Revise the development plan package to provide a lot combination application for review and approval through the Zoning Section. Since the proposed project covers 3 different parcels provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combination Request form with your next submittal. 12) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to provide a Parking Space Detail so that it is designed in accordance with Sec.7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. Specifically a standard parking stall must be 8.5 feet wide by 18-feet long and the proposed bumper blocks must be placed to allow for the 2.5 foot overhang so that the vehicle does not encroach into the required pedestrian access space or landscape area. 13) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to ensure all dimensions are labeled for the vehicular use area. 14) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label in plan view and to provide a Keynote call out for the required vehicle separation within the vehicle use area. Either provide a reference to a PC/COT Standard Detail or provide a separate detail for construction purposes. Per UDC Section 7.4.6.H.1 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, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. There are numerous areas of the site that does not meet this standard up to and including the proposed fire access road to Corona Road. 15) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package and Detail 17 on Sheet 21 to correctly dimension the 2.5-foot overhang at the curb stop within the parking stall, refer to UDC Sec.7.4.6.H.3. 16) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: Revise the development plan package to provide for the required easement for the proposed public sidewalk that is shown to be constructed on site along Corona Road. Provide the SEQ# in plan view or as a note under the General Note Section. 17) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: Revise the development plan package to provide for the required pedestrian access easement for the private sidewalk that appears to cross on to the adjacent property to the east that is shown on Sheet 8. Provide the SEQ# in plan view or as a note under the General Note Section. 18) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to provide a pedestrian access path between all proposed parking spaces and the new building. It appears that there are parking space along the north side and east side of the building that will need the required pedestrian sidewalk. Per TSM Sec.7-01.4.1.C a sidewalk is required between the building and the vehicle parking space. 19) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to provide a physical separation from all pedestrian access paths and the vehicular use area. Per Detail 2 on Sheet 20 and plan view on Sheet 7 it appears that at the main entrance there is a sidewalk that is flush with the pavement, per TSM Sec.7-01.4.2 this sidewalk must be physically separated from the vehicle use area. 20) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to verify that all sidewalks associated with PAALs are physically separated from the travel lane by means of curbing, 6-inch grade separation, barriers, railings or other per TSM Sec.7-01.4.2.A. 21) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project. 22) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan package to provide construction details and dimensions for the proposed stationary compactor. Since the project is proposing a stationary compactor verify that the construction design meet the minimum requirements of TSM Sec.8-01.5.2.I and J. Provide specific details on the development plan document for construction purposes. For this type of collection provide prior approval from Environmental Services (ES) in writing for use of the onsite compactors and not the normal double refuse enclosures. Any deviation from the standard will require a Technical Standard Modification Request (TSMR), it is advisable that prior to submitting the TSMR to contact ES to see if they would support the modifications. DRAINAGE REPORT: 23) TSM 4-03.3.3.2: Revise the Drainage Report to provide calculations and the table for storage-indication method of flood routing. It is acknowledged that the graph for the routing has been provided however the table should be included for review also. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 24) TSM Sec.4-03.3.5.1.3.a and 4-04.14.2.6: Provide a revised Geotechnical Report or addendum to provide percolation rates for the retention basin for 5-year threshold to show that the drain down time meets the maximum (24 hours) per TSM Sec.4-03.3.5.1. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package, Geotechnical Addendum and Drainage Report that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 03/07/2014 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Jason, the Traffic study recommends improvements to the south west corner of Valencia Rd and Palo Verde Rd in order to cater for a WB-50 turning radius. It is recommended the curb be redesigned and some utilities relocated. A private improvement agreement with Engineering Permits and Codes will be required. No other traffic impact improvements were recommended. Zelin >>> Jason Green 03/07/2014 11:15 AM >>> Dropped it off for you with the ladies at the front. Let me know if anything stands out. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Planning & Development Services *Phone: (520) 837-4929 Jason.Green@tucsonaz.gov >>> Zelin Canchola 03/05/2014 3:16 PM >>> Yes, I can look at it. Im here till 430. >>> Jason Green 03/05/2014 2:10 PM >>> Zelin, I am doing a review for the new FEDEx ground facility at 7050 S Palo Verde Rd. Part of the package included a TIA for the site from Kittelson & Associates. TDOT is not part of the review, but I was hoping that you could take a look at the TIA to make sure Traffic doesn't have any issues that might come forth after our approval and during Permits & Codes review under the right-of-way use permit. Please let me know if you can help me out. If so I have the copy at my desk or I can run it up to you later today or hand it off during our 10:30 meeting tomorrow. Regards, Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Planning & Development Services *Phone: (520) 837-4929 Jason.Green@tucsonaz.gov |
| 03/07/2014 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Yes that is ok. Z >>> Michael Wyneken 04/02/2014 9:44 AM >>> Zelin, The TIA for this project recommended improvements to the south west corner of Valencia Rd and Palo Verde Rd in order to cater for a WB-50 turning radius. Can the PIA and required improvements be done separately from the DP? I'll put a hold on the C of O until the improvements have been accepted by TDOT. I would like to separate them so we can wrap up the DP and issue building permits (after plans are approved) and work concurrently on the PIA and improvements. Will that work for you? Thanks, Mike Michael W. Wyneken, AICP City of Tucson Planning & Development Services Project Portfolio Manager 520.837.4955 |
| 03/13/2014 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/13/2014 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS Identification and Descriptive Data All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan. The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet: Rezoning case; Subdivision case; Board of Adjustment case; Design Development Option case; Development Review Board (DRB) case; and/or, any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 7: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 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. Streetscape Landscape Border - Maximum Width In situations where the street landscape border is wider than the minimum ten foot standard, the landscape border width needs to be determined for the purposes of calculating the 50% vegetative coverage standard. The width is that area between the required screen and the property line, unless there is permitted encroachment into the right-of-way as per this section. Provide coverage calculations for landscape borders along Corona Rd. Not incorporated with drainage easement. Vehicular Use Areas An unpaved planting area, which must be a minimum of 34 square feet in area and four feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree. Provide dimensions for planters within vehicle use area. 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, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply |
| 03/14/2014 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/19/2014 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Provide a large scale detail of the accessible parking showing all accessible requirements such as dimensions, grade slopes, spot elevations, markings, signage, accessible route, access to accessible route, ramps as necessary and van accessible parking. 2. Provide a larges scale detail of the accessible parking signage. Include a van accessible sign. 3. Provide large scale details of both marked crossings showing all accessible requirements such as dimensions, markings, grade slopes, spot elevations, ramps and detectable warnings. 4. The latest aerial photos show an accessible route gap access to the Palo Verde Road right of way. Insure a complete accessible route connection to the Palo Verde Road right of way. Otherwise provide an accessible route connection on your property to the Corona Road right of way. 5. Insure all accessible route slopes comply with 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 403.3, 5% running slope maximum and 2% cross slope maximum. END OF REVIEW |
| 03/24/2014 | LEERAY HANLY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/25/2014 | AROMERO4 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/25/2014 | GERARDO BONILLA | REJECT SHELF | Completed |