Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T05CM00691
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/22/2005 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/07/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with redlines and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. Note the correct address. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.3) 2. A back-up spur will be provided at the east end of the parking lot since no ingress or egress will be provided at that end due to the loading zone. Refer to D.S. 3-05.2.2.D, for design criteria. Required dimensions and radii shall be shown on the plan. 3. Handicap ramp shown as a detail does not provide for adequate room between top of ramp landing and building for pedestrian circulation. Revise ramp or provide a minimum five (5) foot length of landing. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8) (ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Section 405) 4. Dimension wheel stop curbing. Wheel stops shall be located two and one-half (2 ½) feet from the front of the parking space. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8) (D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.2) 5. LUC Sec. 3.3.3.5 requires a minimum of two (2) Class 2 bicycle parking spaces. Revise bicycle parking calculation and indicate the type of surfacing to be provided. Refer to D.S. 2-09 for design criteria. 6. Per D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.1, a minimum distance of five (5) feet for a pedestrian refuge area must be maintained between the west side of the building and the PAAL. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12) 7. If applicable, provide a detail of existing and or proposed free standing signage, billboard, and outdoor lighting on the site plan. (D.S. 2-02.2.2.1.A.13) 8. Per LUC Sec. 3.4.4.2.A, a street may be used for maneuvering of a delivery vehicle into, or out of, a loading space, provided it is for a use with only one (1) space, this project requires two (2) 12' X 55' loading zones. Revise plan accordingly and demonstrate maneuverability. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14) 9. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.A, at least one sidewalk will be provided from each street on which the project has frontage. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12) 10. If applicable, all existing and proposed easements must be shown on the plan including width, type, and recording docket and page reference. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20) 11. List the proposed land use under the zoning information block as it is noted under LUC Sec. 2.7.2.2.H. This review is based on commercial storage. If use is different, additional comments will be forthcoming upon resubmittal of this plan. The use shall be listed as follows: Proposed use: Commercial Storage "34", subject to: Sec. 3.5.10.1) (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.31) 12. Per Pima County Assessors records, the subject property has been split in 2004. Provide a copy of the stamped approved City of Tucson lot split plan. If the split has not been approved by the City, a lot split review and approval will be required prior to site plan approval. For additional information regarding the lot split process, please contact me at the number provided below. 13. All requested changes must be made to the site and landscape plans. (D.S. 2-07.2.1.A) If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608 ext. 1180. An appointment is required to discuss these comments in person. |
| 03/08/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | Handicap ramp shown as a detail does not provide for adequate room between top of ramp landing and building for pedestrian circulation. Revise ramp or provide a minimum five (5) foot length of landing. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8) (ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Section 405) |
| 03/08/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise General note #6 on landscape plan to COT standards. Street landscape borders shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet wide as measured from the street property or MS&R lines per LUC 3.7.2.4. And all disturbed areas including area between sidewalk and curb shall be treated with ground cover such as decomposed granite to help reduce dust pollution per LUC 3.7.2.7. 2. According to Native Plant Preservation Application for Exception dated 2-16-05, 4- Prosopis velutina, Native mesquites are rated as viable, 2- are to be preserved in place (PIP), 2- are to be transplanted on-site (TOS). The mitigation ratio for transplanted native trees is 1:1 per LUC Table 3.8.6.1. Show the locations on the landscape plan of the preserve in place, transplanted, and mitigated trees. All mitigated trees shall be the same genius and species as TOS plants. 3. Within a vehicular use area, one (1) canopy tree is required for each 10 motor vehicle parking spaces. In addition every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk) per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.a. Revise as necessary. 4. Clearly identify with bold symbols trees within all landscaped areas per DS 2-07.2.2.A 5. Landscaping is required along retention basin side slopes, bottom and periphery. Plant materials used in basins shall withstand periodic inundation. A minimum of 20 trees per acre must be provided, 33% of tress shall be 24" box or larger. A minimum of 2 shrubs for each tree is required per DS 10.01.4.3.2. Revise landscape plan to include basin(s) treatment 6. Show the locations and type (such as masonry wall or fence) of all screening elements on the landscape plan per DS 2-07.2.2.3 7. A 6' wall to screen loading zone from Rens Rd. is required per LUC 3.7.2-I. |
| 03/09/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | According to Native Plant Preservation Application for Exception dated 2-16-05, 4- Prosopis velutina, Native mesquites are rated as viable, 2- are to be preserved in place (PIP), 2- are to be transplanted on-site (TOS). The mitigation ratio for transplanted native trees is 1:1 per LUC Table 3.8.6.1. Show the locations on the landscape plan of the preserve in place, transplanted, and mitigated trees. All mitigated trees shall be the same genius and species as TOS plants. |
| 03/09/2005 | DOUG WILLIAMS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Drainage Report, Site & Grading review DATE: 9 March 2005 ACTIVITY NUMBERS T05CM00691/T05BU00351 T15S, R14E, Section 7 Engineering Division has reviewed the Subject items. Approvals are not recommended at this time. Please provide revised site and grading plans and a revised drainage report addressing all comments provided below. DRAINAGE REPORT: 1. Please correct the project address on the report cover sheet and in the introduction (pg. 3). 2. As part of the basin maintenance checklist, please state that the annual inspection report shall contain the summaries provided in: (insert language verbatim, as written in the City of Tucson Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management - Development Standard -DS- 10-02.0, Sec. 2.3.1.6 C 2 a & b). 3. The percolation test results provided indicate the proposed retention basin will exceed the maximum time of disposal allowed, per Section 3.5.1.3 a of the Pima County/City of Tucson Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual (DS 10-01.0). Please revise the report and all applicable exhibits to eliminate any possibility of standing water in excess of the allowed time frame. 4. If retention is proposed in a resubmittal, provide a copy of the soils report. A soils report is required to be submitted in conjunction with the design of each surface storage facility which utilizes infiltration as a method of basin drainage. The report shall contain at a minimum, technical information on soil classification, erodibility, permeability, slope stability, groundwater elevation, infiltration rates, recommended minimum building setbacks (from basins and drainageways), whether or not hydro-collapsing soils are present, and contain the results of a minimum 30 foot deep soil boring. Provide discussion/analysis in the drainage report as necessary, demonstrating conformance to retention basin design and performance criteria (DS 10-01.0, Section 3.5.1.5). 5. Please describe and demonstrate how site grading will comply with Chapters 1 and 4, with particular attention/discussion given to how the basins will serve as: project amenities; multi-use facilities; will be visually appealing; whether they will serve as human activity zones (8:1 slope maximums in such areas); and whether intended as passive and/or active recreation areas (DS 10-01.0). 6. Please refer to Section 4.3 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual for additional retention/detention technical design guidelines and requirements, and provide applicable discussion and design for conformance with these guidelines (DS 10-01.0). SITE PLAN: Please note that drainage report revisions may result in necessary revisions or additions to the site and grading plans. Please assure all revisions are depicted on each plan as necessary. 1. Depict and label sight visibility triangles for Rens Road (DS 2-02.2.1A 10 & DS 3-01.5.B). 2. Label the detention basin 100-year water surface elevation/limit of ponding (DS 2-02.2.1 A 15) 3. Depict and label a minimum 18' unobstructed radius where the Parking Area Access Lane (PAAL) intersects the other PAAL onsite where emergency and solid waste vehicles maneuver. Depict and label curb returns and curb access ramps (PC/COT SD 207) at the Weiding Rd. driveway locations, and concrete headers (PC/COT SD 213) at the Rens road intersection (DS 3-01.3.2 C & 3-05.2.1 C 3 a). 4. The proposed refuse container location is not accessible as depicted. Revise as necessary, and depict maneuverability/access to the dumpster, assuring 36' inside and 50' outside turning radii are provided. Refer to Development Standard 6-01.0 for additional solid waste provision requirements (DS 2-02.2.1 A 32). 5. Specify bollards to be placed on the rear and side walls of the enclosure, and dimension 10 feet min., between sidewall bollards (DS 6-01.4.0). 6. Depict scuppers where any site drainage may be concentrated, for conveyance of 10-year flows (min) under sidewalk areas (DS 2-08.5.1 E & DS 3-01.4.4 F). 7. Provide a note on the site plan stating that, (a) the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for drainage structures and detention basins; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at lease once each year, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; (c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage and retention/detention facilities to verify that scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner or owners agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with the maintaining of the drainage and detention/retention facilities, should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities" (DS 10-02.0, Section 14.3.2). 8. Correct the Bluestake # as noted in the "bluelines". 9. Revise keynote 5 to reflect construction of new 5' sidewalks (DS 3-01.3.3 A). GRADING PLAN: The grading plan must indicate all revisions that occur as a result of drainage report and site plan comments provided for this project. Please ensure the grading plan is consistent with the site plan and drainage report prior to resubmittal. Additional comments may be necessary, depending upon the nature and extent of site revisions. Please address all comments listed below on a revised grading plan: 1. Provide a grading and drainage note specifying conformance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0. These standards may be accessed at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 2. Depict basin maintenance access ramps, outlet weir details, and associated erosion protection, fully labeled and dimensioned. 3. Depict and label grading limits. 4. Revise the depth identified in the basin callout note and in the outlet weir section to reflect the 3' depth proposed in the drainage report. 5. Correct the project address to 1445 E Weiding Rd. Please note that subsequent comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans. Resubmittal will require a revised Drainage Report, and revised Site and Grading plans addressing all items listed above, at a minimum. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, ext. 1189 or via email at: Doug.williams@tucsonaz.gov Douglas Williams Sr. Eng. Associate Engineering Division Development Services Department |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/14/2005 | TAMI ACHONG | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/14/2005 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |