Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T05CM00691
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/09/2005 | 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. Provide a fully dimensioned detail for the handicap accessible ramp and shall comply with specifications in the ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Section 405. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8) (ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Section 405) 2. 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) 3. LUC Sec. 3.3.3.5 requires a minimum of two (2) Class 2 bicycle parking spaces. Revise bicycle parking calculation and revise keynote 10 to indicate Class II spaces. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9) (D.S. 2-09) 4. If there are doorways into/out of building along the pedestrian refuge area, a minimum four (4) foot wide sidewalk is required within the pedestrian refuge area. Sidewalk shall be comprised of concrete and be provided with a barrier (curbing, bollards, etc.). (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12) (D.S. 2-08.4.1.B) (D.S. 2-08.5.1) 5. 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) 6. For pedestrian safety reasons, relocate pedestrian path around refuse container. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12) 7. Commercial storage is subject to performance criteria listed under Land Use Code Section 3.5.10.1. Add the 'subject to" section next to where the proposed use is listed on sheet sd1. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.31) 8. Your response to the lot split comment is acknowledged. The previous comment will remain until the lot split has been approved and submitted to the Zoning Review Section. Previous comment: 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. Vehicular cross access agreement will be required. 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. |
| 05/09/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING HC SITE | 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. Provide a fully dimensioned detail for the handicap accessible ramp and shall comply with specifications in the ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Section 405. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8) (ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Section 405) 2. 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) 3. For pedestrian safety reasons, relocate pedestrian path around refuse container. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12) 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. |
| 05/17/2005 | DOUG WILLIAMS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Drainage Report, Site & Grading review DATE: 17 May2005 ACTIVITY NUMBERS T05CM00691/T05BU00351 T15S, R14E, Section 7 Engineering Division has reviewed the resubmittal package Subject items. Previous comments have not been fully addressed, and approvals may not be recommended at this time. Please submit revised site and grading plans and a addressing all comments provided below. Include Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP's) and associated text/documents with the resubmittal, and a response letter addressing in detail where necessary, responses to all of the following comments: DRAINAGE REPORT: (Previous comment) "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)." Please provide a Soils Report as requested. The basin adjacent to the proposed building without an acceptable building setback is not acceptable. This issue must be promptly and thoroughly addressed. SITE PLAN: 1. (Previous comment) "Label the detention basin 100-year water surface elevation/limit of ponding (DS 2-02.2.1 A 15)". 2. Previous comment, "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)" has not been adequately addressed. Specify the Pima County/City of Tucson Standard Detail Number (206) in Keynote 9, and revise the plan to indicate the proposed driveway aprons, rather than the curb returns depicted. 3. Omit Keynotes 38 and 39, or revise as appropriate. 4. Provide detail 9/SD1, or omit this call-out adjacent to the detention/retention basin. 5. The existing power pole in the Weiding Rd. right of way was not noted on the initial review, and Keynote 28 does not appear to have been used on plan view. The site plan must address the conflict with the existing power pole and the proposed western ingress/egress (driveway apron). Please address this matter and add a note for relocation of the power pole, with the proposed new location depicted and labeled, and omit Keynote 28. 6. (Previous comment) "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)." 7. A recorded easement must be created for proposed access to the dumpster from the adjacent property. Include recording information on the plan (Dkt/Pg) and submit 2 copies of the proposed easement with legal descriptions and supporting exhibits. Please note however, that the dumpster is NOT accessible as depicted (conflict with adjacent, offsite dumpster enclosure). 8. Revise the sheet number identified within the call-outs to the enclosure details (to 2/SD2 & 5/SD2). 9. Previous comment # 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)", does apply to this project. "Sidewalk areas" include pedestrian access and refuge areas (Keynote 23). Please depict and label scuppers at roof downspout locations to address this requirement. 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, and address all comments listed below on a revised grading plan. 1. The basin maintenance access ramp is not apparent on the revised plan. Please identify the ramp location, width, slope, and dimensions 2. Clarify and revise the basin bottom width dimensions in sections C/2 and B/2 for consistency with the drainage report and plan view. Resubmittal will require revised Site and Grading, and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP's) and associated text/documents 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 |
| 05/18/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise General note #6 on landscape plan to indicate 30" screen per LUC 3.7.2-I 2. A 6' wall to screen loading zone from Rens Rd. is required per LUC 3.7.2-I. All walls required by this Division must be of masonry material or masonry with stucco or textured finish. Revise plan as necessary. |
| 05/18/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/20/2005 | DHERRON1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 05/20/2005 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |