Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T06CM02285
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/06/2006 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/13/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit Application for Exception; include acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. |
| 11/13/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Include with re-submittal approval documentation. Indicate on the lower right hand corner of the site plan, the variance case number, date of approval, and any conditions imposed. 2. Include North arrow and scale on landscape plan. 3. 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. On streets designated as Major Streets and Routes (MS&R), the street landscape border is measured from the MS&R right-of-way line as determined by LUC 2.8.3.4. 4. Street landscape borders shall be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee. Up to five (5) feet of the required ten (10) foot width be placed within the adjacent right-of-way area or within the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) right-of-way area on MS&R streets. 5. Fifty (50) percent or more of the street landscape border area must have shrubs and vegetative ground cover per LUC 3.7.2.4. 6. Indicate square footage of all landscaped areas and calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage per DS 2-07.2.2.2.g 7. A 30" continuous screen along street frontages for vehicle use area must be provided per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Identify screen locations. 8. Show on the site plan existing and future sight visibility triangles DS 2-02.2.2.1.A.10 9. The planting plan and layout calculations will include the following Information: § Both the proper and common name of each type of plant material must be listed. § Maintenance Schedule. a. Pruning schedules to show that plant material will maintain pedestrian and vehicular clearances or that the material will establish opaque hedge screens, if required. b. Replacement criteria, should plant material not survive. c. Replacement or upkeep maintenance schedules for inert ground cover materials. d. Upkeep maintenance schedules for exterior hardscape materials. e. Maintenance and replacement schedules for irrigation systems. § Material and areas of inert ground cover. All disturbed areas including adjacent right of ways shall be treated with ground cover such as decomposed granite to help reduce dust pollution per LUC 3.7.2.7. Indicate treatment for landscaped areas. 10. Within vehicular use areas, one (1) canopy tree is required for each 10 motor vehicle parking spaces and 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. Verify entire site meets canopy tree requirement 11. Submit Application for Exception; include acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. 12. Additional comments may apply. |
| 11/14/2006 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: T06CM00365 (New number T06CM02285) 301 E. Fort Lowell Road Lot combination more than 25%, new parking lot more than 25% Site plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 24, 2006 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. (Per last review) Per DS 2-02.2.1.8/DS 3-05, regarding parking/future ROW taking: A) A MSR covenant is required to ensure site is in code compliance with road widening. RESPONSE: requests copy of paperwork - a MSR covenant is attached for your client to record at the Recorder's office. Provide copy and recordation receipt on next review. B) (Per last/current review) Parallel parking at west conflicts with two-way 24' wide PAAL, remove from BOTH current and future site plan. C) On the future site plan, please do not show the original parking spaces that are being relocated. Just show the relocated parking, it will be far more clear this way. 2) (Per this review) Per DS 2-02.2.1.8, Per ANSI, IBC, regards to handicapped parking: A) Provide two handicapped parking spaces. (This review, move it closer to entrance) B) Provide signage (on space and posted in front of space) for handicapped parking (This review provide note for $518.00 fine for illegal parking) C) Provide curbing outside of handicapped access aisle to separate from PAAL to north (provide on future site plan too) 3) Per DS 2-02.2.1.9 and DS 2-09, with regards to bicycle parking: A) provide bicycle parking racks and specifications for class 2 spaces (detail not found) B) provide bike parking where future right of way/ access will not compromise parking (please provide the same details on BOTH plans for the relocated site plans) C) provide a 5' wide pedestrian access area around bicycle parking (I see it on the current site plan, however, it needs to be on the future site plan) D) provide signage directing where bicycle parking is, due to the relocation not being immediately visible from the street and building entrance. 4) Per DS 2-02.2.1.11 and DS 3-05, with regards to entry locations and PAALs A) The minimum width of a PAAL for 2 way ingress/egress is 24'. If you remove the proposed 3' landscape strip, a 24' wide PAAL is possible to allow 2 way ingress/egress at all 3 entries. If you choose to keep the landscaping strip, only 1 way ingress/egress is permitted along Fort Lowell and the south entry off Fontana. 5. (Per last review) Per DS 2-02.2.1.21, label future curb location on both the current and future site plans. RESPONSE: Not clearly found - please label on both plans. 6. Per DS 2-02.2.1.12, for pedestrian, handicapped, vehicular/bicycle circulation: A) provide sidewalks from both Fort Lowell and Fontana to link to on site pedestrian circulation (provide crosswalks across PAAL where linking to sidewalk) RESPONSE; I acknowledge the pedestrian connections from both Fontana and Fort Lowell Roads on the current site plan. I do not see these connections on future plan. B) (last review) provide handicapped ramps with truncated domes where needed RESPONSE: I see the detail provided, thank you. Please specifically identify where on the site these ramps will be placed - call them out. C) (last review) provide circulation info on both future and current plans RESPONSE: I see the handicapped parking space relocated to the new parking lot. Please relocate it closer to the entrance of the building, the proximity is too far. 7. (Per last review) Per DS 2-02.2.2.A, provide the floor area ratio for the project. RESPONSE: The response provided calculations, thank you. Please clarify two things: show that .75 is the maximum FAR allowed & change 17.9% to .17 FAR 8. (Per this review) The prior LDO granted for the 8' tall wall shown on the plans is still approved under LDO 01-047, despite full code compliance requirements. This is per David Rivera. Please just provide the same notation on the future site plan. 9. Depending upon the responses provided, further review comments may be forthcoming. Should you have any questions on this review, please contact me at heather.thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 520-791-4541x1156. I DID NOT MAKE ANY REDLINES ON THIS PROJECT. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call (520) 791-5608. HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T06CM02285 301 e fort lowell new plan 2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan, need future site plan, and additional requested documents |
| 11/20/2006 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | Please see zoning review comments. |
| 12/11/2006 | SUZANNE BOHNET | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Joel Kramer DATE: December 11, 2006 FROM: Suzanne Bohnet, CFM Engineering Division SUBJECT: 301 E. Fort Lowell Rd. Paving new parking area Site Plan T06CM02285 (Second Review) RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan and Drainage Statement. The Site Plan and Drainage Statement cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Site Plan: 1. Please provide a Site Plan drawn at a standard engineering scale no larger than 1" = 60' (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A) 2. In addition to the existing site visibility triangles (SVT), please provide the future SVT for the drive at Fort Lowell. 3. The SVT on the submitted Site Plan were unable to be verified at this time due to being unable to verify the scale. Future comments may be forthcoming. 4. Due to the amount of fill called out on the Site Plan, a Grading Permit and a Grading Plan are required. A Grading Permit/Plan cannot be approved prior to a Site Plan approval but can be submitted for review in conjunction with a Site Plan. Future comments may be forthcoming upon review of the Grading Plan. 5. Please add "AE" behind the word "ZONE" in Note 2 to identify the federally mapped flood zone. See redline for more details. 6. The requirement for 5-year threshold retention is not a part of the Land Use Code and is therefore not able to be waived by variance procedures. To meet this requirement, either provide a retention basin designed to hold the volumetric difference between pre- and post-development 5-year runoff or provide substantial water harvesting. Substantial water harvesting needs to show by drainage flow arrows and finished grade spot elevations how the rainfall runoff will be directed to the landscape areas. The proposed inverted-V drive for the new paved parking area is not acceptable nor is directing all runoff to Fontana Ave. as shown on the Site Plan. Please call for further details. Drainage Statement: 1. The Drainage Statement needs to discuss how the 5-year threshold retention requirement will be met by either: 1.1. Calculating the volumetric difference and designing a basin to contain that difference OR 1.2. Discussing the substantial water harvesting techniques that will be used to address the retention requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Thank you, Suzanne Bohnet, CFM Engineering Associate (520) 791-5550 x1188 office Suzanne.Bohnet@tucsonaz.gov |