Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T06CM03798
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/14/2006 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: T06CM03798 6575 S. Country Club Road, New Hilton Garden Inn Commercial Site Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 8, 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. (This review) Per ANSI, with regards to pedestrian/handicapped circulation: A) Please give crosswalk from HC parking aisle (north side) to sidewalk by building. B) Please provide handicapped access ramp where new crosswalk meets sidewalk. C) Provide crosswalk across drop off lane(s) (under porte cochere) to walkway entry. D) is porte cochere walkway flush with drop off lane? clarify (appears curb is noted). E) If porte cochere walkway is flush with asphalt, provide truncated domes in a strip across the full length of the edge of the walkway where meeting the drop off lane. F) If porte cochere walkway is in flush with the asphalt, provide a physical barrier (i.e. bollards, planters, etc.) to separate walkway from vehicular use area per DS 2-08/3-05 G) If porte cochere walkway is not in flush with asphalt, provide handicapped ramp H) Please clarify the clearance of the porte cochere - 15' needed for vehicle clearance 2. (Last/current review) Per DS 2-02.2.1.9, regarding bike parking: DS 2-09 class 2 bicycle parking has to be within 50' from main entrance and will be along building front and along other sides of the building that have entrances. Relocate bike parking, advise where building entrances are. RESPONSE: I see bike parking is closer to main entry. Please dimension to building entrances & where is bldg entrance for NE bike parking?. 3. (Last review) Per DS 2-02.2.1.13, I acknowledge signs will be done by others. Please move shown sign by Country Club out of future right of way or note only 30 inches tall. 4. (Last/current review) Per DS 2-02.2.1.25, provide general note "free-standing lighting in vehicular use areas shall be 15' minimum height to ensure vehicle clearance." 6. With regards to PAALs, please provide vehicle circulation arrows at porte cochere. In addition, please ensure there is only one drop off lane or provide 24' for two lanes (LUC) 7. Please note, further review comments may be forthcoming, depending upon responses provided. Please contact me at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 791-4541x1156 to set up a MEETING time to review the comments/corrections - OR you may RESUBMIT. HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T06CM03798 6575 s country club hilton 2.doc |
| 11/14/2006 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | Please see zoning review comments. |
| 11/15/2006 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: November 27, 2006 SUBJECT: 6575 S Country Club Road- 2nd Engineering Review of Site Plan and Grading Plan TO: Metro Permits Express LOCATION: T15S R14E Sec16, Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T06CM03798 (site plan) and T06BU01659 (grading plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the re-submitted site plan (T06CM03798), and grading plan (T06BU01659), drainage report (prepared by The WLB Group, Inc.), and Geotechnical Soils Investigation for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan or grading permit application at this time. The drainage report was reviewed for site plan and grading plan purposes only. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.3-01: Provide the standard right-of-way widths and curb knuckle design per Figure 22 and list the required information on the Offsite Public Street Plan for review: I. Provide the dimensions for the standard knuckle radii. II. Provide the tangent lines at all intersect points per detail. III. Provide the degree and bearing for all other lines as shown in the standard detail for knuckle design. IV. Show street monuments per the standard detail. 2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the continuous pedestrian circulation path from Country Club Road so that is fully connects to the Porte Corchere area. 3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Provide handicap access ramps at the sidewalk locations that cross the ingress/egress located off of Bonney Road and the maneuvering area for the trash collection area. Truncated domes are required for all proposed handicap access ramps. 4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.14: Label and show on the site plan the required maneuvering area for all loading zones that are shown on the development plan. Refer to AASHTO for the national standards for turning radii. 5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.15: Provide the 100-year floodplain limits for the proposed channel and the 100-year ponding limits for the proposed 14-EF-1 grate inlets and modified trench drain in the cul-de-sac of Bonney Ave. Provide this information in plan view and on detail 7/4, Sheet 4 of 6 . Ponding limits within the right-of-way for Bonney Ave must be checked to assure all weather access. 6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Proposed improvements can not be located within the future right-of-way of Country Club Road. Revise the site plan and grading plan to show that all improvements are located outside of the future right-of-way and that all improvements are located on the subject parcel. 7) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.6: Revise the building location so that is meets the minimum recommended setback of 30-feet from the proposed channel. The building location must meet the minimum recommendations included in the geotechnical report addendum that was prepared October 24, 2006. 8) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise the site plan and grading plan to provide the required 2-feet setback from all property boundaries to the proposed limits of grading, fill slopes, and associated erosion protection. The plan view on the site and grading plan shows that the limits of grading, top of fill slope for proposed basins, and the erosion control structures encroach into the required 2-feet setback and the right-of-way width. Provide sufficient room to allow for the 2-feet setback from property lines to top of fill slopes and associated erosion protection. 9) DS Sec.3-01.3.3.A: Provide on the site plan the required 6-foot wide sidewalk with curb along the street frontage of Country Club Road. Per the adopted Mayor and Counsel policy all sidewalks along MS&R right-of-ways for arterial and collector streets require 6-foot wide sidewalks. Label the sidewalk to be constructed as 6-foot. 10) DS Sec.3-01.3.3.A: Revise the site plan so that the future sidewalk and access ramps do not encroach into the proposed basin. The plan view shows the future handicap access ramp within the proposed basin and across the proposed weir structure. 11) DS Sec.3-01.3.3.A: Revise the site plan so that the proposed 6-foot wide sidewalk along Valencia Road connects to the shown handicap access ramps. All improvements must tie into and function for pedestrian circulation. 12) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Label and show the maneuverability for refuse vehicles in plan view at the proposed refuse container location. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 13) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Revise the proposed 14 EF-1 grate inlets to provide for a more traversable alignment for bicycle traffic along Bonney Road. Revise the storm drains so that they are perpendicular to the alignment of the revised roadway. Provide a revised detail for the 7'x3' wide modified trench drains that are proposed in the cul-de-sac. 14) Provide a scupper at the low point in the street adjacent to the channel inlet for flows that are not captured by the proposed 14 EF-1 grate system. 15) DS Sec.11-01: Revise Grading Note #16 on Sheet 6 of 6 to include "Development Standard 11-01.0 (excavation and grading requirements)." 16) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Revise details on the grading plan for all rock riprap areas to call out whether the riprap is grouted, hand placed or dumped. 17) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.6: Provide on the grading plans all recommendations that are in the submitted geotechnical report. Slopes in the range of 3:1 to 1.5:1 need to be stabilized with a minimum 6-inch diameter riprap. Revise all details for the proposed basins to show that the recommendations have been addressed. 18) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.6: Provide a detail for the 1:1 slope that is shown at both bends of the proposed channel to allow for freeboard for super-elevated flows. Recommendations of the soils engineering report must be incorporated within the detail for slope stability and erosion protection. 19) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.F: Provide typical lot grading details, show minimum side and rear setbacks, and building setbacks to the detention and retention basins and swales per geotechnical report. Provide detailed cross sections for each perimeter, fully labeled and dimensioned. These details were not located in plan view or on the detail sheets provided. DRAINAGE REPORT: 20) Provide a signed and notarized 404 Compliance Statement that is included on Page 7 of the Drainage Report. 21) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.15: Clarify or revise the drainage report for the parcel showing that the developed discharge for the 2, 10, and 100-year flow events are less than the existing corresponding discharge values with a 15 % reduction. The Basin Summation for the overall onsite and offsite flows does not show a 15% decrease in discharge for developed conditions. The drainage report must meet the minimum standards for development outlined in the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP according to these comments: 1) Revise the SWPPP Report so that the Sections listed in the Table of Contents are in chronological order and clearly labeled for easier use in the field. 2) CGP Part IV.2.d: Revise Page 2, Section 1.6 to state the actual increase in impervious cover. 3) CGP Part IV.C.2.e: The general location map that was provided under separate cover needs to be bound into the report in Appendix A. 4) CGP Part IV.C.3.c: Revise the SWPPP sheet to provide for straw bales at the inlet to all culverts. Provide waddles, or equivalent, around the proposed 14 EF-1 grate located in the right-of-way and at the inlet to all curb openings around the proposed basin. Or provide a statement of which basins are been used as sediment traps during the construction of the proposed project. 5) CGP Part IV.C.4: Provide on the SWPPP Exhibit the name of the nearest receiving watercourse that the stormwater is discharged into downstream. 6) CGP Part IV.D.5.a.i: Describe the location, size and retention capacity of all 4 retention/detention basins and the areas that drain into them. 7) CGP Part IV.D.5.a.iii: Provide a statement and describe how and where sediment basins or sediment traps are used for areas <10 disturbed acres, or storage for a 2-year, 24 hour storm per disturbed acre drained. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan, revised grading plan, revised drainage report, and a revised SWPP that address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site plan, grading plan, drainage report, and SWPPP reviews. Site plan must be approved prior to grading plan approval. If you have any questions, or to schedule an appointment, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 1189. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 11/28/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. A 30" continuous screen along street frontages for vehicle use area must be provided per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Indicate screening element on landscape plan. 2. The highest point of the berms must be on site and no closer than one (1) foot (minimum) from the property line or the MS&R right-of-way line, whichever is more restrictive per DS 2-06.3.7.B.5.d. the City Engineer or designee must approve any improvements within the ROW. Revise the plan as necessary. Approval in writing for the berms in the right-of-way is necessary. 3. Whether or not required by this Division, screens along a street frontage must be located on the development side of the landscape border so that they do not obstruct the view of the border from the street per LUC 3.7.3.2.B. Indicate how proposed berm will not obstruct of view of required street landscape borders. 4. A Native Plant Inventory shall containing the following elements: An aerial photograph, taken within a maximum of three (3) years of submittal, at a minimum scale of 1" = 60' showing the site's boundaries, the locations of all Protected Native Plants within those boundaries, and the plants' identification numbers keyed to the inventory list in Sec. 2-15.3.1.A.2. Any aerial photograph submitted, which was taken more than one (1) year prior to submittal, shall be accompanied by a letter stating that the site is substantially unchanged from the date of the aerial photograph. Submit a separate NPPO plan per DS 2-15.0. to verify that site meets minimum preservation and mitigation requirements. 5. Refuse containers are to be placed so that the collection vehicle does not have to back into moving traffic, on or off the premises. DS 6-01.4.1.I. Revise the location of dumpster along Bonney Ave. 6. Additional comments may apply |
| 11/29/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | A Native Plant Inventory shall containing the following elements: An aerial photograph, taken within a maximum of three (3) years of submittal, at a minimum scale of 1" = 60' showing the site's boundaries, the locations of all Protected Native Plants within those boundaries, and the plants' identification numbers keyed to the inventory list in Sec. 2-15.3.1.A.2. Any aerial photograph submitted, which was taken more than one (1) year prior to submittal, shall be accompanied by a letter stating that the site is substantially unchanged from the date of the aerial photograph. Submit a separate NPPO plan per DS 2-15.0. to verify that site meets minimum preservation and mitigation requirements. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/30/2006 | BETH GRANT | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 11/30/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |