Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T06CM04840
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/26/2007 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/31/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: T06CM04840 3800 S. Evans Boulevard, industrial site Commercial Site Plan, 2nd review TRANSMITTAL DATE: 02/01/2007 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 DS 2-02.2.1.2, Staff noted there are two lots here, with separate development proposed on each lot. Are these lots going to be combined? Clarify. In addition, clarify if there is to be cross access/parking between these lots if they are not combined - and lots adjacent. RESPONSE: Indicates the two lots are not going to be combined, but cross access is proposed between the two of them. Staff recommends a lot combination, and a lot combination covenant. If the lot combination is not to occur, then a lot combination covenant is required at minimum. Please provide a copy of the covenant that is notarized and recorded. Please provide a copy of the notarized cross-access agreement between all lots depicted as needing cross-access, with a copy of the recordation receipt. These lots function as one site, regardless of who owns them. 2. Per DS 2-02.2.1.6, provide building dimensions, provide roof height, provide specific use, provide height of canopies and clarify any other roof overhangs with height. RESPONSE: I see the elevation provided with heights, thank you. Please dimension building footprints, please declare specific use - industrial is too general (manufacturing? - what site activities?) and there are several subject to sections that could be a concern here - please review section 3.5.5.1.A-H. Loading zones, noise, odor, storage, etc. are all sections that would have to be complied with. 3. Per DS 2-02.2.1.7, provide list of required setbacks (I recognize along interior lot lines the setback is likely 0 required) and actual provided setbacks (for records purposes) from all property lines. RESPONSE: I see the list and the labeled setbacks, thank you. For records, please add/change the following: A) For Lot 2, add to the list the minimum setback required from Ajo is the greater of 21' or the height of the exterior building wall - from back of future curb of Ajo Way. B) For Lot 2, add to the list the minimum setback required from Evans is the greater of 21' or the height of the exterior building wall - from travel lane (Evans at the corner of Ajo is allowed to be a developing area setback) C) For Lot 2, remove reference that the building setback off front is 1.5 x building height D) For Lot 3, change setback reference, state building setback off Evans Blvd is the greater of 20' or 1.5 x the height of the exterior building wall from street front property line. I acknowledge the building setbacks shown for this development meet code. 4. Per DS 2-02.2.18, with regards to parking: Parking is based upon the gross floor area of the proposed use. Provide parking calculation based upon required ratio RESPONSE: I see parking is provided at required ratios - if the buildings are only single story. Please clarify if there are any 2nd floors or mezzanines in these buildings, and if so revise the FAR calcs and parking calcs accordingly. A) raise the fine for handicapped parking to $518.00 5. Per DS 2-02.2.1.9, with regards to bicycle parking: A) the number of bicycle parking spaces will be determined upon the required number of parking spaces for the use proposed (RESPONSE: the amount may increase if FAR changes increase number of vehicle spaces.) 6. Per DS 2-02.2.1.11, with regards to PAALs: A) Provide direction of PAAL loading to loading zone, and signs for entry/no entry RESPONSE: I see the directional arrows, thank you. I do not see a note, however, indicating signage will be posted to advise one way entry. Please clarify. 7. Per DS 2-02.2.1.12, ANSI and DS 2-08 - for pedestrian and handicapped circulation: A) handicapped ramps should have truncated domes (early warning devices) on them RESPONSE: Truncated domes are in the wrong place on detail B1 of page C5.2 -see my notation on a redline for help. B) provide continuous pedestrian circulation path from all streets RESPONSE: I see changes, thank you. We also need a pedestrian link from the building on Lot 2 to Evans Blvd. 8. Per DS 2-02.2.1.14, with regards to loading zones: A) once the use(s) are clarified, the loading zone size and number required will be reviewed because the LUC mandates loading specifications based upon the site use(s) RESPONSE: I understand your position - but a specific use is needed - to determine if other variables with development - i.e. subject to's - are to be involved. B) demonstrate maneuverability for all loading zone areas on the plan RESPONSE: I see your maneuvering point - however, staff feels the radius returns on some areas in the PAAL are tight - and defers to our Engineering division for further advisement. Be advised you may need more maneuvering information - or a design change. C) it is imperative that the direction of the loading zone be shown - and signage be erected declaring entry/no entry RESPONSE: I see the directional arrows, thank you. I did not immediately find the signage posted for one way entry, etc. 9. Per DS 2-02.2.1.20, please ensure all easements are on the plan with type and recording data. RESPONSE: I see the easements thank you. I need a docket and page for the access easement please between lots 2 & 3. In addition - an access easement note is needed for Lot 1 since some vehicular use is occurring across that lot as well for this site. 10. Per DS 2-02.2.2.A.2, I acknowledge the FAR can be 2.00 for any use with a "34" designator, and that there does not appear to be a FAR issue with the proposed development. For records, please provide the FAR for each building separately- both for a total site area of both lots and then for each separate lot. In addition, clarify if the FAR provided is for both buildings on the total site area. RESPONSE: Thank you for listing the FAR and development notes separately. Very clear. As this project is being considered one site, please provide an overall site land area and an overall building square footage and overall FAR for the site. 11. Please note, depending upon the responses provided, further review comments may be forthcoming. Should you have any questions on this review, please contact me via email at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 791-4541x1156. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call (520) 791-5608. HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T06CM04840 3800 s evans 2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 02/02/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | Please see zoning review comments. |
| 02/08/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Where a fence or wall incorporates offsets or similar design features, a screen may extend a maximum of three (3) feet into the street landscape border per 3.7.3.2.B.3. An example of this can be found @ http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/DevStd206.pdf Portions of the walls indicated on the site and landscape plans appear to extend in the landscape border greater than 3'. Additionally Whether or not required by this Division, screens along a street frontage must be located on the development side of the street landscape border so that they do not obstruct the view of the street landscape border from the street per LUC 3.7.3.2. Move offset screens to the appropriate locations as required on the site and landscape plans. |
| 02/08/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/12/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: March 13, 2007 SUBJECT: 3800 S Evans Blvd- 2nd Engineering Review of site plan TO: Bright/Kliman Architects LOCATION: T14S R14E Sec31, Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T06CM04840 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised site plan, revised Drainage Report (prepared by Greg Carlson Engineering, L.L.C., dated January 18, 2007) and the Geotechnical Evaluation (prepared by Western Technology, dated November 15, 2006) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan at this time. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Provide the docket and page number, as referenced on Sheet C1.1, for the cross-access agreement between the two subject parcels. 2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Provide the docket and page for the vehicular ingress/egress agreement for Lot 1. The proposed site plan shows an 18-foot vehicular access easement, however the full24-foot PAAL width must be verified. 3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.10: Revise the proposed sight visibility triangles (SVTs) for the intersection of the PAAL at Ajo Way. Per DS Sec.3-01.5.1 the near side length for a PAAL to Arterial Street is 345-feet and the far side length is 125-feet, revise the labels and dimensions to conform to this section. 4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Provide an approval letter or email correspondence from Traffic Engineering, Jose Ortiz, P.E. for the existing driveway curb returns. Per the Tucson Access Management Guidelines all driveway entrances off an Arterial Street must provide 25-foot radii and concrete curbs. Refer to DS Sec.3-01.3.2.C for street development standards. Provide traffic approval for the existing driveway entrances off Evans. 5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise details B1 and B3 on Sheet C5.2 to show the correct location for the required truncated domes per ANSI Standards A117.1-2003 Section 406.13. See redlines for further clarification. Provide the dimensions on the details for the minimum requirements. 6) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to show the required 6-foot wide sidewalk with curb along the street frontage of Ajo Way. 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. If a sidewalk already exist along the frontage of Ajo Way provide photo documentation showing that the existing sidewalk is in good condition. If the sidewalk is missing in spots or is cracked and buckled a new 6-foot sidewalk will be required. 7) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.12: Provide the dimensions on the site plan for the future 6-foot sidewalk and curb. The dimensions for the future sidewalk must be shown from the centerline of Ajo Way. Provide dimensions for curb, 6-foot sidewalk and the 2-foot offset required between curb and sidewalk, the total distance for future improvements for a 120-foot MS&R is 12-foot. 8) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.15: Revise the site plan to show the calculated 100-year floodplain limits as shown in the Drainage Report for the proposed 20-foot wide channel that is located between the buildings. Show the floodplain limits in a surveyable manner on the site plan. DRAINAGE REPORT: 9) All drainage report comments have been addressed. The Tucson Diversion Channel (a Structural Flood Control Measure) is being utilizied in place of a detention/retention system per the submitted drainage report. The drainage report has demonstrated that such measures will accomplish the function of a detention/retention system. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 10) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: Provide a revised Geotechnical Report Evaluation that provides a discussion of the potential for hydro-collapsible soils and provides recommendations for setbacks from the proposed buildings to the proposed constructed channel, retention basin and water harvesting areas. GRADING PLAN: 11) DS Sec.11-01.2.1: A grading permit is required for this project due to the cut and fill quantities provided on the revised site plan. Fill quantities shown exceed the 50 cubic yards so a grading plan and a grading permit application will be required after site plan approval and prior to any construction activity. 12) Please ensure that any future grading plan will be consistent with the site plan and drainage report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 13) Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements are applicable to this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development will be required with a grading plan submittal. For further information, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan and a revised Geotechnical Report 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 and Geotechnical Report. Please enclose "redlines" with the resubmittal package for reference. 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 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/16/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/16/2007 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |