Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T06CM05090
Parcel: 11007412C

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T06CM05090
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/21/2006 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
09/28/2006 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. The following are acceptable types of access to per LUC 3.2.8.2. Verify the site meets criteria:

A. Public street access, which is ingress-egress to a parcel provided by an abutting public street.

B. Private street access, which is ingress-egress to a parcel provided by an abutting private street in which the owner of the parcel has a legal interest to assure perpetual use for access.

C. Access easement, which is ingress-egress to a parcel provided over some other parcel through an area dedicated for such perpetual use. (See zoning comments for additional information)

2. Plant selection for landscaping is from the Drought Tolerant Plant List in Development Standard 9-06.0.Strelitzia reginea, Hedera canariensis, Gelsemium sempervirens, Rhus lancea, and Acacia abyssinica are not on the list choose appropriate plant material.

3. Plants of the same genus and species shall replace protected Native Plants proposed to be removed from site per LUC 3.8.6.3.B. Mitigation trees must be Prosopis velutina which are not of the thornless variety.

4. Add note to landscape plan pertaing to: All disturbed areas 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.

5. Additional comments may apply.
09/29/2006 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
09/29/2006 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: 2552 N. Alvernon Way - Office Building
T06CM05090
Site Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 6, 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 site plan was reviewed for compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.), Land Use Code (LUC) & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003

2. This site contains two (2) separate parcels therefore you will need to show how the parcels can work as stand alone parcels if sold separately or provide a Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property. Copies of the lot combo covenant & tax combo attached.

3. If the parcels are to remain separate, then a cross access agreement will be needed for vehicle, pedestrian and parking.

4. Dimension1 the distance between buildings. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7

5. Provide a fully dimensioned parking layout. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8

6. The typical handicapped and standard parking space detail A sheet 2, dimensions are incorrect: dimension line does not line up with the parking stripe & the depth of the standard parking space is shown as 15.5' with a 2.5' overhang for a total of 18' and the handicapped space has a depth of 20', there is a 2' break in your dimensions. Please revise.

7. Dimension the vehicle overhang at the landscape area to the north and the sidewalk at the south parking spaces

8. Demonstrate how the existing handicapped parking space and access space will work with the proposed ramp at the east end of the north existing parking. It appears that the proposed PAAL is cutting some of the isle off. 2-02.2.1.A.8

9. Provide dimensions on the backup spur. Clarify what the solid dots are at the backup spur. If these are bollards then there is a dimension of 3' required between the backup spur and any obstruction over 6" in height. D.S. 3-05.2.2, D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8

10. Demonstrate how the proposed Class 2 bicycle parking meets the requirement for the "TWO-POINT SUPPORT SYSTEM" per D.S. 2-09.2.3, Supplement 9. Also demonstrate how the layout for both Class 1 & 2 meet D.S. 2-09.5.0, Supplement 9. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9

11. Provide existing SVT's on the plan. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.10

12. Provide a cross access agreement for the proposed entrance onto the property to the north.

13. It appears that the pedestrian/access route to Alvernon Way, south of the existing building has a width of less then 4'. Provide dimensions to all sidewalks to clarify this route. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12

14. It appears that there is a new Handicapped curb access ramp being added at the east end of the north existing parking. Clarify if this ramp is new or existing. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12

15. If applicable provide the location, type, size and height of existing and proposed signage. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13

16. Per LUC 3.4.4.1.B.2 on a project containing more than one building, loading spaces shall be provided for each building. Revise plans to show two (2) 12'X35' loading zones. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14, D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.5

17. If applicable show all easements of record graphically on the plan along with recordation information, docket and page. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20

18. If applicable provide the existing and proposed lighting layout and type. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.25

19. The existing and proposed building square footage numbers to not match. Under the NOTES AND CALCULATIONS 2. Building 1 (Exist) shows 5,129 and under 5. Parking and loading space calculations the Existing Office Building shows 5,000 and on the site plan the building square footage is called out as 5,000, clarify. Under the NOTES AND CALCULATIONS 2. Building 2 (Proposed) shows 5,803 and under 5. Parking and loading space calculations the New Office Building shows 5,898 and on the site plan the building square footage is called out as 5,643, clarify. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.2

20. The parking calculation is incorrect. The existing building requires 25 parking spaces not 30 as shown on plan. The new building requires 30 parking spaces not 24 as shown on the plan. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4

21. Provide a building and lot area expansion calculation. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.6

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Steve Shields,
(520) 791-5608 ext. 1180.

C:\planning\site\t06cm05090.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents
10/06/2006 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied See zoning comments
10/18/2006 SUZANNE BOHNET ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: October 18, 2006
FROM: Suzanne Bohnet, CFM
Engineering Division

SUBJECT: 2552 N. Alvernon Way
Seaver Franks New Office Building
Site Plan T06CM05090, Grading Plan T06BU02304 (First Review)

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan, Grading Plan and Drainage Statement.

The Site Plan, Grading Plan and Drainage Statement cannot be approved as submitted. Please include a response letter to the comments below along with the corrected copies of the Site Plan, Grading Plan and Drainage Statement with your next submittal.

Site Plan:
1. Some of the below comments apply to the Grading Plan as well and are repeated in the Grading Plan comments.
2. Per the comment from Zoning re: the lots remaining as separate lots or combining into one lot - If remaining separate, please provide an access easement for the proposed access from Alvernon.
3. Please provide an access easement for the proposed ingress/egress on the northern property boundary through the drive of the Shalom House that clearly indicates the use, construction and maintenance of the affected area.
4. Please clearly indicate on both the Site Plan and the Grading Plan proposed changes to adjacent lots.
5. Please change the symbol as shown in the legend for the proposed 6" curb to make it more visible on the Site Plan and Grading Plan or call it out more often with Keynotes and arrows.
6. Please revise Keynote No. 3 to read "striped" rather than "stripped".
7. Truncated domes are required on all sidewalk ramps where the interface of the pavement or vehicle use area and the pedestrian area do not have a vertical separation. The area where the truncated domes are required is 6 inches back from the interface, a minimum 2 feet deep and extending the width of the interface. The proposed curb access ramps do not appear to have this configuration. Please revise the Site Plan or add a detail for clarity.
8. The legend symbol for curb access ramps is not consistent with what is shown on the Site or the Grading Plan. Please revise.
9. Please verify if the curb access ramp noted on the Site Plan south of the existing building is existing or proposed.
10. Please show the refuse enclosure on the Site Plan and Grading Plan drawn to scale.
11. Please demonstrate maneuverability for the loading zone and the refuse enclosure.
12. Please provide the curb radius for all proposed turns.
13. Please provide the existing and future sight visibility triangles (SVT) for the drive at Alvernon Way.
14. Please provide existing contours or existing spot elevations and the proposed finished grade by spot elevations on the Site Plan. This information is required on the Site Plan as well as on the Grading Plan.
15. Please provide drainage flow arrows to demonstrate drainage. This information is required on the Site Plan as well as on the Grading Plan.
16. Please provide the estimated cut and fill quantities, listed separately in measurements of cubic yards, even if the quantity is zero. This information is required on the Site Plan as well as on the Grading Plan.
17. The Site Plan and the Grading Plan call for two different sidewalk widths within the property. Please clarify.
18. The Site Plan calls out a new block wall on the eastern boundary. It appears it extends to the southern boundary, which is also calling out an existing chain link fence to remain. Please verify if the block wall is to extend along the southern boundary.
19. The block wall on the Site Plan does not call out drainage holes as shown on the Grading Plan for the eastern boundary. Also, the southern block wall does not call out drainage holes on either plan. Please revise.
20. Please address the proposed block wall in the Drainage Statement to ensure there is no conflict with the proposed developed conditions drainage plan.
21. Please call out the Q100 discharge on both the Site Plan and the Grading Plan per the respective legends.
22. Please clarify the purpose and detail of the parallel north-south lines located west of the proposed building in the proposed sidewalk.
23. The Grading Plan and the Site Plan are not in agreement with the locations of the proposed water harvesting. Please revise.


Grading Plan:
1. Keynote Nos. 6 and 9 are not called out on the Grading Plan. Please revise.
2. Detail L is not called out on the Grading Plan but it is referenced by Keynote No. 13. The proposed location does not indicate the riprap as shown in Section A-A. Please revise.
3. Please explain the purpose of a concrete valley gutter through the landscape buffer area.
4. The location of the concrete valley gutter conflicts with the proposed developed drainage plan in the Drainage Statement. Please verify and revise as necessary.
5. After review, if the concrete valley gutter is part of the plan, please add it to the Site Plan.
6. Please clearly indicate on both the Site Plan and the Grading Plan proposed changes to adjacent lots.
7. Please change the symbol as shown in the legend for the proposed 6" curb to make it more visible on the Site Plan and Grading Plan or call it out more often with Keynotes and arrows.
8. Truncated domes are required on all sidewalk ramps where the interface of the pavement or vehicle use area and the pedestrian area do not have a vertical separation. The area where the truncated domes are required is 6 inches back from the interface, a minimum 2 feet deep and extending the width of the interface. The proposed curb access ramps do not appear to have this configuration. Please revise the Grading Plan or add a detail for clarity.
9. Please show the refuse enclosure on the Site Plan and Grading Plan drawn to scale.
10. The legend symbol for curb access ramps is not consistent with what is shown on the Site or the Grading Plan. Please revise.
11. The Site Plan and the Grading Plan call for two different sidewalk widths within the property. Please clarify.
12. The Site Plan calls out a new block wall on the eastern boundary. It appears it extends to the southern boundary, which is also calling out an existing chain link fence to remain. Please verify if the block wall is to extend along the southern boundary.
13. Please address the proposed block wall in the Drainage Statement to ensure there is no conflict with the proposed developed conditions drainage plan.
14. Please call out the Q100 discharge on both the Site Plan and the Grading Plan per the respective legends.
15. The drainage arrow flows as shown on the Grading Plan do not match the Drainage Statement for the discharge of Basins I and 1. Please verify.
16. The Grading Plan and the Site Plan are not in agreement with the locations of the proposed water harvesting. Please revise.
17. The legend symbol for existing elevation is shown as in parentheses. Please revise the symbol for the existing elevations as needed.
18. Please identify "FL" in the legend.
19. Please clarify the purpose and detail of the parallel north-south lines located west of the proposed building in the proposed sidewalk.

Drainage Statement:
1. Per the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (SMDDFM) Chapter 14.2.1:

"Retention requirements apply to any commercial or industrial development on a site or lot
larger than one standard acre in size, and to any lot subdivided since September 4, 1984, from
a lot larger than one standard acre in size."

The subject lot was split on January 30, 1991 from an original lot size of 1.07 acre. Therefore, 5-year threshold retention is required for the proposed development. Please revise the Drainage Statement to reflect the 5-year threshold retention. Appendix A of the Water Harvesting Guidance Manual offers techniques to help with this requirement.

2. Please revise statement 1.4.3 on page 2 accordingly.

3. The Site Plan and Grading Plan call out a block wall on the eastern and, apparently, southern boundaries of the subject lot. The Grading Plan calls out drainage holes. Please discuss the proposed wall in the Drainage Statement.

4. The Grading Plan calls for a concrete valley gutter with drainage flow arrows showing drainage from Basin 1, as discussed in the Drainage Statement, to be directed along the eastern boundary to the northern parking lot and then offsite via the drive to the north. Please address this in the Drainage Statement, revising the developed conditions drainage proposal (Basins 1 and I combining and draining through the existing drive to the west to Alvernon directly) accordingly.

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

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
10/31/2006 GERARDO BONILLA OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
10/31/2006 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed