Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T06CM05090
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/16/2007 | SUZANNE BOHNET | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: January 19, 2007 FROM: Suzanne Bohnet, CFM Engineering Division SUBJECT: 2552 N. Alvernon Way Seaver Franks New Office Building Site Plan T06CM05090, Grading Plan T06BU02304 (Second 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. Please provide a recorded access easement through the property to the west to ensure permanent access from Alvernon. The letter from the developer as the owner of both parcels does not ensure permanent access in perpetuity. 2. Please provide a recorded access easement through the property to the north that clearly indicates the use, construction and maintenance of the affected area to ensure permanent access. The Letter of Understanding provided with the resubmittal does not ensure permanent access in perpetuity. 3. Please provide truncated domes at the interface between the parking lot and the sidewalk located between the handicapped parking spots on the north side of the proposed structure. 4. Please provide the curb radius and dimensions for all locations, as applicable, or call out as typical. 5. Please revise the note referencing the Grading Plan to read "See Sheets 4 - 6 for Grading and Drainage Information". Grading Plan: 1. The Site Plan states "Existing Chain Link Fence to Remain" for the southern boundary of the proposed development. The Grading Plan states "Existing Chain Link Fence to be removed, Proposed 6' High CMU Screenwall". Additionally, the responses to initial review comments state the CMU wall is to meet the existing chain link fence at the southwest corner. Please revise the Site Plan to be in agreement with the Grading Plan. 2. Please clarify that the designed drainage holes for the block wall are to be located only along the proposed southern wall and not the eastern wall. Drainage Statement: 1. Per Matt Flick, this project does not qualify for an in-lieu-fee for the retention requirements. 2. Please revise the table of Proposed Cumulative Design Flows to show that Watersheds 1 and I are combined and Watersheds 2 and II are combined, removing the reference to Watershed III. 3. Please clarify the statement on page 5 regarding wall openings to include the number of wall openings required for drainage for the south and east walls respectively. 4. Please revise the wall opening calculations in Appendix A to show that CP-I has 6 cfs and CP-II has 1 cfs, adjusting the "Length Required" and "Length Provided" columns accordingly. Please be advised that further review comments are likely once the retention requirements for this lot have been addressed. Furthermore, dependent on the basin's location, be prepared to submit a geotechnical report to ensure the foundations of the existing and proposed structures will not be compromised. 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 |
| 12/18/2006 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 2552 N. Alvernon Way - Office Building T06CM05090 Site Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 18, 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 comment has not been fully addressed. It is not clear how these parcels can work as stand alone parcels. With property lines as shown, the proposed building cannot function as a stand-alone parcel. 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. This comment has not been fully addressed. A recorded legal document with docket and page will need to be provided to Development Services prior to approval of this site plan. If the parcels are to remain separate, then a cross access agreement will be needed for vehicle, pedestrian and parking. 4. This comment has not been fully addressed. Provide a dimension for the radius at the northwest corner of the proposed building. Per D.S. 3-05.2.1.3 this radius is required to be a minimum of eighteen (18) feet. This also applies to the radius located at the southeast corner of the existing building. Provide a fully dimensioned parking layout. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 5. This comment has not been fully addressed. Provide a dimension for the radius at the backup spur. 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 6. This comment has not been fully addressed. Per D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 provide the specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports. 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 7. This comment has not been fully addressed. A recorded legal document with docket and page will need to be provided to Development Services prior to approval of this site plan. Provide a cross access agreement for the proposed entrance onto the property to the north. 8. This comment has not been addressed. 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 9. This comment has not been addressed. This site is functioning as a single site, therefore a building and lot area expansion calculation is required. Provide a building and lot area expansion calculation. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.6 10. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape & grading plan. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Steve Shields, (520) 791-5608 ext. 1180. C:\planning\site\t06cm05090-2nd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 12/19/2006 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See Zoning Comments |
| 12/29/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Verify if the two parcels are going to combined or remain separate, if combined then the landscape plan must verify that entire site meets current minimum requirements. (See Zoning comments 2 & 3). 2. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Revise landscape plans as necessary to comply with changes made to the site plan. Additional parking may be needed. 3. Indicate by detail or spot elevations how landscape areas will be depressed to accept water flow from roofs, PAAL, and parking areas. 4. Within a vehicular use area, 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. Verify the entire vehicle use area meets requirement 5. Additional comments may apply. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/29/2007 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/29/2007 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |