Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T06CM05099
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/21/2006 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Additional fire hydrants required, per C.O.T. amendments to the 2003 IFC, Section 508.5.1. If crash gates restrict fire department access, verify compliance with C.O.T. amendments to the 2003 IFC, Sections 503.6.1 and 503.6.2 |
| 10/02/2006 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: T06CM05099 6360 S. Tucson Blvd. Site Plan TRANSMITTAL: 10/05/06 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. Note: The definition of Commercial Storage per LUC Sec. 6.3.11.2 is as follows: Commercial Storage is the keeping of trade and personal goods by business and industrial establishments. Typical uses include cold storage plants, warehouses, and utility storage yards. The definition of Personal Storage per LUC Sec. 6.3.11.4 is as follows: Personal Storage is the renting or leasing of space for storage of personal effects. Typical uses include multiple unit storage facilities or miniwarehouses. Based on the definitions above, the design of the project as submitted, and the parking calculations provided staff has determined the use of this project is "Personal Storage Use" not "Commercial Storage" as submitted. Personal storage is a use which is not allowed in the PI zone. A redesign of the project will be required or a rezoning of the property can be applied for. The following comments have been provided as guide line in order to help you in the redesign of the project if the use is to remain as Commercial Storage. Based on changes to plan additional comments may be forth coming. 1. DS 2-02.2.1.2 The legal description provided is incorrect. See Pima County Assessors records for the correct description which may change after the required lot combination (see following comment). A lot combination and lot combination covenant will be required. Documents can be obtained at DSD for the lot combination and lot combination covenant. 2. DS 2-02.2.1.4 The location map provided has the wrong township, range and section numbers indicated as well as section corners. Revise. 3. DS 2-02.2.1.6 Provide dimensions and heights of all proposed structures on each foot print on the site plan. 4. DS 2-02.2.1.7 Provide the required setbacks either from property line or future curb, which ever applies, for all structures. 5. DS 2-02.2.1.8 The parking calculations provided for the "Commercial Storage" use indicated are incorrect. See LUC Sec. 3.3.4 Storage Use Group. See later comments regarding uses. The "Parking Lot" use located in the northeast corner of the property appears to be part of the storage use area by being fenced with the only access point being through the "crash gate". A parking lot must have access to the general public at all times. If the "parking lot" is part of the storage use see LUC Sec. 3.5.10.1 and 3.5.5.1.H (which are subject to: sections for Commercial Storage in a PI zone) for restrictions and clearly indicate how this site meets those requirements. The parking spaces along the north side of the "parking lot" appear to be extra long (27'). It appears these spaces are for some type of storage. Clearly indicate what the use of these spaces are intended for. See LUC Sec. 3.3.7.2. Minimum width of a PAAL behind 90 degree parking spaces is 24'. The 24' required does not include the required 5" pedestrian refuge area. Incorrect at the west sides of buildings 16 and 17. On parking spaces which have a vertical surface within 2' of the parking space side, the parking space is then required to be 10' in width. Provide dimensions from the edge of the parking spaces to any vertical surface which appears to be close to the required 2' or provide a 10' wide parking space. (handicap parking space north of bldg. 17, parking spaces north and south of bldg. 16, parking space north of bldg. 14 against fence, etc.) Provide a detail of the required van accessible handicap parking space. Indicate location of the van accessible parking space on the site plan. The handicap sign indicated on detail T of 4 does not have the correct wording. I have attached to the plans a copy of the correct wording. The minimum distance from grade to the bottom of the sign as per City of Tucson standards is 7'. Revise. 6. DS 2-02.2.1.The changes required to the parking calculations will affect the number of required and type of bicycle parking spaces. See DS 2-09 (Sup. #34) and LUC Sec.3.3.4 for number and design criteria for bicycle parking requirements. Provide location and detail for any required Class 1 bicycle parking spaces. 7. DS 2-02.2.1.11 The PAAL widths provided for the Storage Use area do not meet the minimum requirements of LUC 3.3.7.2.C.4. The pedestrian refuge area is separate from the PAAL width requirements. The width of the PAAL's for areas other than the Storage Use area must meet the requirements of DS 3-05. Minimum PAAL width of 24' for two way traffic. Clearly indicate widths of all PAAL's, NE corner of bldg. 15, south side of parking spaces between bldg. 15 &17, etc. DS 3-05.2.2.B3 A minimum distance of two (2) feet must be maintained between a PAAL and any wall, screen, or other obstruction, provided pedestrian activity is directed to another location. Required at the east side of the parking lot, north side of the north entrance PAAL, etc. Clearly indicate how the backspurs provided meet the requirements of DS 3-05.2.2.D. (width, radii, clearances, etc.) 8. DS 2-02.2.1.12 See DS 2-08 for pedestrian circulation requirements for sidewalk locations, sidewalk design criteria, pedestrian refuge areas, accessibility, etc. All areas other than the Storage Use area must provide pedestrian circulation paths to all buildings. A pedestrian circulation path with sidewalks, handicap ramps, cross walks, etc. will be required from Ginter Road connecting to all structures through the parking lot if the parking lot is not considered part of the storage use.. Pedestrian refuge areas with sidewalks will be required adjacent to the buildings between the PAAL and/or parking spaces. Pedestrian circulation paths are not allowed between a parking space and a PAAL serving that space. The minimum width of a sidewalk is 4'. It appears that the tree wells in front of building #14 will limit the sidewalk to less than this requirement. Access ramps at crosswalks connecting to sidewalks must be provided. In addition Truncated Dome (early warning systems) must be added to all access ramps where transitioning from the pedestrian area to the vehicular use area or at HC access aisles transitioning to the sidewalk area. 9. DS 2-02.2.1.13 The new "billboard" sign as indicated may not be allowed. Provide documentation from the Sign division of DSD indicating approval. Removal of the sign from this plan and a separate permit for the sign is an option. 10. DS 2-02.2.1.14 The number of loading spaces for the Storage Use portion of this site is incorrect. See LUC Sec. 3.4.5 and 3.4.5.2. The required number based on the square footage of storage provided is 3. These can be evenly distributed through out the storage use area. Loading zones must be provided for each building in the Commercial use portion of this site. Based upon LUC Sec. 3.4.5 and 3.4.5.3. See LUC Sec. 3.4.4.1.B.2 for location of loading zones when more than one building is provided on the site. Clearly indicate maneuverability for vehicles in and out of each loading zone. 11. DS 2-02.2.1.19 Provide the future right of way and future curb location for Tucson Blvd. which is on the MS&R map. The future width is 120' with the curb location being 9' in front of the right of way line. 12. If applicable, all easements of record must be graphically shown on the plan together with recording docket and page reference. 13. If applicable, provide existing and proposed lighting layout and type. 14. DS 2-02.2.1.31 List in the proposed use portion of the site plan the subject to: sections of the LUC for each use. 15. DS 2-02.2.2.A.4 The vehicular and bicycle parking calculations will be required to be revised 16. DS 2-02.2.2.A.5 The loading zone calculations for required and provided will be required to be revised. 17. Based on the number of issues involved with this site and the number of comments I would be more than happy to meet with you to discuss these comments and issues. Please call to set an appointment with me. Based on changes to the plan and responses to the above comments additional comments may be forth coming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 791-5550 ext. 2000. TLS C:\planning\cdrc\DSC\T06CM05099.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site, Landscape and NPPO Plans and any additional requested documents |
| 10/05/2006 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | see zoning comments. |
| 10/05/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Verify the calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage of all landscaped areas per DS 2-07.2.2.2.g. Coverage appears to be deficient along Ginter and Wieding Roads. 2. A 6' continuous screen along street frontages must be provided for multiunit and outdoor storage as well as loading zones per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. 3. Include inside dimensions of all planters within vehicle use area on the landscape and site plans. A minimum of 4' in width must be provided for each canopy tree. The measurement is always within the planter area and does not include any material which defines the outer edge of the unpaved area per DS 2-06.3.3.C. 4. Landscaping within parking lots where plants are susceptible to injury by vehicular traffic must be protected by appropriate means, such as curbs, bollards, or low walls per LUC 3.7.2.3.B. Indicate protection for all planters. 5. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans Revise landscape plan as necessary to comply with any changes made to the site plan. 6. Additional comments may apply. |
| 10/06/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/06/2006 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: November 7, 2006 SUBJECT: 6360 S Tucson Blvd- Site Plan Engineering Review TO: Southwestern Consulting Engineers, LLC LOCATION: T15S R14E Sec08, Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T06CM05099 Site Plan SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the site plan (T06CM03798) and drainage report (prepared by CMG Drainage Engineering, Inc.) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan application at this time. The drainage report was reviewed for site plan purposes only. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.4: Revise the location map on Sheet 1 of 5 to provide for conditions within the square mile area shown on the project location map located on Sheet 1, such as subdivisions and major watercourses. Reference recorded subdivision plats by book and page numbers. 2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.10: Revise the existing and future sight visibility triangles (SVTs) shown on plan view for all PAAL access points. Label the SVTs shown for Tucson Blvd to reflect the dimensions for an Arterial Street. Refer to DS Sec3-01.5.1 for sight visibility triangle procedures and criteria. 3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Verify and label the 25-feet radii concrete curbs per City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Detail 213 (PC/COT SD 213) at all of the driveway entrances located on Tucson Blvd. Refer to DS Sec.3-01.3.2.C for street development standards. 4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Depict and label all handicap access ramps, truncated domes are required for all proposed and existing handicap access ramps. 5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.14: Provide the required maneuvering area for all loading zones that are shown on the site plan. Refer to AASHTO for the national standards for turning radii. 6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Provide the dimensioned MS&R right-of-way width for Tucson Blvd. Label both future and existing right-of-way dimensions. 7) Ds Sec.10-02.14.3.3: Revise the access ramp into Basin 2. A minimum 15-foot wide access vehicular ramp is required into the basin. 8) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise the site plan to provide the required 2-feet setback from all property boundaries to the proposed limits of grading, fill slopes, detention/retention basins, and associated erosion protection. The cross-sections shown on Sheet 4 of 5 show that the limits of grading encroach within the required 2-feet setback. Provide sufficient room for both basins to allow for the 2-feet setback from property lines to top of fill slopes and associated erosion protection. 9) Per Division Directive provide a bleeder pipe at the outlet of Basin 2 to ensure positive drainage. All Basins must be designed to eliminate standing water and mosquito infestation. Infiltration test will be required to ensure that the Basin drains under the 12-hour requirement. DRAINAGE REPORT: 10) Revise the drainage report and any necessary changes to the site plan to show that the post developed discharge (Q100) is less than the existing Q100 discharge value. Review of Table 1: Developed Conditions Runoff Summary on Page 9 shows that the post-developed Q100 is greater than the existing Q100. Provide water- harvesting areas with calculations to show that these areas will contain the excess runoff. Consult the Water Harvesting Guidance Manual (Adopted October 18, 2005) for design guidelines. The manual is available online at http://dot.tucsonaz.gov/stormwater/downloads/2006WaterHarvesting.pdf. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 11) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: Provide a Geotechnical Report Evaluation that addresses the following: a) Soils report should provide conformance with DS Section 10-02.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for basin, and provide a discussion of the potential for hydro-collapsible soils and any recommendation for setbacks from building to proposed retention/detention basins, water harvesting basins and constructed channel. b) The soils report shall provide identification / assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas, and state any geotechnical recommendations and whether there are special provisions for the soil preparation for this development. c) Provide slope stability recommendations for any proposed constructed slopes. d) Provide percolation rates for retention/detention basins for 5-year threshold retention. GRADING PLAN: 12) DS Sec.11-01.2.1: A grading permit will be required for this project due to the cut and fill quantities provided on the 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. 13) 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 14) 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, drainage report, and a geotechnical engineering 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, drainage report, and geotechnical report reviews. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/13/2007 | FSANCHE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |