Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T06CM05594
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/05/2007 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/11/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See Zoning Comments |
| 06/11/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: American Home Furnishings - Warehouse Expansion T06CM05594 Site Plan (3rd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 11, 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. This site plan was reviewed for full code compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC) due to an expansion of greater then 25% of building/structure area. 2. Provide the recorded documentation for the following requirements. It appears that this project is comprised of four (4) different parcels. Prior to approval of the site plan the parcels will need to be combined. Provide a Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property. 3. Zoning acknowledges the future curb and setback dimension shown for Prince Road. Provide a dimension from the back of curb or edge of travel lane for Weymouth Street. If this setback is based on the edge of travel lane provide a street cross section for Weymouth. Zoning acknowledges that the required setbacks along Prince Road will be provided on the plan once the location of the future curb is determined. Zoning was not able to find the setback dimension to Weymouth Street. Based on the provided building height of 50'-2" it does not appear that the proposed structure will meet setbacks. LUC 3.2.6.5.B.1 & D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 Provide the required building setbacks from Prince Road and Weymouth Street. This set back is based on the location of the existing or future curb along Prince Road and Weymouth Street. Future curb needs to be shown along Prince Road and then the required setback dimensioned from the back of future curb. Label the future and existing curb along both Prince Road and Weymouth Street. If the future and existing curb are one in the same label the curb as existing & future. The setback for both Prince Road and Weymouth Street is 21' or the height of the building which ever is greatest. The required setback can not be determined until the height of the proposed addition is provided on the plan, see comment 3. Be aware that a future taper is planned for this area, see engineering comments. The east setback and setback line shown is incorrect. Per LUC 3.2.6.4 I1 to I1 zone requires a 0 setback. 4. The truncated domes are not show correctly on the handicapped parking space detail, revise. Also, Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 502.5 show the maximum surface slopes for the handicapped parking space and access aisle. Zoning acknowledges the provided details for both handicapped and standard parking spaces. On the detail provide a dimension for the location of the wheel stop. Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13 show the required detectable warnings (truncated domes) on the handicapped detail and on the plan for all other curb access ramps. Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 502.5 show the maximum surface slopes for the handicapped parking space and access aisles. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Fully dimension the parking layout. Provide typical details for both handicapped and standard parking spaces. 5. This comment was not addressed. See the revised Development Standards 2-09. Per Keynote 18A "PROPOSED CLASS 2 BICYCLE PARKING POST TO REMAIN UNCHANGED (SEE DETAIL F, SHEET 2), it is unclear how PROPOSED can remain unchanged, please clarify. As this project is full code compliance the existing and proposed bicycle parking is required to meet current code. See revised DS (Development Standard) 2-09. Per DS 2-09.4.1 Class 2 bicycle parking facilities will be located no more than fifty (50) feet from the main building entrance(s) and will be along the front side of the building as well as along other sides of the building that has an entrance. Bicycle access through the development will be separate from the pedestrian ways. Vehicular access may be used as bicycle access. Bicycle access to a parking facility may cross a pedestrian way at a right angle (DS2-09.3.2). Multiple rack bicycle parking require a minimum thirty (30) inches between outer spaces of posts or racks (DS 2-09.5.1.A). Please review the revised DS 2-09 and provide the necessary corrections to the bicycle parking as required. Once changes are provided and reviewed further comments may result. The revised Development Standards may be found on the web at: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Codes___Ordinances/DevStd209.pdf D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 Provide off-street bicycle parking, including material for lighting, paving, and security; fully dimensioned layout; location; specific type of rack and the number of bicycles is supports; and the location and type of directional signage if required. 6. If the DSMR is approved, provide the DSMR number, date of approval, and any conditions, which may be required by the DSMR on the plan. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 & D.S. 2-08.4.1.B A sidewalk will be provided adjacent and parallel to any PAAL on the side where a building is located. There is no sidewalk shown on the south side of the proposed addition and at appears that there is not enough room to provide a sidewalk around the southeast corner of the building. 7. This comment was not addressed. Show the required truncated domes at the existing handicapped ramps and all existing curb access ramps. Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13 show the required detectable warnings (truncated domes) at all curb access ramps (existing & proposed) D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 & D.S. 2-08.1 An accessible route is required from the main entrance of the building to the sidewalk in the right-of-way along Prince Road. There is a sidewalk shown with a crosswalk across the PAAL and then a sidewalk out to Prince Road. There are no curb access ramps or areas that indicate that the sidewalk is flush with the pavement, therefore it is unclear where the accessible route is located, clarify. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\site\t06cm05494-3rd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 06/18/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise the landscape plan to show the locations and the height of any proposed or required screens per DS 2-07.A.3. 2. Include inside dimensions or details of planter 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. Some planters within vehicle use area appear not to meet requirements. 3. Landscaping is required along retention basin side slopes, bottom and periphery. Plant materials used in basins shall withstand periodic inundation. A minimum of 20 trees per acre must be provided, 33% of tress shall be 24" box or larger. A minimum of 2 shrubs for each tree is required per DS 10.01. Verify by calculation that the basin meets requirements. 4. Include with re-submittal DSMR approval documentation. Indicate on the lower right hand corner of the site plan, the case number, date of approval, and any conditions imposed. 5. Note: The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan. 6. Additional comments may apply |
| 07/06/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: July 4, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06CM05594 PROJECT NAME: American Home Furnishings PROJECT ADDRESS: 2020 West Prince Road PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert, Engineering Associate The following items must be revised or added to the site plan. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: SITE PLAN DRAINAGE REPORT IS CONDITIONALLY APPROVED FOR SITE PLAN PURPOSES ONLY RESUBMITTAL OF THE DRAINAGE REPORT WILL BE REQUIRED DURING THE FIRST SUBMITTAL OF THE GRADING PLAN. SEE DRAINAGE COMMENTS BELOW. COMMENTS MUST BE ADDRESSED FOR GRADING SUBMITTAL. 1. DSMR case number provided in general note 30 is not correct. The DSMR case number should read exactly as follows, DS07-13. 2. Remove all references to "future" for Weymouth Street. This is a local street that is not subject to future widening. If the reference to "future" is to indicate proposed infrastructure, change the verbiage "future" to "proposed." 3. Provide future SVTs for both entrance / exit drives to Prince Road. The stem side is measured from the future curb location. (see comment 5) DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. 4. Clearly indicate on the plan the datum used for the FFE. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. The above comment is from the first review and this office acknowledges the basis of elevation has been provided. However due to the fact this property is subject to floodplain requirements it must be clearly indicated on the site plan if the FFE is in NGVD 1929 or NAVD 1988. Provide on sheet 1A adjacent to the provided FFE within the footprint of the addition which datum the FFE is based on. 5. The future curb location is not in the correct location. This office acknowledges the road plans for Prince Rd. are currently in progress. Given the situation provide the future curb and sidewalk location per the Major Street and Route plan. For a future ROW width of 120' a 9' sidewalk area measured from the future ROW line is required. Dimension and label from the street centerline of Prince Road to the future curb and sidewalk location. Please leave the provided ADOT ROW information for Prince Rd. on the plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.19. 6. Provide the datum for the benchmark, general note number 6. DS 2-02.2.1.A.23. The above comment is from the previous review. General note number 6 references FEMA and COT, which have different datums. When comparing the contours provided on the site plan to the contours found on the Department of Transportation Mapping site it appears the provided datums are in NAVD 1988. For clarity indicate the datum used for the contours general note 6; either NGVD 1929 or NAVD 1988. 7. Provide a copy of the original elevation certificate for American Home Furnishings. 8. Cross section C found on sheet 3 indicates an existing building. The building is the proposed addition. Revise the verbiage to indicate "proposed building addition." 9. Indicate if the electrical easement found in keynote 25 is public or private. DS 2-02.2.1.A.20. 10. Show the slope in cross section B found on sheet 3. 11. Indicate if the easements shown on sheet 7 and detailed in the keynote are public or private. DS 2-02.2.1.A.20. 12. A security barrier is required at the top of all basins with a 4:1 slope with water depths greater than 2'. Show on the plan a security barrier for the basin. Revise the site and landscape plan as requested. 13. The sidewalk located on the east and south side of the proposed addition must be flood free for up to a ten-year event. Show locations of downspouts, gutters and scuppers to alleviate potential flooding for the ten-year event. DS 2-08.4.0. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. Provide calculations for how the total volume of 86,713 was obtained. 2. Provide details of the basin and all drainage structures. 3. There is general concern that when the Rail Road is improved, the drainage swale that receives the stormwater from the basin will no longer exist after improvements are complete. Provide confirmation the drainage swale will still exist otherwise provide redesign of an alternate solution. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/17/2007 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/17/2007 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |