Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T06CM06047
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/03/2007 | SUZANNE BOHNET | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: January 4, 2007 FROM: Suzanne Bohnet, CFM Engineering Division SUBJECT: 3922 N. Mountain Ave. Tu Nidito Site Plan T06CM06047 (First Review) RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan and Hydrology Report. The Site Plan cannot be approved as submitted. A Hydrology Report was not included in this submittal. Please include a response letter to the comments below along with the corrected copies of the Site Plan and a Hydrology Report with your next submittal. Site Plan: 1. Please clarify on the Site Plan what is existing and what is proposed, including paving, parking, curbs, sidewalks, fences, landscape areas and structures. 2. Please provide the dimensions from the street monument line to existing and proposed curbs and sidewalks. 3. The sight visibility triangles (SVT) are measured from the face of curb. Please identify the curb from which the SVT is measured from along Mountain Ave. 4. Please provide the SVT for the intersection of Mountain Ave. and Duke Dr. 5. Please provide a vertical curb and minimum 5' sidewalk for the portion of the property that abuts Duke Dr. 6. Please provide a vertical curb return for both the western and eastern sides of the new drive with a minimum curb return radius of 18' or a standard driveway apron. 7. Curb access ramps are required at all points where a sidewalk intersects a curb (D.S. 3-01.3.3.C). Truncated domes are required on all curb access 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. 8. Please provide two found monuments to tie down the bearings. 9. Please provide a Hydrology Report to determine the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood from which to base the minimum finished floor elevation. 10. Please revise General Note 13 to read that the finished floor elevation is based on an engineering analysis rather than the FEMA panel. The regulatory floodplain this property is located within is locally mapped, not federally mapped. 11. Please revise the note referencing water harvesting to read that all landscape areas will be depressed a maximum 6" for water harvesting. 12. Please call out the landscape areas and/or water harvesting areas as necessary on the site plan. 13. Please provide the drainage flow arrows and finished grades (D.S. 2-02.2.1.16). 14. Please provide the estimated cut and fill quantities, listed separately in measurements of cubic yards, even if the quantity is zero (D.S. 2-02.2.1.17). Please note that if the total fill quantity equals or exceeds 50 cubic yards, a separate Grading Permit and Grading Plan are required. 15. Please label existing topographic contours (D.S. 2-02.2.1.23) and provide the contour interval. 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 |
| 11/30/2006 | SREEVES1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | not a COT job |
| 11/30/2006 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Show location of existing fire hydrants and verify distances are within 300' of all parts of the building, per C.O.T. amendments to the 2003 IFC, Section 508.5.1. Fire department access turnarounds to not appear to meet standards. Installation of fire sprinklers may be considered as a substitute for these requirements |
| 12/14/2006 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: Tu Nidito, Children's Medical Service - 25% expansion new building 3922 N. Mountain Avenue, established Special Exception Use Site plan, 1st review (no development plan required per C. Gross) TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 14, 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 project was reviewed for compliance with the Land Use Code (LUC), Development Standard (DS), American National Standard Institute (ANSI) and International Building Code 2003 (IBC). Specifically, site plan content was reviewed under DS 2-02. This project is being reviewed for full code compliance, as the building expansion proposed is greater than 25% of the overall existing gross floor area. The use is a Special Exception per today's code requirements. The use is a continuation of a medical service reviewed and approved under Board of Adjustment case C10-92-26, which was the equivalent of a Special Exception case under the earlier code. That case allowed for relief from several things, which will be allowed to continue on the site as they were established with the use. The design criteria required for the expansion proposed, however, must be followed or new variances obtained. A site plan was accepted for this submittal - rather than a development plan per Special Exception process requirements - as the use of the site is not changing and a site plan was reviewed for the original project in 1992. PLEASE PROVIDE A COPY OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION LETTER THAT OUTLINES THE VARIANCES GRANTED AND CONDITIONS REQUIRED. Please list these items exactly per the variance memo on the plan. 2. Please increase the type size on the plan to a minimum o 12 point for microfilming. 3. Per DS 2-02.2.1.6, list heights of ext. building walls and roofs from grade, and advise of extent of roof overhangs, post location for porches and vertical clearance of sidewalks under porches, and specific use for each building. (Specify in height notes that height is taken from grade to top of roof - and from grade to top of wall) 4. Per DS 2-02.2.1.7, please revise required minimum setback notes to read the greater of 10' or ¾ of the height of the exterior building wall for the south, north and east property lines. For the west street front property line, the building setback is the greater of 20' or 1.5 times the height of the exterior building wall, as this portion of Mountain is not a Major Streets and Routes. Please revise the notes. I would like to acknowledge there are no setback issues with the new building. 5. Per DS 2-02.2.18., with regards to parking - A) On the last approved site plan, parking was provided in the front off Mountain and on the submitted site plan there is no parking up front, but a driveway. Clarify what the purpose of the driveway is for - drop off? If parking, demonstrate with dimensions. B) I recommend providing a stronger divider -wall or bollards -from a parking space to the playground - safer. The vehicle overhang into the playground should also be noted. C) Vehicle overhang appears to interfere with pedestrian access width of 4' at east handicapped ramp. Show overhang measurement and that sidewalk is 4' wide. D) In the east parking area, dimension the back up spur at the west end. 3' needed min. E) The parking space abutting the wall at the west end of the parking lot must be 10' wide. F) What is masonry infill in the parking lot? 6. Per DS 2-02.2.1.9, with regards to bicycle parking - A) I see your calculations, thank you. Please clarify that you are providing 2 spaces for each type of bicycle parking (not 1.5 as shown). B) Bicycle parking must be within 50 of entrances, demonstrate and ID entrances. C) Show what material is bicycle parking sitting on, and clearance around the spaces D) Bicycle parking should be more visible from site entrance - see DS 2-09 revisions on internet for details 7. Per DS 2-02.2.1.12, with regards to pedestrian and handicapped access: A) provide sidewalk connection from all streets site bounds B) please provide a different line width and dimensions for all sidewalks, difficult to see them on the plan. C) Please provide truncated domes at the east ramp in a 2 foot strip right before transitioning to PAAL D) Please provide truncated domes at area where handicapped access aisle meets concrete - in a 2' wide strip E) Please add that fine on handicapped sign is $518.00 per TCC. F) Dimension widths of all sidewalks to ensure walls do not interfere with 4' clear width G) Connect sidewalk to buildings too 8. Per DS 2-02.2.1.13, clarify if any free-standing signage is proposed. 9. Per DS 2-02.2.1.14, I have been advised by supervisory staff that a 12x35 loading zone should be provided for the new building per the LUC requirements. The LUC indicates that the GFA for individual buildings is to be taken into account for calculating loading zones. 10. Per DS 2-02.2.1.20, please ensure all easements are on the plan with type and recording information. 11. Per DS 2-02.2.1.25, please clarify if any free-standing lighting is proposed and provide dimensions on pole base and height for vehicle clearance. 12. Per DS 2-02.2.1.32, please ensure you consult John Clark of Environmental Services for refuse pick up and container requirements . He can be reached at 791-3171. 13. Per DS 2-02.2.1.38, list all variances granted as they appear on the Board of Adjustment variance memorandum and any conditions of approval. 14. Per DS 2-02.2.2.A.3, please provide an exact percentage of building expansion and vehicular use area expansion. 15. Depending upon responses provided, further comments may be forthcoming. Should you have any questions on this review, contact me at 520-791-4541x1156 or at my email at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call (520) 791-5608. HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T06CM06047 3922 N. Mountain.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 12/15/2006 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | see zoning review comments please |
| 12/18/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | |
| 12/18/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit Application for Exception; include acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/11/2007 | GERARDO BONILLA | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 01/11/2007 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/11/2007 | GERARDO BONILLA | REJECT SHELF | Completed |