Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T07CM00265
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/07/2007 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/08/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Bilby Industrial T07CM00265 Site Plan (3rd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 8, 2007 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. None of the following comments have be complied with. Please submit a revised site plan along with a response letter. 1. This site plan was reviewed for compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC) for full code compliance. 2. The provided CC&Rs appear only to address cross access. Per the architectural site plan the only common area that is shown is parking area access lanes (PAAL's). Clarify how this document addressed the requirement for cross parking. Cross access & parking agreements are required and must be recorded at the Pima County Recorders office prior to site plan approval. 3. Zoning acknowledges that a lot split has been started (S07-059) but at this time has not been completed. Zoning cannot approve this site plan until the lot split is finalized. Provide documentation, which supports the lot split/lot line realignment, which was done on the property in late 2006. There also appears to be two (2) different property lines to the south of the proposed building, clarify. 4. It is unclear how the accessible route functions. How does a handicapped person access the sidewalks at both ends of the crosswalk? D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 Per D.S. 2-08.3.0 a pedestrian circulation/accessible route is required to connect all public access areas of the development to the pedestrian circulation path located in adjacent street. 5. Revise the specification for Detectable warnings to conform to ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 705. Also the detectable warnings shown on the handicapped detail are incorrect. The detectable warnings shall be twenty-four (24) inches minimum in the direction of travel and extend the full width of the curb ramp or flush surface. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 Detectable warnings (truncated domes) will be required at all curb access ramps. ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13 6. If public access is allowed along the PAAL and the parking area located south of the existing building then this sidewalk is required to meet D.S. 2-08.4.1, clarify. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 It appears that the concrete apron which connects to the sidewalk provide along the west side of the proposed building. The concrete apron appears to be flush with the pavement. Clarify how the sidewalk works with the apron. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1 Sidewalks must be physically separated from any vehicle travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings, or other means. 7. Per the Development Data, sheet T-1, provided with the building plan submittal no existing use is shown. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.31 Show the existing use on the plan. 8. The offstreet parking calculation is still confusing as the Development Data, sheet T-1, provided is the T-1 submitted with the building plan and has not been revised. Also based on the provided last approved site plan for Lot 1 193 vehicle parking spaces are required. Based on a 50,625 square foot building and a use of General Manufacturing, the required parking for Lot 2 is 101 vehicle parking spaces for a total required of 294. This project does not qualify for an MS&R reduce based on LUC Sec 2.8.3.5.D.1.d., no dedication of right-of-way ROW is proposed. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 The off street parking calculation is confusing. It appears that "LOT 2 PROVIDED" should read "LOT 2 REQUIRED" Provide the required and provided for each individual lot. Provide the last approved site plan for lot one so that required parking can be verified. Based on the drawings provided there is no MS&R reduction available for lot 2. Existing ½ right of way (ROW) is forty (40) feet and the future ½ ROW is shown at thirty-two (32) feet. It also appears that you are using LUC Sec 2.8.3.5.D.1.d for the proposed reduction. This project does not meet the requirements of LUC Sec 2.8.3.5.D.1.d. Once the parking calculation is clarified Zoning will be able to verify the bicycle parking calculation. 9. Demonstrate how this project complies with the requirements of LUC Sections 2.8.5.5.B & 2.8.5.11. 10. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape & grading plan. 11. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 C:\planning\site\t07cm00267-2nd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 06/08/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See Zoning Comments |
| 06/08/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | The landscape plan has been reviewed by the Landscape Section but cannot approve the plan until all Zoning, comments, concerns, and appropriate revisions have been addressed. Additional parking may be required (See Zoning comments pertaining to parking calculations). 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 & grading plan. |
| 06/15/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 14, 2007 SUBJECT: Bilby Industrial Site Plan- 3rd Engineering Review TO: MPE: Attn: Lisa Bowers LOCATION: 2622 E Bilby Rd, T15S R14E Sec08, Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T07CM00265 (Site Plan) and T07BU00156 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised site plan (T07CM00265), grading plan (T07BU00156), Drainage Report (CMG Drainage Engineering, LLC, dated 24APR07), Phase I Drainage Report (CMG Drainage Engineering, LLC, dated 12MAY04), Geotechnical Addendum (Western Technology, Inc., dated 16APR07), Declaration and Establishment of Protective Covenants, Conditions, and Restriction (Docket 13029, Page 5355) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The site plan, grading plan, and SWPPP are not approved at this time. Please address the following comments: DRAINAGE REPORT: 1) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise the grading plan and proposed site plan to provide the required 2-feet setback from all property boundaries to the proposed limits of grading, existing and constructed basin fill slopes, retaining walls, and associated erosion protection. The grading plan, site plan, and drainage report details show that the top of fill slope, proposed retaining wall (located along the southern property line), and the basin spillway encroaches within the required 2-feet setback. Provide sufficient room to allow for the 2-feet setback from property lines to the proposed limits of grading, proposed basin fill slopes, retaining walls, and associated erosion protection. 2) DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1: For this project, there may be a potential for integrity of the proposed pavement and sidewalk foundation to be undermined from the potential saturation with this type of flood restraining system. The design does not meet the technical requirements and guidelines for basin design. Revise Detail 16 on sheet C4, cross section C-C on Figure 4 in the drainage report and the retaining wall system proposed for the basin. Design will not be accepted due to various engineering considerations including the potential leaking and failure of the system from break down of grout and the decay of the wall over time from poor maintenance, erosion, permeability issues and collapsibility of soils in any combination flood restraining, soil retaining systems. DSD Engineering will accept alternate designs that meet the basin configuration standards, such as a retaining wall system design that provides positive drainage away from the retaining system where an earthen slope is constructed on the inside of the basin wall to prevent ponding of water along the retaining wall." Verify that the basin still meets the retention threshold volume requirements SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 3) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5: Provide a notarized signed letter from the adjacent property owner for the use of the proposed offsite detention basin B and all drainage improvements located on Lot 1. All offsite drainage improvements on adjacent properties require a signed written agreement from the owner and adjacent property owner for offsite improvements. The submitted CC&Rs do not address the offsite detention basin B or existing storm drain usage or their maintenance. Provide a signed notarized agreement or clearly state the page, section, and paragraph within the CC&Rs that addresses offsite storm drains, allowed usage, and basin maintenance. Provide an exhibit that includes these areas within the common area (PAAL cross access agreement only) as stated. 4) DS 2-02.2.1.8 & DS 3-05.2.3.C: Revise detail 1 for the typical parking spaces along the south property line to correctly dimensioned the required 2.5-foot distance as per DS 3-05. The point of tangent for the offset 2.5 over hang seems to be incorrect, please clarify. Provide the wall location on the detail to verify that the 2.5 setback has been accurately meet. 5) DS Sec2-02.2.1.A.12: Provide calculations and documentation to show that the north side of Ganley Road meets the "established area" criteria within the LUC (Sec.6.2.5) in order to qualify for the proposed exemption per DS Sec.3-01.3.3.A.7. 6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Verify on the site plan that the existing handicap access ramps located on the existing 6-foot wide sidewalk are constructed with truncated domes to meet ANSI requirements A117.1-2003 Section 406.13. 7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise detail 5 on sheet C4 to correctly show the truncated domes located at the transition of the pedestrian use area to the vehicular use area. Truncated domes located along the slope of the ramp do not satisfy ANSI requirements. 8) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Provide flow arrows and locations for all roof down spouts on the site plan. Even if the runoff does not cross a pedestrian circulation area flow arrows for roof drainage must be accurately shown on the site plan for verification. If down spouts are located anywhere along a pedestrian circulation provide a revised statement within the drainage report with calculations and scupper details stating that the 10-year flow will be contained under the pedestrian circulation at all concentrated locations. 9) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise the grading plan to show that the minimum percent slope (0.5%) for the basin bottom to assure positive drainage to the basin outlet and bleeder pipe to prevent standing water and mosquito infestation. 10) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise the site plan and detail 14 to show the adjacent property line and the required 2-foot setback that is required from the property line to the top of fill slope. Provide a cutoff wall on the upstream end of the rock riprap to prevent erosion and undercutting of the proposed basin outlet spillway. 11) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.20: Provide the recordation information for the proposed 10-foot U.G. Electrical easement that is located within the southern vehicular use area. 12) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Revise detail 2 on sheet C4 to provide the minimum inside clear dimension of 10 feet by 20 feet between steel pipes that are required between the container and the enclosure's rear and sidewall (refer to redlines on sheet C4 for further clarification). 13) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Provide the location of the trash enclosure for Lot 2. The proposed trash enclosures shown on C1 are located on Lot 1. The CC&Rs do not address the cross access for trash enclosures or refuse pickup. The common area described within the CC&Rs are only for the cross access agreement for PAAL usages not for refuse pickup or locations. 14) Approval from TDOT Permits and Codes for all improvements within the public right-of-way will be required. A right-of-way use permit application will be required prior to construction. Contact Steve Tineo at 741-3115 for all right-of-way requirements and permit applications. GRADING PLAN: Be advised that the grading plan can not be approved prior to site plan approval. All comments associated with the site plan must be submitted for review and the site plan must be approved prior to grading plan approval. 15) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise the grading plan and proposed site plan to provide the required 2-feet setback from all property boundaries to the proposed limits of grading, existing and constructed basin fill slopes, retaining walls, and associated erosion protection. The grading plan, site plan, and drainage report details show that the top of fill slope, proposed retaining wall (located along the southern property line), and the proposed outlet spillway for the existing basin encroaches within the required 2-feet setback. Provide sufficient room to allow for the 2-feet setback from property lines to the proposed limits of grading, proposed basin fill slopes, retaining walls, and associated erosion protection, or show construction easements granting permission from adjacent property owners for the construction of the improvements. 16) DS Sec.10-02.10.9.1.8: Revise detail 1A on sheet C3 to be storm drain specific, the detail is for a sewer clean out. Revise the site plan or grading plan to match the requirements within the proposed drainage report that shows how the 18" CMP storm drain connects to the existing 24" CMP storm drain, provide a detail for the manhole. The detail and storm drain connection is not utility related therefore should not be located on the utility sheet but on the grading plan sheet which serves as the construction document. Revise accordingly. 17) DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1: For this project, there may be a potential for integrity of the proposed pavement and sidewalk foundation to be undermined from the potential saturation with this type of flood restraining system. The design does not meet the technical requirements and guidelines for basin design. Revise Detail 16 on sheet C4, cross section C-C on Figure 4 in the drainage report and the retaining wall system proposed for the wall. Design will not be accepted due to various engineering considerations including the potential leaking and failure of the system from break down of grout and the decay of the wall over time from poor maintenance, erosion, permeability issues and collapsibility of soils in any combination flood restraining, soil retaining systems. DSD Engineering will accept alternate designs that meet the basin configuration standards, such as a retaining wall system design that provides positive drainage away from the retaining system where an earthen slope is constructed on the inside of the basin wall to prevent ponding of water along the retaining wall." Verify that the basin still meets the retention threshold volume requirements. 18) Provide cross section for both driveway egress and ingress. Cross section must represent the plan view dimensions and percent cross slopes. Verify that the cross sections match the last submitted drainage report. 19) Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site and grading plan. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN COMMENTS: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP according to the following comment: 20) CGP Part IV.C.3.c: Revise the SWPPP Exhibit to include the proposed spillway within the grading limits. Spillway is part of proposed construction yet is shown outside of the grading limits and does not match the location on the site/grading plan. SWPPP exhibit must include all areas of soil disturbance and points of stormwater and non-storm water discharge. 21) CGP Part IV.F: Include a copy of the signed NOI as part of the SWPPP. The submitted NOI was not signed by the owner/operator and is required prior to SWPPP approval. 22) CGP Part IV.J.1: Provide the signature for the owner and operator for the SWPPP certification. If the operator or contractor is not known at this time that section may be filled out on site, however since the owner of the property is known they must sign the owner certification within the SWPPP prior to approval. 23) The revised SWPPP and Exhibit must match the revised grading plan and provide stormwater controls over the entire proposed project site. Specifically the proposed spillway location. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan, a revised grading plan, a revised drainage addendum to the proposed report, and a revised SWPPP 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, grading plan, drainage addendum and SWPPP. Please enclose "redlines" with the resubmittal package for reference. For any questions or to schedule a meeting, call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/19/2007 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 06/19/2007 | CINDY AGUILAR | REJECT SHELF | Completed |