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: SITE
Permit Number - T07CM00470
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/12/2007 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/27/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See Zoning Comments |
| 02/27/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: MER Corporation Expansion T07CM00470 Site Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 27, 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. 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. Provide a copy of the last approved site plans for both properties. The site plan for the northern most property should show the addition of the garage structure shown along the west property line. Addition comments may be forth coming. 3. On a 2005 arial photo of the site, there is a breezeway shown between the southern most existing building and the existing building on the property located to the west. Provide documentation that shows that this breezeway was permitted through the City of Tucson 4. It appears that cross access may be happening between the properties located to the east & west along the north end of the property. If this is the case provide the cross access agreements for review. 5. It appears that this project is comprised of two (2) different parcels. There are two (2) options in regards to utilizing the two (2) parcels as one site. Prior to approval of the site plan provide; 1) A Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property, or 2) Provide a site plan for each parcel that shows how the parcels can stand alone and meet the requirements of the LUC if sold separately along with a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property. 6. All lettering and dimension shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. The keynote callouts do not meet the twelve point requirement. 7. Add a note to the plan stating "THIS SITE PLAN IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OVERLAY ZONES CRITERIA: SEC. 2.8.3, MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE and Sec. 2.8.4, GATEWAY CORRIDOR ZONE". 8. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.4 Provide a location map which meets the minimum requirements of D.S. 2-05.2.1.D, show watercourses, Julian wash runs through the northeastern corner of the section. Include the adjacent section corners on the location map. 9. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6 For all buildings and structures, existing & proposed, provide size, height, use and if applicable overhangs and canopies. 10. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 Per LUC Sec. 3.2.6.5.B the required street setback is twenty-one (21) feet or the height of the proposed building wall (H), measured from the back of future curb, whichever is greater. Show the future curb on the plan and provide dimension from the back of future curb to each building. Once comment 9 is addressed the setback can be verified. Additional comments maybe forth coming. 11. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 The typical parking space detail for the standard vehicle parking space has an incorrect dimension. Per D.S. 3-05.0 Table 1 and LUC Sec. 3.3.7.2.A the minimum width of a vehicle parking space is 8 and one-half (8 ½) feet. Revise the detail. 12. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Per the IBC Sec. 1106.5 for every six or fraction of six accessible parking spaces, at least one shall be a van-accessible parking space. Indicate where the van-accessible parking space is located. The typical detail for the handicapped parking space does not reflect the requirements for a van accessible handicapped space. See ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec 502.2 for the minimum requirements. The detectable warnings are shown incorrectly, See ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec 406.13 for location. 13. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 The handicapped signage detail does not meet the minimum requirements. See attached. 14. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.9 Show the location of the required off-street bicycle parking on the plan. Provide a detail for the required off-street bicycle parking on the plan; including materials for lighting, paving, and security; fully dimensioned layout; specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports; and the location and type of directional signage if required. Additional comments may be forth coming. 15. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.10 Provide sight visibility triangles (SVT's) on the site plan. Additional comments may be forth coming. 16. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11 Provide a dimension for the northeast entrance PAAL. 17. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.11 Provide a dimension for the existing private street/PAAL, located on the property adjacent to the south, which is proposed as access use for this project. 18. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 Provide documentation that allows the south connection to the private street located on the adjacent property. This needs to be a legal document recorded at the Pima County Recorders Office. 19. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 Per the MASTER BLOCK PLAT recorded Book 48 Page 6 there is a 1' WIDE NO ACCESS EASMENT which runs along the entire east property line of both parcels of this proposed project and the parcel to the south. This said provide documentation that allows the access from the existing private street/PAALto Kolb Road. 20. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 Per IBC Sec. 1106.6 the handicapped parking spaces need to be dispersed among the existing and proposed buildings. 21. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.A provide a sidewalk from the proposed on site continuous pedestrian circulation/accessible route to the proposed sidewalk along Kolb Road. 22. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.A on site continuous pedestrian circulation/accessible route is required from the small building located on the west property line of the north parcel to all four (4) of the other buildings. 23. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 Provide a dimension for the width of all sidewalks, existing and proposed. If the sidewalks adjacent to perpendicular vehicle parking spaces then the sidewalk is required to be a minimum of 6'-6" wide or wheel stops are required for each vehicle parking space. See D.S. 2-08.5.1A & D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.2 24. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13 Detectable warnings (truncated domes) will be required at all curb access ramps. ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13.1 & .2. Detectable warnings shall be 24 inches minimum in the direction of travel and extend the full width of the curb ramp or flush surface. This said, the handicapped ramp detail is incorrect. The detectable warnings should be shown 6 to 8 inches from the curb line and run the full width of the area where the sidewalk is flush with the pavement. 25. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 Per D.S. 2-08.3.1 a continuous pedestrian circulation/accessible route is required along the entire east end of the proposed and existing buildings. This said this circulation route may not cross the loading space, show how this circulation will work with the proposed loading zones. 26. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 The handicapped ramps shown along the east side of the southern most existing building do not work as shown on the plan. 27. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.B a four (4) foot sidewalk is required along the full length of the east side of the northern most building. 28. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 If the 1' WIDE NO ACCESS EASMENT shown on the MASTER BLOCK PLAT recorded Book 48 Page 6 has be abandoned, provide a pedestrian circulation/accessible route to the sidewalk proposed along Kolb Road. Additional comments maybe forth coming. 29. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13 If applicable provide the location, type, size and height of existing and proposed freestanding signage and billboards. 30. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.14 Fully dimension the proposed loading zones and provide maneuvering areas on the plan. Additional comments maybe forth coming. 31. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.18 Label Kolb Road as an MS&R Route. 32. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.19 Provide dimensioned right-of-way (ROW) for Kold Road and Anaconda Way. Kolb Road being an MS&R provide existing and future, if Kolb Road is at future ROW width show this dimension as future and existing. 33. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.20 If applicable show all easements of record graphically on the plan together with recording docket and page reference. Per the MASTER BLOCK PLAT recorded Book 48 Page 6 there are numerous easements that are not shown on the plan. It appears that some of these easements may be located under structures on site. Provide documents, either abandonment or written approval from the appropriate utility which allowed the buildings to be constructed over the easements. 34. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.21 Show the future curb for Kolb Road on the plan and a dimension from the street monument line. 35. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.25 If applicable provide existing and proposed freestanding lighting layout and type. Provide a detail; list the height of pole and type of lighting. 36. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.28 Show the existing zoning for the adjacent parcels on the plan. 37. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.31 Show the existing and proposed use on the plan. 38. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.38 Based on the note under "PARKING REQUIRE" it appears that a DESIGN DEVELOPMENT OPTION (DDO) for a reduction in parking has been applied for. Provide the DDO number in the lower right hand corner of the plan near the title block. 39. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.2 It appears that the existing buildings floor area has been grouped together. Provide the floor area for each individual building. 40. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3 Provide the allowed and provided Floor Area Ration (FAR) on the plan. 41. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 Show the provided number of vehicle parking spaces on the plan. 42. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 There is a conflict with the parking calculation. The total required is listed as 117, with a reduction of 5, with a total required of 114. 117 - 5 should equal 112, please clarify. Until the DDO is approved the total number of required parking spaces cannot be confirmed. 43. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 Show the required as Required Class 1 & Required Class 2. Show the provided number of bicycle parking spaces on the plan. The required number of bicycle parking spaces cannot be verified until the total number of vehicle parking spaces is provided. Additional comments maybe forth coming. 44. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan. 45. 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) 791-5608 ext. 1180. C:\planning\site\t07cm00470.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 02/27/2007 | SSHIELD1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 03/05/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Submit a copy of the last approved site and landscape plans for both properties. 2. The planting plan and layout calculations will clearly indicate the location, size, and name of all existing vegetation to remain in place. 3. Show the future and existing curb dimension for Kolb Road and Anaconda Way on the site and landscape plans per D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.21 4. Show required sight visibility triangles on the landscape plan. Plant materials located within SVT's should consist of ground cover or low-growing vegetation of a species that will not grow higher than (30) inches. However, trees may be planted within SVT's provided that: A) The trunk caliper, at maturity, will not exceed twelve (12) inches in diameter; B) The lowest branch of any tree is at least six (6) feet above the grade of the street, and C) Trees are not planted in a line that could result in a solid wall effect when viewed from an angle per LUC 3.7.2.8 & DS 2-06. 5. Include inside dimensions of strip planter within vehicle use area on the landscape some appear not be appropriate size. 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. 6. Storm water detention/retention basins not shall be landscaped to enhance the natural configuration of the basin 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. Revise landscape plan to include basin(s) treatment 7. Provide acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. Such documentation includes photographs of the site taken from all sides of the property. Photographs of the site are necessary for NPPO approval per DS 2-15.2.0.C 8. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Include any changes to the site plan to the landscape plan as well (See Zoning comments pertaining to site information). 9. Additional comments may apply |
| 03/06/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Provide acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. Such documentation includes photographs of the site taken from all sides of the property. Photographs of the site are necessary for NPPO approval per DS 2-15.2.0.C |
| 03/12/2007 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Provide the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole and the proposed first floor elevation. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 710.1, UPC 2003. |
| 03/14/2007 | MATT FLICK | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD Engineering Comments for T07CM00470/T07BU00290 1. Grade det/ret basin floor to have a minimum 0.5% slope toward the outlet end of the basin. 2. Is additional site signage contemplated? If so and if it's placed in the sight visibility triangles, the encroachments must meet the standards referenced in Dev. Std. 3-01.5.0. 3. Revise the sidewalk dimension along Anaconda Way to be 5' (minimum) per Dev. Std. 3-01.3.3. The sidewalk should extend across the entire Anaconda Way frontage. 4. Drainage report is acceptable. Engineering is in general concurrence with Zoning and Landscape Review comments as some of these also affect issues with which Engineering is concerned. Please submit a detailed response letter addressing all comments with the next submittal. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/20/2007 | FSANCHE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/20/2007 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |