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 - T07CM00470
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/17/2007 | MATT FLICK | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Please note that the plans are confusing to review. Some items that are not shown on the Phase 1 plan appear on the Phase 2 plan (this is being submitted under 1 "CM" number and, so, is being considered as one development) and some items shown on the grading plan do not appear on the site plan. Phase 1 Site Plan: 1. Provide a sidewalk along the site perimeter where none exist today. Minimum size along Anaconda Way is 5' and minimum size along Kolb Road is 6'. Please note that construction in the public right-of-way will require a right-of-way construction permit from TDOT. 2. Provide ADA-compliant ramps where sidewalks are to cross driveways or streets. 3. Provide horizontal dimensioning for the basin at the south end of the eastern parking area. 4. Please correct the overwrite located near the survey monument at the intersection of Anaconda Way and Kolb Road. Phase 2 Site Plan: A. Install 5' sidewalk along Anaconda Way where none is currently indicated. B. Install ADA-compliant ramps where sidewalks are to cross driveways. C. 6' is the minimum sidewalk width along Major Streets (Kolb Road) per Mayor & Council policy. D. 2 "A" sections are shown on Sheet C1.2A. Drainage Report: The report is not approved. The following comments are offered: Page 3 - The responsible party named on this page and in Appendix G do not agree. Page 5 - The infiltration rates could not be found in Appendix G. |
| 05/25/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: MER Corporation Expansion T07CM00470 Site Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 29, 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 cover sheet showing the entire site along with the phasing for this project. General notes that are applicable to both phases should be placed on the cover sheet. 3. Zoning acknowledges the receipt of the site plan for the north parcels, but did not receive anything for the south parcel. Please provide the site plan for the south parcel. 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. 4. Provide a copy of the Anaconda Development Plan. 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 5. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide a copy of the recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property. 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. This note is not shown on Phase 1 site grading plan. Provide this note on both plans or provide all general notes that apply to both phases on the cover sheet. 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". 7. The location map shown on sheet A0.0 should match the location maps shown on sheets C1.0. 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. 8. This comment has not been fully addressed. Provide the setback dimension on Sheet C1.0 of Phase 1, see redline. 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. 9. Per IBC Sec 1106.6 Location. Accessible parking spaces shall be located on the shortest accessible route of travel from adjacent parking to an accessible building entrance. Identify the accessible entrance for the proposed & existing buildings. Accessible parking spaces shall be dispersed among the various types of parking facilities provided. 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. 10. Based on full code compliance, Phase 1 requires bicycle parking, 6 Class 1 and 1 Class 2. Provide a detail for both Class 1 & 2 that includes; 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. Identify the main building entrances for all buildings on site so that D.S. 2-09.4.1 & D.S. 2-09.4.4 requirements can be verified. The Bicycle parking shown for Phase 2 does not meet the requirements of 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 DS may be found on the web at: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Codes___Ordinances/DevStd209.pdf 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. 11. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide SVT's for all entrance/exits on to Anaconda Way on the Phase 1 site plan. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.10 Provide sight visibility triangles (SVT's) on the site plan. Additional comments may be forth coming. 12. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide a dimension for the northeast entrance PAAL on the Phase 1 site plan. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11 Provide a dimension for the northeast entrance PAAL. 13. Zoning acknowledges that some type of cross access easement is to be recorded. Provide a copy of the recorded document and provide the Docket and Page on the site plan. 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. 14. This comment has not been fully addressed. See comment 13.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. 15. This comment has not been fully addressed. This comment needs to be addressed on the Phase 1 plans. 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 16. This comment was not addressed correctly. Truncated domes are required at all existing and proposed handicapped access ramps. The truncated domes shown on the 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. 17. This comment was not fully addressed. Phase 1 site plan does not show the required sidewalk that should run the entire length of the parking area adjacent to the proposed and existing buildings. See redline. 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. 18. This comment was not fully addressed. Phase 1 site plan Keynote 17 should reflect the size and height of the existing signs. 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. 19. This comment was not fully addressed. Phase 1 Site plan, provide the maneuvering area on the plan. 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. 20. This comment was not fully addressed. Phase 1 Site plan, label Kolb Road as an MS&R Route. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.18 Label Kolb Road as an MS&R Route. 21. This comment was not fully addressed. Phase 1 Site plan, provide dimensioned right-of-way (ROW) for Kold Road and Anaconda Way. Phase 2 Site plan provide dimensioned right-of-way (ROW) for Anaconda Way. 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. 22. This comment was not fully addressed. Based on MS&R Standards, 150 ROW, the curb is located 12' from the ROW line. Show the future curb as shown on the site plan. 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. 23. 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. 24. This comment was not addressed. Zoning was unable to locate the adjacent zoning on the plan. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.28 Show the existing zoning for the adjacent parcels on the plan. 25. This comment was not fully addressed. The proposed use should be listed as "GENERAL MANUFACTURING, "35" SUBJECT TO 3.5.5.1". The existing use should be "GENERAL MANUFACTURING".D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.31 Show the existing and proposed use on the plan. 26. Once all other comments have been addressed a Design Development Option may be applied for to request a reduction in the number of required vehicle parking spaces provided. Per LUC 3.3.4. Industrial Use Group, General Manufacturing, and a total building square footage of 58,679/500, 117 vehicle parking spaces are required, 114 are proposed. If the DDO is approved provide the DDO number and any conditions on the plan. 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. 27. This comment has not been addressed correctly. Base on Development Designator "35" the allowed floor area ration is 6, this said the allowable floor area would be 892,800. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3 Provide the allowed and provided Floor Area Ration (FAR) on the plan. 28. Zoning acknowledges the changes to the parking calculation. Until the DDO is approved the provided number of parking spaces can not be verified. 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. 29. This comment has not been fully addressed. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.4 Industrial Use Group, General Manufacturing, Bicycle parking is required at 8% of the total number of vehicle parking spaces provided, 90% Class 1 and 10% Class 2. The bicycle parking calculation does not reflect any Class 2 required or provided. Phase 1 would require: Class 1 = 6, Class 2 = 1. Phase 2 would require: Class 1 = 8, Class 2 = 1. The bicycle parking detail shows only Class 2. Please clarify. 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. 30. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 Show the handicapped access ramp at the two handicapped parking spaces shown east of the northern most existing industrial building. Truncated domes are required. 31. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan. 32. 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\t07cm00470-2nd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 05/29/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See Zoning Comments |
| 06/04/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | Exception |
| 06/04/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. If the expansion is 25% or greater or if expansions as of February 15, 1991 cumulatively result in a 25% or greater expansion in land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area, the requirements of this Division apply to the entire site per LUC 3.7.1.2.B. 2. Fifty (50) percent or more of the street landscape border area must have shrubs and vegetative ground cover per LUC 3.7.2.4.The screening requirement is in addition to the landscape requirements. Verify that minimum landscape requirements are met along Kolb Rd. Show the location of individual plants. 3. Revise the landscape plan to show the locations of any proposed screens along Anaconda way DS 2-07.A.3 4. Revise the landscape plans to show the limits of grading for Phase 2 DS 2-07.2.2.B.5. 5. 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. 6. Additional comments may apply. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/06/2007 | SUE REEVES | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |