Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T07CM02890
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/12/2007 | SREEVES1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | not a COT job |
| 07/13/2007 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/31/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | (See landscape comments pertaining to NPP) |
| 07/31/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: T07CM02885 3141 W. Ironwood Hill Drive, Church Expansion Full Code Compliance Commercial Site Plan, 1st Review TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 31, 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 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). This project was reviewed for content specified under site plan criteria of DS 2-02. The amount of expansion of this project requires full code compliance for the entire site. 2. Zoning and Engineering staff can only stamp one document for approval as the site plan. The submittal package includes two site plans, one stamped by and architect, one stamped by an engineer. The architectural site plan shows calculations for LUC data, yet the engineering plan shows a distinct view of pedestrian/disabled access slopes and dimensions. The data featured on both plans needs to be combined for one overall site plan document. Staff reviewed the C1 sheet for data on the drawing, but reviewed the notes for code data from page G2. 3. The site plan (C.1) shows two lots, where the Pima County Assessor's shows the development as one lot, description 116-04-120A, created from a lot combination in 1996 (apparently). Is this the reference to the parcels 1 and 2 on the site plan? Please show the development on one lot per Assessor's records. 4. Per DS 2-02.2.1.4, regarding the location map: A) enlarge text to 12 point minimum for microfilming 5. Per DS 2-02.2.1.6, with regards to buildings: A) please darken the building lines for the new additions to make them more distinct. B) On sheet g2, there is a steel entry canopy to the southwest of the building - please show on sheet C.1 site plan. C) Dimension building footprint for records and issuance of building permits D) Call out building entries E) Please clarify if the roof is a parapet, flat roof or ridge F) Please show any roof overhangs, porches and similar with dashed lines with vertical clearance over pedestrian access G) Please clarify how height is measured - from grade to top of flat roof/parapet or from grade to ridge midpoint and top of ridge 6. Per DS 2-02.2.1.7, regarding required building setbacks: A) I acknowledge the building meets setbacks per the SCZ and RX-2 zone B) Please show the existing and proposed building setbacks as drawn on sheet g2 on the site plan sheet C1 C) Please list the RX-2 required setbacks against adjacent RX-2 zoning (20' minimum) 7. Per DS 2-02.2.1.8, with regards to parking: A) please enlarge the print on the typical detail of the disabled parking access sign to allow for accurate microfilming B) I see both parking details provided, one on sheet g2 and the other on sheet C1.2 - the detail on sheet g2 shows van accessible parking - thus this detail is preferred. Please add the location of the disabled access sign to be posted in front of the disabled parking spaces. C) Please indicate the slope of the parking area, and note the maximum slope permitted for disabled parking spaces, per ANSI Chapter 5, is 2% D) The areas keynoted with the number 5 are to be 'resurfaced and restriped" - are these going to be parking spaces and if so, show design. (on sheet C.1, this area is indicated to have asphalt removed from buffer yard area of SCZ, which is required.) Curbing should be used to show that undeveloped areas will not be accessed. E) Please provide a length dimension of the parking spaces in the circular drive F) Per DS 3-05 if the parking spaces in the circular drive are abutting landscaping, wheel stop barriers should be provided to protect the landscaping from the vehicle overhang 8. Per DS 2-02.2.1.9, with regards to bicycle parking: A) Please show bicycle parking detail for class 1 parking B) The bicycle parking details both for the class 2 parking and shown on the parking detail on sheet g2 meet code, and should be included on the revision C) Please show that class 2 bicycle parking is within 50' of the main entrance to the building, per DS 2-09.4.1. Please ensure that the bicycle parking also is visible from the sidewalks and driveways. D) Note that on sheet g2, the bicycle parking is shown in the south part of the site - whereas on sheet C.1 it is shown closer to the building. Please make sure that the bicycle parking for class 2 is within 50' of the entry to the building per the above. 9. Per DS 2-02.2.1.11, with regards to PAALs: A) please label the PAAL widths along the south end of the site - where curving B) per LUC 3.3.7.2 - to provide 90 degree parking requires a 24' wide PAAL at minimum. Please revise the PAAL width at the circular drive - or revise the angle of the parking spaces. 10. Per DS 2-02.2.12, with regards to pedestrian and disabled accessibility: A) per DS 2-08.3.1 - provide a sidewalk from Cosby to the building B) per DS 2-08.3.1- provide a sidewalk from the circular drive parking to the building C) per DS 2-08.4.1.C - provide a 4' wide sidewalk between the parking at the circular drive and the church building D) per DS 2-08.3.1.- provide a sidewalk connection leading from the building to the new parking area to the south E) per DS 2-08.3.1-provide a pedestrian route to the dumpster in the parking lot area F) please note the slope of the sidewalk for disabled access does not exceed 1:12 G) clarify note 4 on the site plan - it indicates that sidewalk will be left - and that sidewalk appears within the 1,382 s.f. building addition area - correct? H) Note 1 indicates a handicapped accessible walkway is provided - and it points to a very small, un-dimensioned striped area. Provide a detail to clarify this please. I) Show how the pedestrian access continues (maybe under roofed area) from the existing building area to the new addition area - see my green note on the site plan 11. Per DS 2-02.2.1.13 - please show any new signage and the heights. Be advised, this should be addressed now for the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone review to be done correctly. 12. Per DS 2-02.2.1.20, please ensure any/all easements on this site are listed on the site plan with their type of easement and recording information. 13. Per DS 2-02.2.1.25, please ensure that any proposed lighting layout is shown on the site plan with vertical clearances noted near vehicular use areas at a minimum of 15' per DS 3-05. 14. Per DS 2-02.2.1.28, please provide a note on the C.1 site plan sheet that all adjacent sites are zoned RX-2 (as I see provided on sheet g2). 15. Per DS 2-02.2.1.38, please provide a note on the C.1 site plan sheet that this site is subject to variance case C10-03-47, allowing a maximum FAR of .18 and a maximum lot coverage of 37%. (I see this note on sheet g2, transfer to sheet C.1 please). 16. Per DS 2-02.2.2.A.6 - please provide the expansion calculations ( I see all the raw data, on sheet g2) in percentage form. 17. Please note that the Board of Adjustment case C10-03-47 allowed up to 37% maximum lot coverage. The plan submitted indicates the lot coverage with this proposal is already up to 30%. The plans that went to the Board of Adjustment showed a phasing plan that would include another future expansion - one that is not shown on the current submitted plan. Please be aware that the future expansion can only occur should the lot coverage maximum stay within the variance case requirements. A new variance would be required to exceed the prior variance conditions of approval. SCENIC CORRIDOR REVIEW COMMENTS; (Duplicate of SCZ submittal comments) 18. This project is within the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone (SCZ). Staff has reviewed this project for compliance with requirements of the SCZ, specifically outlined in LUC Section 2.8.2. 19. I examined the SCZ submittal package and acknowledge the same sheets were submitted for review of the site plan package. Please transfer all SCZ notes to the C.1 site plan sheet and use that same document for the resubmittal of both the site plan review and the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone review. 20. Please add the following notations (in parentheses for you) to the site plan C.1 sheet. A) Include in 30 foot buffer label the notation "30 foot undisturbed natural buffer to be preserved and maintained in it's natural state". (I did see the site plan notes stating the area was to be undisturbed, please just reword to provide the exact note above, thank you.) B) "This development is subject to the review and approval of the special application for the Scenic Corridor Overlay. The Special application case number is T07SA00099 .The special application has been reviewed and approved, approval date ____" If there are conditions of approval, they will also need to be noted. C) "No grading beyond what is necessary for siting of buildings, drives, private yards, and structural improvements. All viable vegetation with a caliper of 4 inches or greater and all saguaro cacti will be preserved or relocated on the site per the Native Plant and Preservation Ordinance." D) "All new utilities for development on private property or public right-of-way along Ironwood Hill Road will be underground. Trenching is permitted for the placement of utilities lines, if area is revegetated in accordance with Land Use Code Sec. 3.7.5.2.D" E) "Building or structure surfaces, which are visible from Houghton Road will have colors, which are, predominate within the surrounding landscape." F) "Fencing and freestanding walls facing Ironwood Hill Road will meet material restrictions in Land Use Code Sec. 3.7.3, Screening Requirements." G) "All areas between the MS & R right-of-way line and the existing street right-of-way that are disturbed by development shall be revegetated with native vegetation." H) "All disturbed areas on the site that are visible from Ironwood Hill Road and are not covered by permanent improvements shall be revegetated with native plants, plants from the Drought Tolerant Plant List, or a combination of both." I) "Exposed cut and fill slopes shall be no greater than 1-foot rise or fall over a 3-foot length." 21. Please note that depending upon the responses provided on the resubmittal, further review comments may be forthcoming. Should you desire to meet with me - or have any questions on my review - please email me at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov (preferred method to reach me) or call me at 520-837-4951. HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T07CM02890 3141 w ironwood hill dr.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 08/03/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | Please see zoning review comments. |
| 08/13/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Within the Scenic Route buffer area and the MS&R right-of-way, all areas between the MS&R right-of-way line and the existing street right-of-way that are disturbed by development shall be re-vegetated with native vegetation per LUC 3.7.5.2.D. Revise landscape plan so that the buffer area is re-vegetated with native plants indigenous to the site, and / or area and reconstructed to look as natural as possible. 1. Revise the existing vehicular use area to provide one canopy tree for each 10 motor vehicle parking spaces and such that each parking space is located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk) per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.a. Existing trees maybe used to meet the "canopy tree" requirement if the following criteria are met: Definition of Canopy Tree. A woody plant, other than a palm tree, with a mature crown diameter of at least fifteen (15) feet and having a trunk at maturity, is clear of leaves and branches at least six (6) feet above grade. Trees adjacent to and within ten (10) feet of the vehicular use area can be used. 2. All new landscape areas will be depressed to accept water flow from roofs, PAAL, and parking areas. Show by detail or spot elevations how new landscape areas will accommodate water harvesting. 3. Ensure that all revisions to the site plan are reflected on the landscape & grading plan. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. DS 2-07.2.2 4. Provide screening in compliance with LUC Table 3.7.2-I along the southern property boundary. Show required walls on the site and landscape plans. 5. The street landscape border located in the center of the circular driveway is required to be at least ten feet wide. Revise as necessary. LUC 3.7.2.4 6. Revise the landscape plan to provide the square footage of the oasis allowance area and calculation. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.b 7. Revise the landscape plans to show the limits of grading. DS 2-07.2.2.B.5 8. Revise the native plant preservation plans to show the limits of grading. DS 2-15.3.4.A 9. Provide specifications and guidelines for establishment for the seed mix on the landscape plans. DS 9-06.4.2. & DS 9-06.4.4 10. The Native Plant Preservation Plan is required to affirm, by statement, conformance with the requirements of the Federal Endangered Species Act and the Arizona Native Plant Law. LUC 3.8.4.5 11. An additional Native Plant Preservation Plan or approval is required for any construction or disturbance of public right-of-way areas adjacent to the site. Contact Gary Wittwer, the Department of Transportation Landscape Architect, at 791-5100 for additional information. LUC 3.8.4.2 Alternatively, right-of-way areas may be incorporated into the submitted plans. The approved Native Plant Preservation Plan can then be used to obtain any required permits from the Department of Transportation where an NPPO clearance is required. 12) Applications for projects within the Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) shall be reviewed in accordance with the DSD Full Notice Procedure, Sec. 23A-50 and 23A-51. Additional revisions may be required. The decision to approve or deny the project will be based on the purpose, intent, and specific regulations of LUC 2.8.2. 13) Submit an irrigation plan. LUC 3.7.4.5.C |
| 08/13/2007 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Provide the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 710.1, UPC 2006 as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 08/27/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 28, 2007 SUBJECT: 3141 W Ironwood Hill Dr Site Plan- Engineering Review TO: Metro Permits Express Attn: Lisa Bowers LOCATION: T14S R13E Sec05 Ward 1 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T07CM02890 (Site Plan) and T07BU01479 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the site plan (T07CM02890), grading plan (T07BU01479), and Drainage Report (DOWL Engineers, 06JUN07) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan or grading plan application at this time. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: Provide all information associates with the site plan content on one sheet. The submittal package includes two site plans, one stamped by an architect and one stamped by the civil engineer. The information provided on both plans needs to be combined for one overall site plan document. Engineering tried to review both sheet for conformance, but could not verify if all the information was included because of the back and forth review, Sheet C1.0 was reviewed for Engineering requirements. 1) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.4: Verify 12-point font for the project location map on Sheet C1.0. The location map on Sheet g2.0 does not conform to the location map requirements. 2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Verify that the site plan shows wheel stop barrier for the parking spaces located along any adjacent landscape areas and/or pedestrian circulation paths. The barriers are to be set at 15.5-feet to accommodate the required 2.5-foot overhang to prevent encroachment or damage to the proposed landscape area and the required clear 4-foot pedestrian path. 3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Verify on the site plan the PAAL intersection from existing to proposed. Sheet C1.0 shows a separation with curbing which does not agree with Sheet g2.0. 4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Depict and label the 25-feet radii concrete curbs per City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Detail 213 (PC/COT SD 213) at the driveway entrance off of Ironwood Hill Drive. The curbs should be constructed at the edge of pavement, which must also be depicted on the site plan. Curb returns must be constructed entirely within the subject parcel. Refer to DS Sec.3-01.3.2.C and the Transportation Access Management Guidelines for street development standards. 5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Depict and label the 18-feet radii concrete curbs per City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Detail 213 (PC/COT SD 213) at the driveway entrances off of Cosby Avenue. The curbs should be constructed at the edge of pavement, which must also be depicted on the site plan. Curb returns must be constructed entirely within the subject parcel. Refer to DS Sec.3-01.3.2.C and the Transportation Access Management Guidelines for street development standards. 6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Verify with dimensions that all PAALs meet the minimum width requirement of 24-feet, specifically at all PAAL curvatures and PAAL intersections. 7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Verify on the site plan, with a dimension, the minimum setback from any existing light pole, fire hydrants, catch basins, etc for the proposed driveway entrance. Refer to the Transportation Access Management Guidelines for minimum setback requirements for the driveway. 8) DS 3-05.2.2.B.3: Provide the required 2-foot separation from the PAAL to the property line and the CMU wall on the south portion of the property. 9) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Verify that all handicap access ramps meet the design requirements per ANSI Standards A117.1-2003 Section 406.13. The location of the truncated domes must be at the transition of the pedestrian circulation to vehicular circulation for all existing and proposed ramps. 10) DS Sec2-02.2.1.A.12: Provide the required 6-foot wide sidewalk along the street frontage of Ironwood Hills Drive. Provide a dimension on the site plan to show the 6-foot width. Per the adopted Mayor and Counsel policy all sidewalks along MS&R right-of-ways for arterial and collector streets require 6-foot wide sidewalks. If a sidewalk already exist along the frontage of Ironwood Hill Drive provide photo documentation showing that the existing sidewalk is in good condition. If the sidewalk is missing in spots or is cracked and buckled a new 6-foot sidewalk will be required. 11) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Provide the required 5-foot sidewalk along the street frontage of Cosby Avenue. All new development requires a new 5-foot sidewalk per DS Sec.3-01.3.3.A. 12) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to show the required pedestrian circulation path that is required from the proposed vehicular use area along the southern portion of the lot to the proposed buildings. 13) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to provide the required pedestrian circulation path from the proposed and existing building to the refuse enclosure located in the east vehicular use area. All transitions from vehicular use to pedestrian use areas must have truncated domes. 14) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.17: A grading plan application has been submitted for this project due to the cut and fill quantities shown on Sheet C1.1. The grading plan can not be approved prior to site plan approval. 15) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Provide the recordation information for the right-of-way on Cosby Avenue as dimensioned on the site plan. 16) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Revise the site plan to label the shown right-of-way as dimensioned on the site plan for Ironwood Hill Drive as existing and/or future. 17) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Revise the site plan to label Ironwood Hill Drive as an "MS&R Road and a Scenic Corridor." 18) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.20: Verify that all existing and proposed easements are drawn with recordation information, location, width, and purpose of on the site plan. 19) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.21: Provide dimensions from the street monument lines to the existing and/or proposed curb, sidewalk, driveway and any utility lines. 20) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Revise the trash enclosure location and/or site plan to show the required 14-foot x 40-foot clear approach for all refuse container locations. Provide 45 or 30 degree angles if necessary. Refer to DS Sec.6-01 for all refuse requirements. 21) Review and 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. Refer to the following links for TDOT Forms and applications: a) http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/applications.html / b) http://www.dot.ci.tucson.az.us/engineering/pia.php c) Or contact Steve Tineo at 741-3115 for all additional questions regarding r-o-w. 22) Be advised that further comments may be forth coming on resubmittal of the site plan and grading plan. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: Sheet C1.1 was reviewed for grading plan purposes, however until all site plan comments are addressed the grading plan could not be shown to be in conformance with an approved plan. 23) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise the grading plan to provide the required 2-feet setback from the west property boundary to the toe of fill slope for the proposed basin located at this location. Provide cross-sections on the grading plan to show the limits of grading and the required 2-feet setback from all property lines. 24) Provide the referenced soils investigation report, General Note # 4, prepared by Western Technologies, Inc. for the proposed site. 25) Please ensure that any future grading plan will be consistent with the site plan and Drainage Report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 26) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Provide a General Note stating that all CMU walls and retaining walls will require a separate permit for review and approval by all necessary Development Services Departments. 27) Provide a general note on the grading plan to state the following; "Call for a Pre-construction meeting prior to start of earthwork. To schedule a DSD Pre-construction meeting, SWPPP inspection or general Engineering Inspections, call IVR (740-6970), or schedule with a Customer Service Representative at the Development Services Department, or contact DSD Engineering at 791-5550 extension 2101, or schedule inspections online at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Online_Services/Online_Permits/online_permits.html 28) Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements are applicable to this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development will be required with the revised grading plan submittal. For further information, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html. DRAINAGE REPORT: 29) DS Sec.10-01.2.2: Provide the referenced soils investigation report (grading plan General Note #4) with building setbacks from the proposed basins, infiltration rates for the retention basins, and slope stability recommendations for basin design and slope stability. Clarify if the Drainage Report and site/grading plan match the soils investigation report. 30) Provide a revised Drainage Report to state that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk at all scupper concentration points. Provide details and dimensions in plan view for the scuppers on the proposed site plan. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan, Drainage Report, grading plan and soils investigation report that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Enclose "redlines" with the resubmittal package. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site plan, Drainage Report, grading plan and soils investigation report reviews. If you have any questions, or to schedule an appointment, I can be reached at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/30/2007 | SUE REEVES | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 08/30/2007 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |