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 - T07CM04272
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/06/2007 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/07/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/07/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Eagle Globall Logistics - Loading Dock Addition T07CM04272 Site Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 07, 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 for the area of expansion only. This said the addition of parcel 140-42-065A to this site constitutes a lot area expansion and a vehicular use area expansion. Provide a lot area expansion calculation and a vehicular use area expansion on the plan. Once provided additional comments may be forth coming. 2. 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, if sold separately, and meet the requirements of the LUC if sold separately along with a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property. 3. Per the Pima County Assessor's records parcel 140-42-065A was split off of parcel 140-42-0650 in May of 2006. Provide documentation showing that this lot split was approved by the City of Tucson. 4. There are numerous keynotes 7-15 shown on A0.1 that do not key to a note, please clarify. Also there is an area shown, hatched, on the east side of building "A", please explain what is proposed for this area. 5. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.2 Provide a property description (legal description) on the plan. 6. 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 the subject property approximately centered in the one (1) square mile area, identify conditions within the square mile area, such as major streets and watercourses, section, township and range, section corners and scale. 7. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.10 Provide existing sight visibility triangles (SVT's) on the plan. 8. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13 Show the location, type, size and height of existing signage. 9. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.19 Provide the dimension for the right-of-way for Elvira Road. 10. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20 If applicable show all easements of record graphically on the plan together with recording docket and page reference. 11. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.28 Provide the existing zoning of the parcel and adjacent parcels on the plan. 12. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.31 Provide the existing and proposed use on the plan. 13. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.1 Provide the gross lot area on the plan. 14. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3 Provide the allowed and proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on the plan. 15. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 Zoning acknowledges the parking calculation shown on sheet A0.1. Please clarify the use called out as "**General Professional". Zoning was unable to locate this use in the LUC. 16. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.5 Provide a loading space calculation on the plan, include the required and provided. 17. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.6 Provide a lot area expansion calculation on the plan, see comment 1 above. 18. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.6 Provide a vehicular use area expansion calculation on the plan, see comment 1 above. 19. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan. 20. 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\t07cm04272.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 11/16/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit NPPO plan or Application for Exception for development on adjacent lot per DS 2-15.0. A landscape mitigation plan shall be prepared to show the disposition of PIP, TOS, and required mitigation, as shown in the NPPO summary. |
| 11/16/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Landscaping requirements apply to expansion of existing development as follows: § On sites where the gross floor area of the existing building(s) is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, expansion in square footage of land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area as follows: § If the expansion is less than 25%, the requirements of this Division apply only to the proposed expansion. Existing development on the site is subject to the zoning regulations in effect at the time the existing development received zoning approval per LUC 3.7.1.2.B § 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. Provide the vehicular use area expansion calculation on the site plan (see Zoning comment # 1). 2. Submit NPPO plan or Application for Exception for development on adjacent lot per DS 2-15.0. A landscape mitigation plan shall be prepared to show the disposition of PIP, TOS, and required mitigation, as shown in the NPPO summary. 3. All removed plant material will be replaced with plant material acceptable under the requirements of the xeriscape landscaping regulations. Replacement material will be a minimum fifteen (15) gallon size for trees and five (5) gallon size for shrubs. Submit landscape plan to show the location of replacement plantings of vegetation destroyed, removed, or relocated as shown on the previously approved landscape plan per DS 2-06.6.1.C. 4. 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. 5. Additional comments may apply. |
| 11/27/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: November 28, 2007 SUBJECT: 2859 E Elvira Road Site/Grading Plan- Engineering Review TO: Metro Permits Express Attn: Lisa Bowers LOCATION: T15S R14E Sec17 Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T07CM04272 (Site Plan) and T07BU02333 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the site plan (T07CM04272), grading plan (T07BU02333), and Drainage Report (DOWL Engineers, 01NOV07) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan, grading plan or Drainage Report at this time. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: Review of the architect site plan, civil grading plan and building plan sheets show inconsistencies between all three sets of plans. The architect and civil plans must be in conformance with each other and match in details, keynotes and dimensions. The building plan set must also reflect the proposed site plan and grading plan sheets. Verify that all three plans match and that there are not discrepancies within the sets of plans. 1) See redlines on Sheets A2.0, A3.0, C1.0 and C1.1 for all corrections required for the next submittal. Due to the numerous errors and differences between all of the plan sheets (architect site plan, civil grading plan and building plan set) the following comments do not reflect all of the Quality Control comments that must be addressed prior to resubmittal. Make sure that all dimensions radii, details, sections, keynotes, proposed improvements and all other aspects of this project match and are reflected on all the plan sheets. Provide comments on the redlined plan sheets that show how each comment was addressed. 2) Revise the site plan to provide a legend for the numerous keynotes that are shown on Sheet AO.1. All keynotes must be referenced as to their purpose. 3) Revise or clarify Sheet A1.0 and the Demolition Notes. Specifically Keynotes A-H could not be located in plan view, clarify. 4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.2: Provide the property description (legal description) on the site plan. 5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.4: Revise the project location map on Sheet AO.1 to label section corners and identify conditions within the square mile area shown, such as major watercourses (Airport Wash). 6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.7: Revise the site plan to show cross access agreements, with recordation information, between the parcels. Since the parcels are identified as having separate tax code identification numbers a cross access agreement is required for all access points from one parcel to the other parcel. Or provide the recordation information for a lot combination. The Zoning Department prior to site plan approval must approve the lot combination. 7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.10: Provide the existing sight visibility triangles (SVT's) on the site plan to be in conformance with DS Sec.3-01.5. 8) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Provide the recordation information for Elvira Road shown on Sheet AO.1. Label the road as private or public. 9) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Label the existing right-of-way width for Elvira Road. 10) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.20: Revise the platted easement that is shown on Sheet AO.1 to meet the minimum 12-point font size. Verify that all other easements of record are graphically shown on the site plan together with recording docket and page reference. 11) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Revise the Trash Enclosure Detail on both the Architect site plan and Civil grading plan sheets. Provide the minimum dimensions for the enclosure that meets or exceeds the standards within the attached Figure 3 per DS Sec.6-01 for the required refuse enclosure construction. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: The project was reviewed for grading plan purposes, however until all site plan and Drainage Report comments are addressed the grading plan could not be shown to be in conformance with an approved plan. 12) Verify that the rock riprap meets the minimum sizing, thickness, method of placement (hand placed, dumped, or grouted) and type of filter fabric that is to be used for the slope stability along the north portion of the project that is called out in the revised Drainage Report. The drainage statement must comply with the recommendation within the required geotechnical report. 13) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Provide a General Note stating that all fencing and walls will require a separate permit for review and approval by all necessary Development Services Departments. 14) 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 15) DS Sec.11-01: Provide general grading notes, including a grading/drainage note specifying conformance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (excavation and grading requirements). 16) Please ensure that any future grading plan will be consistent with the site plan, Drainage Report and geotechnical report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 17) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: Provide a geotechnical report evaluation that addresses the following: a) Soils report should provide a discussion of the potential for hydro-collapsible soils. Report should address building setback from the proposed water harvesting basins. b) Provide slope stability recommendations for all proposed constructed slopes. c) Provide pavement structure design recommendations. DRAINAGE REPORT: 18) Provide a discussion within the Drainage Report with calculations for the proposed rock riprap sizing, thickness, method of placement (hand placed, dumped, or grouted) and type of filter fabric that is proposed for the slope stability along the north portion of the project. The drainage statement must comply with the recommendation within the required geotechnical report. 19) Provide a discussion on the proposed trench drain that is shown in the building plan set, Sheet S4.1, detail 106 that is located at the beginning of the proposed loading dock. The site plan and civil sheets do not address this improvement. Provide calculations, details and method of disposal for the trench drain if it is proposed to carry stormwater away from the loading dock and into a water harvesting area. 20) Provide a revised Drainage Report showing scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk at all down spout and scupper locations. Provide a detail for the dimension of the proposed scuppers that are used for collecting onsite roof drainage at all pedestrian sidewalk. Any scuppers proposed under the sidewalk will be designed and constructed to convey the 10-year flood flow. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan, grading plan, Drainage Report, and geotechnical report that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter and comments on the redlined sheets 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 review. 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 |
| 12/05/2007 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/11/2007 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 12/11/2007 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |