Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Permit Number - T07CM04377
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/14/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Submit a landscape plan to verify the entire site meets minimum requirements, 2. A street landscape border, per Sec. 3.7.2.4 of the LUC, is a landscape area with a minimum width of ten (10) feet, running the full length of the street property line(s) bounding the site except for points of ingress-egress. 3. Fifty (50) percent or more of the street landscape border area must have shrubs and vegetative ground cover per LUC 3.7.2.4 4. Indicate square footage of all landscaped areas and calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage per DS 2-07.2.2.2.g. 5. A 30" continuous screen along street frontages for vehicle use area must be provided per LUC Table 3.7.2-I 6. Within a vehicular use area, one (1) canopy tree is required for each 10 motor vehicle parking spaces and every parking space shall be 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. 7. Planting Plan. The planting plan and layout calculations will include location, size, and name of existing vegetation to remain in place & material and areas of inert ground cover. 8. Landscape plan shall include irrigation specification design and layout per DS 2-06.5.4.A & DS 2-06.5.4.B including source of irrigation, sleeves for driveways and sidewalks, locations of valves, low-flow bubblers or drip irrigation. 9. 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. 10. Additional comments may apply. |
| 04/14/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | NPPO approved |
| 04/23/2008 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | 1. REVIEWED ACCESSIBILITY AS TO COMPLIANCE WITH PAST REVIEW COMMENTS |
| 05/02/2008 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Department, Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall, Senior Planner PROJECT: T07CM04377, 3262 E. 44th Street O'Leary Construction, expansion to vehicle use area, office expansion Commercial Site Plan, 2nd Review TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 2, 2008 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with redlines and response letter, stating how Zoning comments were addressed. 1. Per DS 2-02.2.1.6, regarding buildings: A) Call out all entries to the building B) Please provide note stating building height is measured from grade to top of flat roof. 2. Per DS 2-02.2.1.8, - regarding parking: A) Revise wheel stop detail to show wheel stop contained in top 2'6" of parking space B) Call out all paved areas for vehicular use - provide curbing for unimproved areas. 3. Per DS 2-02.2.1.9, regarding bike parking: A) relocate class 2 bike parking within 50' of the entrance to the building 4. Per DS 2-02.2.1.10, relocate east parking spaces out of sight visibility triangle. 5. Per DS 2-02.2.1.11, regarding Parking area access lanes (PAALs): A) is vehicular access provided to maintenance area of the building? B) Call out the PAAL width in the west parking lot 6. Per DS 2-02.2.1.12 - regarding sidewalks and handicapped access: A) Near handicapped parking area, clarify if existing sidewalk is raised or in flush with the adjacent new sidewalk that is coming from the parking area, per DS 2-08.4.1 and DS 3-05. If raised, provide a ramp. 7. Per DS 2-02.2.1.14, regarding loading: A) Demonstrate maneuvering for loading zone is done on site, per LUC 3.4.4.2.A.3 8. Per DS 2-02.2.2.A.6, in percentage of expansion calcs -what does 4195 reference? 9. Please note that further review comments may be forthcoming, depending upon the responses provided. I can be reached at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or call 837-4951. HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T07CM04377 3262 e 44th oleary 2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan |
| 05/21/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: May 21, 2008 SUBJECT: 3262 E 44th St Site/Grading Plan- 2nd Engineering Review TO: Paul Nzomo LOCATION: T14S R14E Sec28 Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T07CM04377 (Site Plan) and T07BU02392 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised site plan (T07CM04377), revised grading plan (T07BU02392), and Drainage Report (Coronado Engineering and Development, 01OCT07 revised 21FEB08) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan or grading plan at this time. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 1) D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.10: Revise the site plan and the shown sight visibility triangles at both driveway entrances. Sight visibility triangles must reflect PAAL/driveways intersecting a Local Road. Refer to DS Sec.3-01.5.1 for triangle criteria. The SVTs that are shown on the site plan are backwards. The near side should be the far side. 2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Verify with dimensions that all PAALs meet the minimum width requirement of 24-feet, specifically at the existing entrance point. 3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Depict and label the 18-feet radii concrete curbs returns per City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Detail 213 (PC/COT SD 213) at the proposed driveway entrances. 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. For standard driveway entrances review and approval from Tucson Department of Transportation, Jose Ortiz, P.E., is required. Approval from TDOT was not submitted with this review for the use of standard driveway aprons. Provide an email or approval letter from Jose Ortiz with TDOT approval for the proposed design. 4) DS Sec2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to dimension the required 5-foot wide sidewalk along the street frontage of 44th Street. Refer to DS Sec.3-01 for all curb and sidewalk requirements. A DSMR will be required for modifying the development standards to allow a sidewalk that does not meet the minimum 5-foot width requirements. The DSMR must be approved prior to site plan approval. All exhibits and discussion must reflect any changes made by the approved DSMR. Provide a General Note to list the DSMR number, the Development Standard being modified along with the date of DSMR approval. This comment was not fully addressed with this submittal. Provide the approved DSMR for the existing 4-foot sidewalk. 5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.15: Provide a copy of the last approved Drainage Report for the Tucson Diversion Channel showing the discharge values and the toe-down depths of the existing bank protection to verify that the design of the bank protection can reduce the required erosion hazard setback as shown. 6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.15: Review and approval from Pima County Regional Flood Control District is required for all drainage improvements proposed into their right-of-way and/or infrastructure. This comment was not fully addressed with this submittal. Provide a copy of the approved PCRFCD Floodplain Use Permit and list all conditions of this permit on the site plan. 7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise the site plan to show roof drainage arrows and downspout locations with details to verify scupper concentration points. Clearly label and dimension all proposed scuppers. Provide the symbol used for the scuppers in the legend provided. 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. 8) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2: Revise the maintenance note #23 to provide clear language as to the maintenance of the catch basins and storm drains system. The notes should also address maintenance of the storm drain outlet at the existing channel location. 9) 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 Thad Harvison, (520)-837-6592 or Thad.Harvison@tucsonaz.gov for all right-of-way requirements and permit applications. 10) Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements may be applicable to this project due to the proposed disturbed area. 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 a grading plan submittal if the disturbed area of the project exceeds 1.0 acres (provide verification). For further information, visit, www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html. DRAINAGE REPORT: 11) DS Sec.10-02.2.1 &2.2: Revise the Drainage Report to include a discussion along with basin design for the project. Since the project is a commercial development and is larger than 1-acre 5-year threshold retention criteria shall apply. 12) DS Sec.10-01.2.3: Threshold retention requirements may also be waived in certain cases when storm water retention is not feasible due to constraints imposed by subsurface conditions, i.e. geotechnical report show that infiltration rates will not meet the required drain down time, close proximity to bedrock or ground water table. A geotechnical report must be submitted for review. 13) DS Sec.10-01.2.2: Provide a geotechnical report with building setbacks from the required basin, infiltration rates for the retention basin, and slope stability recommendations for basin design, slope stability, and erosion hazard protection from the Tucson Diversion Channel. Clarify if the Drainage Report and site plan match the geotechnical report. Infiltration rates for watersheds less than 10 acres must have a drain down time of 12 hours per 10-01.3.5.1.3. The proposed Table 4 will not work as a method to waive retention requirements. Even if a geotechnical report states that retention is not feasible additional on-site detention is required per DS Sec.10-01. 14) Revise the Drainage Report to provide a discussion on the required erosion hazard setback line for the Tucson Diversion Channel. Specifically provide a discussion on the existing bank protection and verify (provide as-built improvement plans) that it has been designed to reduce the required erosion hazard setback. As-built plans were not provided with this submittal. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 15) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: A geotechnical evaluation needs to be submitted for review, addressing the following: a) Soils report should provide conformance with DS section 10-02.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for the required retention basins, and provide discussion of potential for hydro-collapsible soils and any recommendation for setbacks from building to proposed retention basins. b) The soils report shall provide identification / assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas, and state any geotechnical recommendations and whether there are special provisions for the soil preparation for this development. c) Provide slope stability recommendations for any proposed constructed slopes. d) Provide pavement structure design recommendations. e) Provide infiltration rates for the retention basins. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan, grading plan, Drainage Report, geotechnical report, approved improvement plans for the Tucson Diversion Channel and a PCRFCD Floodplain Use Permit that address 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 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 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/22/2008 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 05/22/2008 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |