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 - T07OT02454
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/03/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/15/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: January 16, 2008 SUBJECT: 3535 E Valencia Road- 2nd Engineering Review New Parking Lot Expansion TO: Metro Permits Express Attn: Lisa Bowers LOCATION: T15S R14E Sec09 Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T07OT02454 (Site Plan) and T07BU02273 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised site plan (T07OT02454), grading plan (T07BU02273), Drainage Report (O'Neill Engineering, 26OCT07, revised 21DEC07), Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (O'Neill Engineering, 30OCT07, revised 21DEC07), and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation (Pattison-Evanoff Engineering, LLC, 18DEC07) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan, grading plan or Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) at this time. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to correctly dimension the PAAL entries to verify the 24-foot requirement. The 24-foot PAAL dimension must be measured from the face of curb to face of curb, a drafting error shows the dimension measured to the back of the curb, revise. 2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Revise the detail on Sheet SP-1 and plan view on Sheet SP-2 to verify the PAAL width at the entry gates for the proposed PAAL. The dimensions must be shown from the face of the pole to the face of curb. The dimensions shown do not clarify the minimum width requirements. 3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Verify the 5-foot requirement for the pedestrian circulation path between the existing PAAL and the existing wrought iron fence that connects Brittania Drive to the existing building. Portions of the sidewalk still labels existing pedestrian circulation as 4-feet not the 5-feet minimum required adjacent to the PAAL. 4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan and grading plan to show that the proposed handicap access ramps at the driveway entrance meets the design requirements per ANSI Standards A117.1-2003 Section 406.13. Provide a detail or revise the construction note #3 on the grading plan to label truncated domes at all transitions from pedestrian circulation to vehicular circulation. 5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise or clarify Site Plan Note #10 on Sheet SP-2. The C.O.T. standard detail 309 called out does not meet the detail called out on the grading plan sheet, construction note #7 (detail 307). 6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise the site plan to label the existing storm drainpipe to be removed. 7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.20: Provide recordation information for all easements that are shown, specifically the 10-foot public utility easement along Brittania Drive. 8) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.27: Revise the site plan and associated details so that the proposed fence is constructed entirely on the subject property, unless an easement is granted for the maintenance and construction of the proposed fence. The proposed plan still shows that the wrought iron fence is being constructed across Lot 17 and not entirely on the subject parcel of Lot 16 9) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Clarify the relocation of the refuse containers as shown on the proposed site plan. Per the last approved site plan submitted the refuse containers have been moved from what was approved. Provide a copy of the approved 2-15-06 site plan at the next submittal. The only stamped approved site plans that could be located with this resubmittal package were the site plan from 8-21-00 and the lot reconfiguration from 7-11-03. GRADING PLAN: The project 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. 10) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise the grading plan to provide cross-sections (more than 1) along the west property line of Lot 16 to show the limits of grading, property line, spot elevations, and other information to clearly show how this portion of the property is to be graded. The additional cross sections must show the removal of the existing berm, grade elevations and any proposed landscape areas to clearly show how the property is to be developed for construction purposes. 11) Revise or clarify Construction Note #7 on Sheet C-3. The C.O.T. Standard Detail 307 called out does not meet the detail called out on the site plan (309). Provide a detail on the grading plan sheets for the catch basin showing spot elevations, flowlines, pipe invert, rim invert, grate details and ponding limits within the vehicular use area. The detail must meet the design requirements of C.O.T. Standard Detail. 12) Clarify the stormwater run off within the proposed driveway. Provide additional spot elevations to clarify the proposed flow line of the driveway, does this water drain into the proposed parking lot or into the adjacent landscape area (preferred). Revise the speed humps so that the stormwater runoff can drain around one side so that it does not pond behind the 3-inch height of the speed hump. 13) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the grading plan to show that the proposed handicap access ramps at the driveway entrance meets the design requirements per ANSI Standards A117.1-2003 Section 406.13. Provide a detail or revise the construction note #3 on the grading plan to label truncated domes at all transitions from pedestrian circulation to vehicular circulation. 14) Revise the grading plan to label all existing rock riprap that is shown in the proposed vehicular use area as to be removed. Rock riprap can not interfere with vehicular circulation as shown on the proposed grading plan. 15) Revise the grading plan so that the proposed fence is constructed entirely on the subject property, unless an easement is granted for the maintenance and construction of the proposed fence. The proposed plan still shows that the wrought iron fence is being constructed across Lot 17 and not entirely on the subject parcel of Lot 16 STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). 16) Part IV.F: Include copies of the AZPDES permit (AZG2003-001) and signed NOI as part of the SWPPP submittal. NOI must be signed by the property owner or authorized representative prior to SWPPP approval. 17) Tucson Code 26-42.b: The SWPPP Exhibits must be signed and sealed by the engineer of record. Sheet SW-2 is stamped but not sealed and Sheet SW-3 does not have a stamp or signature, revise. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan, grading plan and SWPPP that address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site plan, grading plan and SWPPP 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 Development Services |
| 01/22/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Where the finish floor elevation is less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer or private sewer collection system, a backwater valve shall be installed in the building drain or branch of the building drain serving that floor. Floors discharging from above that reference point shall not discharge through the backwater valve. Section 710.1, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 12/26/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Department, Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall, Senior Planner PROJECT: T07OT02454, 3530 E. Britania Drive Parking lot expansion to existing First Health Group Office site Less than 25% overall parking expansion - review done for new parking only Commercial site plan, 2nd review TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 24, 2007 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings with redlines and a response letter, stating how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. 1. Per DS 2-02.1.8 -regarding parking: A) note on the plans "all vehicle and pedestrian gates will be left open during business hours". (Your last response indicated it was on there, I'm sorry - I didn't find it) B) On SP-1, detail 2 -increase pole height of handicapped sign to 7' per City Code. 2. Per DS 2-02.2.1.9 - regarding bicycle parking: A) (Per last review) Please REVISE the bicycle parking space CALCULATIONS to show total number REQUIRED bike spaces as 56, of which class 1 bike spaces increased to 42, and total number of required class 2 bike spaces increased to 14. B) (last review) Put new class 2 bike parking within 50' of building entry, DS 2-09.4.1. C) The class 2 bike parking shown in detail drawing 4 on SP-1 does not meet the updated DS 2-09. Please see internet for update and choose from Figure 2 or Figure 3. D) The class 1 bike parking inside building must provide locked security, per Planning Administrator's advisement. (i.e. will bike parking be behind a fenced, locked area?) 3. (Per last review) Per DS 2-02.2.1.11, regarding PAALs - A) dimension PAALs at traffic gates- from the edge of the bollard to the curb B) Provide directional arrows on one way PAALs-at gates C) PAALs have to be a minimum of 24' wide per DS 3-05. Where the new parking area connects to existing parking that those PAALs are reduced to less than 24' wide - as the area between concrete islands is less than 24' (unless there is a drafting error where the measurement arrows point) Please revise. 4. (Per last review) Per DS 2-02.2.1.12, regarding pedestrian and disabled access routes: A) it appears a portion of the sidewalk along the circular route to the building has been omitted based upon the last approved site plan. Please see the redlined note. 5. Please note, further review comments may be forthcoming, depending upon the responses provided. Should you need to reach me about this review, please contact me via email at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 520-387-4951. HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T07OT02454 3530 E. Britania 2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan |
| 12/26/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | Please see comment 4 of the zoning review notes. |
| 12/31/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/24/2008 | VFLORES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/24/2008 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |