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 - T08CM00906
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/14/2008 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: T08CM00906 3901 S Kolb Rd. Site Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: 07/14/08 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. DS 2-02.2.1.6 Clearly indicate the height of the walls of each elevation for both structures. If the heights of the walls are greater than indicated in general note #4 the DDO comments following will be required to be revised. Dimensioned elevation drawings will be required for submittal for the DDO. The following comments can be used to apply for the DDO. Per LUC 3.2.3.2 these structures have a DD perimeter yard indicator. Per LUC 3.2.6.4 structures with a DD perimeter yard indicator when adjacent to a R-2 zoned property require a setback of one and one-half times the height of the structure. The wall height indicated in general note #4 is twenty three (23) feet thus requiring a setback from the east property line of thirty four (34) feet six (6) inches. The owner proposes a setback from the east property line for both structures of twenty three (23) feet three (3) inches. A Design Development Option (DDO) is required. Provide on the site plan the DDO case number, date of approval, what the DDO is for, and any conditions of approval. Remove from the dimension indicated from the buildings to the east property line the (1.5 H) notation. 2. DS 2-02.2.1.9 Please provide the following on the plan view detail of the proposed class 2 bicycle parking spaces. Single rack spaces placed in a row will allow a minimum of seventy -two (72) inch length per bicycle parking space. A five (5) foot wide access aisle measured from the front or rear of the seventy-two (72) inch long parking space will be provided beside each row. The surface of the facility can be surfaced the same as for motor vehicle parking (asphalt or concrete) or with a minimum of one (1) inch thickness of one-fourth (1/4) inch aggregate material. The number of provided class two bicycle parking spaces is not 2 but 4 have been provided. Revise the bicycle parking calculations on page C1. 3. DS 2-02.2.1.20 Provide the recordation information (docket and page) for the new 15' water easement. The indicated private access easement does not appear to correctly define the areas needed for access to both properties. This easement will need to be redefined or could be abandoned (provide docket and page for abandonment) and a perpetual vehicular, pedestrian and parking cross access agreement could be provided (provide recordation docket and page). 4. Provide maneuverability into and out of the loading zones. See engineering comments. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 C:\planning\cdrc\DSD\T08Cm00906-2.doc |
| 07/14/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Under review. |
| 07/14/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. A street landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4, is an 10' area running the full length of the street property line bounding the site except for points of ingress-egress. On streets designated as Major Streets and Routes (MS&R), the street landscape border is measured from the MS&R right-of-way line as determined by Sec. 2.8.3.4. 2. Whether or not required, screens along a street frontage must be located on the development side of the street landscape border so that they do not obstruct the view of the street landscape border from the street LUC 3.7.3.2.B. 6' wall in front of basin is obstructing the required landscape. 3. 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. 4. Additional comments may apply. |
| 07/15/2008 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/30/2008 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 30 APRIL 2008 T08CM00906/KOLB ROAD ASSISTED LIVING-RESUBMITTAL REVIEWED BY RON BROWN ACCESSIBLE REVIEW - RESUBMITTAL 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 DENIED: SEE COMMENTS BELOW I. SHEET C1: A. OK II. SHEET C2: A. ACCESSIBLE PARKING AND SIDE WALK RAMPS SHOWN ARE NOT AS DETAILED, DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION. LARGE SCALE DETAIL ON SHEET C3 IS MORE ACCEPTABLE THAN CONFIGURATION SHOWN ON SHEET C2. NON RESPONSIVE, CHANGE THE PARKING LAYOUT TO THAT AS PER DETAIL 2/C3 B. OK C. OK D. SHOW LOCATIONS OF ALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNS ON THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. NON RESPONSIVE III. SHEET C3: A. OK B. OK C. OK D. ACCESSIBLE ROUTE BEHIND DETECTABLE WARNING TO BE 4' WIDE NON RESPONSIVE E. OK ADDITIONAL COMMENTS SHEET C-2 1. THE NEWLY ADDED MARKED CROSSING IS IN A HAZARDOUS LOCATION WHERE DUMPSTER TRUCK CAN BACK UP AND ONTO THE MARKED CROSSING, NOT ACCEPTABLE. 2. CHANGE DETECTABLE WARNING STRIP TO BE AT END OF PARKING AISLE, NOT ON EITHER SIDE OF SIDEWALK RAMP AT NORTHERLY ACCESSIBLE PARKING. 3. IF PARKING ISLE IS TO REMAIN PART OF THE RAISED MARKED CROSSING, DETECTABLE WARNINGS SHALL BE LOCATED AT EITHER END OF MARKED CROSSING. 4. DETECTABLE WARNINGS ARE NOT REQUIRED AT MOST SOUTHERLY ACCESSIBLE PARKING GROUP. SHEET C-3 1. DETAIL 3: CHANGE FINE TO $532.00 2. DETAIL 2: a. DETECTABLE WARNINGS ARE NOT REQUIRED AT ENTRANCE TO THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING AISLE AS IN THE CASE OF THE SOUTHERLY ACCESSIBLE PARKING GROUP. b. DETECTABLE WARNINGS ARE REQUIRED AT ENTRANCE TO THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING AISLE IF THE PARKING AISLE IS PART OF THE MARKED CROSSING c. CHANGE NOTE TO REFERENCE ANSI 406.12, NOT ADA NOR COT STD 207. END OF REVIEW |
| 08/04/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Buildings on adjoining lots shall not utilize a private sewer which crosses the property line separating the lots. If located on the same lot, the two buildings may utilize a common building sewer that connects to the public sewer but approval from Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and a separate plumbing permit from the City of Tucson will be required. |
| 08/05/2008 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Mardonio Talavera DATE: August 5, 2008 Talavera Engineering and Construction 2455 E. Speedway Blvd. Tucson, Arizona 85719 SUBJECT: Kolb Road Assist. Liv., 3901 S. Kolb Road Site plan T08CM00906 (Second Review) T14S, R15E, Section 32 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan and Drainage Report. The Site Plan (SP) and Drainage Report (DR) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Site Plan: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the SP. 2. See comment no 2 of the DR. 3. Add the basin(s) maintenance responsibility note per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the SP. Drainage Report: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DR. 2. Demonstrate that the design 5-year retention volume is directed into the basin. If 0.9 of an acre is used in the ret./det. calculations and no off-site stormwater is impacting the site, how is the stormwater getting into the retention basins? Perhaps the basin would be better suited in a different location. 3. Provide details for the ret. basin including dimensions and cross-sections. Where are the details in the DR? Per previous comment. 4. Add the basin(s) maintenance responsibility note and checklist per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the DR. See attached sheets. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4932 or Paul.Machado@tucsonaz.gov Paul P. Machado Senior Engineering Associate City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 837-4932 office (520) 879-8010 fax C:\3901 S. Kolb Rd._Site2 Detention/Retention basin inspection and Maintenance note: A. The responsibility of operating and maintaining a local detention basin rests with the owner of the facility. B. (a.) That the owner(s) shall be solely responsible for, operation, maintenance and liability for the drainage basin(s); (b.) That the owner(s) shall have an Arizona registered professional engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at least once a year, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by city staff, upon written request; (c.) That city staff may periodically inspect the drainage and detention/retention facilities to verify scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) That the owners(s) agree to reimburse the city for any and all costs associated with maintaining the drainage and detention/retention facilities, should the city find the owner(s) deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities. |