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 - T08CM03039
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/11/2008 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/11/2008 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/11/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: VIDAS SERENAS APARTMENTS Residential Care Services: Behavioral Health Service T08CM03039 Site Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 11, 2008 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. 2. D.S.2-02.2.1.A.9 It appears that there has been a change to the Class 2 bicycle parking. The provided detail 13/C1.3 does not match the proposed Class 2 bicycle parking shown north of BUILDING I. Per D.S. 2-09.5.2 Show the required five (5) foot access aisle between the rows of bicycle parking on the detail, reference 2-09.0 Figure 9. 3. D.S.2-02.2.1.A.9 Clarify how the proposed Class two bicycle parking shown east of Building A meets the requirement of D.S. 2-09.4.3 Separation from Automobile Parking. Bicycle parking facilities will be separated from vehicular parking and drive areas by a barrier or sufficient distance to prevent damage to the parking bicycles. 4. D.S.2-02.2.1.A.12 Zoning acknowledges your response to this comment, however based on staff discussions and past Zoning Administrator determinations and due to the fact that the minimum width of a PAAL is referenced in LUC Table 3.3.7.I it will require a Board of Adjustment for Variance. Prior comment -The PAAL located southwest of Building F does not meet the minimum twenty-four (24) foot width for a two-way PAAL. If the variance is approved provide on the plan; variance number, date of approval and any conditions of approval. 5. D.S.2-02.2.1.A.12 Per D.S 2-08.4.1.B A sidewalk will be provided adjacent and parallel to any PAAL on the side where buildings are located and D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.1 A minimum setback distance of five (5) feet for a pedestrian refuge area must be maintained between any enclosed structure and a PAAL. This said: a. Provide a five (5) foot pedestrian refuge with a minimum four (4) foot sidewalk between the north side of Building G and the PAAL. b. Provide a five (5) foot pedestrian refuge with a minimum four (4) foot sidewalk between the south side of Building F and the PAAL. A DSMR is required for the above comments. If the DSMR is approved provide on the plan; DSMR number, date of approval and any conditions of approval. 6. D.S.2-02.2.1.A.31 Under the "EXISTING AND PROPOSED USE, SUBJECT TO" remove the reference to ".A" and ".F" 7. Per D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 Zoning acknowledges your response to this comment of 46 spaces provided and shown on the plan however the parking calculation shows 47 provided, please clarify. It appears that the vehicle parking space calculation in not correct. Zoning was only able to locate forty-four (44) spaces on site, not forty-seven (47) as called out in the calculation, please clarify. 8. Per D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 The bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Base on an inverted "U" rack supporting two (2) bicycles it appears that the total provided should be thirty (30). 9. 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\t08cm03039-2nd. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents. |
| 12/17/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | Exception |
| 12/17/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | 1. The background layer on the landscape plan is fairly light and may be difficult to reproduce. It is recommended for archiving purposes that the background layers showing existing conditions and site layout be darkened. 2. Any changes made to the site plan based on other reviewers comments should also be reflected on the landscape plan. 3. A brief over-the-counter review at City Development Services Department may be arranged for stamped approval of the landscape plan. I may be contacted at peter.mclaughlin@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4898 to arrange a time for final approval. |
| 12/17/2008 | MATT FLICK | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD Engineering recommends DENIAL of the Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report. Resubmittal Required: Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Drainage Report The following comments are offered: Threshold retention is required for sites greater than 1 acre in size. The drainage report and resubmittal comments (to Paul Machado's previous comments) repeatedly reference that the site is fully developed. Yet, a new building and new parking is being added to the existing. Based upon the consultant's figures for existing and developed conditions imperviousness, about 0.37 acres of imperviousness is being added to the existing site. This estimated 20 percent increase in imperviousness must use water harvesting or threshold retention to account for the increase in the 5-year flow volume. It is estimated that about 1100 cubic feet of volume is required. This would require about 8800 square feet of impervious surface to be drained to the threshold basin(s) or water harvesting area(s) to provide sufficient volume to fill the 1100 cubic feet of volume. Water harvesting on this site would go a long way to meeting the threshold retention requirement and is recommended as a way to store the required volume rather than using retention basins. SITE PLAN: Sheet C1.0: Note 2 indicates that landscape areas are to be depressed 6 inches minimum for water harvesting. Unless flows are directed to these depressed areas, the only water harvesting that will occur is for the rainfall that occurs directly on the depressed area. Sheet C1.0: If retention basins are used in lieu of water harvesting areas, please add the maintenance notes as requested in Mr. Machado's Comment #13. Sheet C1.1: Please check the building FFEs and grading elevations for, and in the vicinity of, Buildings E and F. The FFE of Bldg. F is shown as 54.41. That is shown to be about 2 feet lower than the scupper invert of 56.40 located near the NW corner of Bldg. E. Bldg. E's FFE of 54.98 is also shown to be lower than the scupper invert. Sheet C1.1: It appears that the site will be constructed to drain away from the landscape areas. Unless areas are graded to drain to the water harvesting areas (or downspouts are directed to sufficiently large water harvesting areas), little water harvesting will occur. Please consider the use of curb cuts and directed grading to increase the amount of water harvested on the site. Sheet C1.1: Please remove the parking from the future SVT as per Mr. Machado's Comment #5. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Sheet L010: Note #5 indicates that landscape areas will be depressed a minimum of 6 inches to accept runoff from roof and vehicular use areas. The response to Peter McLaughlin's Comment #8 also indicates that new landscape areas are to be depressed to accept runoff from roof and vehicular use areas. The site plan indicates that roof drainage and vehicular use area drainage is being directed away from landscape areas. Please coordinate site grading with the engineering consultant to direct drainage toward depressed landscape areas. Threshold retention is required for sites greater than 1 acre in size. It is estimated that about 1100 cubic feet of volume is required. This would require about 8800 square feet of impervious surface to be drained to the threshold basin(s) or water harvesting area(s) to provide sufficient volume to fill the 1100 cubic feet of volume. Water harvesting on this site would go a long way to meeting the threshold retention requirement and is recommended as a way to store the required volume rather than using retention basins. Sheet L010: A note along the northern border indicates that the area around the base of the existing oleanders will be cleaned up to provide positive drainage. Please note that this could be a significant area of water harvesting. Positive drainage should be provided so that excess flows (above that retained in the water harvesting area) do not cause flooding. DRAINAGE REPORT: Section 1.3: Please remove the reference to the site being fully developed. Section 2.2: Please remove the reference to the site being fully developed. Section 2.2: The discussion regarding the proposed drainage scheme references that the proposed drainage scheme will route drainage to the northeast corner of the site and significantly decrease the flooding hazard to existing structures. Routing this drainage through water harvesting areas or a retention basin would aid in the flood hazard reduction. Section 2.2: The discussion regarding roof drainage references that the proposed drainage scheme will collect drainage via a gutter and downspout system. Please note that the landscape plan notes that this drainage will be directed to depressed landscape areas. Please discuss this drainage scheme. Section 5.1: Please remove the reference to the site being fully developed. Section 5.1: Please remove the statement that site development does not change the runoff coefficient for the site. The percent imperviousness presented in Appendix B indicates that the imperviousness goes up due to site development. This would increase the post-development runoff coefficients. Section 5.1: Please remove the statement that the threshold retention requirement is zero. The first sentence of this section states that threshold retention requirements apply and Appendix B shows an increase in imperviousness. Threshold retention is required. About 0.37 acres of imperviousness is being added to the existing site. This estimated 20 percent increase in imperviousness must use water harvesting or threshold retention to account for the increase in the 5-year flow volume. It is estimated that about 1100 cubic feet of volume is required. This would require about 8800 square feet of impervious surface to be drained to the threshold basin(s) or water harvesting area(s) to provide sufficient volume to fill the 1100 cubic feet of volume. Water harvesting on this site would go a long way to meeting the threshold retention requirement and is recommended as a way to store the required volume rather than using retention basins. Section 6.0: Please remove the reference to the site being fully developed. Section 7.0: Please note that this site lies within the limits of the City of Tucson. Appendix B: The maps on the TDOT website indicate that part of the site contains Type B soils, not just Type D soils as indicated on the calculation sheets. Please revise the peak flow calculations to reflect the correct soil types. Appendix B: Provide a calculation for the required threshold retention storage volume (5-year volume differential). Appendix D: If retention basins are to be used in lieu of water harvesting, please indicate the location of the retention basins on Figure D-3. |
| 12/18/2008 | RICK MYERS | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | provide plans and specifications for all new work. |