Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T09CM00320
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/10/2009 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | |
| 06/10/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Please provide a large scale plan detail of the marked crossing and all associated ramps, slopes and detectable warnings. It does not appear to work properly, too small and not enough detail to determine compliance. Pay special attention to ICC/ANSI 117.1, Code Section 406.13.1, direction of travel. 2. Please provide a large scale plan detail of the passenger loading zone and all associated ramps, slopes and detectable warnings if required. It does not appear to work properly, too small and not enough detail to determine compliance. Provide code requirement section that requires Detectable Warnings at passenger loading zone. 3. Delete the detectable warnings at both accessible parking groups, not required by code. |
| 06/10/2009 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Academy of Tucson - Expansion T09CM00320 Site Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 10, 2009 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 due to an expansion of building and vehicle use area greater than 25%. 2. The Zoning Examiner Full Notice Procedure, Special Exception will need to be approved prior to approval of the site plan. Per LUC Section 3.5.3.7.B for the proposed number of students 227 the minimum lot size would be 329,604 sq. ft or 7.57 acres. This said a Zoning Examiner Full Notice Procedure, Special Exception is required. Contact Michael Wyneken @791-4505 in regards to this procedure. If the Special Exception is approved provide the Special Exception case number, Date of approval, and any Conditions of approval on the site plan. Also the proposed use listed under L.U.C. PROJECT DATA will need to be revised to reflect the Special Exception. The site plan cannot be approved until the Special Exception has been approved. 3. This comment was not addressed. Provide a copy of the site plan that approved the shade structures that are currently on site. Show all these structures on the site plan. 4. Zoning was not able to find the property description (legal description) on the site plan. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.2 Provide a property description (legal description) on the site plan. 5. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide overall dimensions for all structures on site. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6 For all existing and proposed buildings and structures, provide overall dimensions, height and identify all canopies and awnings on the site plan. 6. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Per D.S. 3-05.2.1.3 When the side(s) of a parking space abuts any vertical barrier over six (6) inches in height, other than a vertical support for a carport, the required width for the space is ten (10) feet to provide extra width to allow passengers to enter and exit the vehicle on the side where the barrier exists. This said the parking space located north of the "RELOCATED DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES" is required to be 10'-0" wide. 7. This comment must be addressed prior to site plan approval. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 Provide an off-street bicycle parking detail, including materials for lighting, paving, and security; fully dimensioned layout; location; specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports. 8. Provide sidewalk dimensions for all interior sidewalks. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Provide width dimensions for all proposed sidewalks on the site plan. 9. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13 If applicable show the location, type, size, and height of existing and proposed signage. 10. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3 Per LUC Section 3.2.3.2.A and Development Designator "5" the proposed 24% lot coverage exceeds the allowed lot coverage of 15%. A Board of Adjustment for Variance is required prior to approval of the site plan. If the variance is approved provide the Variance case number, Date of approval, and any Conditions of approval on the site plan. The site plan cannot be approved until the Variance has been approved. 11. Depending on how the above comments are addressed addition comments may be forth coming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\site\t09cm00320 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents. |
| 06/17/2009 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Development may not encroach into the designated Natural Undisturbed Open Space (NUOS) as shown on the submitted site plan. Revise plan. 2. The proposed encroachment into the floodplain will require a new Environmental Resource Overlay Application. Submitted material will include an Environmental Resource Report (ERR) as established in Development Standard 9-06.0 and in conformance with Development Standard 2-15.3.5. This Report presents a study of the resource corridor and documents locations of the resource corridor and critical riparian habitat. If preservation of the critical riparian habitat cannot be accomplished as provided in these regulations, the submittal will include a mitigation plan as required in Sec. 2.8.6.5.D. Permits for grubbing, grading, construction, or any other improvements will not be issued until all applicable requirements of Sec. 2.8.6.5 and Sec. 2.8.6.6 are met. DS 2-05.2.4.Y 3. The site plan must be accompanied by a landscape plan and irrigation plan with information specified in Development Standard 2-07.0. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. The review will continue when documents are included with re-submittal. |
| 06/19/2009 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Development may not encroach into the designated Natural Undisturbed Open Space (NUOS) as shown on the submitted site plan. Revise plan. 2. Submit a native plant preservation plan. LUC 3.8.4.2 |
| 06/19/2009 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 19, 2009 SUBJECT: 10720 E 22nd Street Site Plan- 2nd Engineering Review TO: Grenier Engineering LOCATION: T14S R15E Sec24 Ward 4 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T09CM00320 (Site Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the site plan (T09CM00320) and Drainage Statement (Grenier Engineering, Inc., 12MAR09) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan or Drainage Statement at this time. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: This project consists of a greater than 25% expansion for the new charter school expansion, per the Zoning Section review. The greater than 25% expansion requires that the entire site is reviewed and brought up to current full code requirements of the Development Standards and Land Use Code (this includes that all details and dimensions be shown on the proposed plan). 1) Review and approval by the Landscape Section of Development Services is required for the proposed disturbance within the Natural Open Space per the last approved Landscape Plan. Drainage design is dependant upon approval of the Landscaping Section, any applicable variances and a revised Drainage Statement that addresses all requirements of DS Sec.10-2 and the comments below. 2) Complied. 3) Complied. 4) Complied. 5) Complied. 6) Acknowledged. 7) Acknowledged. 8) Acknowledged. 9) Complied. 10) Acknowledged. 11) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all onsite handicap and ANSI Standard requirements that apply to this project. 12) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise the site plan to label all proposed flow arrows onsite to verify stormwater drainage from the vehicular use area, roof drainage, basin bottoms, etc. 13) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise the site plan to provide the water surface elevation for the existing basin adjacent to the proposed building to verify finished floor elevation. All structures must be elevated 1-foot above the calculated water surface elevation of any adjacent basin. Provide the water surface elevation for the proposed basin as well. 14) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise the site plan and any necessary changes to the Drainage Statement to label and dimension all drainage infrastructure locations for the proposed detention/retention basin to include but not limited to, basin inlets and outlets, proposed scuppers, curb opening, erosion hazard cut off wall, etc. for design purposes. Verify that all drainage improvements that are within the Drainage Statement are clearly labeled with details and dimensions on the revised site plan. 15) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Per Division Directive the site plan must label and dimension all basin outlets and bleeder pipes that are required at the basin outlets to ensure positive drainage. Provide the location and dimensions of the bleeder pipe in the detail for the basins. All basins must be designed to eliminate standing water and mosquito infestation. Infiltration test will be required prior to site plan approval to ensure that the basin drains within the 12-hour requirement. 16) Restated: DS Sec.10-02.14.3.3: Revise the site plan and the label for the basin access ramp to include the minimum 15-foot width and maximum 15 % slope requirements; verify that the landscape plans do not interfere with the required 15-foot access ramp. 17) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.17: Provide the cut and fill quantities on the site plan. 18) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Revise the site plan to label 22nd Street as "Public." 19) Complied. 20) Acknowledged. 21) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.21: Provide dimensions from the street monument lines to the existing and/or proposed curb, sidewalk, driveway and any utility lines. Clearly label the centerline of the road. 22) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.27: Provide a General Note stating that all fences or walls will require a separate permit for review and approval by all necessary Development Services Departments. Not found within the Note Section on Sheet 1. 23) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Revise the site plan to provide a detail and dimensions (at a minimum) for the proposed refuse container. Refer to DS Sec.6-01 (Figure 3) for all required refuse enclosure dimensions and construction details. 24) Complied. 25) Be advised that further comments may be forth coming on resubmittal of the site plan due to the full code requirement status. DRAINAGE STATEMENT: 26) Restated: Revise the Drainage Statement to provide the calculations for the scour depth of the regulatory wash that was used to determine the bottom of the wall elevation for scour protection. Revise the Drainage Statement and Exhibit 3 to show at a minimum the proposed erosion hazard cutoff wall extending to the erosion hazard setback (EHSB) line. The Cutoff wall needs to be keyed in to the EHSB to prevent undermining of the wall. 27) Restated: Revise the Drainage Statement to include calculation sheets, tables, hydrographs, etc to verify that the proposed and reconfigured basins meets the recommendations of the report for balanced basin requirements. Verify that all requirements within DS Sec.10-01 and 10-02 have been addressed in the statement. 28) Restated: Revise the Drainage Statement to include all details and dimensions for both the proposed detention/retention basin and the reconfigured detention basin. Provide minimum percent slope for basin bottom, side slopes, basin inlet and outlet locations, length, width, height, water surface elevation, etc. 29) Restated: Revise the Drainage Statement to provide the new water surface elevation for the reconfigured basin to verify finished floor elevation requirements for the proposed building. GRADING PLAN: 30) Restated: DS Sec.11-01.2.1: A grading permit may be required for this project depending on the proposed cut and fill quantities. A grading plan and a grading permit application will be required after site plan approval and prior to any construction activity. A grading permit may not be issued prior to site plan approval. 31) Restated: A Floodplain Use Permit is required for this project due to the proposed improvements within the mapped erosion hazard setback area. If a grading plan is required for this project then the floodplain use permit will be required at grading plan application submittal. If a grading plan is not warranted then the floodplain use permit must be submitted under the site plan application submittal for review and approval of the erosion hazard abatement wall. 32) Restated: 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 33) Restated: Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) is applicable to this project due to the proposed area of disturbance (1.45 acres per the Drainage Statement). Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development may be required. For further information, visit: www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 34) Restated: 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 proposed basin, and provide a discussion of the potential for hydro-collapsible soils. Report should address building setback from the proposed water harvesting basins and the proposed retention basin. b) Provide slope stability recommendations for all proposed constructed slopes. c) Provide pavement structure design recommendations. d) Provide percolation rates for retention/detention basins for 5-year threshold retention. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan, Drainage Report and a geotechnical report that addresses 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. For questions, or to schedule an appointment, I can be reached at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Development Services |
| 07/01/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Comment not addressed. Revise the current site drawing to include the following information: a. the location and size of the water meter b. the location of the main water lines c. the location and size of the public sanitary sewer and d. the location, invert, and rim elevation of all manholes. Reference: City of Tucson Development Standard No. 2-05.0 2.3 and Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/09/2009 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/09/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |