Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Permit Number - T09CM01102
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/24/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Designing the site plumbing constitutes the practice of engineering. Provide plans sealed by an Arizona Registrant. Reference Arizona Revised Statutes 32-125, Board of Technical Registration Rules R4-30-304. |
| 07/27/2009 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 114 E. Rillito Street T09CM01102 Site Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 27, 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. 2. This comment was not addressed. If there is new development proposed and no prior approved site plan is available provide a full site plan for this site. As it appears that there is some new development planned for the southern end of parcel 115-05-167A provide a copy of the last approved site plan for this parcel. 3. This comment was not addressed. As it appears that parcel 115-05-167A will be utilizing parcel 115-05-169B for parking and pedestrian circulation is proposed between the two parcels provide either a lot combination or a copy of a cross assess and parking agreement. This agreement should cover pedestrian and vehicle access and parking. 4. Provide a dimension from the proposed handicapped vehicle parking space to the refuse enclosure. This vehicle parking space is required to be 10'-0" wide. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Per D.S. 3-05.2.1.3 the vehicle parking space shown directly north of the refuse enclosure is required to be 10'-0" wide. 5. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Located within the eastern most parking space, along the south end of the project there is a keynote 32. The keynote references a "MAIL BOX" this mail box may note be located within the parking space. 6. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 The 3'-6" dimension shown from the eastern backup spur appears to be shown from the south side of the retaining wall, called out under keynote 12. This dimension should be measured from the west side of the wall to the backup spur. 7. This comment was not addressed. D.S. 2-02.2.A.4 Zoning acknowledges the vehicle parking information on the site plan but was not able to locate the required number of vehicle parking spaces. Provide the number required and provided in the same location on the plan. 8. 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\t09cm01102 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents. |
| 07/31/2009 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. A 6' wall is required to screen loading zone from street frontage LUC 3.7.2-I 2. Red Bird of Paradise (Caesalpinia pulcherrima) is considered a shrub, and Peruvian Verbena (Verbena peruviana) is a ground cover, revise-planting plan as necessary. 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 plan. 4. Additional comments may apply. 5. Re-submittal of all plans is required. |
| 08/06/2009 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 11, 2009 SUBJECT: 114 E Rillito Street Site Plan- 2nd Engineering Review TO: J.A.C.A Design, LLC LOCATION: T14S R13E Sec01 Ward 3 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T09CM01102 (Site Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the site plan (T09CM01102) and Hydrologic/Hydraulic Report (Stanley Engineering & Drainage, Inc., 23APR09) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan at this time. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Acknowledged. All comment items per this review are new comments that need to be revised in the Hydrologic/Hydraulic (HH) Report and on the site plan sheets. The 1st submittal did not have a sealed and signed copy of the HH Report therefore a thorough review could not be done. 2) Revise the site plan package to remove all past reviewed redlines. The redline sheets should not be included within the site plan package for clarity reasons. Redlines can be submitted as separate documentation as their own rolled set of plans. 3) DS Sec.2-02.0: Revise Sheet S1-01 to remove the word "Proposed" from the site plan title. The document should read "Site Plan" only. 4) Revise all keynotes and/or details with the wording "COT/PC STDS" to reference the Standard Detail for Public Improvement Number proposed. A reference number for the Standard Detail is required or a separate detail for the improvement is required to verify it meets the minimum requirements of the Standard Detail for Public Improvements. 5) Provide a separate detail for all improvements that do not meet the Standard Detail references. One example is the proposed concrete swale (Keynote #34). 6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.5: Clarify the proposed lot lines and conveyed property as shown on the site plan. Per the last recorded Assessor map, this project proposes a lot combination and/or reconfiguration clarify. All lot combinations or reconfigurations will require approval from the Zoning Section of the City of Tucson Development Services Department prior to site plan approval. Or at a minimum a temporary construction easement for all proposed improvements offsite. 7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Provide clarification that both Keynote #22 and cross section 2 on Sheet S1-02 matches in proposed construction design and thickness for the vehicular use area and refuse approach area. 8) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Provide a cross access agreement and cross parking agreement that is required for the proposed vehicular use and pedestrian use areas for the 2 adjoining properties. Provide the recordation information in plan view for the cross access/parking agreement. 9) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Provide a dimension from the proposed handicapped parking space to the refuse enclosure. Vehicle parking spaces adjacent to the refuse enclosure are required to be 10-feet wide, revise. 10) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to remove the reference to Keynote #32 located within the eastern most parking spaces. Keynote #32 references a "Mailbox", which may not be located within the parking space. 11) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan, Keynote #13 and Detail 8 on Sheet S1-03 to show that all proposed offsite handicap access ramps within the public right-of-way meet the design requirements per Standard Detail for Public Improvements #207. The ANSI reference does not work for handicap ramps within public right-of-way, revise. 12) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Clarify the number of proposed scuppers under the sidewalk at the southwest corner of the building. Keynote #31 should be labeled at all proposed scupper locations. Verify the same number of scuppers that are proposed on the site plan sheet show up on the grading plan sheet. 13) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise the site plan and the proposed scupper location (Keynote #33) within the proposed right-of-way so that the scupper is perpendicular to the existing/proposed curbing. If angled scuppers are proposed in the right-of-way due to elevation constraints provide tentative approval from TDOT Permits and Codes; Thad Harvison, (520)-837-6592 or Thad.Harvison@tucsonaz.gov for all right-of-way requirements. Clearly label the scupper under the sidewalk and provide a detail reference. 14) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise the site plan associated detail to clearly show that the proposed walls and footers are constructed entirely onsite. The proposed details do not clearly show the property lines and 2-foot setback. The footers appear to extend past the existing property line and onto the adjacent property. The wall and footers can be built up to the property line, but must be labeled and dimensioned to clearly show that no encroachment or grading onto adjacent property will happen with the construction of the wall. If offsite improvements are proposed a notarized letter of approval is required from the adjacent property owner(s) and a construction, maintenance and access easement will be required prior to grading plan approval. The easements must be labeled in plan view. HYDROLOGIC/HYDRAULIC (HH) REPORT: 15) Provide calculation sheets and a discussion within the HH Report for all proposed hydraulic structures for the proposed drainage improvements. All aspects of the proposed drainage improvements/scheme must be clearly detailed in the report, including drainage swales, wall openings, scupper design, rock riprap sizing, filter fabric specifications, valley gutter design, curb openings, etc. 16) The engineering exhibit submitted with the HH Report does not match the proposed site plan or grading plan sheets. Provide an accurate post drainage exhibit, stamped by the engineer of record that will be used for site plan and grading plan design. All 3 proposed sheets should match in layout, design requirements, details, etc. 17) DS Sec. 3-01.4.4.F: Provide a revised HH Report showing scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk at all proposed scupper locations. Verify that the details proposed in plan view for the scuppers reference the Standard Detail for Public Improvement or a separate detail reference on the detail sheet. 18) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5: Verify that all drainage infrastructure and details that are on the proposed site plan meet the minimum requirements and design parameters per the revised HH Report. Verify that the proposed drainage improvements; drainage swales, wall openings, scupper design, rock riprap sizing, filter fabric specifications, valley gutter design, curb openings, PAAL drainage, etc. meet the requirements and design details within the HH Report. GRADING PLAN: 19) A grading permit application (T09BU00642) has been submitted for this project and comments will be posted under that activity for grading plan review comments. A grading permit may not be issued prior to site plan approval. 20) Please ensure that any future grading plan will be consistent with the site plan and HH Report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan and HH Report that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response (stating "noted" is not satisfactory) 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 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/20/2009 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 08/20/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |