Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T09CM01636
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/26/2009 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Please provide the Fire Department with an approved water plan from Flowing Wells Water District. The water supply from Miracle Mile is designated as 4" and no other sizes are included for the loop. Water supplying fire hydrants needs to be a minimum of 6" in diameter. Please clarify. See note sheet A1.1 |
| 06/26/2009 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Denied | 1. At the most Westerly drive entrance to the facility, please provide a marked crossing as per IBC 2006, Section 3.5, 4.7.9, and 4.7.10. a. This is also applicable for detail 1/A1.3. 2. Note 33 refers the ramp detail to the architectural plans. The architectural plans references the ramp details to the civil drawings. Provide large scale curb ramp details as per sections 4.7 for all different types of ramps including all required critial accessible dimensions, slopes, detectable warnings, marked crossings and landings. a. This is also applicable for detail 1/A1.3 and 2/a1.4. 3. Why is an accessible marked crossing required to the bicycle parking area? a. Again note 33 is used to reference details to the architectural drawings, ditto comment 2 above. This is also applicable for detail 1/A1.3 and 2/A1.4. b. If the ramps are to remain provide an accessible marked crossing as required as per comment 1 above. 4. Reference accessible parking layout (site plan) to detail 1/A-1.6. 5. As per Development Standards 2.08.4.1.D, accessible routes are required to all Public rights of way, pedestrian ways. Please provide accessible route connection to Miricle Mile and to El Buritto Avenue. Please reference Zoning comments for exact clarification of requirement. Once revisions have been added to plan, further accessible review will be necessary. 6. At detail 3/C2.0: Delete the "L" shaped portion of the detectable warning layout. This is not required by code. END OF REVIEW |
| 06/26/2009 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: T09CM01636 1306 W. Miracle Mile Site Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: 06/29/09 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 2-02.2.1.4 A small, project-location map shall be drawn on the first sheet of the development plan, preferably in the upper right corner. The map should cover approximately one (1) square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of 3" = 1 mile, and provide the following information. a. Identify conditions within the square mile area, such as major streets and watercourses. b. Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled. 2. DS 2-02.2.1.5 Provide documentation showing that a tax parcel lot combination has been completed. The site plan cannot be approved until the combo has been completed. 3. DS 2-02.2.1.6 This project appears to be greater than 25% expansion of building area and lot area. Any expansion of greater than 25% requires the entire site to meet all requirements of full code compliance with the Land Use Code and Development Standards. This entire site is considered one site and must be presented as such. Provide a copy of the last approved site plan which has all of the zoning criteria on it, use, parking calculations, loading zone requirements, FAR calculations, etc. Provide calculations which clearly indicate the totals for all uses (existing and proposed) on the submitted site plan. Example: parking calculations for all uses on site including the 127,000 sq.ft. of existing structure as well as the proposed 56,000 sq.ft. of proposed structures. Provide dimensioned elevation drawings for the proposed structure. Place the height of the proposed structure on the foot print of the building on the site plan. The proposed 8' fences along Miracle Mile are required to meet building setbacks, 21 or the height of structure from back of future curb. Relocate fences to comply or a Board of Adjustment variance is required to reduce the required setback. The existing fences along Flowing Wells Rd do not appear to meet the required setbacks as well. Since this is full code compliance for the entire site the same will apply to these fences also. The indicated proposed 8'-2" masonry wall located along the north property line is required to meet the setback of 1 ½ times the height of the wall. DDO is required. Remove the legend and location map from on top of the foot print of the existing building. 4. DS 2-02.2.1.8 See previous comment regarding parking calculations and comply. Clearly indicate the number of provided parking spaces for the entire site on the site plan. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.7.2.C.1 Motor vehicle parking spaces sized for compact vehicles are allowed only within the Downtown Redevelopment District. Remove from site plan. Per detail 1 of A1.5 the proposed fence and gates are located in the parking spaces. Relocate gate and fences or delete parking spaces. 5. DS 2-02.2.1.8 The bicycle parking spaces indicated under the new parking canopy must be physically separated from the vehicular use area. See later comment regarding location. Calculations indicate 12 class one bicycle parking spaces being provided. Clearly indicate location and provide a dimensioned detail of the class 1 locker and required access aisle. Detail 3 of A1.3 is called out as class one bicycle parking, class two are indicated. Clarify. Please provide a plan view detail of the proposed class 2 bicycle parking spaces. 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. Lighting will be provided such that all facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent sidewalks, parking lots, or buildings, during working hours Bicycle parking provided on the site plan does not meet the requirements of revised DS (Development Standard) 2-09. Per DS 2-09.4.1 Class 2 bicycle parking facilities will be located no more than fifty (50) feet from the main building entrance(s) and will be along the front side of the building as well as along other sides of the building that has an entrance. Bicycle access through the development will be separate from the pedestrian ways. Vehicular access may be used as bicycle access. Bicycle access to a parking facility may cross a pedestrian way at a right angle (DS2-09.3.2). 6. DS 2-02.2.1.10 The future sight visibility triangles do not appear to be correct. See engineering comments regarding MS&R widths, sidewalk areas, future curb location etc. 7. DS 2-02.2.1.11 At the entrance from El Burrito Ave. a future gate is indicated. A turn around area will be required at this entrance. Contact Jose Ortiz with Traffic Engineering (837-6730) for design criteria. At the covered parking structures comply with the requirement per DS 3-05.2.2.B.2 A minimum distance of one (1) foot must be maintained between any open structure, such as a carport, and a PAAL. The distance is measured to the closest part of the structure, i.e., a roof overhang. 8. DS 2-02.2.1.12 Per DS 2-08.3.1 A pedestrian circulation path is required to connect to all adjacent streets. Provide a sidewalk connecting to El Burrito Ave. Per DS 2-08.3.1 A pedestrian circulation path is required to be provided connecting to the trash enclosure. 9. DS 2-02.2.1.20 If applicable, provide the location, use, size and recording information for all easements. 10. DS 2-02.2.2.A.2 Provide the floor area for all buildings on this site. 11. DS 2-02.2.2.A.3 The proposed FAR calculations provided appear to be incorrect. Provide calculations for the entire site. 12. If waivers from the City Manager are to be secured, provide copies of the waivers clearly indicating what is being waived. 13. Depending on changes to the plan and responses to the above comments additional comments may be forth coming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 C:\planning\cdrc\DSD\T09CM01636.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 06/26/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Passed | COT PROJECT REFERENCE ADA COMMENTS |
| 07/13/2009 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: July 13, 2009 SUBJECT: 1306 W Miracle Mile- Engineering Review TO: Elaine Weaver LOCATION: T13S R13E Sec35 Ward 3 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T09CM01636 (Site Plan) and T09BU00928 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed site plan (T09CM01616), grading plan (T09BU00928), Drainage Report (DOWL HKM, 19JUN09) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (DOWL HKM, 19JUN09) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan or grading plan at this time. This project consists of a greater than 25% 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. The following items need to be addressed: DRAINAGE STATEMENT: 1) Revise the Drainage Report, calculation sheets, site plan and grading plan sheets and proposed storm drains to meet the minimum requirements of COT Streets and Maintenance. At a minimum the proposed storm drains are required to be 18 inch reinforced concrete pipes for maintenance purposes. Proposed storm drains at a smaller size will require approval from City of Tucson Streets and Maintenance. 2) Revise the developed drainage condition map and the Drainage Report to clarify the proposed Storm Drain Catch Basin (SDCB) #8 as shown on Sheet C1.5. All proposed SDCB must be clearly shown within the report with supporting calculations. SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.4: Revise the site plan to relocate the legend and location map so that it is not in conflict with the foot print of the existing building. 4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.5: Clarify the proposed lot lines as shown on the site plan. All lot combinations will require approval from the Zoning Section of the City of Tucson Development Services Department prior to site plan approval. 5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan and Detail 1/A1.5 to show that the proposed fence and gate is not encroaching into the 2 proposed parking spaces as currently shown. 6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to show a minimum unobstructed radius of 5 feet at all PAAL intersections, unless the PAAL is designated as a fire lane or access for refuse collection then a minimum unobstructed radius of 18 feet is required per DS Sec.3-05.2.1.3.b. 7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.10: Revise the site plan to correctly label the future sight visibility triangles for the PAAL access point at Miracle Mile after revising the dimensions for the future curb and sidewalk location per DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19. 8) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Revise the site plan to label and dimension the required turn around area at the proposed gate location at the entrance from El Burrito Ave. Contact Jose Ortiz with Traffic Engineering (837-6730) for design criteria. 9) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to show the required 6-foot wide sidewalk with curb along the street frontage of Miracle Mile. Per the adopted Mayor and Counsel policy all sidewalks along MS&R right-of-ways for arterial and collector streets require 6-foot wide sidewalks. Verify that the existing sidewalk meets the minimum requirements. 10) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to label and dimension the required 5-foot sidewalk within the public right-of-way of El Burrito Ave per DS Sec.3-01.3.3.A. Revise all keynotes and details to label the sidewalk width at the required 5 feet. 11) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to label and dimension the required pedestrian circulation path from the proposed building to the required sidewalk located along the frontage of El Burrito Ave. The pedestrian circulation must meet the requirements within DS Sec.2-08. 12) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to label all offsite handicap access ramps within the public right-of-way on both streets to verify they meet the design requirements per the Public Standard Detail #207. Provide details and minimum slope requirements at all transitions from pedestrian circulation to vehicular circulation. 13) 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. 14) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise the plan sheets and the proposed storm drains to match the revised Drainage Report. At a minimum the proposed storm drains are required to be 18 inch reinforced concrete pipes for COT maintenance purposes. Proposed storm drains at a smaller size will require approval from City of Tucson Streets and Maintenance. 15) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Revise the site plan to label and dimension the required 12-foot setback measured from the future curb to the future right-of-way, for the location of the future 6-foot sidewalk and required space. Revise the dimensions on Sheet A1.1 for future curb location, sidewalk width and future SVT. 16) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.20: Verify that all existing and proposed easements are drawn with recordation information, location, width, and purpose of on the site plan. 17) Review and approval from TDOT Permits and Codes for all improvements within the public right-of-way will be required. A right-of-way use permit application will be required prior to construction. Refer to the following links for TDOT Forms and applications: a) http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/applications.html / b) http://www.dot.ci.tucson.az.us/engineering/pia.php c) Or contact Thad Harvison at 837-6592 for all additional questions regarding r-o-w. 18) Be advised that further comments may be forth coming on resubmittal of the site plan due to the full code requirement status. GRADING PLAN: 19) Revise the civil sheets or provided a table with Detail 4/C2.0 for all proposed riprap pad dimensions. Per the detail the pad lengths and widths are to be called out "per plan"; however the dimensions could not be located in plan view, clarify. 20) Revise the civil sheets, Drainage Report and proposed storm drains to meet the minimum requirements of COT Streets and Maintenance. At a minimum the proposed storm drains are required to be 18 inch reinforced concrete pipes for maintenance purposes. Proposed storm drains at a smaller size will require approval from City of Tucson Streets and Maintenance. Revise all associated keynotes and details to match. 21) Clarify within keynote #6, Sheet C1.5, the proposed number of scuppers at each location per the paving plan sheet C1.3. 22) Revise the civil sheets C1.3 and C1.5 to either label the existing storm drain to be demolished per the Demolition Sheet, A1.0, or remove it completely from the paving and grading plan sheets for clarity. 23) Revise Sheet C1.6 to label and dimension the proposed fence and gate location along with the required turn around for the PAAL access lane at El Burrito Ave. 24) Revise the civil sheets and/or Detail #8 on Sheet C1.6 to label and dimension all details for construction and installation for the proposed underground tank. Provide details on how the proposed roof drains will connect to the tank and at what locations. Or at a minimum provide a General Note that states, "The installation of the proposed underground tank will require a separate permit for review and approval by all necessary Development Services Departments prior to installation." 25) Please ensure that the grading plan is consistent with the site plan and Drainage Report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 26) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.6: Provide the Geotechnical Report referenced in the Civil General Note #4 as shown on Sheet C1.0. The geotechnical evaluation needs to address the following: a) The soils report shall provide identification / assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas, and state any geotechnical recommendations and whether there are special provisions for the soil preparation for this development. Report must also include a discussion and any recommendation for the proposed underground tank. b) Provide pavement structure design recommendations. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP according to these comments: 27) Part III.A.3 and VIII.J.2: Ensure the SWPPP is signed by a person meeting the certification requirements of Permit Part VIII.J. Specifically the owner certification on the exhibit must be signed prior to SWPPP approval. 28) Part III.C.2.d: Indicate the percentage of the site that is impervious before and after construction. 29) Part III.C.2.f: Revise the project location map in the SWPPP Exhibits. The map must identify the nearest receiving water(s) or other water bodies within 1 mile of the site. 30) Part III.C.3.c: Revise the SWPPP exhibit to label all structural BMPs identified in the SWPPP. Specifically for SDCB #8 as shown on the civil and the SWPPP exhibit. Straw bales are required around the CB. 31) Part III.D.3: Include a copy of the completed NOI form that was/will be submitted to ADEQ. The signed NOI is required prior to SWPPP approval. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Drainage Report, site plan, grading plan, SWPPP and the referenced 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 and grading 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 |
| 07/13/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Confirm that a 2" water meter is sufficient for the proposed building; Tucson Water limits the demand for a 2" meter to 80 GPM or less. |
| 07/21/2009 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | If the expansion is twenty-five (25) percent or greater or if expansions as of February 15, 1991, cumulatively result in a twenty-five (25) percent or greater expansion in land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area, the requirements of this Division apply to the entire site. LUC 3.7.1.2.B.1.b The existing portions of the site will need to be reviewed for conformance with the applicable code requirements. The proposed landscape plan for the crime laboratory appears to meet or exceed applicable requirements. Revise as necessary to coordinate with revisions made to the base plan. |
| 07/21/2009 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Revise if necessary to coordinate with any relevant revisions to the base plan. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/23/2009 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |