Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T09CM02829
Parcel: 10703178A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL

Permit Number - T09CM02829
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/05/2010 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied All plant material used for landscaping shall be selected from the Drought Tolerant Plant List in Development Standard 2-16.0. Equisetum hyemale is not on the list, Mulenbergia rigens would be an expectable substitution.

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.
01/11/2010 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied Comment not addressed. Revise the site drawing to include the following information:
a. the location of the main water lines and fire hydrants
b. the rim elevation of the upstream manhole.
Reference: City of Tucson Development Standard No. 2-05.0 2.3 and Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006.
12/17/2009 DAVE MANN FIRE REVIEW Approved
12/17/2009 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Denied 1. At both large ramp areas shown on the East and West sides of the buildings, are these for vehicle access either truck, auto or fork lift? If so, the accessible route crosses both and a marked crossing is required including detectable warnings.
2. At the depressed sidewalk on the side side of the building that may be used as a marked crossing to the future building, until this conmnection becomes a reality, please provide an access barrier and no detectable warnings to the PAAL.

END OF REVIEW
12/24/2009 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: December 24, 2009
SUBJECT: 2525 N Jackrabbit Ave- 2nd Engineering Review
TO: George Lance
LOCATION: T13S R13E Sec34 Ward 1
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: T09CM02829 (Site Plan), T09BU01581 (Grading Plan), and T09OT02314 (Floodplain Use Permit)


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised site plan (T09CM02829), grading plan (T09BU01581), Floodplain Use Permit (T09OT02314) and Drainage Report exhibits (JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc., 30NOV09) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan or grading plan at this time. The following items need to be addressed:


DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS:

1) Complied.


SITE PLAN COMMENTS:

2) Complied.

3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.5: Clarify the proposed lot lines as shown on the site plan. Per the last recorded Assessor map the property is 2 separate parcels and per the site plan there are proposed improvements crossing the property boundaries, clarify. Verify if the Zoning Section will require a lot combination prior to site plan approval for any proposed improvements offsite (i.e. portion of the basin construction, 2 shot chip seal, fencing, etc. at 2525 N Jackrabbit Ave). Documentation was not submitted showing what conditions were required from the meeting held with PDSD Administration.

4) Complied.

5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.10: Revise the site plan (plan view) to correctly label the dimensions for the near and far side. Plan view has the labeling switched even though the dimensions are right.

6) Complied.

7) Complied.

8) 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.

9) Complied.

10) Complied.

11) Complied.

12) Complied.

13) DS Sec2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise the site plan and grading plan sheets to correctly label and dimension the required retention basin along the west property line. Per Keynote #8 on both the site plan and grading plan this area is proposed as granite groundcover and does not correctly label the required basin per the Report, revise.

14) Complied.

15) Complied.

16) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.21: Provide dimensions from the street monument lines to the existing curb, driveway and utility lines. Specifically the area between the existing curb and property line must be dimensioned.

17) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Revise the refuse details in plan view on both site plan and civil sheets to label the required bayonet anchor bolts and sleeves.

18) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Provide written approval from Environmental Services for refuse maneuverability. Verify the maneuverability, label and dimension the required 36-foot and 50-foot radii for the refuse container; The radii shown do not accurately reflect scaled dimensions. Provide the required 14-foot by 40-foot clear approach and verify the maximum allowed back up distance for maneuverability. The refuse vehicle can not back-up into the future lot and parking area covered with 2 shot chip seal, if this area is proposed to be used for maneuverability then the area must be constructed to DS Sec.3-05 and 6-01 surfacing requirements.

19) Acknowledged.

20) Be advised that further comments may be forth coming on resubmittal of the site plan.


GRADING PLAN:

21) Restated: Provide a copy of the stamped approved site plan (T09CM02829). The grading plan can not be approved until verification that all details, locations, dimensions, and plan profiles match the approved site plan. Verify all information associated with the site plan is shown on the grading plan which will be used as the construction document.

22) Complied.

23) Provide a note on the grading plan sheet to label the total acreage of the lot(s) and the disturbed acreage as proposed. The north lot has a total area of 0.4 acres and the southern lot has a total area of 0.33 acres. Clearly label the limits of grading on the civil sheets (specifically the detention/retention basin, 2 shot chip seal, fencing, etc.

24) Complied.

25) Complied.

26) Complied.

27) Complied.

28) Complied.

29) Complied.

30) Complied.

31) Acknowledged. However verification from PDSD Administration is required for any proposed uses on the adjacent lot. Otherwise both lots must be physically separated with a fence, wall, curbing or other means.

32) Complied.

33) Complied.

34) Complied.

35) 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.


FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT COMMENTS:

36) The Floodplain Use Permit (FUP) will be conditioned and issued concurrently with the grading plan application and stamped approved plan set. All conditions related to the FUP will be based on the grading plan review.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised site plan and grading plan 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
Planning & Development Services
12/24/2009 TERRY STEVENS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Terry Stevens
Lead Planner

PROJECT: T09CM02829
2525 N. Jackrabbit Ave.
Site Plan


TRANSMITTAL DATE: 12/24/09

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. Per discussion with C. Gross the following comment is required to be complied with. DS 2-02.2.1.A.5 This site contains two (2) separate parcels therefore you will need to show how the parcels can work as stand alone parcels if sold separately or provide a Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property. Provide recording docket and page information for the covenant on the site plan.

Remove lot dimensions and bearing from property line between parcels.

2. This comment has not been addressed. DS 2-02.2.1.A.9 Please provide a 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 and a minimum of thirty (30) inches between outer spaces of racks. 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. The surface of the facility can be surfaced the same as for motor vehicle parking or with a minimum of one (1) inch thickness of one-fourth (1/4) inch aggregate material.

This comment has not been addressed. The bicycle parking calculations are to be based on the number of vehicle parking spaces provide not on the number required. Revise.

The minimum number of required class two bicycle parking spaces if all class two are provided is two. Revise calculations.

3. This comment has not been addressed. DS 2-02.2.1.A.11 Clearly indicate the location of all curbing that will prevent vehicles from driving onto unimproved portions of the site. (around existing transformer, island in parking spaces, along the north property line at parking spaces, etc.)

4. This comment has not been addressed. DS 2-02.2.1.A.31 Provide the subject to sections for the proposed use. Should read as follows: General Manufacturing "34", subject to: Sec. 3.5.5.1.B, .F, .G, and .H

This comment has not been addressed. Per subject to section 3.5.5.1.H outdoor storage is not allowed in the street perimeter yard setback. Provide a note on the plans clearly indicating such.

5. This comment has not been addressed. DS 2-02.2.2.A.1 The gross area of the lot must include both lots after the combination. Revise.

This comment has not been addressed. This will affect the FAR calculations. Revise.

This comment has not been addressed. The FAR calculations should be provided for the existing building only not for the future building.


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961

C:\planning\cdrc\DSD\T09CM02829-2.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
01/14/2010 DELMA ROBEY OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
01/14/2010 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed