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: T09CM02887
Parcel: 140280340

Review Status: Active

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T09CM02887
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Active
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
02/05/2010 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed Not a COT owned/operated property
02/08/2010 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Denied Please provide occupant load calculations. It appears fire sprinklers will be required. Refer to 2006 IFC, Section 903.2.1.2.
Please show location of existing dfire hydrant on plans, with dimensions to property lines.
02/09/2010 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 9. Add the following notes to the landscape plan:


DS 2-06.6.0 MAINTENANCE STANDARDS.

a. Any plant material in areas of required landscaping that does not survive will be replaced with an equivalent size and species within thirty (30) days.

b. Plant material will be pruned as necessary to control size but not to disrupt the natural growth pattern or characteristic form of the plant except as necessary to achieve height clearance for visibility and pedestrian passage or to achieve a continuous opaque hedge if required.

c. Clipping and pruning of the plant material are required to allow maximum shading while preserving surveillance opportunities and preventing obstructive overhang into walks, curb areas, drives, and line of sight triangles. For general guidelines on height clearance of tree canopies, refer to Sec. 2-06.3.6.D, Sec. 2-06.3.6.E, Sec. 2-06.3.6.F, and Sec. 2-06.3.7.D.

d. All dead or removed plant material will be replaced with plant material acceptable under the requirements of the xeriscape landscaping regulations. Replacement material will be a minimum fifteen (15) gallon size for trees and five (5) gallon size for shrubs.

e. Regular landscape maintenance should ensure water efficiency and include, but not be limited to, pruning, mulching, weeding, and litter removal.

10. All landscape areas will be depressed to accept water flow from roofs, PAAL, and parking areas. Show by detail or spot elevations how landscape areas will accommodate water harvesting.

11. 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.

12. Additional comments may apply.
02/09/2010 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied PDSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Airport Inn Expanison
T09CM02887
Site Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 8, 2010

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 for the entire site due to a building expansion greater than 25%.

2. This site is comprised of two (2) separate parcels. That said, a lot combination is required. Prior to approval of this site plan provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combination Request Form, and a copy of the recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property along with the recordation information, docket and page.

3. D.S. 2-02.2.1.6 Under "SITE PLAN CALCULATIONS #3" there are "OVERHANGS" called out. Clearly indicate the overhangs on the site plan.

4. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1 A vehicular use area must be provided with post barricades or wheel stop curbing designed to prevent parked vehicles from extending beyond the property lines; damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings; or overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas or unpaved areas on or off site and to prevent vehicles from driving onto unimproved portions of the site. That said some type of barrier is required along the west property line to prevent vehicles from damaging what appears to be a fence shown on the plan.

5. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Provide a dimension from the face of curb to the north property line.

6. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 There appears to be some type of overhang just north of the proposed Class 2 bicycle parking. If there is a column or other obstruction provide a dimension on the Class 2 bicycle detail that addresses D.S.2-09.5.1.B A minimum of thirty-six (36) inches will be provided between a bicycle parking space and a perpendicular wall or other obstruction measured from the end of the bicycle rack.

7. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Provide a width dimension for all proposed sidewalks.
8. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Provide a width dimension for all proposed striped crosswalk shown running from the accessible access isle south to the sidewalk.

9. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Fully dimension the proposed backup spurs shown on the plan, see D.S. 3-05.2.2.D & Figure 2.

10. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13 Provide the type, size and height of the relocated sign.

11. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14 Show the maneuvering area for the proposed loading space on the plan.

12. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.18 Label Valencia Road as a Gateway Corridor.

13. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20 If applicable show all easements of record must be graphically shown on the plan together with recording docket and page reference.

14. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.25 If applicable show the existing and proposed lighting sight lighting on the plan.

15. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.28 Show the existing zoning for the parcel on the south side of Valencia.

16. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.31 Provide the existing use on the plan.

17. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 If the overhangs shown under "SITE PLAN CALCULATIONS #3" are to be used for seat they are required to be parked.

18. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 The provided bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.3.4, COMMERCIAL SERVICES USE GROUP, Food Service, Bicycle: Eight (8) percent - fifty (50) percent Class 1 and fifty (50) percent Class 2. Revise the calculation and detail to show two(2) Class 2 and two(2) Class 1 and revise the detail.

19. Provide a note on the plan stating "THIS SITE IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(s) CRITERIA: SEC 2.8.3, MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK AONE; SEC. 2.8.4, GATEWAY CORRIDOR ZONE; Sec. 2.8.5, AIRPORT ENVIRONS ZONE (AEZ)."

20. Provide a height for the proposed building based on LUC Section 2.8.5.11.B.

21. As this project is within the Airport Environs Zone (AEZ) the maximum height listed under "SITE PLAN & GRADING NOTE #5" is not correct. Per the AEZ maps the maximum height is 34'-0" based on the NE end of runway 21 and the Median Sea Level (M.S.L.) elevation of 2,567 feet.

22. 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\t09cm02887

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents.
02/10/2010 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
02/10/2010 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Received 1 copy of the site plan, drainage statement and geotechnical report for review. Fire has site card and other copies.
02/10/2010 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: February 10, 2010
SUBJECT: 2303 E Valencia Road- Engineering Review Site Plan
TO: Erin Loudermilk
LOCATION: T15S R14E Sec08 Ward 5
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: T09CM02887 (Site Plan)


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the site plan (T09CM02887), Drainage Statement (STAR Consulting, 22OCT09) and Geotechnical Engineering Report (Terracon Consultants, Inc., 09NOV09) 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:


DRAINAGE STATEMENT:

1) DS Sec.10-01.2.1: Revise the Drainage Statement to include a discussion on Critical Basin requirements. An example of the discussion could be worded like: "The subject property is within a critical basin per the Balanced and Critical Basin Management Plan Study therefore detention requirements plus a 15% reduction is required for the Q2, 10 and 100 year discharge. Though detention requirements can not be waived for parcels that are within a critical basin it is acknowledged by the City of Tucson Floodplain Manager that the building and asphalt parking lot existed prior to the introduction of the Balanced and Critical Basin Management Plan Study therefore the proposed improvements do not increase or decrease the existing flows or basin study as long as designed per the Drainage Statement. Since the property is commercial and less than 1 acre 5-year threshold retention is not required."


SITE PLAN COMMENTS:

2) The site plan was reviewed for conformance with Development Standards Sec.2-02, 3-01, 3-05, 6-01 and 11-01. Since the site plan will be used as the construction document all details, dimensions and keynotes must be added to the plan set. Make sure that all dimensions, details, sections, keynotes, proposed improvements and all other aspects of this project meet the minimum requirements within the referenced sections and are reflected on the revised plan sheets.

3) It is recommended to revise all notes and references on the site plan to correctly read "City of Tucson Planning and Development Services" where indicated by "City of Tucson Development Services." All future plans should reference the new City name for the department.

4) Revise the site plan sheets to provide the activity number assigned to this project (T09CM02887) as depicted by "T09CM__."

5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Provide a reference or keynote call out to Standard Detail #209 that labels all proposed curbing within the vehicular use area and curb returns within the right-of-way. Clearly call out the type of vertical curbing proposed, i.e. Type I, Type I (G) or Type II.

6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Provide a cross access and cross parking agreement between the existing 2 lots. Or provide a lot combination approval through the Zoning Section.

7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to provide dimensions for both back-up spurs within the vehicular use area. Verify the minimum 3 feet in depth, 3-foot radii, and a 3 foot separation between curb and the fence along the property line. Refer to DS Sec.3-05.2.2.D for clarification.

8) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.10: Revise the plan sheets to correctly dimension the SVTs (near and far side) for the PAAL access point. The plan set has the far and near side reversed in plan view. Since Valencia Road has a median the far side triangle would be dimensioned as a pedestrian triangle (20'x30'). Also the stem length for the existing triangles should be measured from the face of the new curb return not the curbing that is proposed to be demolished. Refer to DS Sec.3-01.5.1 and Figure 16 for SVT procedures and criteria. Also provide a revised landscape plan to reflect the SVT shown on the plan set.

9) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: After discussion with City of Tucson Transportation Engineering it is required that the second PAAL entry point that is no longer in use (proposed 30-inch screen wall blocks access) be closed off with vertical curbing and sidewalk. Provide a label clearly showing the length of curb and sidewalk installation along with all appropriate detail references for construction purposes.

10) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Verify and label the 25-foot radii for both sides of the proposed PAAL entry point per City of Tucson Transportation Access Management Guidelines (TAMG), Section 5.5. Refer to DS Sec.3-01.3.2.C for street development standards.

11) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Clarify Site Plan and Grading Plan Note #30. The location of the bus stop referenced is not located near the project site. This note is not required unless part of a subdivision plat note requirement.

12) 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.

13) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.14: Clarify on the site plan the maneuverability for the proposed loading zone as shown. It appears that the curbing around the sidewalk and landscape planter might be in conflict. Refer to AASHTO for the national standards for turning radii. Label the minimum inside and outside radii for the loading zone to verify maneuverability.

14) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise Sheet 3 to clearly locate the proposed/existing curb cut locations. Verify if the curb cut adjacent to the west side of the refuse container is located along the property line or within the landscape planter.

15) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise Sheet 3 and keynote # 10 to provide a specific detail for constructing the proposed curb cuts. Verify that the curb cut detail provide a terminal section (SD #212) and concrete header (SD #213) call out.

16) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Revise the plan set and dumpster enclosure detail to meet the minimum requirements within DS Sec.6-01. Refer to Figure 3 and DS Sec.6-01.4.2 for specifications and requirements on access, placement of containers, and bin enclosure construction. All construction details and dimensions must be shown on the site plan or refuse detail for construction purposes.

17) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Provide written approval from Environmental Services for refuse maneuverability. Provide the required 14-foot by 40-foot clear approach and verify the maximum allowed back up distance for maneuverability. It appears that the refuse vehicle maneuverability as shown does not allow for the clear approach or the allowed back up distance. The vehicle must have a clear 40-foot maximum backup distance.

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


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised site plan and Drainage Statement 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 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 Planning & Development Services
02/19/2010 RICK MYERS PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1..Provide site drawing showing the size, route, and slope of the building sewer. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006.
02/25/2010 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Denied On Sheet 2 of 3, Keynote 8, please provide an additional note stating that detectable warning are to be added as per ICC (ANSI) 117.1, section 406.12. Please show detectable warnings on the site plan and large scale ramps where required.
END OF REVIEW

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
02/26/2010 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF RECEIVED