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: T09CM03157
Parcel: 12218232A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T09CM03157
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/13/2010 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
01/19/2010 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
01/19/2010 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. On sites where the gross floor area of the existing building(s) is ten thousand (10,000) square feet or less, expansions in square footage of land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area as follows:

2. If the expansion is 50% or greater, or if expansions as of February 15, 1991 cumulatively result in a 50% or greater expansion in land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area, the requirements of this Division apply to the entire site per LUC 3.7.1.2.B.

3. A street landscape border, per Sec. 3.7.2.4 of the LUC, is a landscape area with a minimum width of ten (10) feet, running the full length of the street property line(s) bounding the site except for points of ingress-egress. All street frontages require full code compliance buffers. Loading Zones can not be located within required street landscape borders

4. Required street landscape borders shall be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee.

5. Indicate square footage of all landscaped areas and calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage per DS 2-07.2.2.2.g.

6. One (1) canopy tree must be provided for every thirty-three (33) linear feet of landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4.

7. A 30" continuous screen along entire street frontages for vehicle use area must be provided per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Identify screening all elements.

8. Add the following notes to the landscape plan:

DS 2-06.6.0 MAINTENANCE STANDARDS.

" 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.

" 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.

" 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.

" 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.

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

9. 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.

10. Additional comments may apply.
01/25/2010 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied PDSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: James Autosports
T09CM03157
Site Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 25, 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 the proposed parking restripe and site modifications only. Per the Zoning Administrator this is not an expansion of vehicle use area or site area.

2. This site is comprised of four (4) separate parcels. As proposed none of the parcels can stand alone and operate separately from the others. 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. Clearly identify all existing/proposed fencing and gates on the plan.

4. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.2 Provide a property description, legal description, on the plan.

5. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.5 Show all property lines along with dimensions and bearings on the plan.

6. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6 The parking calculation calls out "BUILDING B" but the plan does not show building B. Clearly indicate building "B" on the plan.

7. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 The setbacks shown on sheet 1 of 1 are not correct. The north and east setbacks worst cases are 0'. As all buildings are existing you do not need to show the setbacks.

8. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 There appears to be fencing shown at numerous locations through out the site adjacent to vehicle parking spaces. 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. That said provide a dimension for any vehicle parking space that is adjacent to a fence.

9. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Provide a dimension for the location of the proposed wheel stops, see D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.2 and Figure 5.

10. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 There is a fence and gate shown west of "EXIST. BLDG" just south of the "EXIST. LOADING". Provide a width dimension for the gate. Provide a note on the plan that states "GATE TO REMAIN OPEN DURNING BUISNESS HOURS" or show how the requirements of D.S. 3-05.2.2.D and Figure 2, Back-UP Spur are met.

11. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 There is a fence shown south of the northern most refuse enclosure. Provide a note on the plan that states "GATE TO REMAIN OPEN DURNING BUISNESS HOURS" or show how the requirements of D.S. 3-05.2.2.D and Figure 2, Back-UP Spur are met.

12. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 There are two gates shown at the west end of the two (2) parking area access lanes (PAALs) along N. Richey Blvd. Provide documentation from Jose Ortiz, Traffic Engineering that approves the location of these gates.

13. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.10 The sight visibility triangles (SVT) on the plan are not shown correctly, contact the Engineering reviewer for correct SVT locations.

14. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Provide a PAAL width dimension from the north corner of the northern most refuse enclosure to the north side of the PAAL.

15. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.F Sidewalks or pedestrian refuge areas may not be located between any motor vehicle parking space and the PAAL providing access to that space. That said zoning looks at a loading space as a vehicle parking space therefore the proposed pedestrian circulation shown to the north of the loading space adjacent to "BUILDING C" cannot run between the loading space and the PAAL.

16. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13 If applicable show the location, type, size, and height of existing and proposed signage on the plan.

17. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14 It does not appear that the required maneuvering area is provided for the proposed loading space. Show the maneuvering area on the plan.

18. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.18 Label Speedway Blvd. as an "MS&R".

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

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

21. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.28 Sheet 2 of 2 the zoning shown for the east side of Dodge Blvd. is not correct, this zoning should be labeled as C-2.

22. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.31 List the proposed uses as, Automotive - Service and Repair "30", subject to: Sec. 3.5.13.5, Administrative and Professional Office "31", subject to: Sec. 3.5.13.5, and Commercial Storage "31", subject to: Sec. 3.5.10.1

The following calculations are required on the site plan:

23. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3 Provide a Floor Area Ration on the plan, see LUC Section 3.2.11.

24. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3 Remove the lot coverage from the plan as it is not relevant to this project.
25. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.6 Remove all expansion calculation from the plan.
26. 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\t09cm03157

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents.
01/29/2010 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Denied 1. Insure accessibility for all accessible entrances as per ICC (ANSI) 117.1, Section 404.
2. At the North Elevation of Bay 1, the accessible route marked wit a dashed line needs to be concrete and extended o the East to create a concrete corner turning area and landing. It becomes an extension of what is noted as the designated striped ADA route.
a. If this accessible route is raised 6", curb ramps will be required at both the East and West ends of the concrete area.
3. Stripping of the designated ADA route is not required. What is required is a strip of truncated domes located at the edge of the 5' wide accessible route. Reference Zoning comments.
4. The marked crossing from the new concrete corner landing to the accessible parking spaces required detetcable warings at both the North and South ends.
5. As per the 2006 IBC, Chapter 11, Table 1106.1, two accessible parking sapces are required.
6. Where thje accessible crossed the loading area, a marked crossing is required with ramps at both ends and truncated domes.
7. The accessible route transition to the Richie Blvd. right of way pedestrian way does not work. Please redesign so there is a compliant connection.
8. Pleae provide large scale details of all accessible parking designs, ramps, marked crossings and accessible parking signage. Please show all criticalk accessible dimensions, slopes and detectable warnings. Please identify the "Van Accessible" parking space and show a "Van Accessible" signage on the pole.

END OF REVIEW
02/02/2010 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: February 5, 2010
SUBJECT: 3607 E Speedway Blvd- Engineering Review Site and Grading Plan
TO: SCE Corporation Attn: Charles Corrales
LOCATION: T14S R14E Sec04 Ward 6
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: T09CM03157 (Site Plan), T09BU01778 (Grading Plan) and T10OT00094 (Floodplain Use Permit)


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the site plan (T09CM03157), grading plan (T09BU01778), Floodplain Use Permit (T10OT00094) and Drainage Report (SCE Corporation, 07DEC09) 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:


SITE PLAN COMMENTS:

1) The site plan was reviewed for conformance with Development Standards Sec.2-02, 3-01, 3-05, 6-01 and 11-01 and the Tucson Code Chapter 26 "Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Management". It is recommended that the resubmittal have both the site plan sheet and grading plan sheet combined along with a detail sheet to make a complete plan set to help facilitate the review process. 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.

2) Revise the site plan sheet to provide the activity number assigned to this project (T09CM03157) as depicted by "P1209-."

3) Revise the plan sheets to remove the Approval Box reference for the subdivision coordinator. The reference is not applicable to city projects.

4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A: Provide the symbol used to denote the 100-year floodplain limits under the Legend Section on Sheet 1.

5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the plan set to correctly call out the detail for Keynote D. The extruded curb detail is on Sheet 1. It is recommended that all details be provided on a separate detail sheet.

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 plan set to label the minimum 24-foot PAAL widths at all PAAL intersections, property lines and adjacent to both proposed refuse container locations.

8) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to provide dimensions for the required back-up spur adjacent to any proposed gate location. Verify the minimum 6 foot separation between gate and the vehicle back-up. Refer to DS Sec.3-05.2.2.D for clarification.

9) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.10: Revise the plan sheets to correctly dimension the SVTs (near and far side) for all PAAL access points. The stem side dimension is drawn parallel to the curb line of the PAAL and the curb line of the intersection street. Refer to DS Sec.3-01.5.1 and Figure 16 for SVT procedures and criteria. Also provide a landscape plan to reflect the SVT shown on the plan set.

10) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: After discussion with City of Tucson Transportation Engineering it is recommended that the PAAL entry points from Richey Blvd be revised. For the first PAAL entry point a standard driveway entrance design will be required in order to provide for the required landing space at the top of the proposed handicap access ramps within the right-of-way. The proposed 18-foot curb returns for the second PAAL entry point is accepted for refuse maneuverability. If the 18-foot radii are still proposed at both entry points then accurate dimensions must be provided on the plan to show that all sidewalk improvements meet the minimum requirements for ramps, landing widths, etc.

11) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Revise the plan set to accurately label in plan view the reference for the relocation of the power poles at the PAAL entry points. All symbols used on the site plan must be shown in the legend section with a description.

12) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the plan set to clearly label Keynote 'A' in plan view for the proposed 5-foot sidewalk within the public right-of-way of Richey Blvd. It is recommended that the Keynote be labeled next to the sidewalk label in plan view.

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.14: Clarify on the site plan the maneuverability for the proposed loading zone as shown. It appears that the parking stalls and curb return might be in conflict. Refer to AASHTO for the national standards for turning radii. Label the minimum width of the entry point for the loading zone.

15) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Provide the Improvement Plan reference number for all existing drainage infrastructure adjacent to the site; i.e. catch basins, storm drains, etc. All existing drainage improvements that are shown on the site plan must have the referenced improvement plan for site verification.

16) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Revise the plan sheets to label both Richey Blvd and Speedway Blvd as "Public." Also label Speedway Blvd as "MS&R Arterial."

17) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Revise the plan set and detail for the proposed refuse container that meets 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. It is recommended that all details be provided on a separate detail sheet.

18) 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. Refuse vehicles can not back up into required parking spaces.

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


GRADING PLAN:

20) For convenience the proposed plan set can be changed to be both a site/grading plan as long as all applicable details, references and notes are provided on the plan set. If the submittals stay separated then all information must be shown on both plan sets for site layout and construction purposes.

21) Verify that all notes reference City of Tucson standards. Example, General Grading/Paving Note #1 should reference "City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (excavation and grading requirements)."

22) Revise the typo within the Basis of Elevation Section for the topography and spot elevations shown. The section references a 21,473.979 foot elevation (Mt McKinley, AL is 20,320') at the intersection of Richey Blvd and Speedway Blvd.

23) Revise the grading plan sheet to provide the grading plan activity number assigned to this project (T09BU01778) as depicted by "P1209-."

24) Provide a General Grading/Paving Note on the plan set to state, "Call for a Pre-construction meeting prior to start of earthwork. To schedule a PDSD Pre-construction meeting, SWPPP inspection or general Engineering Inspections, call IVR (740-6970), or schedule with a Customer Service Representative at the Planning Development Services Department, or contact PDSD Engineering at 791-5550 extension 2101, or schedule inspections online at:
http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Online_Services/Online_Permits/online_permits.html"


FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT:

25) A Floodplain Use Permit (T10OT00094) was submitted for this project due to the improvements within the mapped 100-year floodplain per the referenced Drainage Report. The Floodplain Use Permit will be approved and conditioned based upon grading plan approval.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised site plan and grading plan set 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.

A meeting is requested for this project prior to resubmittal to help ensure a timely review, call me at 837-4929.



Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
COT Planning & Development Services
02/02/2010 RICK MYERS PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Passed

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
02/25/2010 GERARDO BONILLA OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
02/25/2010 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed