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: T09CM03255
Parcel: 104061830

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE

Permit Number - T09CM03255
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
03/11/2010 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. This site is reviewed under full code compliance all landscape requirements apply.

2. 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. Provide street landscape border for Miller Ave. Dimension landscape borders, sidewalks can not be included in measurement.

3. Street landscape borders shall be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee, up to five (5) feet of the required ten (10) foot width be placed within the adjacent right-of-way area or within the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) right-of-way area on MS&R streets. Obtain permission for use of ROW.

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

5. Unless maintained as undisturbed natural desert, all portions of a site not occupied by buildings, structures, vehicular use areas, oasis areas, pedestrian circulation areas, or required landscape elements shall be landscaped with vegetation from the Drought Tolerant Plant List, reseeded with a native seed mix, or treated with an inorganic ground cover and maintained in a clean condition. Provide treatment for "Dirt Basin"

6. Storm water detention/retention basins not shall be landscaped to enhance the natural configuration of the basin. Plants located in the bottom one-third (1/3) of the detention/retention basin must be adaptable to periods of submersion. Design criteria are set forth in Development Standard 10-01.0. Define "Dirt Basin"


7. Fences or walls constructed in a single continuous line shall extend into a street landscape border no more than the actual width of the fence or wall. Where a fence or wall incorporates offsets or similar design features, a screen may extend a maximum of three (3) feet into the street landscape border. Relocate required street buffer screen as necessary.


8. Add the following notes to the landscape plan:


9. 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. Provide acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. The site does contain protected native plants revise application to read, Protected Native Plants will not be substantially impacted by the development on this site. Remove any reference to previous approved plan(s) and verbiage indicating no landscape border required on Miller Ave.

11. Indicate location, size, and name of existing vegetation to remain in place.


12. 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.

13. Additional comments may apply.
03/11/2010 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Approved Previous Comment Number 5:
03/11/2010 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Denied Provide acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. The site does contain protected native plants revise application to read, Protected Native Plants will not be substantially impacted by the development on this site.
03/16/2010 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: David Rivera
Principal Planner

PROJECT: T09CM03255
Rock Solid Solutions
Site Plan

TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 16, 2010

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. Now that you have established per your response the actual use as General Manufacturing, revise LUC code data note one (1) to include the following (Subject LUC section 3.5.5.1.B, .F, .G, and .H). Also the parking calculation for general manufacturing is based on one (1) parking space per 500 Square feet of building GFA which would include any outside areas that would be used as part of the general manufacturing use which includes storage areas. Please delineate and dimension all outdoor areas that would be used for this purpose. The parking calculation will be based on the overall square footage. Revise under the parking calculation matrix the parking ratio. The matrix lists a parking ratio of 1 for each employee. This box should list a ratio of 1 parking space per 500 square feet GFA.

The bicycle parking must also be revised. One space may be required per the calculation but per LUC section 3.3.3.5 a minimum of two (2) spaces are required.

The bicycle parking location or the requested information was not added to the plan and could not be verified. DS 2-02.2.1.A.9. Off-street bicycle parking, including materials for lighting, paving, and security; fully dimensioned layout; location; specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports; and the location and type of directional signage.

Previous Comment 6: The parking requirements cannot be verified until the specific use is listed. The zoning of the property is I-1. Please review the I-1 zoning section of the LUC and use the specific permitted use listed under the land use group category that best fits this business. Once the actual use is determined the parking ratio can be determined as well.

2. Per the revised plan the area south of the PAAL system is labeled as Storage Area. Clarify how the materials or goods are to used in this area. All areas that have any type of vehicular traffic must be paved and if the only vehicle that will have access to the storage area is a forklift the storage areas may be covered with a minimum of 2 inch compacted gravel. Clarify what type of activity will occur and what type of surfacing material will be provided.

Per your response to the previous comment concrete pavers are proposed around the curb returns at both entrances to the site. Approval from TDOT will be required prior to approval of the concrete pavers along Miller Avenue which is a public street.

Previous Comment 8: The site plan must be clear on where the vehicular access is proposed. Per the plan it appears that a PAAL system is provided off of Jim Howard Place and Miller Avenue. Also per the plan it does not appear that any separation or barriers between PAAL system and the undeveloped area along the south side of the PAAL and the landscape area in the northeast corner have been provided. Clarify if vehicular access is proposed in the undeveloped areas. If so these areas must be paved.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.11

3. As indicated in the last zoning comment a loading zone must be provided based on the GFA and any extended area for the use. This area would include any of the storage area for the materials. As of this review the storage area is not clearly defined but it appears to be greater than 1,500 square feet and therefore a 12'x55' loading zone will be required. Draw, label, and dimension the loading zone. Revise the parking calculation text block to include a loading zone.

Previous Comment 11: Draw and label a fully-dimensioned loading space(s) and maneuvering area(s). As of this review it is not clear if a loading zone is required because the actual use is not verified. Depending on the actual permitted use proposed a loading zone may be required based on the square footage of the building are and any extended areas applicable to the use.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.14

4. The following items were not completely addressed.

Previous Comment 16: Add a text block on the site plan sheet related to LUC code data or development criteria. Include the following in the data text block;
a. applicable subject to sections,
d. The number of required and provided vehicle parking spaces including accessible spaces,
e. The number of required and provided class one and class two bicycle parking spaces (facilities),
f. The number and size of required and provided loading spaces,



5. Previous Comment 17: The following were not completely addressed.
b. A keynote or dimension for the onsite sidewalk width could not be verified on the plan. Please add. Previous Comment: Dimension all on site pedestrian sidewalks. The minimum width allowed is four (4) feet,
d. There is a note indicating the building one square footage, which is based some dimensions. I acknowledge your response to the possibility of the dimensions changing in the future, all the more reason to add the dimensions. (Any changes to the building size will be addressed if and when the building is constructed or installed with regards to possibly additional parking access etc.) Previous Comment: Label the building dimensions for building one,
e. Draw and label the setbacks based on the 240 sq. ft. building. Previous comment: Label the building one proposed setbacks from the west property line and from the edge of the pavement from Jim Howard Place,
h. The detail of the parking sign should be drawn on the Site plan or details sheet. Previous Comment: Revise and label the accessible parking sign per the attached detail drawing,
i. Per your response to this comment, 2 inches of ¾"minus gravel is to be roto-tilled into the existing surface to create the dust control measure. Prior to acceptance of this method of dust control, approval through the zoning administrator will be required. The previous determination to allow gravel as a dust control method was to have two (2) inches of gravel compacted over existing and graded soil conditions. The proposed method has not been approved through a determination but could be if the DSD Engineer and Zoning Administrator accept it. Please contact Craig Gross, Zoning Administrator for more on this proposal. I will try to meet with the ZA in the meantime and try to get a verbal ruling and I will pass on the information as soon as I get answer hopefully before you submit your ZA determination request. Also concrete pavers are not an allowed method for parking lots or on public streets. The parking lot will have to be paved with asphaltic concrete or cement concrete. Previous Comment: Some form of dust control (pavement) will be required on non-improved areas where vehicular access is allowed,
j. This comment was left in case additional sheets need to be added. Previous Comment: If additional sheets are required to add the necessary information please include the sheet(s) after the site plan sheet.

6. Additional Comments may forthcoming based on the revisions to the plans and the response stating how all zoning comments have been addressed. Please include all redlines made on this drawing with the next submittal of the revised site plan.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608.

C:\DSD\T09CM03255b.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents
03/18/2010 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: March 26, 2010
SUBJECT: 2051 W Jim Howard Pl- 2nd Engineering Review
TO: Raymond Ybarra
LOCATION: T13S R13E Sec22 Ward 3
REVIEWER: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITIES: T09CM03255 (Site Plan), T09CM03255 (Building Plan) and T09OT02682 (Floodplain Use Permit)


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of the Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised site/building plan (T09CM03255), Floodplain Use Permit, Hydrology/Hydraulic Report (Arroyo Engineering, Inc., 26MAY95), and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation (Western Technologies Inc., 30 JUN95) 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:


HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULIC REPORT COMMENTS:

1) Acknowledged. Per Jim Vogelsberg, PE the site will incorporate water harvesting areas and catch basins to accommodate the 5-year volume to alleviate off site flows. Volume calculations and sizing of WHA where discussed with the applicant and Mr. Vogelsberg and sizing was agreed upon with those 2 parties.

2) Acknowledged.

3) Acknowledged.


SITE PLAN COMMENTS:

4) Completed.

5) Completed.

6) Acknowledged.

7) Completed.

8) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Acknowledged. However, revise the site plan and grading plan sheets and the proposed vehicular use area to meet the minimum requirements of the Land Use Code (LUC). Per the LUC Section 3.3.7.3 all areas of vehicular use (this includes areas for storage that requires access for vehicles dropping off and picking up the material) are required to be surfaced with one of the following materials; 1) asphalt concrete, 2) cement concrete or 3) a penetration treatment of bituminous material and seal coat of bituminous binder and mineral aggregate.

9) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Acknowledged. However, the landscape plan is not a construction document. Detail #7 should be shown on the grading plan sheets or detail sheets not the landscape plan, revise.

10) Completed.

11) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Revise the plan sheets so that the improvements within the right-of-way meet the minimum requirements of Chapter 25 of the Tucson Code. Specifically the use of 2 3/8" concrete pavers adjacent to the curb returns. Stamped concrete is acceptable however "pavers" do not meet the minimum surfacing requirements. Contact Thad Harvison at 837-6592 for all additional questions regarding r-o-w requirements.

12) Completed.

13) Acknowledged.

14) Acknowledged.

15) Completed.

16) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.15: Acknowledged. However General Notes #5 and 6 have typographical errors that need to be corrected. General Note #5 shows a base flood elevation of "123" but should read "1.0." General Note #6 reads "PSS" and should read "P2S."

17) Completed.

18) Completed.

19) Completed.

20) Completed.

21) Completed.

22) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Acknowledged. Per email response from Environmental Services; "the proposed Commercial development Titled "Rock Hard Solutions" shall be allowed to continue with their current curb side collection of the 90 gallon Refuse and Recycle containers. Based on the pre-existing collection conditions. However, a general note must be added to the Plat, Stating that "If in the future the current use of this commercial property changes to a different use the approved City of Tucson Development Standard No. 6-01.0 for solid Waste Disposal will be applicable when the future use of this property changes."" The note could not be located on the plan set.

23) Acknowledged.

24) Acknowledged.

25) Acknowledged.


GRADING PLAN:

26) Restated: A grading permit application and plans are required for the project due to the cut and fill quantities, basin design, and floodplain development. No grading application has been submitted for review only the grading sheet within the site plan package.

27) Completed.

28) Acknowledged.

29) Completed.

30) Completed.

31) Completed.

32) Acknowledged.

33) Completed.

34) Completed.

35) Completed.

36) Completed.

37) Acknowledged.


GEOTECHNICAL REPORT:

38) Acknowledged.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised site plan and a grading plan application 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 Department
03/22/2010 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied Provide cleanouts in the building sewer at intervals not exceeding 100 feet, sized per Section 707.11, UPC 2006. Reference: Section 719.1, UPC 2006.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
03/29/2010 DELMA ROBEY OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
03/29/2010 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed