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: T10CM01387
Parcel: 11103058B

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T10CM01387
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
05/21/2010 DAVE MANN FIRE REVIEW Approved
05/24/2010 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed Not a COT owned or operated property
05/25/2010 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: May 26, 2010
SUBJECT: 3108 E Prince Road Site and Grading Plan- Engineering Review
TO: Star Consulting
LOCATION: T13S R14E Sec28 Ward 3
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: T10CM01387 (Site Plan), T10BU00828 (Grading Plan)


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the site plan (T10CM01387), Grading Plan (T10BU00828), Drainage Statement (Star Consulting, 05MAY10), and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (JE Fuller Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc., 19MAY10) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the plan sets at this time. The following items need to be addressed:


SITE PLAN COMMENTS:

1) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the plan set to provide a separate detail or label Keynote #9 the asphalt paving design section. Provide the AC over ABC design for the vehicular use area for construction purposes.

2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the plan set to include a label and detail for the required curb terminal section at the 35-foot curb opening location. The 6-inch vertical curbing on both sides must provide a terminal section per Standard Detail #212.

3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to label and dimension the back-up spur provided at the end of the PAAL located west of the proposed vehicular use area on the site plan. The spur must have a minimum of a 3-foot radii and 3 feet in depth, but must also provide a minimum of 3 feet between the back of spur and any wall obstruction that is over 6 inches in height. Clearly label these dimensions in plan view.

4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Clarify on the site plan any parking spaces that will require wheel stops to prevent vehicles from encroaching into any adjacent pedestrian access points or landscape areas. Or provide a dimension to show that the vehicles do not overhang into these areas.

5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.10: Revise the plan sheets to correctly dimension the 345-foot near side SVT (existing and future) for the PAAL access point on Country Club Road. Refer to DS Sec.3-01.5.1 for SVT procedures and criteria. Also provide a revised landscape plan to reflect the SVT shown on the plan set.

6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.10: Revise the plan sheets to label and dimension the required SVTs at the intersection of Country Club Road and Prince Road that affect the northwest corner of the property.

7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Verify and label the 25-foot radii (Country Club Rd) and 18-foot radii (Prince Road) for the proposed driveways 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.

8) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Revise the site plan to clarify all curbing and/or concrete headers. Provide the location with a label to the Standard Detail for Public Improvement for the proposed improvement. Specifically for the PAAL entrances off of Country Club Road and Prince Road. If 6-inch vertical curbing is not proposed at a minimum a concrete header for the PAAL entrances will be required. Verify how all curb returns or headers are constructed and that they do not adversely impact existing improvements.

9) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to label the required sidewalk from the proposed building to the right-of-way of Prince Road per DS Sec.2-08.3.1.

10) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to dimension the proposed sidewalk along the south property line that connects to the right-of-way on Country Club Road. A clear 4-foot sidewalk width is required. Verify that all proposed gates meet the minimum 3-foot width requirement.

11) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Provide a detail for the proposed sidewalk construction (Keynote #1 on the site plan). Or provide a reference to the Standard Detail for Public Improvement #200.

12) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all ADA and/or handicap requirements that may apply to this project.

13) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Provide a General Note on the site plan to list the DSMR number, the Development Standard being modified along with the date of DSMR approval. A DSMR was submitted and approved for routing the 5-year retention volumes directly to the Rillito Creek.

14) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Revise the plan set and detail for the proposed refuse container 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. Refer to Environmental Services for further clarity on refuse requirements.

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


GRADING PLAN COMMENTS:

16) Provide a copy of the stamped approved site plan (T10CM01387). The grading plan (T10BU00828) 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 sheet which will be used as the construction document.

17) Please ensure that the grading plan is consistent with the site plan and Drainage Statement. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf.


STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN:

18) The proposed SWPPP meets the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). However the SWPPP and Exhibits can not be stamped approved until approval of the grading plan. Provide both copies with resubmittal for stamp approval.


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
COT Planning & Development Services
05/26/2010 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied PDSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Tucson Lodge #4 F&AM
T10CM01387

TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 27, 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.

2. As this project encompasses two (2) separate parcels a parcel combination will be required prior to approval of the site plan. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combination Request form and a recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property with the next submittal.

3. D.S. 2-02.2.1.5 Provide the lot bearings on the site plan.

4. D.S. 2-02.2.1.6 Provide the overall dimension for the proposed structure.

5. D.S. 2-02.2.1.7 The required north setback shown under "SETBACKS" is not correct. As this project is adjacent to an MS&R all street setbacks are based on MS&R setbacks, see LUC Section 3.2.6.5.B or twenty-one (21) feet or the height of the structure measured to the nearest edge of travel lane. Zoning acknowledges that this setback has been met.

6. D.S. 2-02.2.1.8 There are several vehicle parking areas that it appears that the 30" required overhang may not be met. Show the overhang at all vehicle parking spaces and provide a dimension.

7. D.S. 2-02.2.1.8 As the double row of parking, shown approximately in the center of the project, does not meet the provided "TYPICAL PARKING SPACE" detail, provide the space depth dimension on the site plan.

8. D.S. 2-02.2.1.9 It does not appear that the required number of Class 2 bicycle parking has been provided. Based on the detail it appears that only two spaces are provided. Review D.S. 2-09.5.1.A for minimum distance between racks and provide the dimension on the detail. See comment ?? in regards to the number of Class 2 bicycle parking spaces required.

9. D.S. 2-02.2.1.9 The proposed Class 2 bicycle parking location does not appear to meet the requirements of D.S. 2-09.4.1 Class 2 bicycle parking will be located no more than fifty (5) feet from the main entrance of the building. Provide a dimension on the site plan.

10. D.S. 2-02.2.1.9 The following Class 2 bicycle items have not been addressed on the plan or detail; including materials for lighting, paving, fully dimensioned layout.

11. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Fully dimension the backup spur location at the west end of the southern most parking area. See D.S. 3-05.2.2.D Back-Up Spur. A back-up spur will be provided at the end of a row of parking if no ingress or egress is provided at that end. The spur will be a minimum of three (3) feet in depth, will have a three (3) foot radii, and will have a wheel barrier to prevent encroachment onto any unsurfaced areas. A minimum distance of three (3) feet will be provided between the back of spur and any wall, screen, or other obstruction over six (6) inches in height.

12. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Per D.S. 2-08.3.1 a continuous pedestrian circulation path/accessible route (sidewalk) will be provided to the pedestrian circulation path/accessible route in any adjacent street. Provide a pedestrian circulation path/accessible route to the north property line along Prince Road.

13. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Provide a width dimension for the sidewalk shown along the south property line. Per D.S. 2-08.5.1.A the minimum width is four (4) feet.

14. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.19 Provide a fully dimensioned right-of-way, including any applicable Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan right-of-way.

15. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.28 The zoning shown for the parcels north of Prince Road is not correct. This zoning should be shown as C-2.

16. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.31 Under "ZONING INFORMATION: PROPOSED USE" remove the subject to section as this is no applicable.

17. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.2 Please clarify what the proposed gross floor area is. On the plan 8,960 sq. ft is shown within the footprint of the building and under "ZONING INFORMATION: F.A.R. CALCULATION, NEW BUILDING AREA". But under the "F.A.R. PROVIDED" 5,000 sq. ft. is shown.

18. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3 The provided FAR does not appear to be correct, see comment 17.

19. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 The vehicle parking space calculation does not appear to be correct. The provided number shows 60 when the plan shows 79 spaces, please clarify.

20. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 If you are going to use the MS&R parking reduction show the calculation on the plan. Base on comment 19 above you do not need a reduction as you are provided more spaces than required based on 3,073 sq. ft of assembly area only 61 vehicle parking spaces are required.

21. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 The bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.3.3.5 Bicycle Parking Requirements. The number of required bicycle parking spaces is calculated as a percentage of the total number of motor vehicle parking spaces provided. That said 79 x 8% = 6 bicycle parking spaces required, 5 Class 2 and 1 Class 1.
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\t10cm01387

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents.
06/08/2010 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. A 5' continuous screen along Country Club Rd. for vehicle use area must be provided per LUC Table 3.7.2-I

2. A 30" continuous screen along Prince Rd. for vehicle use area must be provided per LUC Table 3.7.2-I

3. All landscape areas including planter areas within vehicle use area 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.

4. 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.

5. Additional comments may apply.
06/10/2010 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
06/17/2010 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied Provide the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole from the HCS. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 710.1, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. Reference: City of Tucson Development Standard No. 2-01.1.0 2 3.8 D and Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006.
06/18/2010 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Denied 1. Please provide a large scale detail of the actual accessible parking layout as depicted on the Sie Plan. Generic details are not acceptable.
a. Detectable warning strips are not required at accessible parking aisles.
b. Show all required dimensions, signage, slopes and access to accessible route (curb/sidewalk ramps or flush access).
2. Please show large scale signage detail including "Van Accessible" signage.
3. Provide a detectable warning strip at the NW corner sidewalk ramp landing.
4. Zoning may require a pedestrian route to the Prince Road right of way. If so, this route must be accessible. Reference Zoning comments.
5. Show slopes of all accessible routes to comply with ICC (ANSI 117.1), Sectoion 403.3.
6. Passenger loading zone shown on site plan does not comply with ICC (ANSI 117.1), Section 503.
END OF REVIEW

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
06/23/2010 DELMA ROBEY OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
06/23/2010 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed