Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP13-0124
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/10/2013 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 07/10/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Revision of the existing private sewer collection system will require a review by the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and a separate plumbing permit. |
| 07/11/2013 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/22/2013 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 08/07/2013, SUBJECT: Speedway Pantano Square DP13-00124, T14S, R15E, SECTION 9 RECEIVED: Development Package and Drainage Report on July 10, 2013 The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the Drainage Report and on the Development Package where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: 1. Complete the DP13-0124 Case Number on the first sheet of the Drainage Statement. 2. The City flood hazard area, shown on the south and west portions of the subject parcel, is an approximation. Determine the actual Udall Park Wash 100-year floodplain delineation to verify if the proposed improvements are outside the regulatory floodplain. Provide the watershed map for Udall Park Wash at the proposed development. 3. Provide a drainage exhibit that includes all existing and proposed drainage related information including scuppers, ground and water surface elevations, drainage structures, slopes, drainage arrows, dimensions, materials, etc. 4. Explain in the text the building roof drainage direction and explain if sidewalk scuppers will be required. Show the roof drainage direction and provide the scuppers design calculations if proposed. 5. Determine the minimum finished floor elevations for the proposed structure based on the onsite drainage. 6. Depending on the results of the floodplain determination, a Floodplain Use Permit may be required for this project. Development Package: 1. Provide, on every sheet, all relevant case numbers (A.M. 2-06.4.3). 2. Replace the reference to "DSD" in Paving and Grading Note #12 and replace it with "PDSD". Revise all reference to "DSD" similarly. 3. Depending on the floodplain delineation determination, the following drainage notes may need to be added (A.M. 2-06.4.7.B.2.a and b): " "This project is affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations". " "A floodplain use permit and/or finished floor elevation certificate are required ". 4. Show, on the plan, the basis of bearing and the tie between the basis of bearing and one of the corners of the parcel (A.M. 2-06.4.8.A). 5. Remove the reference to the "Development Standards" in General Note #6 and replace it with the correct Technical Manual reference. Check all notes for the correct UDC, Administrative and Technical Manuals references. 6. Show, if applicable, any existing onsite easements (A.M. 2-06.4.8.B). 7. Show, if applicable. Any existing storm drainage facilities on or adjacent to the site (A.M. 2-06.4.8.F). 8. Depending on the results of the drainage report floodplain study, show, if applicable, the floodplain information, including the location of the 100-year flood limits for all flows of 100 cfs or more with 100-year water surface elevation (A.M. 2-06.4.8.I). 9. Include a general note that specifies the PAAL's and parking spaces dimensions are taken from the gutter line (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.) 10. Show proposed buildings roof drains and sidewalk scuppers if the roof drains discharge onto sidewalks or walkways (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.3). 11. Add the following grading notes: a. The approved Grading Plan/Development Package is the only acceptable construction plan onsite. The Contractor may not use any other plans, such as the approved Tentative Plat and/or Development Plan, for construction purposes. The Contractor may ask the Planning and Development Services Inspector to consult with the other approved plans for additional information or details that might not be included on the approved grading plan but needed for completion of work. b. The contractor shall remove the fine materials from the bottom of the detention/retention basin and scarify the basin bottom once the construction activities are completed in order to remove any fine material build up caused by construction and to restore soil percolation. Install BMP's at the basin inlet(s) to prevent the fines from entering the basin c. Any proposed engineering work to be done below grade (i.e. toe-downs, cutoff walls, drainage pipes/structures, etc.) shall not be back filled until Development Services Inspector inspects the work and approves it. d. The contractor is not permitted to make an autonomous decision to carry out construction field changes without prior written approval from the Engineer of Record and the City of Tucson Development Services Department. e. Revise Grading Note #14 to read as follows: "CALL FOR SWPPP INSPECTION AND PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS. FOR A PDSD ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS, CALL IVR (740-6970), OR SCHEDULE WITH A CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE AT THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT DSD ENGINEERING AT 791-5550 EXTENSION 2101, OR SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS ONLINE AT: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/inspections". f. The project will be in compliance with City of Tucson Technical Standard 2-01.0 (Excavating and Grading). g. A copy of the approved Grading Plan, Grading Permit, and any Geotechnical Reports shall be kept at the site at all times, until final grading approval. h. Any revision to the Grading Plan MAY require a re-submittal of a revised grading plan for review. Contact PDSD Engineering at 791-5550 to discuss changes in grading design. i. If grading construction is expected to last longer than the expiration date of the grading permit, contact PDSD to renew/extend the Grading Permit. If Final Grading Inspection has not been completed before the Grading Permit expires, and the permit has not been renewed, additional fees and reviews may be required. j. See the associated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as a part of this grading permit. k. Contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100 for any questions regarding any right-of-way permit requirements. l. As-builts and letters of completion for basin and overall project are required. m. The Engineer of Record shall submit a statement of conformance to as-built plan and the specifications. n. The permitee shall notify the PDSD when the grading operation is ready for final grading inspection. Final grading approval shall not be given until all work, including installation of all drainage facilities and their permanent protective devices, and all erosion control measures have been completed in accordance with the approved grading plan and grading permit, and any required reports have been submitted. o. Depress all landscaped areas a maximum of 6" for waterharvesting" If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package and drainage report |
| 07/25/2013 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: DP13-0124 7910 E. Speedway Blvd. Development Package TRANSMITTAL DATE: 07/30/13 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. AM 2-06.3.2 All mapped data shall be drawn at an engineering scale having no more than fifty (50) feet to the inch. This scale is the minimum accepted to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for record-keeping purposes. The same scale shall be used for all sheets within the set. Provide an additional sheet for the proposed site area at the same scale as sheet #3 of 5. 2. AM 2-06.4.3 This project has been assigned case number DP13-0124. Place this case number near the lower right corner of all sheets. This overall site has had a rezoning done for a portion of the site. Place the rezoning case number (C9-89-14) near the lower right corner of all sheets. 3. AM 2-06.4.7.A.4 Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses. Should read as follows: Food Service subject to: 4.9.4.M.1 & 5 and 4.9.13.O, and General Merchandise Sales subject to: 4.9.9.B.3 and 4.9.13.O. Revise general note #3. 4. AM 2-06.4.7.A.6 Provide as a general note indicating that this project has been designed to meet the criteria of UDC Sec. 5.4 Major Streets and Routes (MS&R). 5. AM 2-06.4.7.A.8.c Provide the percentage of building expansion. If the building(s) or lot area have been previously expanded, those calculations shall be included. 6. AM 2-06.4.9.H.2 Show future and existing sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. 7. AM 2-06.4.9.H.5.a This project is part of the overall shopping center. The definition of a shopping center per UDC 11.3.9.C.3 is as follows: A multiple-use development composed of an integrated group of establishments (stores), planned, constructed, and managed as a unit, utilizing common or shared facilities, such as buildings, parking, and vehicular and pedestrian access, where no more than 50 percent of the floor area is dedicated to uses with a parking formula of one space per 100 square feet of gross floor area or a more intense formula. The individual establishments may be owned by a single entity or by separate entities. Provide uses and square footage of all buildings (each use within a building) clearly indicating how this site meets the requirements of a shopping center. If this site meets the requirements of a shopping center then the parking calculations will be 1:300 of GFA for the entire shopping center per UDC Table 7.4.4-1. If this site does not meet the criteria of a shopping center then each use must be parked individually. Revise parking calculations to clearly indicate the correct number of required parking spaces. 8. AM 2-06.4.9.H.5.d Clearly indicate the location of the long and short term bicycle parking indicated as being provide for the rest of the shopping center. Clearly indicate how both the long term and short term bicycle parking spaces meet the criteria of UDC Sec. 7.4.9. Provide a detail of the long term bicycle parking spaces being provided inside the proposed building. See UDC Sec. 7.4.9.D. Clearly indicate the location of the required access aisle for the short term bicycle parking spaces for the proposed building. See UDC Sec. 7.4.9.B.2.h. 9. AM 2-06.4.9.O Provide setback dimensions on the site plan from the building to the back of future curb along Speedway Blvd. and from the building to the east property line. 10. AM 2-06.4.9.Q Provide overall dimensions on the footprint of the building on the site plan. 11. AM 2-06.4.9.R Per UDC - TSM Sec.7-01.4.1.A At least one (1) sidewalk is required to a project from each street on which the project has frontage. Missing connecting to the sidewalk along Speedway. 12. In general note #15 remove the reference to the LUC. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations are no longer required per the UDC. Remove from plans. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 |
| 07/26/2013 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET 2 1. Provide an accessible route to the Speedway pedestrian way. 2. For all sidewalk ramps, show slope direction arrow and maximum slope of 1:12. 3. Reference the accessible parkling layout to detail K/4. SHEET 4 4. Indicate 2% maximum slope at detail E. 5. Designate the Handicap Parking Detail as detail "K". a. Show ramp slope of 1:12 maximum plus direction arrow. b. Dimension concete aisle access and ramp area widths. END OF REVIEW |
| 08/07/2013 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Landscape borders proposed in right-of-way or MS&R areas must be approved by the City Engineer or designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect for specific requirements. UDC 7.6.4.F 2) Revise the landscape plans to include the following standard notes for landscaping in the public right-of-way: All planting and irrigation that is proposed within the ROW must receive a permit prior to construction. Plans should be submitted to the City of Tucson Permits and Code section at 201 N. Stone, 4th floor. Once the permit has been approved, the applicant must call for a "Blue Stake " prior to the required pre-construction meeting with the City Landscape Architect, and prior to starting any work. It is the property owner's responsibility to keep the Sight Visibility Triangles (SVT), and the pedestrian access area clear of vegetation at all times, per Land Use Code (LUC) section 3.7.2.9. Final plant locations must be in compliance with all utility setback requirements. The owner understands that if the City of Tucson Transportation Department or any utility company needs to work within the ROW in the landscaped area, plants and irrigation may be destroyed without replacement or repair. The property owner assumes full liability for this landscape and irrigation, and any damage to roadway, sidewalk and utilities within the public right-of-way. The only private irrigation equipment that is allowed within the ROW is polyethylene type tubing and emitters that are not under constant pressure. All other equipment except for the water meter must be on site.Standard Notes for Planting in ROW 3) Revise the landscape plans to include the new parking spaces and associated landscaping. AM 2-12-2.0 4) Submit a copy of the approved landscape plan for the site. UDC 7.6.2 |
| 08/07/2013 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | N/A, existing site. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/26/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |