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: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP13-0176
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/18/2014 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: April 18, 2014 SUBJECT: Burnout Raceway Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review TO: Raul Piña LOCATION: 709 W Silverlake Rd; T14S R13E Sec23 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP13-0176 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Drainage Report (CPE Consultants, LLC, 10SEP13 revised 21FEB14) and SWPPP (CPE Consultants, LLC, 05SEP13 revised DEC13). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administration Manual (AM) and Technical Standards Manual (TSM). Refer to the following link for further clarification: http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN: 1) Complied. 2) Complied. 3) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.7.A.6: Revise the development plan document to reference the special overlay zone that is applicable to this site, specifically state that "the project is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria for Sec.5.4, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone." This not could not be located under the General Note Section on Sheet C1 4) Complied. 5) Complied. 6) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.8.B: Provide written approval from all parties with vested interest in the existing easement as shown on the development plan document. Specifically the 50-foot water easement that conflicts with the corner of the shop building and the proposed race track layout. It is acknowledged that the owner is in the process of securing this documentation from Tucson Water, but it will be required prior to final approval. 7) Complied. 8) Complied. 9) Complied. 10) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Provide written approval from TDOT Permits and Codes for the use of the existing asphalt path along Fiandaca Way. Since this project is full code complaint verify if TDOT wants a new public sidewalk with curbing along the street frontage. It is my understanding after talking with TDOT that Fiandaca Way is currently ADOT right-of-way; however TDOT is acquiring the roadway which will make it City of Tucson right-of-way. All current code restrictions are applicable including the required concrete sidewalk. If TDOT does allow the use of the existing asphalt path then at a minimum a Technical Standard Modification Request will be required to modify the standard from concrete sidewalk to asphalt path. 11) Complied. 12) Complied. 13) Complied. 14) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan document to provide the SEQ # for the proposed 10-foot temporary construction and slope easement. Provide the notarized written agreement form the adjacent property owner for the use of the adjacent property. 15) Complied. 16) Complied. 17) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Revise the development plan document to label and detail all proposed drainage infrastructure onsite. It is acknowledged that the improvements have been revised to be located completely onsite; however the proposed drainage infrastructure must match the Drainage Report. Specifically the plan needs to label the 6-inch PVC outlet pipe from the basin, the proposed piping must match the Drainage Report for all inverts, slopes, lengths, etc. and the proposed rock rip rap must be detailed for size, thickness, method of placement and filter fabric specifications. The SWPPP Sheets call out the riprap, but this information needs to be on the grading plan document which is the construction document. 18) Complied. 19) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan document to clearly label and dimension all existing and proposed sidewalks. The Keynote provided, #13, calls out 4-feet however the plan view calls out 5-feet. Clarify if this Keynote is for onsite sidewalks or just the public right-of-way. 20) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project. Specifically label and Keynote all onsite pedestrian access ramps. The onsite ramps must meet ICC requirements and can not be built per PC/COT Standard Details as stated in Detail 5. 21) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan document to clearly label and Keynote the proposed handicap access ramps in the public right-of-way for construction purposes. Keynote the PC/COT Standard Detail for the required handicap access ramps for the proposed driveway along Fiandaca Way. The ramps are required even if TDOT and a TSMR are approved for the use of the asphalt pathway. 22) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan document and provide associated details for the refuse enclosures to show that it meets TSM Sec.8-01. The detail must match TSM Sec.8-01, Figure 2 and Figure 3a for the required double enclosure walls with gates, concrete thickness and compressive strength, concrete approach apron dimensions, space from wall to bollards, anchoring bolts, 14'x40' clear approach for each container, etc. The detail provided does not meet all aspects of Figure 2 and 3a. Also the clear 14'x40' approach for the northern container appears to be in conflict with the proposed fencing. Verify onsite maneuverability for the refuse truck. The truck must be able to turn around onsite without having to back out into the right-of-way to leave. DRAINAGE STATEMENT: 23) Complied. 24) Complied. 25) Complied. SWPPP: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP according to these comments: 26) Complied. 27) Restated: Part 6.3(4): Revise Sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 of the Report to provide site specific information. These sections appear to be for another project located on a different site. Review and revise all areas of report to ensure that it is site specific. This comment was not addressed. The SWPPP must be site specific and not for another project such as a subdivision. 28) Restated: Part 6.3(5)c: Indicate the percentage of the site that is impervious before and after construction. Verify these numbers once the report is revised to reflect the site specific requirements and not another project. 29) Complied. 30) Complied. 31) Further comments may be forth coming once the SWPPP is revised to reflect the 2013 permit and the discussion within the report is updated to be site specific. NEW COMMENTS: The following comments have been generated due to the revision on the 2nd submittal of the plan set. 1) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan document to label the termination of the curb returns for the proposed driveway within the right-of-way of Fiandaca Way. 2) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: Provide the recordation information for the new 10-foot electrical easement per Keynote #22. The development plan document can not be approved till all easements have been recorded and the SEQ# provided in the blank spaces. 3) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.2: Revise the development plan document to label and dimension what appears to be curb opening in the landscape islands located within the parking lot. It is unclear from looking at the site and grading plan if there is proposed curb openings in the landscape island to allow water to drain into and out off the water harvesting areas. If these areas are proposed curb opening provide a Keynote call out and label the widths of each opening for construction purposes. 4) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan document and associated detail to provide for a detectable warning strip along the flush sidewalk at the proposed handicap parking spaces. Refer to Ron Brown for further clarifications. 5) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan document and Detail 5 to provide a label for the PC/COT Standard Detail for the connection of the new sidewalk to the existing sidewalk. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package and SWPPP that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 04/29/2014 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Michael St Paul Planning Technician PROJECT: DP13-0176 709 West Silverlake Road Go Cart Track TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 29, 2014 DUE DATE: COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code, The Administrative and Technical Manuals were addressed. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Development Package Standards listed in section 2-06 of the City of Tucson Administrative Manual. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC). The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above 1. Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is September 7, 2014. 2. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) Section 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 2-06.1.1 PURPOSE This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews. The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property. This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes. 2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review. 2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided. The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application: 2-06.2.1 Application Form A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee; 2-06.2.2 Development Package A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein; 2-06.2.3 Related Reviews In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the; 2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and, 2-06.2.5 Fees Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.1 - Each sheet shall measure 24 inches by 36 inches and include a minimum one inch margin on left side and one-half inch margin on all other sides to facilitate efficient record keeping. A larger sheet format may be used with the approval of the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD). 2-06.3.2 - All mapped data shall be drawn at an engineering scale having no more than 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. Smaller scales (60:1 or greater) may be used for some or all of the sheets with the prior approval of PDSD when it is determined legibility and the ability to be digitized and/or reduced for archiving will not be affected. 2-06.3.3 - All lettering and text (upper or lower case), and numbering, shall be a minimum of three-thirty-seconds inches in height to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for archiving. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided. COMMENT: Provide bicycle parking on site. Depict the location and provided a fully dimensioned bicycle parking detail on the plan. Provide the required bicycle parking (minimum of 2 spaces for short-term) in the general notes on sheet C1. Provide details for both the long-term and the short-term bicycle parking. (There is no Class I and Class II.) Look at the design criteria in the UDC. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Michael St. Paul, (520) 791-4959. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents Provide a response letter, two copies of revised site plan and a copy of the last submitted set of plans. |
| 05/02/2014 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS Identification and Descriptive Data All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan. Remove reference and landscape indicated as future phase development to the south. Plans shall include only information for the development proposed in this submittal. Any future development will require a new Development Package. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. |
| 05/08/2014 | RONALD BROWN | HC SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | SHEET C5 1. Detail 5: a. Delete all detectable warnings shown on this detail. They are not required in this situtation. b. Delete all ramp note references to "PC/COT DET 207". This is for DOT accessible construction details for public right of way only. Not for private property. c. Refer all sidewalk ramps to the 2012 IBC, Chapter 11 and the 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 405. 2. At detail 4: a. Delete all detectable warnings shown on this detail. They are not required in this situtation. b. Relocate the accessible parking signage to a point just outside of the edge of the asphaltic paving. END OF REVIEW |
| 05/09/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/13/2014 | CPIERCE1 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 05/13/2014 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |