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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/25/2014 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/02/2014 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: October 2, 2014 SUBJECT: Burnout Raceway Development Plan Package- 3rd 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 and 18SEP14). 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: The comment letter has been revised to reflect only the outstanding comments related to the project and all of the excess "Complied" comments have been eliminated for clarity. 1) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.8.B: Provide the easement abandonment with recordation information for 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. 2) Acknowledged: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: A TSMR is not required for the project per the email from TDOT Permits and Codes. The email stated that the project meets an exception under TSM Sec.10-01.3.3.C.7 therefore a TSMR is not warrantied. 3) Restated: 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 cannot be approved till all easements have been recorded and the SEQ# provided in the blank spaces. 4) 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 from the adjacent property owner for the use of the adjacent property. 5) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Revise the development plan document to label and detail all proposed drainage infrastructure onsite. Specifically the plan needs to label the proposed rock rip rap. The rip rap must be detailed for size, thickness, method of placement and filter fabric specifications on the civil sheets or detail sheets. The SWPPP Sheets call out the riprap, but this information needs to be on the grading plan document which is the construction document. 6) 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. For clarity purposes either provide the Standard Detail reference in the Keynote and the dimensions on the plan sheets or provide a separate Keynote for the onsite sidewalks with the 5 foot dimension. 7) 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 revise the site plan sheet (C2) to box and label the detail call out for the areas that are shown on Sheet C5. The standard call out is to box the area and to provide a statement "See enlarged detail on Sheet C5." 8) 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. A detail was provided however it does not meet the minimum requirements and dimensions of the referenced standard. The detail needs to show the total 12-foot depth (5' and 7' not the 5' and 6.96' as shown), the 1'4"x1'4" middle post, and the 14'x40' clear approach for each container dimensioned in plan view. Provide a separate detail for Figure 2 for the CMU wall per the referenced section. 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. That may require providing the turn radii per AASHTO on the plan. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. A meeting is requested to discuss this project with the consultant to help expedite the resubmittal prior to resubmitting the plans. I can be reached at 837-4929 to schedule a meeting. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 10/09/2014 | RONALD BROWN | HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/13/2014 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | Ensure that all Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior to landscape approval signature. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/31/2014 | AROMERO4 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 10/31/2014 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |