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: DP13-0214
Parcel: 11616301C

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP13-0214
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/25/2013 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Approved
10/28/2013 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed
10/29/2013 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Approved
10/31/2013 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
11/08/2013 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: November 12, 2013
SUBJECT: Shell Station Development Plan Package- Engineering Review
TO: Jesus Jaca
LOCATION: 880 W St Mary's Rd; T14S R13E Sec11
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP13-214

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. 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 links 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) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.A.6: Revise General Note #8 on 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."

2) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.C.2: Revise the development plan document to provide a note to read per the referenced Section; "No structure or vegetation shall be located or maintained so as to interfere with the sight visibility triangles in accordance with Sec.10-01.5.0, Sight Visibility, of the Technical Standards Manual." SVTs must be shown on the plan for both proposed PAAL entrances.

3) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan documents to provide the minimum 20-foot clear PAAL width adjacent to the new refuse enclosure when the enclosure doors are in the open position. Provide the dimension to verify the minimum access lane width.

4) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan documents to provide a Keynote for directional arrows or signage for the new one-way access lane along the north side of the building.

5) 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.

6) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan document and associated details for the refuse enclosures to show that it meets TSM Sec.8-01. Per Figure 3b the refuse slab is required to drain towards the front of the enclosure at 2%; however the details show the enclosure draining to the back with an "optional" drain opening in the wall. If the enclosure is not draining to the front then the opening is not optional and must be installed.

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.

For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929.



Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
11/20/2013 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied Revise the site drawing to include the location of the next upstream sanitary manhole (PCWMD #9868-03) and its rim elevation. Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual No. 2-06.0.0, Section 4.8 and Section 107.2.13, IBC 2012.
11/22/2013 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.

The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet:

Relevant case number for reviews

If previous approved landscape is not installed per plan. This submittal will become the document of record. Provide the following information if necessary:

2-10.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

The landscape plan shall:

3.1 Be on a 24-inch by 36-inch sheet(s);

3.2 Be drawn to a scale of no smaller than one inch equals 40 feet

Planting Plan

Both the proper and common name of each type of plant material

Sizes of plants indicated in boxes, gallon cans

Irrigation Plan

Type of water conserving irrigation systems proposed.

Add Note to plan: Existing development on the site is subject to the zoning regulations in effect at the time the existing development received zoning approval.

Ensure that all Engineering comments and concerns are addressed

Additional comments may apply.
11/22/2013 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
11/25/2013 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed