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: T01CM01233
Parcel: 13632002R

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T01CM01233
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/24/2001 DAN CASTRO ZONING REVIEW Denied COMMENTS: Provide a response letter with the next site plan submittal that states how all the Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. CODE SECTION/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARD

1. Proposed plan indicates curb openings to remain. The vehicular use area must be provided with post barricades or wheel stop curbing to prevent vehicles from overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas or unpaved areas on or off site and to prevent vehicles from driving onto unimproved portions of the site. Revise plan as required.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8; D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1

2. a) Label and dimension the required five (5) feet of maneuverability in front of the bicycle parking rack on the site plan.
b) Add a note under the bicycle parking calculation which states the type of bicycle parking spaces required (Class II). c) Note the surface type of the bicycle parking facility on the site plan. Refer to D.S. 2-09.7.2 for information.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9; D.S. 2-09.6.2; LUC 3.3.4; D.S. 2-09.7.2

3. The required pedestrian circulation system near the existing church has not been clearly labeled and dimensioned. A minimum four (4) foot wide sidewalk is required. Refer to D.S. 2-08 for additional information.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12; D.S. 2-08

4. If applicable, detail any existing and proposed free standing signage and outdoor lighting on the site plan.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13; D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.25

5. Add the following notes to the site plan: 1. This site is located in the Hillside Development Zone (HDZ). 2. All exposed exterior walls and roofs of structures, retaining walls, and accessory structures, except satellite dishes, shall be earth tone in color and will blend with the predominant natural colors found on the parcel. LUC 2.8.1; D.S. 9-04

6. Under the zoning notes on sheet 2 of 2, add the following note: Maximum building height allowed is 25 feet.

7. All requested changes must be made to the site and landscape plans. D.S. 2-07.2.1.A
10/31/2001 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied Revise the landscape plan to include the retention basin and the drainage ditch shown on the site/grading plans. DS 2-07.2.0

Detention basins are required to be landscaped per DS 10-01.0 A minimum of ten trees per acre is required for the basin area.

All disturbed areas of the site, including the basins, must be revegetated or treated with an appropriate inorganic dust
control material. Provide specifications as appropriate. LUC 3.7.3.7

Include required basin landscape information, including all proposed surface treatments on the revised plans. No more than 35% of the basin ground surface area should be covered with inorganic materials alone. Revise plan to include groundcover planting or approved seed mix. DS 9-06.

Add a note to the landscape plan stating that all existing vegetation will be retained within the natural buffer yards to provide screening and to meet the landscape border requirements. LUC 3.7.2.4 & 3.7.3

Additional screening is required for the vehicular use area. Revise the plan to include a 30" screen between the Escalante Road natural landscape border and the parking lot. LUC Table 3.7.2-I

A five-foot high screen is required between the south and west property lines and the limits of development. LUC 3.7.3.5

Clearly delineate the grading limits on the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.2.B.

Note on the plan that vegetation retention and revegetation will be performed in accordance with DS 9-04. Hillside Development Zone

The Landscape Plan may require additional revisions in order to comply with LUC 3.8. Native Plant Preservation.
11/01/2001 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Denied Submit a Native Plant Preservation Plan. DS 2-15
11/06/2001 DOUG WILLIAMS FLOODPLAIN REVIEW Denied The drainage report is not approved - in accordance with Chapter 26-11.2 (i), Tucson Code, a resubmittal fee of $150.00 will be required with the next submittal. The following comments must be addressed in a revised drainage report:
1. The Sky High Wash is mapped as riparian habitat and has been proposed as a W.A.S.H. wash, and thus must comply with Article VIII, Chapter 29, Tucson Code (copies can be obtained on the 3rd floor - floodplain counter). W.A.S.H. development requirements include, at a minimum, clearly depicting the 50' study area. Any proposed development activity within the study area requires defining the vegetative resources and any plant/habitat (resource area). These issues should be addressed/discussed in report format, with the 50' study area and associated resource area clearly depicted on an enclosed exhibit and on the site plan (ref. comment # 1 of 5/11/01).
2. The report states that the site lies within a critical basin - revise to reflect the currently mapped basin designation, or address critical basin flow reduction requirements for the new impervious cover (15% reduction in 2, 10, 100-year events).
3. Revise figure 1, sheet 2 to depict the proper site.
4. Percolation test results do not appear to be based on a stabilized rate of infiltration, and it is not clear whether the tests were taken at the proposed basin bottom elevation - please clarify these matters in the revised report.
5. The consultant should refer to the last paragraph of section 3.2.1 of the City of Tucson/Pima County Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual (Dev. Std. 10-01.0) for required retention storage volume calculations.
6. (a) The watercourse length (Lc) on hydrologic data sheet A-1 appears accurate, however, the sum of the individual segment lengths should equal Lc - revise as necessary.
(b) The basin factor used should reflect natural/rural conditions, rather than suburban conditions.
(c) Use of a contributing area factor of less than one (1) requires sufficient supporting data, including aerial-photographic analysis and field verification.
7. It is not clear where the channel rating cross section was analyzed - depict the cross-section location on an existing conditions exhibit, and submit with revised calculations based on the comments listed above.
8. The watershed areas depicted on exhibits do not correspond with the areas contained on data sheets (A-3, A-6, A-10). Specify on the data sheets whether the area is on- or offsite, and depict all drainage areas with Q100's calculated on existing/developed conditions exhibits (ref. comment # 5, of 5/11/01).
9. Provide or discuss verification of the contributing area factor used on sheet A-12.
10. Detention basin routing does not correspond with the top of basin elevation/basin capacity. See comment #2, above.
11. The consultant should refer to the City of Tucson's Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (Dev. Std 10-02.0), Chapter II for drainage report format/content requirements for all future drainage report submittals.
12. Provide basin details, fully labeled and dimensioned (ref. comment # 7, of 5/11/01).
13. Provide grading/drainage information in the report for onsite conveyance to the basin (scuppers PAAL slope percentages, etc. see - comments #10 of 5/11/01).
12. Soil types for the approximate 7.5 acres on the easternmost limits of the Sky High Wash watershed are shown as being 65%C and 35%D - revise accordingly.
13. The proposed basin bleed-off may not be approved unless percolation test results indicate insufficient rates.
14. The site and grading plans depict riprap erosion protection in two locations - these items should be discussed in the drainage report, with sizing in accordance with sec. 9.3.3.1 of the Standards Manual for Drainage Design (note that the thickness should be a minimum of twice the average diameter).
14. The 100-year floodplain limits should be accurately mapped with water surface elevations depicted for both watercourses.
15. The diversion "ditch and dike" has not been discussed in the drainage report and should be addressed.
16. The encroachment analysis mentioned may need to be modified as a result of the required revisions, and should be included in the report.
17. Omit/revise sheet A-25.
18. Refer to development standard 6-01.0 for solid waste provision requirements. The dumpster is inaccessible as depicted.
19. A right of way permit will be required from Pima County for the concrete headers and any other excavation in Escalante Road ROW (corporate limits should be depicted on the plans).
20. Complete and submit a grading permit application for grading plan review. The consultant should refer to chapter 36, 2000 IBC for grading requirements.
11/08/2001 DOUG WILLIAMS SANITATION REVIEW Denied see floodplain folder for comments.
11/08/2001 DOUG WILLIAMS ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied see floodplain folder for comments.
11/13/2001 PHIL SEADER HANDICAP-SITE REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
11/21/2001 MONICA VALDEZ OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed