Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Permit Number - T02CM03587
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/01/2002 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS: Please attach a response letter with the next submittal, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. CODE SECTION/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. As indicated in the previous comment, the lot combination covenant must be recorded. Provide proof or recordation (i.e. receipt of recordation and copy of signed covenant or original copy of recorded covenant with the docket and page noted on each sheet). Previous comment: The legal description noted on sheet A1 (All of lots 12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,21, and 22…) does not match the lots shown on the drawing (lots 18 & 19). If lots are being developed individually, please provide separate calculations (i.e. vehicle, bicycle, loading, GFA) for each lot. In addition, a perpetual cross access agreement will be required. If lots 18 and 19 are to be developed as one, lot combination will be required. Attached is a copy of the lot combination covenant prepared by the City Attorney's Office, which must be recorded prior to site plan approval. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.2 2. As requested in the previous comment, the principal land use for this site must be annotated on the plan. Refer to Land Use Code Section 2.7.2.2 for permitted land uses in the I-1 zoning. Previous comment: Note the proposed land use, development designator, and applicable "subject to" section as it is listed under L.U.C. Sec. 2.7.2.2. Building setback, height and size requirements, vehicle, bicycle, loading space, and floor area calculations may not be verified for compliance until this information is provided. Additional comments may be forthcoming upon resubmittal. b) Under the code review block please revise "maximum building height per Tucson Zoning Code" to "Tucson Land Use Code." D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.31/ D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6,.7,.8,.9/ D.S. 2-02.2.A.3,.4,.5 3. Dimension of the ingress/egress point is not legible. Previous comment: Dimension the width of the points of ingress and egress. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11 4. a) Label and dimension wheelstops on the site plan. The wheelstop must be two and one-half (2½) feet in front of the parking space. b) Indicate graphically on the site plan, a raised sidewalk between the buildings and a PAAL. The plan indicates a striped pedestrian path, which is not permitted. Previous comment: Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.B, a sidewalk must be provided adjacent and parallel to any PAAL on the side where a building is located. A striped pedestrian path may only be located where it crosses a PAAL. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 5. All requested changes must be made to the site and landscape plans. D.S. 2-07.2.1.A |
| 11/22/2002 | BLANCA ESPINO | SANITATION | REVIEW | Denied | SEE ENGINEERING COMMENTS. |
| 11/22/2002 | BLANCA ESPINO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Site Plan 1. Indicate limits of the 100-year floodplain on site plan or indicate with a notation stating that the whole site is in a floodplain/zone/panel number/effective date. D.S. 2-02.2.1.15 2. Indicate on site plan, next to the street name Highway Drive if streets are " Public" or "Private". D.S. 2-02.2.1.18 3. Indicate dimensions of existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, driveways and utilities. Please correct over writes throughout site plan. 4. Dimension the wall height for the refuse container detail on the site plan. D.S. 2-02.2.1.21 5. Steel pipes are required between the container and the enclosure's rear and side walls to prevent the container from damaging the enclosure while being serviced as per D.S. 6-01.4.2.C.2. Please add 2 steel pipes per side wall. 6. The scale for the site plan is incorrect. It reads SCALE: 1" = 40'-0" but it measures 1" = 30'-0". Correct and revise. 7. Include 2 dimensioned cross section details of basin and 1 of the weir on the site plan. 8. Demonstrate how the rainwater discharge does or does not impact the adjacent properties to the south and southwest of the site. What measures of erosion control will be implemented. 9. This site is located in floodplain Zone AO (Depth of 1') as per FEMA, Panel No. 1619. The finish floor elevation for proposed building Lot 19 needs to be 1foot above the base flood elevation. The nearest existing highest elevation to the building is 2278.08' therefore having said that. The highest elevation is 2278.08' adding a one (1) foot depth for the base flood elevation at 2279.08' and adding one (1) foot more for the FFE at 2280.08'. Please correct and revise FFE on site and grading plan. 10. Indicate existing and proposed 100-year Peak Discharge at basin's inlet and outlet. 11. Emergency spillway sections shall be incorporated into the design of any detention/retention basins which employ embankments as a mechanism for storing floodwaters as per S.D.R.M.3.3.4 Drainage Report 1. The comments that were offered down below were to be an addendum to the original Drainage Report, which was to be resubmitted together for a second review. *. A Floodplain Use Permit is required. An application can be picked up at the COT-DSD/Engineering counter. *. Indicate more drainage flow arrows. *. Include a dimensioned inlet grate detail. *. Indicate calculations for the 190 LF + 8" HDPE in the drainage report. 2. Please resubmit a complete Drainage Report following the guidelines under Report Content and Format as per S.M.D.D.F.M. Chapter 2.3 3. This commercial site is located within a critical basin requiring detention having a 15% reduction in existing flows, 5- year threshold retention along with a percolation test. 4. Include an existing and proposed watershed map. Identify each watershed. 5. Indicate the cfs for the inflow and outflow for the detention/retention basin. |
| 11/22/2002 | BLANCA ESPINO | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | SEE ENGINEERING COMMENTS. |
| 11/26/2002 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | City Engineer approval is required in order to locate a portion of the required landscaping within the adjacent City right of way. Provide documentation of any approvals. Plan cannot be approved by this section without verification. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.2 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/27/2002 | MONICA VALDEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |