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: T02CM03861
Parcel: 11204370G

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T02CM03861
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/22/2002 JIM TATE ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied The following items must be revised or added to the site plan. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed.

The Drainage Report was reviewed for Site Plan purposes only.

A Flood Use Permit is required prior to Grading Plan approval.

1. Correct the address on the plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.3

2. The sight visibility triangles shown on the plan do not scale to the proper distances.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.10

3. Show the MS&R future right-of-way. Intersection widening affects the right of way width. See MS&R plan for proper width. DS 2-02.2.1.A.19

4. Show MS&R future curb location and future sight visibility triangles. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10

5. Sidewalk width for an MS&R street is 6 ft. Dimension this width on the plan. Locate the sidewalk 2.5 ft. from the face of future curb.

6. Sidewalk is required on the north side of the south building. DS 2-08.4.1.c

7. Show 100-yr. floodplain water surface elevations (state vertical datum used). DS 2-02.2.1.A.15

8. Show the finished floor elevations for the two buildings (state vertical datum used).
DS 2-02.2.1.A.16

9. Show proposed drainage patterns. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16

10. Show estimated cut and fill quantities. DS 2-02.2.1.A.17

11. Show the erosion hazard setback line. Structures may not be placed within the setback.


12. Steel pipes are required between the solid waste container and the enclosures side walls.
DS 6-01.4.2.C.2

13. Placement of fill in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred feet of the developing site (less any intervening non-developable property ouside of the site) shall require the procedure outlined in IBC Chapter 36 Section 13.1. The property to the south is residentially zoned.

Drainage Report

1. On page 6 the Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Ordinance cited is a Pima County ordinance. This project is in the City of Tucson. The erosion hazard setback must be calculated using the method found in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 7.6. For lessor setbacks the banks must be stabilized. See Tucson Code Chapter 26 Section 26-7.2

2. Please correct the site address. This property is located on East Ft. Lowell not W. Ft. Lowell.
08/22/2002 JAMES TATE FLOODPLAIN REVIEW Denied See Engineering folder.
08/22/2002 JIM TATE SANITATION REVIEW Denied See Engineering folder.
08/29/2002 PETER MCLAUGHLIN ZONING REVIEW Denied SITE PLAN TRANSMITTAL

TO: Bill and Deb Wintrobe
6191 N. Cadena De Montanas
Tucson, AZ 85718
(520) 324-0926

FROM: PETER McLAUGHLIN
Senior Planner

FOR: PATRICIA GEHLEN Principal Planner
Development Services Dept.
PROJECT:
T02CM03861
Wintrode Offices
3024 E. Fort Lowell Road
Site Plan Review (1st review)

TRANSMITTAL: August 29, 2002

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.

1. Correct the address of the property in the title block to read "East" Fort Lowell Road.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.3

2. The MS&R building setback from Fort Lowell Road is the greater of 21' or the height of building measured from the back of future curb, not 20' from the current property line. Please revise site plan. If different from existing, the future curb and sidewalk locations, along with future SVT's must be shown on site plan per the MS&R plan.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.10 & .21

3. The Section, Township, Range label located below the location map is printed over the street name. Please revise for clarity.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.18

4. The floor area of the two buildings shown on the drawing adds up to 5,250 square feet, but under the notes the building area is listed as 5,500 square feet. Revise one or the other for consistency. Revise parking calcs and FAR if necessary.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.6

5. Revise the perimeter yard building setback from south lot line to be based on the C-1 adjacent zoning (0' required) for the 45' drainageway.
LUC 3.2.6.4

6. The accessible access aisle is labeled as an accessible parking space. Please revise.
ANS/ IBC

7. With 26 vehicle parking spaces provided, two must be handicap accessible. Please add another accessible parking space to the drawing and detail the curb ramps and their slope on detail 4. ANS/ IBC

8. Dimension the depth of the back-up spur and the distance between the back-up spur and the east property line. A minimum 3-foot deep back-up spur is required, and 3 feet is required between the end of the backup spur and the east property line, if there is a wall, fence or other obstruction along property line, to allow for vehicle overhang.
DS 3-05.2.2.D

9. Dimension the width of the proposed ingress/egress easement and provide recordation information on the site plan. Provide a copy of recorded cross-access agreement for the PAAL.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.20

10. If free-standing outdoor lighting is proposed for this site, please detail on the site plan.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.25

11. Continuous on-site pedestrian circulation system must be provided along the north side of the southernmost building (as is shown for the south side of the north building) per DS 2-08.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.12

12. Please explain/label the dark line which runs east to west across the middle of the property. If the subject parcel is proposed to be split, please provide the zoning review section with a 20-year history of the property to obtain approval of the lot split prior to site plan approval.


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608.
08/29/2002 PETER MCLAUGHLIN HANDICAP-SITE REVIEW Denied See Zoning Review Comments dated 8/29/02
09/04/2002 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied The landscape border required along Ft. Lowell road must be located based on the MS&R right of way line. LUC 3.7.2.4
Provide dimensions for the 10' border from the MS&R right of way. Revise the site and landscape plans to comply with the MS&R plan. LUC 2.8.3

Revise the plans as necessary to ensure that the proposed monument sign does not conflict with sight visibility standards. DS 3-01.5.0



Approval from the City Engineer is required to locate required landscaping within the adjacent right of way area. Provide verification of any approvals. This is required prior to landscape plan approval. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.2
09/05/2002 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Approved Exception. I protected plant to remain. Refer to landscape plan.
09/06/2002 JIM EGAN FIRE REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
09/27/2002 LISA LESNY OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed