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: T02CM04825
Parcel: 114512250

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T02CM04825
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/18/2002 JIM EGAN FIRE REVIEW Approv-Cond APPROVAL FOR FIRE HYDRANT LOCATION AND ACCESS BASED ON GENERAL NOTE #14 (ALL NEW BUILDINGS PROVIDED WITH FIRE SPRINKLERS)
10/31/2002 DAN CASTRO HANDICAP-SITE REVIEW Denied Refer to Zoning Review Section comment number 2b.
10/31/2002 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. City of Tucson lot combination approval is required for this site. Attached is a copy of the covenant prepared by the City Attorney's Office which must be recorded and a copy submitted to the Zoning Review Section prior to site plan approval. In addition, a Pima County Assessors Tax Combination form must be approved and submitted to the Zoning Review Section.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.2

2. a) Provide a standard vehicle parking space detail.
b) Per IBC Table 1106.1, the number of accessible parking spaces required is based on the total number of vehicle parking spaces provided. Revise disabled parking calculation as required.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8

3. a) Per Land Use Code (L.U.C.) Sec. 3.3.3.5, the number of bicycle parking spaces required is based on the total number of vehicle parking spaces provided. Revise as required.
b) L.U.C. Sec. 3.3.7.8 may not be applied, since the total number of vehicle parking spaces provided is over 50.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9

4. Per Development Standards (D.S.) Sec. 3-01.5.1.A.1, lines of sight may not be obscured between 30 inches and 6 feet through the sight visibility triangle located at the Woodland Road ingress/egress point. It appears that the proposed sign is located within the sight visibility triangle. Revise as required.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.10

5. Demonstrate compliance with on-site pedestrian circulation system requirements detailed in D.S. 2-08. Within the development, a continuous on-site pedestrian circulation path and accessible route is required.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12

6. If applicable, provide a detail of proposed freestanding signage and outdoor lighting on the site plan.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13/ D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.25

7. Per L.U.C. Sec. 3.2.3.2 development designator "2", the maximum allowed FAR is .06 and maximum allowed lot coverage is 10%. The site plan indicates a proposed FAR of .064 and proposed lot coverage of 16.6%, both of which are over the maximum allowed.
D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3

8. All requested changes must be made to the site and landscape plans.
D.S. 2-07.2.1.A
11/04/2002 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Denied Identify the natural undisturbed open space on the site and landscape plans. LUC 3.8.6.4.D

The following statements regarding the area set-aside apply to this project. Revise the plans and provide documentation as follows:

The natural undisturbed open space must be delineated in a surveyable manner on the site plan and designated by legal description on a document recorded with the Pima County Recorder for a lot division.

To protect the natural areas, covenants which run with the land will be provided in favor of the City of Tucson and of all owners with record interest in the natural area.

The natural area may be designated as a deed-restricted portion of a privately-owned lot or as a separate
parcel. LUC 2.8.1.7, DS 2-15.3.5

Page 2 of the Environmental Resource Report includes a reference to Exhibit 1, which is not included. Include the conceptual grading plan with the resubmittal.
11/04/2002 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied Masonry walls are required for screening the commercial site where adjacent to residentially zoned properties. Revise the site and landscape plans to provide the required screening per LUC Table 3.7.5.2-I.

Identify the NUOS area on the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.2.
12/09/2002 ANY FLOODPLAIN REVIEW Denied See eng. folder.
12/09/2002 PAUL MACHADO ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied -


To: Erin Loudermilk
MMLA

SUBJECT: 2545 N. Woodland Road
Site plan T02CM04825 (First Review)
T13S, R15E, Section 34

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan and Drainage Statement.

The Site Plan (SP) and Drainage Statement (DS) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal.

Site Plan:

1. Please provide property description per D.S. 2-02.2.1.3.
2. The SVT's are not correctly drawn, please revise. Key note #21 call out an entry monument inside the SVT's, no construction over 30" or under 6' is allowed in the sight visibility triangles per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10.
3. Please label all vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and handicapped circulation clearly identified per D.S. 2-02.2.1.12.
4. Revise estimated cut and fill quantities to reflect proposed amounts per D.S. 2-02.2.1.17.
5. Dimension from street monument lines to existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, driveways, and utility lines per D.S. 2-02.2.1.21.
6. Is key note #20 pointing to the right area as the note indicates?
7. Key note #18 calls out a concrete valley gutter, where does this stop and start? Also what about protection at the end of the gutter or pavement where the gutter meets natural grade? Please list the Q100 exiting the PAAL.
8. The radii on the proposed driveway and PAAL will not support the sanitation vehicle please revise. Show refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0.
9. A private improvement agreement may be necessary for work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Department of transportation at (520) 791-4249 for information.
10. Please show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks and or trails. Please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S 3-01.4.4.
11. A floodplain use permit is necessary. Development Services Department will process the floodplain use permit for this project.
12. Add note regarding maximizing landscaped areas 6" for water harvesting.
13. Key note #16 refers to detail 5 sheet 3 adjacent the property line. Is this correct?
14. Per key note #3, #4 and #7, the proposed FFE's seems a little low, please adjust.
15. Show the project no. T02CM04825 on the cover sheet.


Drainage Statement:
1. Rename Drainage Statement to Drainage Report per S.M.D.D.F.M., Chap. II, 2.1.1.
2. Show the project address on the cover of the Hydrology report.
3. Demonstrate the WSEL does not increase by 0.1' at the western edge of the property.
4. Key note #18 calls out a concrete valley gutter, where does this stop and start? Also what about protection at the end of the gutter or pavement where the gutter meets natural grade? Please list the Q100 exiting the PAAL.
5. A scupper will be needed to convey flow under the trail. Please see comment no. 10 above.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 or pmachad2@ci.tucson.az.us
Paul Machado
Senior Engineering Associate,
12/09/2002 ANY SANITATION REVIEW Denied See eng. folder.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/10/2002 ELAINE ROSE OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed