Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T03CM00208
Parcel: 11615087J

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T03CM00208
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/04/2003 DOUG WILLIAMS ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied SUBJECT: Site Plan/Floodplain Use Permit Review - 1601 W. St. Mary's Road
REVIEWER: Doug Williams
DATE: 7 August 2003
ACTIVITY NUMBER(s): T03OT01270/T03CM00208
T14S, R13E, Section 10

SUMMARY: Engineering Section has reviewed the Drainage Report, Site Plan and Floodplain Use Permit application received on 17 July 2003. Consulted for review of this project were the City of Tucson Development Standards (DS), the Pima County/City of Tucson Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual (DS 10-01.0), Tucson Code, Chapter 26 (Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Management Regulations) and the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (SMDDFM - DS 10-02.0). The Site Plan and Floodplain Use Permit may not be approved prior to drainage report approval. Engineering Division approval is not recommended at this time - resubmittal is required. Please address the following comments prior to resubmittal:

DRAINAGE REPORT/FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT:

1. The encroachment analysis must demonstrate that this development will, at a minimum:
a) not increase the water surface elevation by more than one tenth of foot,
b) not generate adverse impacts, including but not limited to erosion, upstream or downstream, and
c) not result in damage (adverse impact) to public facilities as a result of erosion or flooding events (Section 26-5.2, Tucson Code).
Please refer to the above section, and Section 26-11.2, for floodplain use permit submittal requirements and conditions that must be met prior to floodplain use permit issuance;
2. Provide discussion, any calculations and modeling for the apparent split of Silvercroft Wash flow. The report must address all flows potentially affecting the site (SMDDFM, Section 2.3.1.3 A 4);
3. Submit hydrologic data sheets for each principal point of drainage concentration, for post-developed conditions, where appropriate (SMDDFM, Section 2.3.1.3 A 6);
4. Revise the existing conditions topographic map, and provide the following items at a minimum:
a) existing FEMA floodplain limits for the entire site
b) all drainage easements and underground conveyance systems, fully labeled, with Q100 noted;
5. Provide either normal depth or backwater computations to describe the existing and developed conditions flow depths, widths and velocities (SMDDFM, Section 2.3.1.4)
6. Describe the hydraulic analyses (and results) used to evaluate the floodplain in, and adjacent to, the proposed development (SMDDFM, Section 2.3.1.4 A & B);
7. Clearly label and depict all 100-year floodplain limits, with water surface elevations for floodplains with Q100's of 100 cfs or greater onsite, to include any within 200 feet of the developing site, and any underground conveyance systems, with easement recording information, and label each as "Regulatory Floodplain" (SMDDFM, Sec 2.3.1.4 C 1 & 6);
8. Identify and label each significant drainage concentration point, along with its 100-year peak discharge and corresponding drainage area (SMDDFM, Sec 2.3.1.4 C 4);
9. Submit all hydraulic calculation sheets used for delineation of the offsite and onsite floodplains, as well as those used for evaluating flow depths, velocities and durations (SMDDFM, Sec 2.3.1.4 D);
10. Provide hydraulic cross section information described in paragraph E, per (SMDDFM, Sec 2.3.1.4 E);
11. Provide discussion of, and comparison with the reports and or studies referenced in the drainage report, in accordance with paragraph G (SMDDFM, Section 2.3.1.4 G);
12. Please check the existing and developed conditions water surface elevations for section B-B, provided on Figures 5 and 6. It appears there may be an inadvertent elevation provided on Figure 6;

Please note that any proposed revision to, or alteration of the current FIRM panel floodplain delineation will require a submittal of a Letter Of Map Revision (LOMR) for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) review and approval.

SITE PLAN:

1. Depict maneuverability areas for the loading zone, fully dimensioned (DS) 2-02.2.1.14
2. Provide estimated cut and fill quantities (DS 2-02.2.1.17)
3. Provide right of way dimensioning in accordance with the City of Tucson Major Streets and Routes Plan intersection widening requirements (DS 2-02.2.1.19);
4. Provide drainage easement, and all other easements of record data on the plan, with recording information on the plan (DS 2-02.2.1.20);
5. Depict refuse container size and access thereto, fully dimensioned (DS 2-02.2.1.32)

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, ext. 1189 or Dwillia1@ci.tucson.az.us

NOTE: Grading plan/permit and Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) approvals will be required for this project.

Douglas Williams
Sr. Engineering Associate
Engineering Division
Development Services Department
08/08/2003 DOUG WILLIAMS SANITATION REVIEW Denied See site review comments
08/18/2003 Daniel 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. Under the direction of the City Attorneys office, Development Services Department policy requires that all properties comprised of two (2) or more lots and which are developed as a single unified building site, be combined by a recorded City of Tucson Lot Combination Covenant and Pima County Assessors Tax Combination form. Attached to the yellow site plan card is a copy of the lot combination Covenant, which must be signed, notarized, and recorded. In addition to the covenant, a copy of the approved Pima County Assessors Tax Combination form must also be submitted to the Zoning Review Section for DSD records.

2. The site plan may not be approved until the SCZ application has been approved. The SCZ plan must be resubmitted and approved. Please contact me at the number below for SCZ resubmittal requirements.
L.U.C. 2.8.2

3. Note the canopy height.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6

4. Indicate graphically and by note van accessible parking spaces. Four (4) van accessible parking spaces are required based on 30 disabled parking spaces to be provided.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8/ D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4

5. a) The striped pedestrian path may not be located between the two (2) easternmost handicap parking spaces and the PAAL. Relocate the pedestrian refuge area.
b) A Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) must be applied for to request relief from D.S. 2-08.4.1.A (sidewalk required from the St. Mary's Road street frontage to the on-site pedestrian circulation system). A DSMR application form is attached to the original yellow site plan card along with a hard copy of these comments. The form is also available online at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/dsmrapplicat.pdf
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12

6. Dimension the loading spaces. Per LUC Sec. 3.4.5.4, a minimum of eight (8) 12' x 35' loading spaces are required.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14/ D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.5

7. All requested changes must be made to the site and landscape plans.
D.S. 2-07.2.1.A

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608.
08/19/2003 DAN CASTRO HANDICAP-SITE REVIEW Denied 1. Indicate graphically and by note location and dimensions of van accessible parking spaces. Four (4) van accessible parking spaces are required based on 30 disabled parking spaces to be provided.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8/ D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4

2. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.F, the striped pedestrian path may not be located between the two (2) easternmost handicap parking spaces and the PAAL. Relocate the pedestrian refuge area.
08/21/2003 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Approved Revise the NPPO sheet L1, the mitigation notes do note correspond with the plan.

The landscape plan does not include all of the trees shown as preserved in place along St. Mary's Road on the NPPO Plan. Revise as necessary.

Identify all abbreviations used on the Native Plant/Existing Plant Inventory.
08/21/2003 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Approved 1) Revise the landscape plan to match the site plan. It appears that the parking lot design differs on the plans. DS 2-07.2.0

2) Based on compliance with LUC 3.7.1.2.B.1.b the provisions of LUC 3.7 would apply to the entire site. Provide plans that include the entire site and that demonstrate compliance with the Landscaping and Screening regulations.

3) Identify all abbreviations used on the landscape plans.
DS 2-07.2.2

4) The site is subject to the provisions of LUC 2.8.2. Scenic Corridor Zone. The following requirements among others must be addressed on the site plan and subsequent Scenic Corridor Review Plans
Where possible along St. Mary's Road, a thirty-foot wide scenic route buffer is to be preserved and maintained in a natural state per LUC 3.7.5.2.A.

5) Landscape borders per LUC 3.7.2.4.A.2 are to be located within the property limits. Up to five feet of the adjacent right of way area may utilized to comply with the border regulations. Revise the plan as necessary to meet the minimum standards.

6) Additional comments may apply pending review of a complete landscape plan for the site. An irrigation plan is also required.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
08/26/2003 LISA LESNY OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
08/22/2003 ANGIE SHOFFSTALL REJECT SHELF Completed