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
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T03CM02208
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/08/2003 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/22/2003 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: May 29, 2003 TO: Eduardo Gonzalez, Rick Engineering Company SUBJECT: LA Fitness Site Plan Review REVIEWER: Loren Makus ACTIVITY NUMBER: T03CM02208 SUMMARY: The Site Plan and Drainage Report Amendment were reviewed by Development Services Engineering Division on May 23, 2003. The Site Plan and Drainage Report cannot be approved at this time. Please address the following comments. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 1) A soils report with infiltration test results will be required to be submitted, demonstrating the drain time for the retained stormwater for any proposed basin meets the maximum disposal time. Discuss results in drainage report. (City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a) 2) Show configuration calculations for basin volume. How will basin area be accessed? Show that volume of basin is derived from a basin configuration that includes an access ramp. Label and dimension access ramp. (DS Sec.10-02.1.5.1) 3) Include a complete copy of the previously submitted drainage report. (DS Sec 2-02.2.2.C) 4) The low flow wall opening appears to be too large. The low flow orifice should discharge the contents of the basin over a long period of time. Show that peak flow will not exceed 3 cfs. (DS 10-01.2.2) 5) Provide an erosion hazard setback analysis for Alamo Wash. Show erosion hazard setback on site plan in drainage report. (DS Sec. 10-1.II.2.3.1.6.A.4.d) SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 6) 5) Show roof drainage patterns on the site plan. Indicate by note that sidewalks shall be flood free for all storm discharges of up to a ten (10) year flood event and that sidewalk scuppers will be used as necessary. (DS Sec. 2.08.4.1.E and DS Sec 2-02.2.1.A.16) 7) Show FEMA Flood Hazard Area limits on the site plan. Depending on the location of the FEMA Flood Hazard Area, a Floodplain Use Permit may be required for this development. (DS Sec. 2-02.2.1.A.15) 8) The solid waste pickup locations along the west side of the project do not appear to meet the requirements. Show access and maneuvering areas for each location. Solid Waste vehicles require forty feet of unobstructed backing room and will not back up into a PAAL. (DS Sec. 2.02.2.1.A.32 and Sec. 6-01.3.1.A and Sec. 6.01.4.1) 9) Include a general note specifying the anticipated method of solid waste collection and frequency of service. (DS Sec 6-01.7.0.A) 10) Since maintenance of rip rap spillways can become expensive if the grout is insufficient, consider specifying an 8 inch concrete grout embedment. A grading permit and stormwater pollution prevention plan will be required for this project. Submit $150 for drainage review fees, soils report, revised Drainage Report, and revised site plan. The next submittal should address all the above items. Loren Makus Senior Engineering Associate Engineering Section Development Services |
| 06/02/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | See landscape comments. DS 2-15.3.4.B |
| 06/02/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) A street landscape border is required along Park Place Drive also. Revise the plans to include the necessary elements. LUC 3.7.3 2) All tree planter areas provided in the vehicular use area must be drawn to scale. DS 2-02.2.1.A 3) The parking spaces located adjacent to the six foot square planters do not meet the minimum parking space size requirements. LUC 3.3.7.2.A 4) Mitigation is required for the viable prosopis velutina removed from the site. LUC 3.8.6.2.C |
| 06/06/2003 | DAN CASTRO | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/06/2003 | 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. Vehicle parking spaces with an overhang must be a minimum 15 feet in length with a maximum allowed 2.5 feet of overhang. It appears that the parking spaces along the perimeter of the site and the north and south sides of building two (2) do not meet this requirement. Revise as required. (D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.2) 2. Label and dimension the width of all PAAL's. PAAL located west of building 2 must have a minimum width of 24 feet measured from the face of curb. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11) 3. Label and dimension the width of the ingress/egress point located at the southwestern corner of the site. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11) 4. Three (3) loading spaces are required for building 2 per LUC 3.4.5.3. Please add a third loading space to serve buildings 1, 2, and 3 and revise the loading space calculation as required. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14) (D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.5) 5. Per LUC Sec. 6.3.7.4, the proposed land use for building 1 is classified under the "Recreation" land use group and not "neighborhood Recreation". Revise note number four (4) on sheet 1 of 3. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.31) 6. All requested changes must be made to the site and landscape plans. (D.S. 2-07.2.1.A) 7. Review of this plan by the Zoning Review Section may be done over the counter. Please contact Dan Castro to set an appointment. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 06/17/2003 | LOREN MAKUS | SANITATION | REVIEW | Denied |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/18/2003 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 06/17/2003 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |