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: T03CM03060
Parcel: 140410610

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T03CM03060
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/25/2003 JIM EGAN FIRE REVIEW Approved
07/16/2003 ELIZABETH EBERBACH ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: July 18, 2003
TO: Kent Delph, Delph Engineering Inc.
SUBJECT: National Advanced Resources Technology Center, Site and Grading Plan Review
REVIEWER: Loren Makus
ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T03CM03060 and T03BU01657

SUMMARY: The Site-Grading Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP), and Drainage Report were reviewed by Development Services Department Engineering Division. The site-grading plan and SWPPP were not approved at this time.
Thank you for a very complete and well-prepared submittal. Please address the following comments in your resubmittal.

Drainage Report comments:
1) Clarify that the existing drainage basin on the Eegee's property adjacent to the project site doesn't affect the proposed project. Label the existing Q100.
2) Provide percolation test results to show that the retained volume will infiltrate within 12 hours. (DS 10-01.3.5.1.3)
3) Provide a geotechnical report giving an evaluation of the proximity of the retention Basin 2 to the building foundation
Site Plan comments:
4) Revise the plan and Key Note 5 to provide a 10'x10' enclosure for the dumpster. City of Tucson Development Standard (DS) 6-01.4.2.C.1. The enclosure on the grading plan appears to be the correct size.
Grading Plan comments:
5) Provide details for inlets and maintenance access for the drainage basins. Will curb openings or concrete headers be used in these locations. (DS 10-01.3.6.2)
6) Show safety barrier around Basins 1 and 2 as described in the drainage report. (DS10-01.3.6.2)
7) Revise the plan to provide scuppers under sidewalks to convey up to 10-year flows for roof drain location. (DS 2-08.4.1.E)
8) Key Note call-outs 22, 37, 39 and 41 are not described but are used on the plan. Revise the notes or the plan to clarify the intended significance.
9) Key Note call-out 17 in Lisa Frank Avenue appears to be incorrectly directed. Please revise the plan to clarify.
SWPPP Review
10) Include a copy of the AzPDES construction general permit and the NOI on forms provided by ADEQ (Part IV.F)
11) Revise the general location map to identify receiving waters within one mile of the project. (Part IV.C.2.e)
12) Provide signed operator certifications (Part IV.J)
13) Revise the SWPPP to provide for maintaining the following records of stabilization:
a. Dates when major grading activities occur. (Part IV.D.4.c.i)
b. Dates when construction temporarily or permanently ceases on a portion of the site. (Part IV.D.4.c.ii)
c. Dates when stabilization measures are initiated and completed. (Part IV.D.4.c.iii)
14) Revise Section 3.1.1 to describe the silt fence and straw bales as sediment control instead of stabilization.
15) We recommend revising the Concrete Truck Washout instructions in Section 9.1.3.d to instruct the site superintendent to designate a washout location where surplus concrete and drum washout can be discharged without entering a drainage facility.
Note: We appreciate the inclusion of the SWPPP site map in the main construction documents.

Revise the Site-Grading Plan, SWPPP and Drainage Report to address all of these comments and resubmit two copies for review. If you would like to meet with me to discuss any of these comments please call me at (520) 791-5550 ext. 1161.

Loren Makus
Senior Engineering Associate
Engineering Division
Development Services
07/18/2003 LOREN MAKUS SANITATION REVIEW Denied DATE: July 18, 2003
TO: Kent Delph, Delph Engineering Inc.
SUBJECT: National Advanced Resources Technology Center, Site and Grading Plan Review
REVIEWER: Loren Makus
ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T03CM03060 and T03BU01657

SUMMARY: The Site-Grading Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP), and Drainage Report were reviewed by Development Services Department Engineering Division. The site-grading plan and SWPPP were not approved at this time.
Thank you for a very complete and well-prepared submittal. Please address the following comments in your resubmittal.

Drainage Report comments:
1) Clarify that the existing drainage basin on the Eegee's property adjacent to the project site doesn't affect the proposed project. Label the existing Q100.
2) Provide percolation test results to show that the retained volume will infiltrate within 12 hours. (DS 10-01.3.5.1.3)
3) Provide a geotechnical report giving an evaluation of the proximity of the retention Basin 2 to the building foundation
Site Plan comments:
4) Revise the plan and Key Note 5 to provide a 10'x10' enclosure for the dumpster. City of Tucson Development Standard (DS) 6-01.4.2.C.1. The enclosure on the grading plan appears to be the correct size.
Grading Plan comments:
5) Provide details for inlets and maintenance access for the drainage basins. Will curb openings or concrete headers be used in these locations. (DS 10-01.3.6.2)
6) Show safety barrier around Basins 1 and 2 as described in the drainage report. (DS10-01.3.6.2)
7) Revise the plan to provide scuppers under sidewalks to convey up to 10-year flows for roof drain location. (DS 2-08.4.1.E)
8) Key Note call-outs 22, 37, 39 and 41 are not described but are used on the plan. Revise the notes or the plan to clarify the intended significance.
9) Key Note call-out 17 in Lisa Frank Avenue appears to be incorrectly directed. Please revise the plan to clarify.
SWPPP Review
10) Include a copy of the AzPDES construction general permit and the NOI on forms provided by ADEQ (Part IV.F)
11) Revise the general location map to identify receiving waters within one mile of the project. (Part IV.C.2.e)
12) Provide signed operator certifications (Part IV.J)
13) Revise the SWPPP to provide for maintaining the following records of stabilization:
a. Dates when major grading activities occur. (Part IV.D.4.c.i)
b. Dates when construction temporarily or permanently ceases on a portion of the site. (Part IV.D.4.c.ii)
c. Dates when stabilization measures are initiated and completed. (Part IV.D.4.c.iii)
14) Revise Section 3.1.1 to describe the silt fence and straw bales as sediment control instead of stabilization.
15) We recommend revising the Concrete Truck Washout instructions in Section 9.1.3.d to instruct the site superintendent to designate a washout location where surplus concrete and drum washout can be discharged without entering a drainage facility.
Note: We appreciate the inclusion of the SWPPP site map in the main construction documents.

Revise the Site-Grading Plan, SWPPP and Drainage Report to address all of these comments and resubmit two copies for review. If you would like to meet with me to discuss any of these comments please call me at (520) 791-5550 ext. 1161.

Loren Makus
Senior Engineering Associate
Engineering Division
Development Services
07/21/2003 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. The proposed land use (Institutional-Government Agency) listed under general note three (3) on sheet C1.0 is not found in the Land Use Code. Please provide the proposed land use classification found under I-1 zoning in LUC Section 2.7.2.2. If a land use interpretation is required, please contact Bill Balak at 791-5550 for information regarding the Zoning Administrators land use interpretation process. The following comments are based on general site plan review requirements in Development Standards 2-01 and do not include comments applicable to a land use class. Additional comments reflecting the proposed land use calculations for floor area, vehicle and bicycle parking, loading zone may be forthcoming upon subsequent review. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.31)

2. Per Pima County Assessors Records, the site is comprised of three (3) separate lots which must be combined into one by providing a copy of the recorded City of Tucson lot combination covenant and a copy of the approved Pima County Assessors Tax Combination form. Attached is a copy of the City of Tucson lot combination covenant or you may go to the following website to obtain a copy online:
http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Lot_Combo_Declaration.pdf
Contact the Pima County Assessors office at 520-740-8630 for information regarding the Pima County Tax Combination form. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.2)

3. Note the proposed building height. Building setback requirements may not be verified for compliance until this information has been provided. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6) (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7)

4. The number of vehicle and bicycle parking spaces required may not be verified for compliance until the land use class has been provided. Refer to LUC Sec. 3.3.4 for land use class vehicle and bicycle parking requirements. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8) (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9)

5. Provide a fully dimensioned bicycle parking space detail which includes the type of rack, number of bicycles it supports, and materials for paving. Refer to D.S. 2-09 for design criteria. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9)

6. Provide a fully dimensioned detail of the proposed free standing signage. A sign above 30 inches in height may not be located within a sight visibility triangle per D.S. 3-01.5.1.A.1. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13)

7. The number and size of loading spaces required may not be verified for compliance until the land use class has been identified. Refer to LUC Sec. 3.4.5 for loading space requirements. The number of loading spaces required and provided must be noted on the plan. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14) (D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.5)

8. Provide the floor area calculation. (D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3)

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

Please submit for review, revised blueline or reproducible copies along with the redline copies of the site plan and response letter.


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608.
07/21/2003 DAN CASTRO HANDICAP-SITE REVIEW Denied Refer to Zoning Review Section comments.
07/22/2003 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) Clarify what materials are proposed for the required 30" screen along Universal Way and Lisa Frank Avenue on the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.2.A.3
07/22/2003 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
07/24/2003 CINDY AGUILAR OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
07/24/2003 ANGIE SHOFFSTALL REJECT SHELF Completed