Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T03CM05601
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/02/2004 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/26/2003 | Loren Makus | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: December 29, 2003 TO: Mr. Eduardo Ornelas SUBJECT: Welding Shop Site Plan Review REVIEWER: Loren Makus ACTIVITY NUMBER: T03CM05601 SUMMARY: The Site Plan and Drainage Report were reviewed by Development Services Department Engineering Division. The Site Plan and Drainage Report were not approved at this time. Please address the following comments. Site Plan Comments: 1) Provide a sufficient number of existing and final grade spot elevations to determine that specified drainage patterns will function as shown on the site plan. Show how drainage from the south unpaved portion of the site will drain across the paved areas. The natural grade of the lot is below the specified finish grades in the paved areas. Clarify the drainage patterns and finish grades. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.16) 2) Show roof drainage patterns and show that 10-year flows will not be discharged across sidewalks. (DS 2-08.4.1.E) 3) Show the limits of the 100-year floodplain and water surface elevations for all flows of 100 cfs or greater. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.15) 4) Revise the finish floor elevation to meet the requirements of the drainage report. 5) Show how flows will be directed to the landscaped water harvesting areas to the maximum amount possible. (LUC 3.7.4.3) 6) A Floodplain Use Permit is required for this project. Submit a Floodplain Use Permit Application along with $150 drainage review fee with the site plan resubmittal. A grading permit may be required. Drainage Report Comments: 7) Provide an encroachment analysis to show that fill and the building construction will not cause any adverse impacts either upstream or downstream of the project. 8) Provide floodplain delineation and ponding limits for the flows along Eastland Street and in Lopez Wash as identified in the drainage report. Revise the site plan and drainage report to address all of these comments and resubmit two copies for review. Include a letter explaining how each comment has been addressed. Loren Makus Senior Engineering Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 12/31/2003 | David Rivera | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CITY OF TUCSON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ZONING REVIEW SECTION DATE: January 2, 2004 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T03M05601 PROJECT NAME: Welding Shop PROJECT ADDRESS: 2014 East Eastland PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gehlen The following items must be revised on or added to the site plan. 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) Revise the required front setback to read "the greater of 20 feet or 1.5 height of building from property line" and revise the setback lines on the site plan as required (LUC 3.2.6.5.A, DS 2-02.2.1.A.7), 2) The minimum width for the pedestrian circulation system is four (4) feet and it must be raised concrete except where is cross the vehicle use area (DS 2-08.5.1, DS 2-01.2.2.A.12). Revise the site plan as required, 3) If applicable, show the location and height of all proposed free-standing signage and lighting on the site plan (DS 2-02.2.1.A.13), 4) If applicable, all easements of record, including the location, type, width, and recordation information must be added to the site plan (DS 2-02.2.1.A.20), 5) Add a general note that lists the existing and proposed use. The proposed use is General Manufacturing (remove craftwork from the general notes). Add all the "subject to's" to the general note. If there is to be outdoor storage, please revise the site plan to include the outdoor storage and demonstrate compliance with LUC 3.5.5.1.H. If there is outdoor storage proposed, revised calculations for parking and loading zones may be required (DS 2-02.2.1.A.31, LUC 2.7.2.2.A.2), 6) There appears to be a math error in the proposed FAR. Please revise |
| 12/31/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | Exception per application and 2002 PC color aerial. |
| 12/31/2003 | Joseph Linville | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Revise the plans to include a barrier, such as curbing, between the vehicular use area and landscape or unpaved areas. DS 3-05.2.3.C.1 Keynote 9 appears to be located on the landscape drawing in error. Clarify the type of dust control treatment proposed east of the parking area. LUC 3.7.2.7 |
| 12/31/2003 | David Rivera | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/02/2004 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/02/2004 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |