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: T04CM01865
Parcel: 10819009B

Address:
4798 N 1ST AV

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T04CM01865
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
04/27/2004 JIM EGAN FIRE REVIEW Approved
05/04/2004 JIM TATE ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: April 27, 2004
ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04CM01845
PROJECT NAME: Fire Station No. 20
PROJECT ADDRESS: 4798 N. 1st
PROJECT REVIEWER: James C. Tate, P.E., CFM

The following items must be revised or added to the Site Plan. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed.

Resubmittal Required: Site Plan, Drainage Report

GENERAL COMMENTS:

1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Site Plan purposes only.

2. A Flood Use Permit is required prior to Grading Plan approval.

3. Proposed fills in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred feet of the developing site adjacent to residentially zoned property require the procedure outlined in IBC Chapter 36 Section 13.1. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval.


SITE PLAN COMMENTS

1. Place a note on the Site Plan Sheet A1.2 to refer to Civil Plans Sheets C2.1 and C2.2 for elevation information, existing contours, drainage patterns, cut/fill quantities, finish grades. DS 2-02.2.1.a.16,17,23

2. Place a note on the Site Plan Sheet A1.2 to refer to Survey Sheet 1 for horizontal information including lot dimensions and bearings. DS 2-02.2.1.a.5

3. Include a location map on Site Plan Sheet A1.2. DS 2-02.2.1.a.4

4. Show, label, and dimension existing and proposed curbs and sidewalks on 1st and on River. Also dimension from street center line to existing and proposed curbs and sidewalks. DS 2-02.2.1.a.21

5. Show, label and dimension existing and future MS&R right of way for 1st and for River. DS 2-02.2.1.a.19

6. Dedication of future MS&R right of way is required prior to Site Plan approval.

7. Show, label and dimension future curb for 1st and for River. Show and label future sight visibility triangles. DS 2-02.2.1.a.10

8. Include the specific basin maintenance notes found in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.3.2 on the Site Plan.

9. The following items must be shown on the Site Plan (SMDDFM 2.3.1.4 and DS 2-02.2.1.a.15)

1. All 100-yr. peak floodplain limits and areas of sheet flooding resulting from 100-yr.
flood peaks of 100 cfs or more must be clearly shown and labeled, and must also include water surface elevations.

2. Those areas subject to flooding from flows smaller than 100 cfs must also be identified and labeled with flow arrows.

3. Each significant concentration point, along with its 100-yr. peak discharge must be labeled.

4. Any Regulatory Flood Plain must be clearly labeled as "Regulatory Flood Plain".

5. All flood plains must be labeled in one of the following ways: "To be left natural," "To be channelized," "Public or Private Drainage Easement," "Public or Private Right-Of-Way."

6. 100-yr. floodplain limits which are entirely contained within a street section or constructed drainageway must be labeled as such on the plan.

10. The plan shows that the flood limits are being pushed further to the south on Pima County property. Written approval from Pima County, Flood Control, is required prior to Site Plan approval.

11. Show berm on south side of basin.

12. Show all proposed off-site drainage structures (berm on the property to the south).

13. Written approval from all offsite property owners for all proposed offsite drainage structures is required prior to Site Plan approval. The plan shows a proposed berm on the property to the south. Written approval from Pima County is required prior to Site Plan approval. SMDDFM, 2.3.1.5.G

14. The Site Plan shows an 8" pvc basin outlet pipe. The Grading Plan and Drainage Report to not show this structure.

15. Provide sidewalks from the building to both River and 1st. DS 2-08.4.1.A

16. Show location and quantity of all offsite to onsite stormwater acceptance and the location and quantity of all onsite to offsite stormwater discharge. Stormwater must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes, as encountered under existing conditions. Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 12.5

17. In floodplain areas where fill is to be used to raise the elevation of a building site, the building must be located not less than 25 feet from the edge of the fill, unless a study prepared by a registered professional civil engineer and approved by the city shows that a lesser distance is acceptable. The west side of the proposed building is approximately 6 feet from the edge of the fill slope. The building must be relocated or the above study must be prepared and submitted. Tucson Code Chapter 26 Sec 26-8(d)(2)

18. The specific drainage maintenance notes specified in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.3.2 must be included on the Site Plan.

DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS

1. The HEC-2 run assumes a starting WSEL at Section 1 of 2322.0. It appears that the capacity of the box culverts under 1st would result in a headwater elevation significantly higher than this. Show the proper calculations for this WSEL.

2. The floodplain limits on Figure 7 are not plotted correctly. For example, Section 9 south existing flood limit is plotted at about 26. The HEC-2 run WSEL is 28.49 for both existing and proposed conditions. The existing and proposed limits should be in the same place. They are not. The HEC-2 run shows the south bank lower than the WSEL. The limits should be plotted much further to the south. Section 8 south bank elevation (station 0) shows 2327.8 (HEC-2). Figure 7 shows this elevation to be about 26. The WSEL is specified as 27.5. It appears that the actual floodplain limits are considerably to the south. The existing and proposed limits are also plotted in much different locations for section 8 even though they are essentially the same. All the flood limits on Figure 7 need to be revised. The limits must match the HEC-2 analysis.

3. Development in the floodplain shall not increase the base flood elevation more than one-tenth of a foot. The proposed drainage plan increases the base flood by more than one foot. Change the plan. Tucson Code, Chapter 26-5.2(5)

4. The proposed plan significantly increases the velocity of the flow in the channel. Development in the floodplain must not result in higher floodwater velocities which significantly increase the potential for flood or erosion damage. Change the plan. Tucson Code Chapter 26-5.2(6)

5. The HEC-2 analysis does not have the proposed offsite berm (on the south bank) in the model.

6. The Grading Plan shows the proposed bank protection on the north channel bank abruptly starting (at section 7). It would seem that some sort of transition (taper) would be prudent to alleviate erosion. Also, the toe down depth must be quantified. Show proper design calculations. Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 2.3.1.5.C

7. A detailed drainageway and basin maintenance checklist and schedule must be included in the report. SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.C

8. The grades indicate that there is flow along the south gutter line of River Rd. adjacent to the property. The new proposed curb cut and driveway will direct this flow through the property to 1st Ave. . Stormwater must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes, as encountered under existing conditions. Stormwater patterns must remain the same. Unless the flow on River currently crosses the property to 1st, the drainage plan must be changed to allow the drainage to continue on River.
SMDDFM, 12.5
05/12/2004 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: David Rivera
Senior Planner
FOR: Patricia Gehlen
Principal Planner

PROJECT: T04CM01865
Fire Station No. 20
850 East River Road
Site Plan

Transmittal date: 1st Review May 12, 2004

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with redlines and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed.

1. The following comments are based on Development standards 2-02 Site plan contents and specifications. I realize that this plan has several drawings that provide the information that may be requested but the requirements are for the information under DS 2-02 to be placed on the site plan sheet A1.2.

2. Please clarify if both parcels on which this Fire Station is to be built is owned by the City of Tucson. Per the Pima County Assessor's internet information (Map guide) the east parcel is owned by Pima County.

Prior to final approval of the site plan parcel tax code combo and a lot combo covenant will be required. The parcel tax code combo is to be processed through the Pima County Assessor's Office. The Lot combo covenant is a form, which must be filled out by the owner and recorded with the Pima County Recorder's Office. I have attached a copy of the lot combo form for your convenience. If you have any questions about this requirement please feel free to call me.

The legal description must be revised to describe the property based on the lot combo requirement. DS 2-02.2.1.A.2

All text height must be a minimum of 12 point. Adjust all text height that is less than 12 point.

3. Add a location map to the site plan sheet. The location map must cover a one square mile area. The location map should be drawn to scale of one three inches equals one mile. The map must include the major street names, section corners, named washes or rivers, the City of Tucson/Pima County jurisdiction limits depicted and labeled. All text must be legible and minimum of 12 point. DS 2-02.2.1.A.4

4. Add the lot line distances and bearings for all lot lines including curve data if applicable. DS 2-02.2.1.A.5

5. Please clarify if the nine inside parking spaces are for the fire vehicles. If so the parking spaces for the fire trucks do not count towards the required parking. Forty-four vehicle-parking spaces are required and must be provided.

Also please list under the vehicle parking calculations text block that two handicapped parking spaces area required and have been provided. DS 2-02.2.1.A.8

6. Off-street bicycle parking, including materials for lighting, paving, and security; fully dimensioned layout; location; specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports; and the location and type of directional signage.

Four bicycle parking spaces (two class one and two class two spaces) are required for this project and per the bicycle parking calculation have been provided. Add to the site details sheet A1.7 a fully dimensioned detail drawing which depicts the actual location and conditions of the class one and class two facilities. When the bicycle parking facility is not visible from the street, directional signage will be provided to direct the cyclist to the facility. Please add the details as requested and provide the required information. DS 2-02.2.1A.9

7. Existing and future sight visibility triangles are to be drawn based on the existing and future curb locations. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10

8. Dimension the width of the PAAL area along the south side of the building. DS 2-02.2.1.A.11

9. Per DS 2-08.4.1, at least one (1) sidewalk will be provided to a project from each street on which the project has frontage, unless there is no vehicular access from a street because of a physical barrier, such as a drainageway or an unbroken security barrier (e.g., a wall or fence). The sidewalk should be located to minimize any conflict with vehicular access to the project.

This site has street frontage on two streets. A four-foot wide concrete sidewalk connecting to the on site pedestrian circulation (sidewalk) from each of the two street sidewalks must be provided. The sidewalks must also provide an accessible route for the handicapped unless a separate accessible route is proposed. Add access ramps where required to provide the continuous circulation and accessibility. The sidewalks must also be physically separated from the vehicular use area. A raised concrete sidewalk or some form of extruded curbing may be used to accomplish the physical separation. DS 2-02.2.1.A.12

A four-foot wide concrete sidewalk between the parking spaces and the south side of the building is required. The sidewalk must connect to the onsite circulation.

10. Based on the proposed gross floor area of the building this site must be provided with one 12 feet wide by 35 feet long loading space. Per the plan a loading area has been depicted along the south side of the site. Please dimension the loading space. The loading space may not be located within the PAAL area. Relocate away from the 24-foot PAAL. Also please add a note listing the number loading spaces required and number provided. DS 2-02.2.1.A.14

11. The existing and future right-of-way for both First Street and River Road must be drawn, dimensioned and labeled. The existing and future curb and sidewalks locations must also be drawn, dimensioned and labeled. DS 2-02.2.1A.19 and DS 2-02.2.1A.21

12. Draw the locations of the proposed freestanding lighting on the site plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.25

13. See the comments by the Landscape Reviewer regarding the requirements for landscape borders, screening, and NPPO. Also please coordinate the plan sheets and insure that the sheets match. The electrical transformer location does not match on the site plan, electrical plan or landscape plan. DS 2-02.2.1A.27

14. List the existing use as "Vacant" and list the proposed use as "Civic Use Group, 6.3.4" and the specific use as "Protective Service DD "10", Subject to LUC sections 3.5.3.2 and 3.5.13.6. DS 2-02.2.1.A.31

15. List the following LUC code data on sheet A1.2. The required and proposed lot size, the allowed and proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR), allowed and proposed maximum building heights, Number of required and provided loading zones, number of required and provided handicapped parking spaces. DS 2-02.2.2.A.1 - .6

16. This site is subject to the criteria of the Scenic Corridor Zone. A separate application and review and approval is required for the Scenic Corridor. Call me if you have any questions regarding the process and submittal requirements. Keep in mind that the site plan cannot be approved until the Scenic Corridor application and review of the plan for compliance with Scenic Corridor requirements has been met.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608.

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and landscape plan and requested documents.
05/13/2004 DAVID RIVERA HANDICAP-SITE REVIEW Denied See Zoning comments
05/14/2004 Joseph Linville LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) Revise the landscape plan to include any changes requested by other agencies and as necessary to correspond with any site plan revisions. DS 2-07.2.0

2) Revise the landscape and site plan to show the MS&R right of way line. LUC 2.8.3.4

3) Show the limits of grading on the grading plan, landscape plan, and native plant preservation plan. DS 2-07.2.2

4) List the proper and common name for plants on the proposed seed list on the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.2.A.1.d
DS 9-06.4.1

5) Include sight visibility triangles as defined in DS 3-01.5.0
on the landscape plan.

6) Revise the landscape plan to include only plants indigenous to the site within the 30" wide scenic route buffer area. DS 9-06.4.1, LUC 3.7.5.2.D.1

7) Per LUC 3.7.3.7.D.2 "Nonwood fences, such as chain link, may not be used along a street frontage along a Gateway Route or within the SCZ". Revise the plans to include an alternative for the fence shown on the plans.

8) The landscape plan, grading plan, and site plan may require revision to correspond with the native plant preservation plan. See NPPO comments. DS 2-15.3.4.A
05/18/2004 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Denied 1) The native plant preservation plan proposes to preserve in place plants located in areas identified as 3:1 fill slopes on the grading plans. Revise the plans as necessary eliminate conflicts. A non-disturbance area per DS 2-15.6.A is required for preserved plants.

2) Provide a native plant preservation plan for any off-site disturbance or construction such the proposed berm on the adjacent parcel. LUC 3.8.4.2

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
05/19/2004 TAMI ACHONG OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
05/18/2004 TAMI ACHONG REJECT SHELF Completed