Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T04CM04208
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/20/2004 | Andrew Connor | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Submit a landscape plan to comply with DS 2-07.0 2. Submit NPPO plan or Application for Exception per DS 2-15.0 |
| 09/21/2004 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit NPPO plan or Application for Exception per DS 2-15.0 |
| 09/22/2004 | Jim Egan | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. A minimum 20' wide, paved, fire apparatus access roadway must be provided and extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of all structures. An approved turnaround must be provided for dead-end access roadways. 2. Minimum gate width shall be 20 feet. An emergency ingress device (Lock Box) must be provided. 3. Fire hydrant required. |
| 09/23/2004 | Peter McLaughlin | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Paul Nzomo 1010 N. Finance Center Ste 200 Tucson, AZ 85710 FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: T04CM04208 Landscape Material Facility 6671 E. Littletown Road Site Plan Review (1st review) TRANSMITTAL: September 27, 2004 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. 1. This project is being reviewed as a new use. Full code compliance is required. DS 2-02 2. All vehicular use areas, including areas that trucks use to load and deliver materials must be paved per LUC 3.3.7.3. Revise to show surfacing requirements are met for all vehicular use areas. DS 3-05.2.3.A 3. Continuous pedestrian circulation must provide a connection between all buildings and between the buildings and the right-of-way along Littletown Road. Revise to show pedestrian connections. Pedestrian sidewalks must be a minimum of 4 feet in width. DS 2-08.4.1.A DS 2-02.2.1.A.12 4. Between any building and PAAL a minimum 5-foot pedestrian refuge, including a 4-foot sidewalk is required. Dimension the pedestrian refuge between the proposed office building and PAAL. DS 3-05.2.2.B.1 5. A minimum of two bicycle parking spaces is required. However, for uses with less than 50 vehicle parking spaces provided, two class 2 bicycle parking spaces are sufficient. Revise bicycle parking calculation. DS 2-05.2.1.D.2 LUC 3.3.7.8 LUC 3.3.3.5 6. Provide a fully dimensioned bicycle parking detail demonstrating that it meets the minimum dimensional requirements of DS 2-09, including a 6-foot length for bicycles and a 5-foot maneuverability area. DS 2-05.2.1.A.9 DS 2-09 7. In the parking calculation add the number of standard and handicapped vehicle spaces required as well as provided. DS 2-02.2.2.A.4 8. Add a loading zone calculation stating the number of loading spaces required and provided. DS 2-02.2.2.A.5 9. Add a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculation to the plan. LUC 3.2.11 DS 2-02.2.2.A.3 10. Indicate the principal use on the site plan. It is unclear if it is proposed to be commercial storage of landscaping materials, landscape material retail sales, or wholesaling of landscaping materials. Certain uses are prohibited in the Airport Environs Accident Potential Zone (see comment 8). DS 2-02.2.1.A.31 LUC 2.8.5.5 11. The site is within the Airport Environs Zone Airport Hazard District, Accident Potential Zone-4 and Noise Control District-70. Add a note to indicate that site is within these overlay zones. Add a note stating that the elevation above median sea level (MSL) of the SE end of the NW/SE runway at Davis-Monthan AFB is 2,705 feet. State the max height above median sea level of the proposed buildings (including the 50-foot high silos and storage bin) which may not to exceed 2,838 feet (133 feet above the elevation of the southeast end of the DMAFB runway). LUC 2.8.5.7.A.2 12. Correct the legal description in the location map to indicate that the site is actually a portion of the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Sec. 7-15-15. DS 2-02.2.1.A.2 13. Correct the site zoning to read "I-2" rather than "I-1". Also, add the zoning of all adjacent parcels to the drawing. DS 2-02.2.1.A.28 14. According to the Assessor's records, the subject property is made up of two parcels, 141-03-0280 and 141-03-0290, which must be combined into one. The lot line between the two parcels lies parallel and 75 feet north of the soth boundary of the project site and runs through the proposed location of the modular office building. Lot lines may not run through buildings. Provide lot combination documents including Assessor's lot combo docs and notarized/recorded covenant. 15. Add the existing use of the site (i.e. vacant) to the plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.31 16. Provide recordation information (docket and page reference) for all existing and proposed easements, including the existing gas line road, on the site plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.20 17. The location, type, size and height of any existing or proposed free-standing signage (including billboards) must be shown on the drawing. DS 2-02.2.1.A.13 18. Provide the slope of the handicap parking aisles and ramp on the h/c parking detail. ANS/IBC 19. Detail any proposed frestanding lighting on the site plan. 20. All applicable changes must also be made on landscape plan and NPPO plan. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
| 09/27/2004 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See zoning comments. |
| 10/12/2004 | Loren Makus | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 15, 2004 TO: Paul Nzomo, Coronado Engineering SUBJECT: Landscape Material Facility, Site Plan and Grading Plan Review REVIEWER: Loren Makus ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T04CM04208 and T04BU02306 SUMMARY: The Site Plan and Grading Plan were reviewed by Development Services Department Engineering Division. The Site Plan, Grading Plan and Drainge Report (DR) were not approved at this time. Drainage Report Comments 1. Throughout the text of the report and the figures, there are many inconsistencies concerning the extent of the project site. Clarify the figures and text so that the affected property is clearly defined. The drainage report should analyze the whole parcel. (Development Standard (DS) 10-02.2.3.1.2) 2. Clarify the relationship between concentration points 1 and 4 and the project site. Both of these concentration points appear to be downstream from the project site. (DS 10-02.2.3.1.3.A.2) 3. On page 3 the DR states, "The site is not impacted by any off-site generated runoff from the adjacent lot to the east and southeast. Revise this statement to be consistent with the rest of the report. Also revise the statement "The site is not in COT floodplain" to indicate that the floodplain will be delineated. 4. Remove the statement, "The site is not in a balanced or critical basin … see figure 6." 5. Provide results of a percolation test demonstrating that the retained volume in the basins will be disposed of within 24 hours. 6. Present the calculations used to delineate the floodplain limits. Clearly identify the hydraulic cross-sections on the site plan. (DS) 10-02.2.3.1.4.E) 7. Revise the site plan in the drainage report to include all of the required elements from DS 10-02.2.3.1.6. This shall include the following: location, size and type of inflow and outflow structures, with dimensions and elevations; location and size of maintenance access ramps and roadways; and maximum water-surface elevations and the limits of ponding. Any other applicable requirements must also be include. 8. Provide the required routing sheets for each basin as described in DS 10-02.2.3.1.6.B. Include all of the supporting calculations. 9. Provide a detailed basin maintenance checklist and describe the required inspection program. (DS 10-02.2.3.1.6.C.) 10. Show how the stated inflow into the basin will be directed to the basins. 11. Show that the discharge from the project area will maintain the existing flow characteristics after the proposed improvements are completed. 12. Provide engineering calculations to substantiate all of the engineering conclusions presented in the report. 13. Show that the project will be provided with all-weather access. Provide calculations showing depth of flow across the private access easement. 14. Determine the erosion hazard setback for each of the drainageways and Site Plan and Grading Plan Comments. 15. Clearly show and label the flood-prone areas on the site plan. Show water surface contours at least every 200 feet. 16. Clearly show the locations of proposed weirs and channels. Show erosion control structures and surface treatments. 17. Clarify the nature of the surface treatment of the vehicle use areas. The same symbol is used for areas labeled "G.S.A. PAVING" and "DECOMPOSED GRANITE." The Land Use Code requires all vehicle use areas to be surfaced with an approved material. Specify one of the materials listed in LUC 3.3.7.3. 18. In a note, state that the grading will conform to City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0. 19. The basin routing pages in the drainage report appear to indicate that the basins will have outlet weirs. Provide details, dimensions and elevations for each weir. 20. Clarify the surface treatment for the areas labeled "FINISHED GOODS", and "MATERIAL STORAGE MOUNDS" as well as other areas within the proposed development. 21. Show the sight visibility triangles for access onto Littletown Road. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.10) 22. Show points of egress and ingress including the width of driveways. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.11) 23. Revise the design of the retention/detention basins so that they have curvilinear shapes and provide visual interest. 24. Show and label the solid waste container location and access thereto fully dimensioned. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.32) 25. Indicate the area of disturbance and show grading limits. If more than 1 acre will be disturbed, including any off-site improvement, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan must be prepared and submitted. Include a completed copy of the ADEQ checklist showing where in the plan each requirement has been met. Revise the Site Plan, Grading Plan and the Drainage Report to address all of these comments and resubmit three copies of the site/grading plan and two copies of the SWPPP and Drainage Report. 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, E.I.T. Senior Engineering Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/18/2004 | BETH GRANT | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/18/2004 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |