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 - T04OT00147
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/11/2004 | Patricia Gilbert | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: February 12, 2004 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04OT00147 PROJECT NAME: Plaza Antigua PROJECT ADDRESS: 4299 North Campbell Avenue PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert, Engineering Associate 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 1. The distance for the sight visibility triangle for Limberlost Road is incorrect. This section of Limberlost Road is a local street. The sight distances on the plan are for a collector street. Revise the site plan to show the correct distance for a local street, 185' for the near side and 110' for the far side. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. 2. Clearly show the floodplain limits and the erosion hazard setback limits. For the required setback distances refer to Floodplain and Erosion Hazard, Chapter 26-7.1. of the City Code, DS 2-02.2.1.A.15. 3. The refuge container located along the Food Service building is not accessible. The collection vehicle can not get to trash enclosure from the current angle. The maximum back up distance for the collection vehicle is 40 feet. Revise plan accordingly. DS 6-01.4.1.C. 4. A minimum setback distance of five (5) feet for a pedestrian refuge area must be maintained between any enclosed structure and a PAAL. The refuge area may have a roof for shade, provided it contains a sidewalk and pedestrian access which is unobstructed and is set back one (1) foot from the PAAL. Sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any PAAL on the side where buildings are located. The building facing Limberlost Road is not meeting this criteria. Revise plan as necessary. DS 3-05.2.2.B.1., Figure 1 and DS 2-08.4.1.B. 5. Engineering can not review 2 lots as one site plan. Remove the verbiage regarding lot 1 and 2. Is this site going to be split? If this site is going to be split, the lot split needs to be approved prior to site plan approval and each lot needs to be reviewed separately. 6. The maneuverability for the loading area for the food service and general merchandise sales looks questionable. Show maneuverability or re-locate the loading area. Figure 1. A. 7. Any proposed drainage structures on Pima County property (i.e. adjacent to the Rillito) will require Pima County permits. Drainage structures in the Pima County River Park Easement must also be approved by Pima County. Obtain written approval from the county for all these structures. Approval of the proposed drainage plan by Pima County is required prior to site plan approval. 8. 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 Section13.1. This process must be complete prior to Site Plan approval. It appears the west perimeter of the site has an excess of two feet above existing grade. Revise the plan as necessary. 9. Detention/Retention basins must be designed according to Multiple Use Concepts and Aesthetic design guidelines found in the stormwater Detention/Retention Manual Chapter 4. Basin shape, side-slope, etc must follow these guidelines. The proposed basin does not meet these guidelines. The proposed basin also does not meet the side-slope and depth requirements of SDRM 3.6.1. Since the project is adjacent to the Rillito, the basin is not required. See Drainage Report comments below. 10. The property lines on the site plan do not match the property lines found on the TDOT mapping site. A large portion of the parcel shown on the site plan is county property (Rillito River). Please see the County Assessor's office to revise the discrepancy. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. Paragraph 3 page 1 is incorrect. Zone X Shaded is not a special flood hazard area. Flood insurance is not mandatory. Elevation certificates or Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA's) are not necessary. Page 9 is also incorrect. This project is not in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), therefore it is not necessary to have the finish floor elevations one foot above the water surface elevation. 2. Retention on projects adjacent to the Rillito has not been required if onsite flows are directed to the Rillito. 3. It is not clear in the report if the basin overflow is being directed to the Rillito. If it is, retention is not required. However drainage structures must be created to convey flow to the river. Contact Pima County Flood Control for acceptable drainage solutions. 4. Determine the erosion hazard setback for the Rillito. This must be shown on the site plan. 5. Determine the FEMA floodplain limits. These must be shown on the plan. |
| 02/23/2004 | DAN CASTRO | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Denied | Refer to Zoning Review comments. |
| 02/23/2004 | 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. Per the City Attorney's office, the mutual covenant referred to in the zoning exhibit on sheet 1 of 6 does not allow for the commercial use of the MH-1 zoned portion of the property. The following comments are based on a site review of the C-1 and C-2 zoned portions of the project only. The proposed commercial development is not allowed within the MH-1 zoned portion of the site. Please revise the site plan to clearly show the zoning boundaries on the site plan in order to verify LUC requirements within the commercial zoned portions of the project. If substantial changes are made to the site plan, a new site plan review will be required. If the site is rezoned, a development plan will be required for review. Refer to Development Standards 2-05 for development plan content and specifications. 2. Provide the legal description of the property. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.2) 3. Revise general note six (6) to clearly state the proposed building height/s. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6) 4. Label and dimension the building setback from the MH-1 zoning boundary. Per LUC Sec. 3.2.6.4 "DD", the minimum building setback required is based on 1.5 times the building height. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7) 5. Indicate the location of the two (2) proposed class II bicycle parking spaces on sheet 4 of 6 for the office use. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9) 6. If applicable, provide a detail of any existing and/or proposed free-standing signage/billboard and outdoor lighting on the site plan. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13) (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.25) 7. A total of four (4) loading zones a required for this project per LUC Sec. 3.4.5.3. One (1) loading zone is required for (17,000 S.F.) office use, one (1) loading zone is required for (8,350 S.F.) food service, and two (2) loading zones are required for (12,000) of retail use. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14) (D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.5) 8. A vehicular and pedestrian cross access agreement is required for this site. Provide a copy of the agreement for review. The agreement must be recorded and the recorded copy submitted to the Zoning Review Section prior to site plan approval. 9. The site is subject to annexation conditions as listed under Ordinance No. 7286. Please list the prohibited uses in the C-1 zone (formerly zone B-1 ®) and C-2 zone (formerly B-2A ®). A copy of Ordinance No. 7286 has been attached to the yellow site review card. 10. All requested changes must be made to the site and landscape plans. (D.S. 2-07.2.1.A) If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 02/24/2004 | Andrew Connor | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | Application for Exception ok |
| 02/24/2004 | Andrew Connor | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Landscape plan indicates 30" screen wall along southwest landscape border on Limberlost, site plan shows 6' wall. A 6' wall is required per LUC 3.7.2-I. 2) Revise landscape plans per Engineering and Zoning comments. |
| 02/25/2004 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Fire hydrants required. Submit approved COT Water Plan. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/01/2004 | TAMI ACHONG | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 02/25/2004 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |