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: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Permit Number - T04OT00147
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/13/2004 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: April 13, 2004 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04OT00147/T04BU00186 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. Per Chapter 26-7.1. of the Tucson City Code, when banks on regional watercourses are stabilized (soil cement bank protection) the erosion hazard setback is 50'. It is not clear if the banks located by the bridge (Campbell Road) are stabilized. It appears there is a maintenance road in this area that leads to the wash. If the banks are not stabilized the erosion hazard setback extends to 360'. Are the banks stabilized in this area? Clearly show the erosion hazard setback limits on the site and grading plan. Revise plan accordingly. DS 2-02.2.1.A.15. 2. Each solid waste enclosure area is required to have a clear approach of fourteen by forty feet for the collection vehicle to access the dumpster. The minimum backup distance is forty feet. The current location of the solid waste enclosure does not meet the development standard requirements. Rolling out and turning the trash dumpster to an accessible position also does not meet the development standard requirements. For the proposed solid waste enclosure location/situation a Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) is required. Revise plan accordingly. DS 6-01.4.1.C. 3. It is acknowledged that the following comment has been acknowledged by Presidio Engineering. 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. However until the Engineering Section/DSD receives the appropriate documentation regarding Pima County approval on the proposed drainage, this comment will continue to be stated. There appears to be a maintenance road into the wash, adjacent to the Campbell bridge. It appears that current access to this maintenance road is through the property. The proposed development blocks this access. Pima County must approve this closed access to the maintenance road, otherwise access needs to be provided for maintenance vehicles. 4. The cut and fill quantities on the site plan are incorrect. Revise accordingly. DS 2-02.2.1.A.17. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: GRADING PLAN 1. A copy of the stamped approved Site Plan must be included with the Grading Plan submittal. 2. The Site Plan is currently in review. Any changes made to the Site Plan must be reflected on the Grading Plan. The Site Plan and Grading Plan must match. 3. In regards to the previous comment made on 2/12/04; Over 5000cubic yards of fill is considered "Engineered Grading." A Soils Engineering Report and an Engineering Geology report is required. IBC Chapter 36 Section 9.3. Per Chapter 36 Section 9.3 Grading Designation; grading in excess of 5000 cubic yards is designated as "engineered grading." Engineered grading require the grading plans to be accompanied with a soils engineering report and engineering geology report. Submit a soils engineering report and an engineering geology report. 4. The site has decreased in size since the last review. The cut and fill quantities are the same amount as submitted in the first review. This is incorrect due to the fact the site has decreased in size. Revise grading plan accordingly. CONDITIONALLY APPROVED: STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) 1. SWPPP is approved however if any changes occur on the grading plan that effect the SWPPP revisions to the SWPPP will be required. 2. SWPPP has not been signed off since the grading and site plan have not been approved. Please submit the SWPPP with the next submittal and if the grading plan is approvable the SWPPP will be approved (stamped and signed off ). |
| 04/13/2004 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Traffic Engineering recently met with the Developer and his Consultant for the above mentioned project. It was agreed during this meeting that if the Developer will meet the following conditions, Traffic Engineering's concerns will have been adequately met: 1. At the western access point to the site, the Developer shall a straight apron on the western half and a curb return on the eastern half. The Developer shall sign the egress "no right turn." 2. At the access point from Campbell, the Developer shall co-ordinate with COT Streets and Traffic Maintenance to relocate or salvage the existing Limberlost Road sign near the bridge. The Developer shall provide for the necessary removal of vegetation to facilitate a clear line of sight to the north in the near side SVT at the Campbell Avenue access point. Provided these concerns are sufficiently addressed and noted on the project plans, the previous concerns as enumerated in this division's email dated 19APR2004 shall be considered VACATED. Please advise if further assistance or clarification is required. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 04/14/2004 | Jim Egan | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/21/2004 | DAN CASTRO | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Denied | If 144 vehicle parking spaces are provided, a total of five (5) handicap parking spaces are required. Revise general note 7a as required and show 5th space on plan. (2000 IBC Table 1106.1) |
| 04/21/2004 | 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 Walter Tellez Zoning Administrator, the zoning classifications and dimensions depicted on the zoning exhibit sheet 1 of 6 are incorrect. Please revise the zoning exhibit on sheet 1 of 6 to reflect the current MH-1 zoning boundaries as depicted on current City of Tucson zoning maps. In addition, please label the MH-1 zoning boundary on sheet 3 of 6. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.28) 2. Proposed monument sign (keynote 41) and a portion of the proposed six (6) foot high wall (keynote 12) located in the southeast corner of the site, may not be located within the future sight visibility triangle. Per D.S. 3-01.5.1.A.1, lines of sight will not be obscured between 30 inches and six (6) feet. Please provide a detail (type, size, and height) of the proposed sign to verify compliance. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13) 3. Under general note 7a, please align the number of required and provided parking spaces within their respective row (ratio). (D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4) 4. Under general note 7b, please revise the number of loading zone spaces required and provided to three (3). (D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.5) 5. Under general note 7c, the number of vehicle parking spaces provided is 141, which is less than the number required (144). Revise calculation to be based on the correct number of spaces provided. (LUC Sec. 3.3.3.5) 6. If 144 vehicle parking spaces are provided, a total of five (5) handicap parking spaces are required. Revise general note 7a as required and show 5th space on plan. (2000 IBC Table 1106.1) 7. If applicable, 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. |
| 04/23/2004 | Andrew Connor | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Include grading limits on landscape plan for disturbance on Lot-2 2) Disturbed areas excluding earthen drainage-way shall be treated with ground cover such as decomposed granite to help reduce dust pollution per LUC 3.7.2.7 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/25/2004 | LISA LESNY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 05/25/2004 | LISA LESNY | REJECT SHELF | Completed |