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 ALL
Permit Number - T05CM00279
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/19/2005 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/29/2005 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: May 4, 2005 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T05CM00279 PROJECT NAME: Self Storage PROJECT ADDRESS: 4980 North 1st Avenue PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert, Engineering Associate The following items must be revised or added to the site plan. Please include the redlined site plan and a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. Additional comments could be forthcoming due to the lack of required information. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: SITE PLAN, DRAINAGE REPORT 1. Show and label the future SVT on the site plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. This comment has not been addressed from the first review. It is acknowledged that keynote number 8 states the shown SVT is a future SVT. Where is the existing SVT? Is the existing and future SVT the same sight triangle? Sight triangles are measured from the curb location. It is also not clear if the 75' ROW dimension is existing, future or both (existing and future). The sidewalk location is also based on the ROW dimensions. What has been shown on the plan is not clear. Revise accordingly. The following comments also address this issue. 2. Per the MS&R ROW Map 1st Avenue has a future ROW width of 120'. It is not clear if the current 75' ROW dimension is the existing, future or both. Clearly show both the existing and the future ROW dimensions. Indicate if the 75' ROW dimension is existing, future or both (existing and future). DS 2-02.2.1.A.19. The above comment has been partially addressed. It is acknowledged that the 75' half ROW width has been shown as existing and a future ROW width of 120' has been shown from street centerline. The 120' future ROW dimension is the full ROW width, not the half ROW width. Revise to show the correct ROW information. 3. This project site is subject to the MS&R ROW widening. Indicate the taper/widening ROW dimensions on the site plan. MS&R Plan. Please refer to the web site for further information; http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/planning/maps/thematic/msr.pdf The above comment is from the first review. The response to this comment was, "Taper widening shown." The taper widening has not been shown. The existing and future ROW information, including the intersection widening, must be shown on the site plan. The existing 75' ROW is the only dimension on the site plan. Approximately 40' of the southwestern property line is subject to intersection widening. Revise the site plan to show the required intersection widening. 4. A 5' sidewalk is indicated along First Avenue. First Avenue is an MS&R Street where 6' sidewalks are required. Revise the site plan to show 6' sidewalks along Stone Ave. MS&R Plan. The above comment is from the first review. The first plan depicted a 5' existing sidewalk. The second plan submittal indicated a 6' existing sidewalk. What is the size of the existing sidewalk? From review of an aerial photo the sidewalk appears to be less than 6'. The existing and future sidewalk location must be shown on the plan and dimensioned from street centerline. Revise the site plan. 5. Dimension from street centerline to existing and/or proposed curbs and sidewalks. DS 2-02.2.1.A.21. This comment has not been addressed from the first review. 6. Show the docket and page reference for First Avenue. 7. The grading plan has not been formally submitted. Submit a grading permit application card (the green card) and the grading plan with the third submittal. Include the SWPPP with the grading permit application and grading plan. DS 11-01 8. In effort to determine the direction of the existing drainage/stormwater patterns include spot elevations and finish grades (to determine to proposed drainage patterns) throughout the site. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 9. Clearly indicate if the BenchMark is based on City of Tucson Datum. If the datum used is not a City of Tucson datum revise the plan to show a COT Datum. The Datum must be indicated on the plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.21. 10. Show the capacity of the offsite drainage structure located at the southwest corner of the site. It must be determined that the additional flow created from the proposed development does not have an adverse impact to the offsite drainage system. What is the post developed onsite to offsite flow quantities? Show the quantity on the site plan. What is the capacity of the offsite drainage structure? What exactly is the offsite drainage structure? Storm sewer? Is there a catch basin? Drainage channel? Fully describe offsite drainage system. This must be addressed in the Drainage Report and depicted on the site plan. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.a. 11. Section 3.2 Off-site Drainage states the pre-developed flow from the adjacent property will be blocked by a proposed wall. This is against city code and will not be approved. Stormwater must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitude, as encountered under natural or existing conditions. Because a CMU wall is proposed for the development address how the development will not block the existing direction of flow. Whenever walls are constructed, they must have adequate flow-through openings for accepting and releasing drainage without elevating or ponding water on the upstream side. Revise the plan as necessary. SMDDFM 12.5 12. 100-yr peak ponding define basin limits. Structures must be set back from ponding limits. Show ponding limits and setbacks. SMDDFM 14.2.6. The above comment is from the first review have not been addressed. The 100-yr peak ponding limits must be clearly delineated on the site plan. Revise the site plan to show the defined 100-yr ponding limits on the plan and show the line weight in the legend. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. Include the submittal number on the cover sheet (i.e. first submittal, second submittal, third submittal, etc.) SMDDFM 2.3.1.1.A. 2. Include the address of the site on the cover sheet. SMDDFM 2.3.1.1.B. 3. Include the site plan activity number on the cover sheet (T05CM00279). SMDDFM 2.3.1.1.B. 4. Include a site-location map in the drainage report, at a minimum scale of three inches equal to one mile, which shows the geographical relationship of the project to the nearby streets, drainageways and watercourses. SMDDFM 2.3.1.2.A.2. 5. Section 1.0 Introduction it states that the, "Preparation of this report has been in accordance with the procedures detailed in the City of Tucson's Design Standards Manual and Floodplain Management, Chapter 2 and 5." The Manual is titled, "Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management." Chapter 5's subject content is floodplain delineation. The project is not subject to floodplain requirements. Retention requirements are addressed in Chapter 14. The information provided in the drainage report must be accurate. Revise the sentence/paragraph as necessary. 6. Paragraph 2, Section 1.0 Introduction, refers to Figure 1 located in Appendix A. This information was not provided. Provide Figure 1 and Appendix A. 7. Provide Exhibit A referenced in Section 3.0 Proposed drainage concept. 8. Provide the size of all drainage structures indicated on the site plan. Include dimensions and elevations. This includes curb openings, concrete aprons, spillways, splash pads, rock riprap and the basins. Revise. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.A. 9. Section 3.2 Off-site Drainage states the pre-developed flow from the adjacent property will be blocked by a proposed wall. This is against city code and will not be approved. Stormwater must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitude, as encountered under natural or existing conditions. Because a CMU wall is proposed for the development address how the development will not block the existing direction of flow. Whenever walls are constructed, they must have adequate flow-through openings for accepting and releasing drainage without elevating or ponding water on the upstream side. Revise the plan as necessary. SMDDFM 12.5 10. Indicate in the drainage report and on the site plan the location offsite to onsite flow and onsite to offsite for existing and proposed conditions and give the flow quantity. 11. Section 3.2 On-site Stormwater Retention states that the 2 year, 1 hour storm event is required to be retained within the project limits. This is not correct. Per the Stormwater Retention/Detention Chapter 3, Design Procedures and Criteria, for commercial development the return period is the 5 year event at a rainfall depth of 1 hour. Revise the drainage report calculations. 12. A drainage report is required for any site greater then one acre in size and subject to retention requirements. A drainage statement was submitted. Sufficient information was not provided. A drainage report must be submitted. Refer to the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (SMDDFM) 2.3.1. for drainage report requirements and content. (SMDDFM 2.1). Also refer to the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual Chapter 5 for report submittal requirements. 13. Show the capacity of the offsite drainage structure located at the southwest corner of the site. It must be determined that additional flow created from the proposed development does not have an adverse impact to the offsite drainage system. What is the post developed onsite to offsite flow quantities? Show the quantity on the site plan. What is the capacity of the offsite drainage structure? What exactly is the offsite drainage structure? Storm sewer? Is there a catch basin? Drainage channel? Fully describe offsite drainage system. This must be addressed in the Drainage Report and depicted on the site plan. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.a. 14. Show the location and indicate the size of the basin Maintenance access ramps to basin A and B. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.b. The above comment is from the first review. The response letter states that the basin maintenance ramps have been shown. However the basin maintenance ramps appear to not be on the site plan. Show and dimension the basin maintenance ramps and indicate location with a keynote. 15. A soils report is required in conjunction with the design of each surface storage facility that utilizes infiltration as a method of basin drainage. Percolation test must show a maximum disposal time of 12 hours. Submit a soils report. SDRM 3.5.1. The response to the above comment was that a soils report was submitted. It is acknowledged that a soils report was submitted, however Section 2.0 Project Description clearly states, "We understand the site development will not have retention or detention basins." Provide a soils report (Geotechnical Evaluation) that is consistent with the proposed project. 16. The soils report must indicate a suitable setback distance for the building from the retention basins. Provide a recommended minimum setback from the building to basin A and B in the soils report. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.d. Section 6.6 Site Drainage & Moisture Protection states specific setback requirements that are not being met on the current site proposal. Specifically paragraph 3 and 5. Paragraph 3 states, "Where sidewalks or pavement do not immediately adjoin the building, the ground surface should slope away from the building at a minimum 5% slope for a least 10 feet away from the building." Basin B is not meeting this requirement. Paragraph 5 states, "Landscape planting should be restricted to native, drought resistant vegetation requiring only shallow, light watering." Basin A scales 11' from the building, again not meeting the recommended setback for the building. In addition to the above comment # 13, provide a soils report that is consistent with the proposed development. 17. A very detailed Retention Basin Maintenance Checklist and Schedule shall be provided by an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer, which will be followed by anyone performing scheduled and unscheduled maintenance on behalf of the owners expense. Include a maintenance checklist in the drainage report. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.C. The above comment has not been addressed. In addition to the above comment specify the name, address and the telephone number of the responsible party for maintenance on all the drainage structures including the retention basin on the property. SMDDFM 2.3.1.2.E.1. |
| 05/06/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Scenic Routes Buffer shall be (30) feet wide as measured from MS&R right-of-way line, per LUC 2.8.3.4.A. Dimension SCZ buffer correctly on landscape plan and remove reference to 20' buffer-yard. 2. The following improvements may not be located in the Scenic Route buffer area 60" open fence and vegetative screen per LUC 3.7.5.2.C 3. The use of the MS&R right-of-way is permitted only if the area can be landscaped with permission of the City Engineer or designee. 4. Revise the landscape plans to use plants from the Native Plant List in the scenic route buffer area. 5. The native plant preservation plans are to include limits of grading /disturbance per DS 2-07.2.2.B. 6. The native plant inventory and preservation plan shall include a preservation plan and salvage plan per DS 2-15.3.4. 7. Landscape plans shall include a summary of plants required for mitigation. Provide a table that includes a list of each type of protected species and lists the number to be PIP, TOS, or RFS. 8. A 5' wall to screen all residential zoned properties from vehicle use area is required per LUC 3.7.2-I. 9. A 25' minimum height clearance, free of any overhead obstructions (wires, branches, etc.), shall be provided for the refuse collection site per DS 6-01.4.3.G. Relocate trees within collection area. |
| 05/09/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The native plant preservation plans are to include limits of grading /disturbance per DS 2-07.2.2.B. 2. The native plant inventory and preservation plan shall include a preservation plan and salvage plan per DS 2-15.3.4. |
| 05/12/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 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. Variance required for previous comment: Development criteria listed for development designator "38" under LUC Section 3.2.3.2.B, limits the building height to 16 feet measured from design grade. Proposed building height is 26 feet measured from design grade. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6) 2. SCZ application (SCZ-04-14) is currently under review. Site plan may not be approved prior to SCZ approval. (LUC 2.8.2) 3. Variance required for the following comment: Proposed F.A.R. (1.01) exceeds the maximum allowed of .75. (D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3) 4. If the Board of Adjustment Variance is approved, please list as a general note the following: variance case number, date of approval, variances granted, and any conditions imposed. Incldue with the resubmittal of these plans a copy of the variance decision letter. All requested changes must be made to the site and landscape plans. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608 ext. 1180. An appointment is required to discuss these comments in person. |
| 05/12/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/19/2005 | KMEDINA1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |