Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T05CM00693
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/17/2005 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/03/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit previously approved site, landscape, NPPO, and Wash Ordinance plans to continue review. |
| 03/03/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Submit previously approved site, landscape, NPPO, and Wash Ordinance plans to continue review. |
| 03/14/2005 | 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. The following comments are based on a 42.25% building area expansion resulting in a full code compliance review of the entire site. All calculations shall encompass the entire site, whether existing or proposed. 1. All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that all lettering is legible when reviewed and will maintain that legibility when reproduced and photographically reduced (microfilmed) for record-keeping purposes. 2. Add the legal description of the property. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.2) 3. A small, project location map shall be drawn on the first sheet of the site plan, preferably in the upper right corner. The map should cover approximately one (1) square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of 3" = 1 mile. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.4) 4. Label the height of all existing buildings and structures. 5. What business are the storage buildings located near the diner and classified as "Personal Storage" under the parking calculation used for? If it provides storage for the diner please state as so on the plan. Otherwise, clarify the purpose of the storage buildings. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6) 6. Demonstrate on the plan how an accessible pedestrian path connects all buildings to the sidewalks located in the right-of-ways. If ramps are required, provide a detail of the accessible ramp. The plan currently does not appear to provide a continuous on-site accessible pedestrian circulation system in conformance with the "Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities" standards ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 or the on-site pedestrian circulation system requirements under Development Standards 2-08. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8) (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12) 7. Provide a fully dimensioned detail of the bicycle parking facilities. A minimum of two (2) Class 2 bicycle parking spaces are required for the site. The spaces shall be located as conveniently as possible for all buildings on-site. For criteria refer to D.S. 2-09. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9) 8. If applicable, provide a detail of existing and or proposed free standing signage, billboard, and outdoor lighting on the site plan. (D.S. 2-02.2.2.1.A.13) 9. Dimension all loading zones. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14) 10. If applicable, all existing and proposed easements must be shown on the plan including width, type, and recording docket and page reference. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20) 11. Add the applicable "subject to" sections for each of the existing and proposed land uses. Commercial Storage is subject to: Sec. 3.5.10.1. Food Service is subject to Section 3.5.4.6.C. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.31) 12. The site is located within the Airport Environs Zone (AEZ). Please note all AEZ information that is listed on the previous approved site plan T0CM05729 sheet A-1. 13. Add the building area expansion calculation. (D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.6) 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. |
| 03/15/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | Refer to Zoning Review comments regarding accessible pedestrian ciruclation system. |
| 03/18/2005 | DOUG WILLIAMS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Site and drainage submittal review DATE: 23 March 2005 ACTIVITY NUMBERS T05CM00693 T15S, R14E, Section 7 Engineering Division has reviewed the Subject items, and approvals are not recommended at this time. Provide a revised site plan and a drainage report addressing all comments provided below, at a minimum. A grading permit will be required for this proposed development. Submit a grading permit application with 3 sets of grading plans in conjunction with, or subsequent to resubmittal of the site plan package. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP's) and associated text/documents should accompany the grading plan submittal, as this proposed expansion is part of a larger common plan greater than one acre in size. Please include a response letter addressing in detail where necessary, responses to all of the following comments: DRAINAGE SUBMITTAL: Listed below are some of the major technical items that must be addressed in a drainage report. Please refer to the City of Tucson's Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management and the Pima County/City of Tucson Stormwater Retention/Detention Manual (Development Standards - DS - 10-02.0 and 10-01.0, resp.) for additional requirements. 1. Provide a drainage report analyzing existing and developed conditions hydrology for this proposed expansion. The report must conform to drainage report content and format requirements outlined in Section 2.3.1, DS 10-02.0. It must address detention requirements for balanced basin flow attenuation under developed conditions for the 2- 10- and 100-year storm events, specifically for the new area to be developed, in addition to minimum floor elevation, erosion hazard and detention basin setbacks, etc. If the report refers to or relies on the original drainage report for phase I, specific references and discussion must be contained within the current submittal, accompanied by the original report. 2. Specify the name, address and telephone # of the person(s), firm(s), agency or agencies responsible for the ownership, operation, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, and liability of the drainage improvements described in the report (DS 10-02.0, Sec. 2.3.1.2 E). 3. Provide details and discussions of how the proposed detention/retention scheme will comply with landscaping, grading, and retention/detention technical design guidelines provided in Chapters 1 and 4 of the Pima County/City of Tucson Stormwater Retention/Detention Manual (DS 10-01.0). Particular attention/discussion should be given to how the basin(s) will serve as: project amenities; multi-use facilities; will be visually appealing; whether they will serve as human activity zones (8:1 slope maximums in such areas); and whether intended as passive and/or active recreation areas (DS 10-01.0). 4. Include a detailed basin maintenance checklist and schedule in the report (DS 10-02.0, Sec.2.3.1.6 C 1), and state that the annual inspection report shall contain the summaries provided in: (insert language verbatim, as written in DS 10-02.0, Sec. 2.3.1.6 C 2 a & b). 5. A soils report is required to be submitted in conjunction with the design of each surface storage facility which utilizes infiltration as a method of basin drainage. If subsurface storage/infiltration is proposed in the report, the drainage report must be accompanied by a soils report. The soils report shall contain at a minimum, technical information on soil classification, erodibility, permeability, slope stability, groundwater elevation, infiltration rates, recommended minimum building setbacks (from basins and drainageways), whether or not hydro-collapsing soils are present, and contain the results of a minimum 30 foot deep soil boring. Provide discussion/analysis in the drainage report based on soils report findings, including analysis of maximum times of disposal allowed (DS 10-01.0, Sec. 3.5.1 and DS 10-02.0, Sec. 14.2.6). SITE PLAN: Please note that drainage report revisions may result in necessary revisions or additions to the site and grading plans. Please assure all revisions are depicted on each plan as necessary. See redlines on plans, and include with resubmittal. 1. Label the detention basin J's 100-year water surface elevation/limit of ponding (DS 2-02.2.1 A 15). 2. The existing trash enclosure depicted does not appear consistent with the previously approved paving plan/site plan, and does not conform to solid waste provision accessibility requirements. Revise as necessary and depict proposed/new enclosure location with maneuverability/access to the dumpster, assuring 36' inside and 50' outside turning radii are provided (DS 2-02.2.1 A 32). 3. Provide a dumpster enclosure detail, fully labeled and dimensioned. Include details/notation for bollards to be placed on the rear and side walls of the enclosure, and dimension 10 feet min., between sidewall bollards (DS 6-01.4.0). 4. Refer to Development Standard 6-01.0 for additional solid waste provision requirements, and assure the site plan demonstrates to conformance to these standards. 5. Depict scuppers where any site drainage may be concentrated, for conveyance of 10-year flows (min) under sidewalk areas (DS 2-08.5.1 E & DS 3-01.4.4 F). 6. Provide a note on the site plan stating that, (a) the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for drainage structures and detention basins; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at lease once each year, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; (c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage and retention/detention facilities to verify that scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner or owners agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with the maintaining of the drainage and detention/retention facilities, should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities" (DS 10-02.0, Section 14.3.2). 7. Remove notation for construction of sidewalk within the Watercourse Amenities Safety Habitat (WASH) Study Area. Any development within the 50' Study Area must be addressed in a W.A.S.H. submittal. Please contact Patricia Gehlen (Zoning Review Supervisor) at 791-5550 ext. 1179 for submittal procedure requirements. Additional information may be obtained at the following link: http://library6.municode.com/gateway.dll/AZ/arizona/409?f=templates&fn=default.htm&npusername=11294&nppassword=MCC&npac_credentialspresent=true&vid=default 8. Please address all redlines on plans, and assure drainage report recommendations/details pertinent to this site design are incorporated into the site plan, fully labeled and dimensioned. GENERAL: A grading/paving plan must be submitted for review and approval prior to building permit approvals. Complete and submit a grading permit application, accompanied by 3 sets of grading/paving plans. The submittal must demonstrate conformance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 and be accompanied by SWPPP's addressing minimum stormwater controls/requirements for this proposed development. The following links may be accessed for details/information regarding grading plan and SWPPP content, preparation, and submittal guidelines: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/download/cswppp.pdf http://az.gov/webapp/noi/smartnoi.do http://www.azdeq.gov/function/forms/appswater.html Please note that subsequent comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans and drainage report recommendations. Resubmittal will require a drainage report, a revised site plan addressing all items listed above, at a minimum. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, ext. 1189 or via email at: Doug.williams@tucsonaz.gov Douglas Williams Sr. Eng. Associate Engineering Division Development Services Department |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/28/2005 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |