Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T05CM02543
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/28/2005 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/28/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit last COT stamped and approved site, and landscape plans to continue review. |
| 07/28/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Submit last COT stamped and approved site, and landscape plans to continue review. |
| 07/28/2005 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | see zoning comments |
| 07/28/2005 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Terry Stevens FOR: David Rivera Senior Planner Principal Planner PROJECT:T05CM02543 1790 W. Sahuaro Dr. Proposed Expansion Site Plan Transmittal date:1st Review 6/20/05 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. Clearly indicate if this is an expansion of an existing business or if this is a new business. If this is an expansion of existing, then parking calculations are done on the principal use which is Construction Services using the existing building square footage plus the square footage of the expansion. If this is a new or different business the parking calculations become a mixed use calculation which would require each business to be parked separately. FYI, Trade Service and Repair-Major is parked at 1 space per 1000 square foot of lot, not of building square footage. 2. The parking spaces located along the west property line must be provided with wheel stops or barriers to prevent over hanging of property lines, damaging adjacent walls, etc. or provide dimension from curb to property line of at least 2'-6". DS 3-05.2.3.C.1 &.2(Figure 5) 3. The parking space located at the southeast corner of the building (has a hexagon box with #7 in it) requires the curbing/sidewalk to the south be as long as the parking space. 4. There are several "typos" regarding paal widths. They are indicated as 24"(inch) not as the required 24'(feet). 5. The square footage of the lot as indicated on the submitted site plan does not match the last approved site plan nor the Pima County Assessors records. Appears to be 55,506 sq. ft. not 44,152 sq. ft. as indicated. 6. A five foot(5') accessible pedestrian refuge area is required along both the east and west side of the new building. This may be a painted striped asphalt area in front of the overhead doors but must be a sidewalk at other areas. Handicap ramps will be required at the sidewalk along the north side of the new building. DS 3-05.2.2.B.1 7. A five foot(5') accessible pedestrian refuge area (sidewalk) is required along the north side of the existing building behind the loading zone (must be able to access the indicated door). Provide wheel stops at loading zone to prevent over hanging the required sidewalk. DS 3-05.2.2.B.1 & DS 2-08.3.1. 8. The required bicycle parking may increase depending on what is resubmitted. 9. Clearly indicate that the van accessible access aisle is striped for the full required 8'width. Clearly indicate the minimum required width of 4' for the handicap accessible routes. 10. Provide the location, type, size, and height of existing and proposed signage including billboards. If applies. DS 2-02.2.1.13. 11. Include a note on the plan stating that "All gates must remain open during business hours". 12. Depending on the changes made to the plan further comments may be forth coming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 791-5608 ext. 2000. |
| 07/28/2005 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Jeff Stanley, PE SUBJECT: 1790 West Saguaro Drive Addition Site Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach DATE: July 5, 2005 ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T05CM02543 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the plan submittal and does not recommend approval at this time. Address the following comments. SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Development Standards (DS) Section 11-01.4.1.C.3: Provide estimated cut and fill quantities for the addition and associated grading. 2) Tucson Code 26-8(b)(1): The plan submitted shall show the location of the areas subject to flooding and/or erosion. The location shall also include the direction and magnitude of any flow, water surface elevations, and the limits of inundation from the base flood. In order to provide a complete evaluation of the existing drainage conditions at the site, address the following floodplain comments: a) The FIS Studies indicate that the Silvercroft Wash at this location may not contain the 100-year flood. Provide a floodplain analysis at this location to determine 100-year floodplain limits. Discuss containment and any breakout conditions for the site in the Drainage Report based on the floodplain analysis. b) For the floodplain analysis, include superelevation consideration at the bend in the Silvercroft Wash just upstream of the project. c) Delineate the FEMA Zone AE floodplain line and label Zone X-Shaded and Zone AE on planview. d) On page 1 of the report, update TSMS node Q100 from 6,568cfs to 7,048cfs, to reference the downstream draft flow at node DL-N0180. 3) DS Sec.2-08.5.1.E: At any point where a 10-year flood discharge starts to cross a sidewalk or a pedestrian access, the sidewalk/access shall be designed and constructed to convey the 10-year flood flows under the sidewalk/access. Show locations of any existing and proposed scuppers. 4) DS Sec.2-08.4.1.E: Sidewalks shall be flood free for all storm discharges of up to a 10-year flood event. Provide locations for proposed roof drains for the addition on plan view and indicate flow directions. 5) Provide a detail for the curb access ramps with notation to provide truncated domes per ADAAG. This is an update to COT standard detail 207. 6) DS Sec.10-01.4.2.6: Provide for water harvest /retention area prior to entering existing channel. 7) Tucson Code Sec.29-23.A.1: There is a closed City of Tucson Landfill located at this site; development on or within 100 feet of a landfill requires Environmental Services review. The project shall comply with any Environmental Services requirements; provide documentation from ES that project has been reviewed. 8) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C: Prior to issuance of any building permits including the grading permit, submit geotechnical report with soils testing results. 9) Tucson Code Sec.26-11: Submit a Floodplain Use Permit Application for the project. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 08/09/2005 | DAVID BELL | LANDFILL | REVIEW | Denied | This development is within 100 feet of a landfill. A methane development plan, as described at TCC Sec 29-23.A and public notice as described at TCC Sec29-26 must be submitted for Environmental Services review. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/10/2005 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 08/10/2005 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |