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 - T05CM04165
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/17/2005 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/25/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | If two (2) more vehicle parking spaces are required, one (1) of the new parking spaces shall be handicap accessible. Provide a detail of the handicap parking space, access aisle, and ramp. Refer to ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 for specifications. (LUC 3.3.4 Personal Storage) |
| 08/25/2005 | 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. Indicate graphically or by note, if an office is located on-site. If so, two (2) vehicle parking spaces are required for the office in addition to the one (1) vehicle parking space required for the personal storage building. If two (2) more vehicle parking spaces are required, one (1) of the new parking spaces shall be handicap accessible. Provide a detail of the handicap parking space, access aisle, and ramp. Refer to ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 for specifications. (LUC 3.3.4 Personal Storage) 2. Label and dimension vehicle parking spaces on the plan. Vehicles may not back out into the street, all maneuvering must be on-site. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8) 3. If "unpaved area" is to be used for vehicular travel, the vehicular use area must be paved. If vehicular traffic is not intended for the side and rear unpaved portion of the site, provide adequate barrier (e.g. wheel stop, bollards, curbing) to prevent vehicles from encroaching onto unpaved area. 4. Review of this plan by the Zoning Review Section may be done over the counter. Please contact Dan Castro to set an appointment. 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. |
| 08/26/2005 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | NPPO | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 08/26/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 09/15/2005 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: September 12, 2005 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T05CM04165 PROJECT NAME: Metal Storage Addition PROJECT ADDRESS: 225 South Kino Parkway 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, HYDROLOGY REPORT 1. Include a note on the plan that the entire site is in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Zone AH. DS 2-02.2.1.A.15. 2. Indicate the datum used for the shown water surface elevation (WSE) on the site plan. The datum shown on the site plan must match the given datum for WSE in the drainage report or a conversion must be shown on the site plan DS 2-02.2.1.A.15. 3. Alleys are to be used for Utility placement, provision of sanitary services, and as a secondary point of primary access. Where is the primary point of access? Is the parcel located to the west part of this project? This development must show primary access from Kino Blvd. Approval from the Department of Transportation may be required to use the alley as primary access. Revise the site plan to show primary access from Kino Blvd. or obtain written approval from the Department of Transportation for primary access to the project site from the alley. 4. Is the 15' alley paved? Indicate if the alley is paved or not. Be advised that the Department of Transportation may require a surface treatment (Double shot chip seal, asphalt, etc.) for primary use of the alley. 5. 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. Provide a sidewalk and pedestrian refuge between existing drive and proposed storage building. Revise plan as necessary. DS 3-05.2.2.B.1., Figure 1 and DS 2-08.4.1.B. 6. The are two different datums used on the site plan. The City of Tucson datum is known as NAVD 1988. The FEMA datum is known as NGVD 1929. There is approximately a 2.16' difference between the two types of datums. There is a shown COT Datum for the FFE on what appears to be the FFE for the existing and proposed structure. The FEMA datum is shown at 2440.0'. This does not seem to be correct. It is highly recommended to recheck the datums shown on the site plan. Please refer to this web site for assistance. http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/VERTCON/vert_con.prl DS 2-02.2.1.A.23. 7. If alley access is approved by the department of transportation existing and future site visibility triangles for the ingress/egress off the alley must be shown on the site plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. 8. Dimension the driveways for this project. DS 2-02.2.1.A.11. 9. All new development requires a sidewalk from the proposed development (structure) to the sidewalk located in the ROW. Show a sidewalk from the proposed structure to the sidewalk located along Kino Blvd. DS 2-08.4.1. 10. It is recommended to recalculate the fill quantities for the project. There is approximately a 2' difference between the ground elevation and the finish floor elevation. Given the square footage of the structure, to have less then 50 cubic yards of fill seems low. Revise accordingly. DS 2-02.2.1.17. 11. Be advised a grading plan may be required. If the fill quantities are 50 cubic yards or more a grading plan and permit is required. It is recommended to submit the "green" grading permit application card and a grading plan with the second submittal. 12. Dimension from street centerline the existing and future right of way (ROW) for Kino Blvd. Indicate book and page for each street. DS 2-02.2.1.A.19. 13. Dimension from street centerline the existing and future curb and sidewalk. DS 2-02.2.1.A.21. 14. Is there a wall located on the east side of the property? There is an existing wall on the west and north side of the property indicated on the site plan. If the wall is continuos to the east side of the property call out accordingly. DS 2-02.2.1.A.22. 15. Show existing topographic contours at intervals not exceeding two (2) feet and/or spot elevations as pertinent and Bench Mark based on City of Tucson Datum, including City Field Book and page number. DS 2-02.2.1.A.23. 16. Where is the refuse container for this property? All commercial development must have centralized refuse storage. Indicate on the site plan refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned. Note that the site seems to small for the required centralized refuse storage. For proposals not meeting the Development Standard 6-01 contact John Clark AT 791-3175 ext. 1136. Solid waste proposals not meeting the requirements of the Development Standards will require a Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR). 17. Due to the extent of the comments additional comments could be forthcoming. HYDROLOGY REPORT COMMENTS 1. The 100 year water surface elevation results of the hydrology report are acceptable. However some of the information provided is inconclusive. The information provided in the encroachment analysis is not acceptable. The hydrology report states the project is located in a non-designated basin, the area is flat with sheet flow and because the project is only 1009 square feet there should be no significant rise in the WSE. An encroachment analysis is required when new development is proposed in a flood hazard area. Development within a flood area hazard can not encroach into the flood hazard area where an increase of the water surface elevation (WSE) is more than a one-tenth of a foot. This specific area is subject to ponding. An encroachment analysis is typically conducted when running a Manning's equation. Velocity is a variable in the Manning's Equation and in an area of ponding, velocity is not a variable. It is recommended to revise the encroachment analysis for more accurate information. 2. In the Erosion Hazard Setback section it states the project is within the erosion hazard setback. The erosion hazard setback is measured from the top of bank, in this case that would be the Arroyo Chico Wash. The proposed development is approximately over 900 feet away from Arroyo Chico Wash. Therefore the probability that the project is within the erosion hazard setback is low. 3. A retaining wall is proposed around the proposed structure. It is not clear why the retaining wall is proposed. Is the intent to meet the following requirement? Per Tucson Code Chapter 26-8.d.2, in areas where fill is to be used to raise the elevation of the building site, the building line shall be located not less than twenty-five (25) feet landward from any edge of the fill, unless a study prepared by a state-registered professional civil engineer and approved by the city engineer shows that a lesser distance is acceptable. If the intent of the retaining wall is to meet this requirement, if that is the case address in the hydrology report. Or explain in detail the purpose of the retaining wall. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/27/2005 | JMORALE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 09/27/2005 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |