Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T06CM00856
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/06/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans per DS 2-01.2.1.C. Revise sheet 3 of 3 included with the site plan to indicate the correct street. |
| 06/06/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/26/2006 | SUZANNE BOHNET | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Thomas L. Fraser DATE: June 29, 2006 FROM: Suzanne Bohnet, CFM Engineering Division SUBJECT: 1830 W. Prince Rd. Bluewater Marine Site plan T06CM00856 (Second Review) T13S, R13E, Section 27 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan and Drainage Report. The Site Plan (SP) and Drainage Report (DR) cannot be approved as submitted. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the SP and GP with your next submittal. Site Plan: 1. It appears from the post-development spot elevations along the property perimeter that nuisance ponding may occur on neighboring properties, specifically the property to the east. Please verify this will not be the case. 2. Please provide additional spot elevations at low points east of the building and in the northeast quadrant of the property. These are needed to verify that drainage will flow away from and around the building towards the northwest corner of the property. Also, please include these elevations on the Grading Plan when submitted. 3. The existing contour line that cuts through the center of the property is labeled as "2288", as shown on the SP. The basis of elevation given on the cover sheet of the SP is NAVD '88. However, when compared with the contour lines available on the City of Tucson's MapGuide, which is also NAVD '88, that same contour line is labeled as "2290". Please comment on this discrepancy and verify the elevation datum. 4. Related to the comment above regarding elevation, please verify the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) and proposed finished floor elevation (FFE) discussed in the DR to ensure those reported numbers are indeed 1-foot and 2-feet, respectively, above highest adjacent natural grade. 5. Also related to comment # 4, it appears the west boundary of the property is receiving 3 feet of fill based on the existing contour lines and the spot elevation near the southwest corner. Per Development Standards (DS) 11-01.9.3, the toe of the fill slope has a minimum setback requirement of 2 feet from the site boundary line. Please clarify 6. In your resubmittal, you indicated that water harvesting is no longer a part of this Project Planning. However, the Land Use Code (LUC) 3.7.4.3.B requires storm water harvesting for supplemental onsite irrigation purposes. Also, please note that water harvesting aids in meeting code requirements for detention/retention by reducing the amount of retention/detention required. Please see Appendix A (page 26) of the adopted City of Tucson Water Harvesting Guidance Manual, October 2005 (available at the Engineering counter in Development Services) for more details on how water harvesting can help with detention/retention requirements. Please provide water-harvesting techniques on your next submittal. 7. There appears to be a typo on the proposed sidewalk located just above the MATCHLINE on the left side (about midway on the eastern property boundary - circled in red ink). The sidewalk is referenced by Keynote # 5 (6.5' sidewalk) when it should be Keynote # 21 (4' sidewalk) based on the scale. Please correct. 8. Additional typos appear in the spot elevations on the south and north side of the proposed structure. On the south side, two different elevations are listed as the FS (which is not included in the legend and is assumed to mean "finished surface"). On the north side, the same elevation is given for the TC and the FS. Please clarify. 9. Please provide a detail for the proposed basin outlets. Drainage Report: 1. Please provide basin routing for the 2-year and 10-year events. It is assumed that the provided basin routing is for the 100-year event only and that it will be sufficient for the reduction in the more frequent storms. However, please make that clear. 2. The DR stated the property lies within a FEMA mapped floodplain Zone X (Shaded) and further defined that as either a 500-year floodplain or a shallow 100-year floodplain. The DR further states that it will assume the worst case scenario - that it lies within the 100-year shallow floodplain with a depth of water of 1 foot. This assumption is approved by this office as there is no defined channel in the vicinity of the property and it is surrounded by FEMA Zones AO(1), which are defined as areas of shallow flooding. Therefore, a Floodplain Use Permit is required for the development of this property. The SP cannot be approved until the Floodplain Use Permit is completed. 3. An Elevation Certificate will be required for the structure on this property and will be made part of the Floodplain Use Permit conditions. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1188 Thank you, Suzanne Bohnet, CFM Engineering Associate Development Services Department Engineering Division 201 N. Stone Avenue / P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 791-5550 x1188 office (520) 879-8010 fax |
| 08/04/2006 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | Please see zoning review comments. |
| 08/04/2006 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall, Senior Planner PROJECT: T06CM00856 1830 W. Prince Road, New Boat Sales facility Site Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: 08/04/2006 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. PER LAST REVIEW: List exact legal description of subject lot near title block please. NOTE: The legal description of this property shows this property is the result of a lot split and has been split. Please provide a lot split history, with city approvals. Please trace the parent parcel, 106-10-0870, with a history of splits. Once all splits are documented, it will be determined if further lot split approval processes are required. Further review comments may be forthcoming. THE RESPONSE STATED: A) a lot combination has been done for the two current project site lots B) the 20' sliver parcel at the west was ceded over to the adjacent industrial park. C) No Assessor web site info was found for split of parent parcel D) The triangular portion of Blue Water Marine, with their building, is not included STAFF'S RESPONSE: A) a lot line reconfiguration/combination with city review should be done for the 20' sliver to adjoin to the industrial park rather than remain an individual parcel B) the project scope widened on the resubmittal to include more land utilized by Blue Water Marine, as the lots function as one site, lot combinations will be required C) Blue Water Marine utilizes the building on the triangular lot, 3655 N. Romero, which should be combined with this project D) The fact that these lots will function as one site requires a site plan to be submitted encompassing all lots involved in this project. E) This was mentioned in comment 13 on staff's last review. F) Staff reviewed the site plan submitted for code compliance, however, the project needs to be resubmitted with the full development on one plan for further review 2. PER LAST REVIEW, staff inquired into the concrete area north of the building. THE RESPONSE: this is a covered display area. STAFF RESPONSE: How tall is the cover? 3. PER LAST REVIEW - Per DS 2-02.2.1.20, list any easements and types, with recordation information. RESPONSE: All easements shown. STAFF'S RESPONSE: This comment will remain until the lot combinations and full code compliance issues are resolved, as there may be further easement requirements. 4. PER LAST REVIEW: Per DS 2-02.2.2.B, Bluewater Marine is an established business on an adjacent parcel. Due to the fact only a 6 inch curb is provided to separate the subject parcel, also for Bluewater Marine, from the existing established business parcel, it should be clarified if these parcels will be combined to function as one site. If that is the intention, a single plan showing this information should be provided, and full code compliance will be required for the existing Bluewater Marine site. It is recommended that a chainlink fence be provided between these parcels if their combination is not intended, to ensure the sites function independently. Please note, further comments may be forthcoming on this matter. RESPONSE: A new site plan was submitted showing further areas of the existing Blue Water Marine development, which indicates the lots will be functioning as one site. STAFF'S RESPONSE: It appears from review of aerial photos and these submitted site plans, full code compliance and lot combinations are required. 5. A meeting with staff is required prior to any further submittals. Please contact me at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 791-4541x1156 to set up a meeting. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call (520) 791-5608. HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T06CM00856 1830 w prince 2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/09/2006 | BETH GRANT | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 08/09/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |