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 - T06CM02523
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/28/2006 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/08/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Needs Review | Review of NPP plans will continue upon re-submittal. |
| 05/08/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) The provisions of LUC 3.7 apply to: A. All new development. B. Expansion of existing development. 1. On sites where the gross floor area of the existing building(s) is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, expansion in square footage of land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area as follows. a. If the expansion is less than twenty-five (25) percent, the requirements of this Division apply only to the proposed expansion. Existing development on the site is subject to the zoning regulations in effect at the time the existing development received zoning approval. b. If the expansion is twenty-five (25) percent or greater or if expansions as of February 15, 1991, cumulatively result in a twenty-five (25) percent or greater expansion in land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area, the requirements of this Division apply to the entire site. Provide calculations for expansions of gross floor area. Include the approved floor area as Feb. 15, 1991 and list subsequent expansions. If the expansion calculation exceeds 25% a landscape plan is required for the entire site and major site modifications may be required. 2) Street landscape borders shall be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee per LUC 3.7.2.7.3 3) An unpaved planting area, which is a minimum of 34 square feet in area and 4 feet in width must be provided for each canopy tree. Dimension planters within vehicle use area accordingly. 4) Additional comments may apply. |
| 06/06/2006 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 6, 2006 TO: Metro Permit Express SUBJECT: United Collections Bureau, Site Plan and Grading Plan Review REVIEWER: Loren Makus ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T06CM02523 and T06BU01018 SUMMARY: The Site Plan and Grading Plan were reviewed by Development Services Department Engineering Division. The Site Plan, Grading Plan and Drainage Report (DR) were not approved at this time. Drainage Report Comments 1. Revise the retention volume calculation to use the 5-year run-off coefficients. Revise the site and grading plans to provide adequate retention volumes, if necessary. 2. Revise the site plan in the drainage report to include all of the required elements from DS 10-02.2.3.1.6. This shall include the following: location, size and type of inflow and outflow structures, with dimensions and elevations; and maximum water-surface elevations and the limits of ponding. Any other applicable requirements must also be included. Site Plan Comments 3. Revise the site plan to provide 5-foot sidewalks in the right-of-way adjacent to the site. (DS 3-01.4.1.A.1.a) 4. Provide estimated cut and fill quantities. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.17) 5. Provide dimensions for the adjacent rights-of-way. For Tucson Boulevard provide existing and future MS&R dimensions. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.19) 6. Show existing and future sight visibility triangles for the intersection of Medina Road and Tucson Boulevard. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.10) 7. Revise the detail for the extruded curb. The detail appears to indicate the extruded curb will be 18 inches high and 18 inches thick. 8. Clarify on the site plan and on the grading plan the relationship of the existing fence and the proposed basin. Include the fence location in the basin sections. 9. Provide existing contours or spot elevations (with benchmark information) on the site plan. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.23) 10. There appear to be some misplaced keynote call-outs within the street areas adjacent to the parcel. Please review and revise as necessary. 11. Revise the proposed fence in the right-of-way at the corner of Tucson Boulevard and Medina Road or provide documentation of permission from Tucson Department of Transportation for private use of the right-of-way. 12. Permission from the City Engineer is required for placement of required landscaping within the right-of-way. Provide documentation this permission. 13. Show how water harvesting will be maximized. Take advantage of the addition of planting areas within the parking lot and the new landscape areas for water harvesting. Grading Plan Comments. 14. Revise the grading plan and details to clarify that the toe of the fill slope of the berm creating the basin must be at least 2 feet from the property line. On the basin section, clarify the surface materials and identify all relevant features such as the existing fence that appears on the site plan. 15. In order for the grading inspectors to effectively inspect the project site at completion, the plan must present grading information clearly. We recommend that the basin grading be presented with much enlarged details in both plan view and in section. 16. Clarify on the grading plan the extent of existing sidewalk and the extent of proposed new sidewalk. 17. Clarify the extent of grading and paving on the grading plan. Clearly delineate the limits of grading. Identify all of the areas of new pavement as shown on the site plan. List the total area of grading in the general notes. 18. Provide clear construction details for all of the drainage structures including the outlet weir and low flow outlet pipe. 19. Provide general dimensions for the basin and the areas of new pavment and for the new curbed areas. 20. Provide contours or spot elevations on the parcel to the west of the project. If the basin is contained with a berm or embankment, show details for the required emergency spillway. 21. It appears that the detention basin includes some of the adjacent parking area. Please clearly label the extent of the detention area on the site plan and on the grading plan. Provide curb openings between the parking area and the rest of the basin. SWPPP Comments 23. Prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for this project. Provide a completed checklist showing where each requirement is met in the SWPPP. The checklist is available from the ADEQ website: http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/download/cswppp.pdf. Revise the Site Plan, Grading Plan and the Drainage Report to address all of these comments and resubmit four copies of the site/grading plan and SWPPP and two copies of the Drainage Report. I Loren Makus, E.I.T. Senior Engineering Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 07/13/2006 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See zoning review comments. |
| 07/13/2006 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 1. A minimum 5-foot pedestrian refuge area, including a 4-foot sidewalk is required between the building and the PAALs. Revise plan drawing to provide the 5-foot refuge area where required. DS 3-05.2.2.B.1 2. It is not clear how vehicles will be allowed to enter and exit the site. There must be vehicle entry gates provided for the chain link fence (labeled by keynote 3 "to remain") at the ingress and egress points. Label the entrance gates and add a note stating that the gates are to remain open during business hours. 3. Label the width of the entrance drives. DS 2-02.2.1.A.11 4. The cross section detail indicators call out sheet A1.0 but the details appear on sheet SP-1. Revise. 5. Dimension the PAAL to the south of the building at its narrowest point (near the southernmost loading zone). 6. Dimension existing right-of-way for Medina and future/existing right-of-way for Tucson Blvd (MS&R). Dimension from street monument lines to existing & proposed curbs. DS 2-02.2.1.A.19 & .21 7. Indicate the use of truncated domes along handicap accessible routes at ramps and as otherwise required. ANSI |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/14/2006 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |