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: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T07CM00330
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/11/2007 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Distance to exisitng fire hydrant exceeds requirements per C.O.T. amendment to the 2003 IFC, Section 508.5.1 Installation of fire sprinklers may be considered as a substitute for fire hydrant. |
| 04/18/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/18/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Street landscape borders shall be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee. Provide approval documentation for landscape within ROW. 2. All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. DS 2-05.2.1.A. 3. Add this particular note to the landscape plan: All disturbed, grubbed, graded, or bladed areas including area between the right-of-way line and sidewalk the curb shall be landscaped, re-seeded, or treated with an inorganic or organic ground cover to help reduce dust pollution. 4. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that subsequent changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscapes. |
| 05/04/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: May 20, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T07CM00330 PROJECT NAME: Circle K PROJECT ADDRESS: 1767 East Benson Highway 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, DRAINAGE REPORT SUBMIT: REDLINED PLANS, GEOTECHNICAL REPORT 1. All lettering and dimensions will be the equivalent of twelve point or greater in size. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that the lettering is legible when reproduced or microfilmed for record keeping purposes. Revise all lettering to be at least 12 point. Sheet 2 still utilizes 10 point font. Revise sheet 2 to show all font at 12 point. 2. This office acknowledges the existing ROW for Benson Hwy is a greater width than the future 60' ½ ROW. Benson Hwy also does not appear to be built out to the future ROW which provides 6' sidewalks along an arterial road. That said the plan must still show the dimension of the future 60' ½ ROW and provide new 6' accessible sidewalks within the ROW. Revise the plan appropriately. DS 2-02.2.1.A.19. 3. It is clear Kino Pkwy has undergone the future ROW taking. However Kino Pkwy is currently not constructed per the MS&R plan to the proposed future ROW, where the future curb is located 9' from the property line with a 6' sidewalk. That said the location of the future curb and sidewalk must be shown on the plan view. It is acknowledged the plan calls out the future curb location, however the shown location is not correct. Revise the plan to show the future curb and sidewalk location for Kino Pkwy. DS 2-02.2.1.A.19. 4. The plan does not provide future SVTs for all entrance and exit drives to Kino Pkwy. Provide future SVTs for all entrance and exit drives to Kino Pkwy. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. 5. Provide the recordation data (docket and page) for the cross access easement that will be shared with the adjacent properties. DS 2-02.2.1.A.20. 6. Provide a dimension on the plan view for the sidewalk from the structure to Benson Hwy. DS 2-02.2.1.A.12. 7. The solid waste enclosure can not be located in front of the loading spaces. Obstructions to accessibility to the solid waste enclosure is not permitted. Revise the plan to show the solid waste enclosure in an area where the solid waste truck can access the enclosure safely and without obstructions. DS 6-01.4.1.K. 8. The inside clear dimension of ten (10) feet by ten (10) feet for the solid waste enclosure should be between the steel pipes. Revise appropriately. D.S. 6-01.4.2.C. 9. The maximum back up distance is 40' for a solid waste vehicle. The current proposal exceeds this requirement. Revise the plan to meet the minimum standard. DS 6-01 10. The legend provides an existing contour and a proposed contour line. However the plan view does not show the existing contours for the site. Provide existing contour lines or spot elevations. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 11. The plan shows overhead electric lines going through the project. Clarify in the response letter what will happen with the overhead electric lines. Are the lines going to be under ground? In the response letter to the first review it was stated there no easements. Clarify if there is an existing easement for this electric line or if the easement is proposed to be abondoned? It must be clear on the plan what will happen to the electric lines. 12. Detectable warnings (truncated domes) will be required at all curb access ramps or at any area where the sidewalk is flush with the asphalt, within the ROW and the project. Revise the site plan appropriately. ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13, D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 The above comment has not been adequately addressed. Refer to the purple redlines for specific locations. 13. A minimum of one 15-foot-wide vehicular access ramp shall be provided into a basin. The maximum roadway or access ramp slope shall not exceed 15 percent. Provide a ramp for basin maintenance. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.b. 14. A security barrier must be provided at the top for all basins with water depths that exceed two feet and when side slopes are steeper than 4:1. Revise the plan to show a security barrier around the basins. Retention/Detention Manual 4.3.1. 15. Provide a detail of all retention systems. At minimum provide the top and bottom elevation, water surface elevation and the size and type of inflow structure(s) to be employed with the proposed retention systems. Include dimensions and elevations of critical portions of those structures. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.a. 16. Provide roof flow arrows and locations for all roof down spouts on the site plan. The 10-year flow must be contained under the pedestrian circulation at all down spout locations. Provide scupper and roof down spout details. DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16. 17. All pedestrian circulation must be flood free for up to a ten year event. Revise the plan appropriately to meet this requirement. DS 2-08.3.1. 18. This project is required to have a grading permit and a separate grading review is required. This office recommends to submit a grading plan with the grading permit application (green card) with the next site plan submittal. The grading permit application can be picked up at the permit counter. 19. Please note that subsequent comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plan. TRAFFIC ANANLYSIS COMMENTS 1. The review for the TIA Report (dated 1-11-07) will need to be coordinated with TDOT to assess current improvements that are in review or to be constructed in the adjacent right-of-ways; further comments are forthcoming. Specifically, it is important that proposed entrance alignment and design is coordinated with other current intersection improvements along Campbell. Call for consultant contact information and check with Permits and Codes for any PIA /right-of-way coordination. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. Provide an existing drainage area map. Be advised the drainage area map must provide clear and legible existing drainage information (See comment No. 2) 2. The locations of the existing and proposed 100-year peak discharge concentration points must be clearly defined on the drainage area maps. Provide the 100-year peak discharge concentration points, existing and proposed on the appropriate plan(s). 3. The drainage areas on the proposed drainage area map are not clearly defined. Provide a 24" by 36" drainage area map, remove the site infrastructure that is not drainage related; parking spaces, hatching, shading, the setback and landscape verbiage. The contours, utility lines, curb, structure, the public roads are acceptable to leave on the proposed drainage area map. Revise the plan to clearly show each drainage area. Identify the line weight in a legend. 4. On the proposed drainage area map show locations of sewer, water and stormdrains to assure there is not conflict with the drainage structures. Provide appropriate discussion in the narrative. 5. Provide detail and specifications on the underground retention systems. 6. Provide discussion on the offsite flow from the south and how it effects the site in existing and proposed conditions. How will the off site flows enter the site with the proposed vertical curb? This must also be reflected on the existing and proposed drainage area map. Revise the report appropriately. 7. The 10-year flow must be contained under the pedestrian circulation at all down spout locations. Provide calculations, scupper details and discussion stating that the 10-year flow will be contained under the pedestrian circulation at all concentrated locations. DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16 8. Provide the existing onsite and offsite stormwater volume. Provide the calculation sheets. 9. The drainage area that encompasses the fueling stations must drain to a separate basin that in addition has a system that will clean the stormwater runoff. Provide discussion on how this will be accomplished and provide appropriate specifications and/or details. 10. Per SMDDRM, 2.3.1.6.C., a very detailed Drainageway and Detention/Retention Basin Maintenance Checklist and Schedule shall be provided by an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer, which will be followed by anyone performing scheduled and unscheduled maintenance on behalf of the owner(s). A maintenance checklist and schedule shall be provided in the drainage report in effort to clearly communicate the responsibilities involved by the homeowner association for proper maintenance of retention basins. Include a detailed retention basin maintenance checklist and schedule in the drainage report. 20. Please note that subsequent comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the report. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED: 1. A soils report is required for retention basins. Per SMDDFM 14.2.6., the soils report should include: a. information regarding soil classification, soil erodibility, soil permeability and infiltration rate (percolation test must show a maximum disposal time of 12 hours), slope stability, and ground water elevation. b. A recommended minimum setback from buildings and other structures. c. An evaluation of whether or not hydro-collapsing soils are present on the site d. The results from a minimum 30' deep soil boring. |
| 05/08/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | Please see zoning review comments. |
| 05/08/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: T07CM00330 1767 E. Benson Hwy Commercial Site Plan, 2nd Review TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 7, 2007 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. 2. The property description for this site shows that it was split in 1990. Please provide the lot split plan that would have been reviewed and required to be approved by the city. In addition, it appears that a new lot line is proposed on the plan separating the site from adjacent "undeveloped" areas. This line is not on the legend, please add to legend and clarify. A lot split, if proposed, is a separate process. RESPONSE: I was unable to find a lot split number or plat number in process as your response suggested for the proposed lot lines. Please provide a city project number. Please note that should a lot split or plat not be done, several differences on this project will be noted - lot size, FAR calcs, etc. 3. Per DS 2-02.2.1.6, with regards to buildings: A) please show the height and vertical clearance of the fuel canopy. (RESPONSE: the vertical clearance is blocked by another set of numbers.) B) Show the actual provided setbacks from all lot lines (I acknowledge the setbacks for the structures appear to be in compliance) for records RESPONSE: please clearly mark the heavy dashed line on the plans as a property line 4. Per DS 2-02.2.1.8 and LUC 3.3.4, with regards to parking: A) please provide wheel stop barriers within 2'6" from the top of the parking space to ensure pedestrian clearance on the adjacent sidewalk is not compromised. Please add the wheel stop detail to the parking detail drawing. RESPONSE: Thank you for the wheel stop detail. Please add a wheel stop drawing dimensioned 2'6" from the top of the parking space in the parking STALL detail. 5. Per DS 2-02.2.1.12, with regards to pedestrian/handicapped circulation: A) Provide widths for all crosswalks and sidewalks RESPONSE: please provide a 5' wide sidewalk along the PAAL leading to Benson Hy B) Provide detail drawing for ramps with slopes, dimensions and truncated domes (refer to ANSI 705.5. for help with truncated domes) RESPONSE: please keynote all ramp locations - relate keynote number to detail on pg 1 C) Several sets of truncated domes need to be relocated on the site plan. The truncated domes need to be located right where the concrete ramps transition to the asphalt areas -in a 2' wide swath the full width of the sidewalk - on the concrete - not on asphalt. To help you, I have marked the plan in purple ink. 6. Per DS 2-02.2.1.19, dimension the right of way for Kino and Benson A) label the future curb location RESPONSE: The plan indicates that the right of way for Benson is both existing and future. The future curb location then is 9' back from the edge of the right of way to accommodate for a sidewalk area, since the total right of way is 120'. Please revise. 7. Per DS 2-02.2.1.20, please ensure all easements are referenced on the plan with their recordation information (docket/page) and type. RESPONSE: I acknowledge your response that currently there are no easements. I'm leaving this comment in to address the fact that there will be a cross access agreement for the proposed lot split that is separate. 8. Per DS 2-02.2.2.A.1, please provide the gross and net lot area. RESPONSE: Please advise is the lot size provided for the current lot or the proposed lot size? 9. Per DS 2-02.2.2.A.2, please provide the Floor Area Ratio calculation for the site (please reference Sec. 3.2.11.2.C/p. 213 of the LUC) - just the retail building is required, not the canopy as it is not an enclosed structure. RESPONSE: The floor area calculation is not quite correct, it's the total enclosed square footage divided by the total lot area = .FAR Also, this will relate to the lot size question above. 10. Depending upon the responses provided, further review comments may be forthcoming. Should you have any questions on this review, please contact me at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 520-837-4951. HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T07CM00330 1767 e benson hy 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/22/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 05/22/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | REJECT SHELF | Completed |