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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/07/2007 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/08/2007 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/20/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. A 30" continuous screen along Kino Pkwy. for vehicle use area must be provided per LUC Table 3.7.2-I 2. Hedges and other vegetative screens shall not extend more than three (3) feet into the street landscape border. If, based on the growing characteristics of the type of plant used, the ultimate width of the vegetative screen will be greater than three (3) feet, the vegetative screen must be sufficiently set back from the landscape border to accommodate the wider growth. 3. Revise the landscape plan to show the locations and note the height and materials for any proposed or required screens. DS 2-07.A.3. |
| 06/29/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | The site plan proposal is in compliance with ANSI and all handicapped requirements as of this review. This note is a reminder to the reviewer to place the handicapped parking approval stamp on the plan once the site plan is approved for all zoning related issues. If the site plan changes, further ANSI comments may be forthcoming. |
| 06/29/2007 | 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, 3rd review TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 29, 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. PER DAVID RIVERA, STAFF REQUESTS A CONFERENCE CALL TO RESOLVE ISSUES 2 AND 3. 1. ENLARGE ALL TYPE SIZE ON THE PLAN TO 12 POINT MINIMUM. 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. 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 2-02.2.1.20, please ensure all easements are referenced on the plan with their recordation information (docket/page) and type. 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. 4. 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 3.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 07/03/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: July 16, 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 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. This is the third request. 2. Clearly indicate on the site plan a 6' sidewalk along Benson Hwy and provide the detectable warnings at the required location. The sidewalk is to be located 3' from back of curb. DS 2-02.2.1.A.19. 3. The near side SVT at the 1st entrance/exit drive off of Kino Blvd is not correct drawn. The SVT should be drawn from the (new) curb line. Revise appropriately. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. 4. Remove the proposed near side SVT at the 1st entrance/exit drive off of Kino Blvd. See redline. 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. 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. The above comment is from the previous review. It is acknowledged the intent is to relocate the electric lines and abandon the easement. The recordation data for the abandonment must be provided on the plan. Provide the recordation data of the abandonment for the electrical easement. 7. 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. The above comment is from the previous review and has not adequately been addressed. A maintenance vehicle, such as bobcat, must be able to enter the basin to remove accumulated sediment, garbage, sludge from the collected oils from the PAAL, etc. Provide a ramp with a curb cut. 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) The above comment is from the previous review and has not been addressed. A separate drainage map providing the existing conditions must be in a drainage report. The existing conditions drainage map should provide the watershed boundaries and all points of drainage concentration. 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. Revise the second sentence in section 5 to indicate the underground storage pipes are to the "North," of the structure. 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. The above comment is from the previous review and it is not clear where this has been addressed in the report. The drainage map does not show locations of sewer, water and stormdrains. The narrative does not provide discussion on the underground system not conflicting with underground utilities. Show on the drainage map the locations of sewer, water and stormdrains and provide line weights in the legend. Include discussion in the narrative and in the response letter specifically indicate where the discussion can be found. 5. 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. Second request. The above comment is from the previous review and has not adequately been addressed. Maintenance for the drainage facilities must be addressed in the drainage report. Including specific instruction on how the dry wells, Basin 2 (receives flow from the trash dumpster), Basin 1 and all other supporting drainage structures will be maintained. The drainage report must outline the long-term basin maintenance responsibility for this development rest with the owner of this facility. It must be clear in the report include the name, address and telephone number of the person responsible for the long-term basin maintenance. However the report must also include, the City of Tucson reserves the right to periodically inspect or review any private-maintenance actions that would help to ensure that private maintenance, related to facility operation and safety, is being adequately provided. The report must also indicate the owner is also responsible for providing once a year to the City of Tucson Development Service Department, Engineering Division a certified inspection report by an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer stating either no maintenance work is needed at that time or a list of repairs and work to be done to correct the deficiencies to the drainage facilities. Revise the report as requested. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/02/2007 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 08/02/2007 | CINDY AGUILAR | REJECT SHELF | Completed |