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 - T07CM01074
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/15/2007 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Remove the backflow preventer and water meter from the hydrant. Please contact Tucson Water for hydrant standard details. |
| 06/15/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See Zoning Comments |
| 06/15/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Circle K - 6th & I-10 T07CM01074 Site Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 15, 2007 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. This site plan was reviewed for full code compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC). 2. Provide documentation that supports the lot line realignment. The lot line realignment needs to be processed through the City of Tucson.There appears to be some type of lot combination or lot line realignment. Clarify what is happening to the existing parcels. Depending on how this comment is addressed additional comments maybe forth coming. 3. Zoning acknowledges that the cross access agreement is being processed. Provide the recordation information on the site plan and provide a copy of the recorded document with the next submittal. A cross access agreement is required between this project and the restaurant located to the south as both uses will utilize the southern most entrance shown off of 6th Avenue. The cross access agreement will need to be recorded at the Pima County Recorders Office prior to approval of this site plan. 4. Zoning acknowledges that the process to release this easement has been started. Provide a copy of the documentation for the release of the easement. There is an existing 10' electric easement, running east and west, which is located under the proposed structure. Provide documentation abandoning or re-describing this easement or provide a letter from the utility company stating that it is OK to construct the proposed structure over the easement. 5. Zoning acknowledges that the process to release this easement has been started. Provide a copy of the documentation for the release of the easement. There appears be a utility easement with sewer and overhead electrical, running north and south, under a portion of the propose structures. Provide documentation abandoning or re-describing this easement or provide a letter from the utility company stating that it is OK to construct the proposed structure over the easement. 6. Zoning acknowledges the electrical easement and that the process to release this easement has been started. Provide a copy of the documentation for the release of the easement. There appears to be some type of easement running east west the entire width of the parcel. Describe what these lines are referring to and if it is an easement Provide documentation abandoning or re-describing this easement or provide a letter from the utility company stating that it is OK to construct the proposed structure over the easement. 7. Zoning is unable to locate the future curb and the dimension from the back of future curb to the canopy structure. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 Based on the right of way (ROW) dimension provided, 6th Avenue is not at full future width. Provide the location of future curb on the plan along with a dimension from the back of future curb to the proposed fuel structure, see LUC Sec. 3.2.6.5.B. 8. Zoning acknowledges the parking space detail. Show the proposed curb stops on the detail along with a dimension for the location of the curb stop. See D.S. 3-05.2.3.2. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Provide a detail of both a handicapped and standard vehicle parking space. Refer to development standard 3-05.0 for design criteria for standard parking and the Uniform Building Code for handicap parking criteria. Once provided and reviewed further comments may result. 9. This comment was not fully addressed. See attached. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Provide a detail for the handicapped signage. 10. Zoning acknowledges the detail shown on sheet 1 of 2. Please review revised D.S. 2-09 as the 30" dimension shown for the overall width of the bicycle rack does not meet the minimum distance required between posts, D.S. 2-09.5.1.A. Per D.S. 2-09.5.1.B 36' is required between the proposed building and the rack. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 & D.S. 2-09.0 Provide off-street bicycle parking; including materials for lighting, paving, and security; fully dimensioned layout; specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports; and the location and type of directional signage if required. Once provided and reviewed additional comments maybe forth coming. 11. Zoning acknowledges the proposed loading space. This loading space is viewed as a parking space and must meet the requirements of LUC Sec. 3.5.4.26.B. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.14 Fully dimension the proposed loading zones and provide maneuvering areas on the plan. Additional comments maybe forth coming. 12. This comment was not addressed. The loading space for the billboard is a separate loading space from the loading space required for the proposed building. Review LUC Sec. 3.4.4.1.B.3. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.14 Per LUC Sec. 3.4.5 a 12'x35' loading space is required for the billboard located on site. The required loading space must meet the requirements of LUC Sec. 3.4.4.1.B.3 13. The future ROW is unclear, please clarify. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.19 Provide a dimension for the future right-of-way (ROW) 6th Avenue. 14. The provided bicycle calculation is not correct. 30 x 8% = 2.4 or 2 required, LUC Sec 3.3.3.8. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 Provide a required and provided bicycle parking calculation. For your information per LUC Sec. 3.3.7.8.B any use providing less than fifty (50) motor vehicle parking spaces may substitute Class 2 spaces for Class 1 spaces. 15. The loading space calculation is incorrect. Required is 1 and provided is 1. 16. All lettering and dimension shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size to facilitate reproduction and photographically reduced (microfilm) for record keeping. Numerous text and dimension strings do not meet this requirement. 17. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan. 18. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 C:\planning\site\t07cm01074-2nd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 06/15/2007 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide cleanouts in the building sewer at intervals not exceeding 100 feet. Reference Section 719.1, UPC 2003 2. Show how the sewer drain connection located at the trash enclosure will comply with the requirements of Section 306.0 and 1016.1, UPC 2003. 3. Show the rim elevation of the manhole located at the point of connection. 4. Correct the elevations (contours, FFE, etc.) shown on the drawing. |
| 06/19/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. In situations where the street landscape border is wider than the minimum ten (10) foot requirement, the landscape border width needs to be determined for the purposes of calculating the fifty (50) percent vegetative coverage requirement, Sec. 3.7.2.4 of the LUC. The width is that area between the required screen and the property line. Dimension the length and width of landscape borders on the landscape plan per DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.f. 2. A 6' screen is required for billboard along 1-10 / Benson Hwy per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. 3. A 6' wall is required to screen loading zone from street frontages per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. 4. Fences or walls constructed in a single continuous line shall extend into a street landscape border no more than the actual width of the fence or wall. Where a fence or wall incorporates offsets or similar design features, a screen may extend a maximum of three (3) feet into the street landscape border. Verify the wall locations do not extend more than 3' within landscape borders. 5. Revise the landscape plan to indicate the locations the height of any proposed or required screens per DS 2-07.A.3. 6. Include inside dimensions or details of planter within vehicle use area on the landscape and site plans. A minimum of 4' in width must be provided for each canopy tree. The measurement is always within the planter area and does not include any material which defines the outer edge of the unpaved area per DS 2-06.3.3.C. Some planters within vehicle use area appear not to meet requirements. 7. Show by detail or spot elevations how landscape areas will accommodate water harvesting. 8. Note: The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan. |
| 06/19/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit Application for Exception; include acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. |
| 07/17/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: July 17, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T07CM01074 PROJECT NAME: Circle K PROJECT ADDRESS: 3301 South 6th Avenue 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. It is recommended to set up a meeting to discuss the site plan revisions. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: SITE PLAN 1. Site plan cannot be approved until Lot Combination recordation is complete with Pima County. This comment will remain until the lot combination is complete. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.2. 2. The labeling for the future ROW information should read "future 60' ROW," "future SVT," "future curb," etc. The verbiage "proposed" has been used instead of "future." The correct method must be used for plan approval. The verbiage proposed indicates what is being planned for the site development. The labeling for future ROW must indicate this is ROW information if 6th Avenue is widened due to road improvements. Revise the site plan for all future ROW information to replace the word "proposed" with "future." 3. There are several lines shown within the public streets on the plan that appear to not depict anything specific. The plan is cluttered and it is difficult to distinguish the required information. Clarify in the response letter and on the plan or remove any unnecessary lines. The above comment is from the previous review. Engineering acknowledges the lines represent travel lanes. Travel lanes of a public street are not required to be on a site plan. Remove the lines depicting travel lanes. 4. Label and dimension from the centerline of 6th Avenue to the future curb and sidewalk location. The future curb location is measured 9' from the future ROW line. The front of future sidewalk is measured 3' from back of curb. Revise to show requested information. See redlines for reference. DS 2-02.2.1.A.19. 5. 6' sidewalks are required for an arterial road. 6th Avenue is an arterial road. Revise the site plan to show 6' sidewalks proposed within the ROW along 6th Avenue. DS 2-02.2.1.A.12. 6. The future sight visibility triangles for the entrance/exit drives to 6th Avenue are not drawn correctly. A future SVT is measured from the future curb location. For a future ROW width of 120', the future curb line is measured 9' from the MS&R future ROW line. Revise the plan appropriately to show the future SVT in the correct location. Refer to Development Standard 3-01.5.0. and figure 18. 7. It is not necessary to show offsite SVTs. That said remove all SVTs indicated south of the property. It is not required to be on the site plan and clutters the plan. 8. The provided far side SVT for the southern entrance is not drawn correctly on the plan. The through street side of a sight triangle on a horizontal curve is measured along a chord. The length of the SVT (the through side) should follow the curb line of 6th Avenue. Revise the plan to correctly show the SVT. DS 3-015.2. 9. Provide a detail of the required curb access ramps with detectable warnings (truncated domes). ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13, D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12. 10. Per the Zoning Comment No. 12, a loading space is also required for the billboard. Maneuverability for the commercial trucks accessing the billboard must also be shown. DS 2-02.2.1.A.14. 11. Indicate the refuse enclosure detail in 12 point font. Be advised all verbiage on a site plan must be in 12 point font. 12. Per Development Standard 6-01.4.2.C.1., food service establishments are required to provide a sewer connected drain in the center of the concrete slab to facilitate container cleaning. Revise the plan to show a drain and a connection to the sanitary sewer system. The above comment is from the previous review. It has been brought to the attention of this office Pima County does not want connection from the drain to the sewer system. Please remove the connection to the sewer system and only provide the drain. 13. A cross access agreement is required between this project and the restaurant located to the south as both uses will utilize the southern most entrance shown off of 6th Avenue. The cross access agreement will need to be recorded at the Pima County Recorders Office prior to approval of this site plan. The recordation data (docket and page) must be provided on the site plan prior to approval. DS 2-02.2.1.A.20. This comment will continue to be made until the cross access agreement is recorded and the docket and page is provided on the site plan. 14. There is an existing 10' electric easement, running east and west, which is located under the proposed structure. Provide documentation abandoning or re-describing this easement or provide a letter from the utility company stating that it is OK to construct the proposed structure over the easement. If the easement is abandoned the recordation data (docket and page) must be provided on the plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.20. This comment will continue to be made until the abandonment is recorded and the docket and page is provided on the site plan. 15. There appears be a utility easement with sewer and overhead electrical, running north and south, under a portion of the propose structures. Provide documentation abandoning or re-describing this easement or provide a letter from the utility company stating that it is OK to construct the proposed structure over the easement. If the easement is abandoned the recordation data (docket and page) must be provided on the plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.20. This comment will continue to be made until the abandonment is recorded and the docket and page is provided on the site plan. 16. The locations of the existing and proposed 100-year peak discharge concentration points must be clearly defined on the site plan. The above comment is from the previous review. The quantities must also be provided. Provide the Q. 17. The 10-year flow must be contained under the pedestrian circulation at all down spout locations. On the site plan provide flow arrows and locations for all roof down spouts and add a note, "All roof down spouts on all structures must be routed under any adjacent sidewalk." DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16, DS 2-08.4.1.E. It is acknowledged the roof down spouts are not directed towards a sidewalk. However the downspouts are directed to the adjacent property. This office has concern that the concentrated flow will have an adverse impact on the adjacent property. How much flow is entering the adjacent property? Provide the Q on the plan. Revise the site plan to not show an adverse impact to the adjacent property. 18. Show the location and size of the access and maintenance access ramps/roadways. A minimum of one 15 foot wide vehicular access ramp shall be provided into each basin. The maximum roadway or access ramp slope shall not exceed 15 percent. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.b., 14.3.4. 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. 19. Provide the water surface elevation for basin 1. Second request. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.a. 20. Second request. 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, 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. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. Provide in the Drainage Report calculations and scupper details stating that the 10-year flow will be contained under the pedestrian circulation at all concentrated locations. The above comment is from the previous review. It is acknowledged the roof down spouts are not directed towards a sidewalk. However the downspouts are directed to the adjacent property. This office has concern that the concentrated flow will have an adverse impact on the adjacent property. How much flow is entering the adjacent property? Provide discussion on how the roof drainage will not impact the adjacent property. 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). On the existing drainage map provide the location of all concentration points with the Q for the 100-year event. Second request. Stormwater must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes, as encountered under natural or existing conditions. One of the purposes of the existing and proposed drainage maps is to demonstrate the offsite to onsite and onsite to offsite drainage for existing and proposed conditions. Revise both drainage maps is requested. 3. 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. Second request. 4. 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. 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 1 (receives flow from the trash dumpster) 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. 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 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 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |