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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/22/2007 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/23/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Circle K - 6th & I-10 T07CM01074 Site Plan (3rd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 23, 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. Until this comment has been address the site plan cannot be approved. Provide documentation that shows that the lot line realignment has been processed through the City of Tucson. 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. Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.2 and D.S. 3-05 Figure 5 "Wheel Stop Curbing", provide a 2-1/2' dimension from the front of the parking space to the wheel stop curbing. 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. 8. This comment was not fully addressed. See attached. If needed zoning can email you a copy of the required sign along with the required mounting height. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Provide a detail for the handicapped signage. 9. Per LUC Sec. 3.5.4.26.B. the loading zone for the billboard may not be located within five (5) feet of a vertical line intersecting the ground and any structural element extending from the billboard, including, but not limited to, overhangs, cantilevered beams, and elevated walkways. This said, based on the aerial photos of this site there is some type of structural element attached to the billboard, provide a dimension based on the above information from this element. 10. Zoning acknowledges the three (3) 15' x 60' truck parking spaces. If one (1) or all three (3) is to be used for the required 12' x 35' loading space then per LUC Sec. 3.4.4.6 the loading spaces shall be striped in such manner as to distinguish the space from motor vehicle parking spaces and other uses on site. This also applies to the loading space for the billboard. 11. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan. 12. 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\t07cm01074-3rd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 08/24/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/29/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. A 6' screen is required for billboard along 1-10 / Benson Hwy per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. 2. A 6' wall is required to screen loading zone from 1-10 / Benson Hwy street frontages per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. 3. Revise the landscape plan to indicate the locations the height of any proposed or required screens per DS 2-07.A.3. 4. 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. Screens, whether required or not, are to be located on the development side of the street landscape border so that the landscaping is visible from the street. Portions of the wall located along 1-10 / Benson Hwy. extend more than 3' within landscape borders. Revise landscape plan as necessary 5. 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. |
| 08/29/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/17/2007 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/24/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 12, 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 Based on the cut and fill quantities a grading plan review, approval and permit is required. SUBMIT: GRADING APPLICATION, GRADING PLAN, SWPPP if disturbing more than one acre. 1. All of the contours provide on the plan are incorrect. The elevation for the property is approximately 2440' to 2440 with a NAVD 1988 datum. It is critical that this is revised to show the correct contours. Revise all applicable elements to the project that are in relation to elevations; finish floor elevation, water surface contours, man hole elevations, etc. 2. The labeling for the future ROW dimension should read "future 60' ROW," rather than "proposed 60' dimension." Second request. Please refer to greenlines 3. Per the adopted Mayor and Counsel policy all sidewalks along MS&R right-of-ways for arterial and collector streets require 6-foot wide sidewalks. Because a 5' sidewalk already exists along the frontage of 6th Avenue provide photo documentation showing that the existing sidewalk is in good condition. If the sidewalk is missing in spots or is cracked and buckled a new 6-foot sidewalk will be required for the entire street frontage of 6th Avenue. A Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) will be required for a sidewalk that is less than the required 6-foot width. For information regarding a DSMR contact Patricia Gehlen at 837-4919. DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12 4. Add the word "future" to the label "6' S/W." It must be clear on the plan this shown sidewalk is not proposed and is only showing the location of the 6' sidewalk when the ROW is taken in the future. See greenines for reference. DS 2-02.2.1.A.19. 5. 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. 6. The far side future sight visibility triangles for the south entrance/exit drives to 6th Avenue is 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. 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. 8. A cross access agreement is required between this project and the restaurant located to the south as both uses will utilize the most southern 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 existing and proposed 100-year peak discharge. 12. It is acknowledged the temporary sediment basin offers a solution to the stormwater output from the roof down spouts. That said this office has concern on the proposal. A sediment basin is an extreme measure to minimize the impact of roof drainage, it also a a solution that will be required to be maintained, subject to annual inspections and provide the total discharge (Q) generated from the roof. A temporary drainage easement will also be required to be recorded with docket and page provided on the plan. This office reccommends removing the proposed sediment basin and replace it with an erosion protection measure at the bottom of the down spout. Revise. 13. This office acknowledges a 15' concrete ramp has been provided. The maximum access ramp slope shall not exceed 15 percent. Show on the plan the ramp will not exceed 15 percent. In addition to the above comment the drainage report must be revised to show the impervious surface (concrete ramp) in the calculation for basin 1. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.b., 14.3.4. 14. Revise the water surface elevation for basin 1 to show the correct elevation. See comment number 1. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.a. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS 1. It is acknowledged a soil's report was submitted. Retention systems have a maximum disposal time of 12 hours. The soil's report must provide calculations to show the retention system infiltrates by the maximum disposal time. Revise the soil's report to provide the required information. SDRM 3.5.1.5. and SMDDFM 14.2.6. 2. Provide a geotechnical report that specifically assesses the proposed underground stormwater retention/detention system with dry wells beneath the pavement. The geotechnical report shall state whether the chambers are subject to collapsing or whether the pavement structure would be damaged from heavy traffic loads DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. All of the contours provided on the drainage exhibits are not correct. The elevation for the property is approximately 2440' to 2440 with a NAVD 1988 datum. It is critical that this is revised to show the correct contours. Revise all applicable elements to the project that are in relation to elevations; finish floor elevation, water surface contours, man hole elevations, etc. 2. Revise Section 5.0 and all hydrology calculations within the Drainage Statement to meet the minimum requirements outlined within SMDDFM Chapter 4. The hydrology sheets must show that the 100-year, one-hour rainfall depth from Table 4.1 is being used for all calculations. Refer to steps 1-19 within this section for determination of hydrology calculations. If the 2-hour storm event is being used for the hydrology calculations the minimum rainfall depth would be 3.42 inches (100-year return interval within a 1.0 or less square mile area is equal to a rainfall depth of 3.0 inches times a multiplication factor of 1.14 for the 2-hour storm would give you 3.42 inches), revise. 3. Be advised, dry wells are highly discouraged due to substantial drywell failure within the City of Tucson. Revise the Drainage Statement to include discussion on all requirements within DS 10-01.3.5.5 and 10-02.14.5 (1-10) for all systems, which utilize a method of subsurface disposal, i.e. dry wells and underground storage chambers. The Drainage Statement must meet or exceed the minimum criteria within both Development Standards. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. Third request. 7. 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. 8. In addition to the above comment the report must indicate the certified inspection report must be completed by an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer. Revise the report as requested. SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.C. 9. Provide references from the manufacture where these types of underground stormwater systems and dry wells have been used and their applicability to this project. All references should include use and maintenance of the underground stormwater system and how that system is achieving design criteria. 10. Floodplain Ordinance Tucson Code Section 26-10(c) states: The design of a detention or retention system, as reviewed and approved by the city engineer, shall include consideration of the degree of existing development within the basin and the capacity of the downstream drainage facilities. The systems will be designed with strict conformance to the public's health, safety and welfare. The effects of recharging storm runoff and possible pollution of the groundwater shall be evaluated for all systems employing infiltration systems, such as dry wells, in order to prevent contamination of the groundwater aquifer. The more technical requirements are listed in the City's drainage manual, SMDDFM.14.5. For review of a project we would need to see a Drainage Statement discussing and showing that the proposed dry well conforms to items 1-10 of this section. 11. This office acknowledges a 15' concrete ramp has been provided. The maximum access ramp slope shall not exceed 15 percent. Show on the plan the ramp will not exceed 15 percent. In addition to the above comment the drainage report must be revised to show the impervious surface (concrete ramp) in the calculation for basin 1. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.b., 14.3.4. 12. It is acknowledged the temporary sediment basin offers a solution to the stormwater output from the roof down spouts. That said this office has concern on the proposal. A sediment basin is an extreme measure to minimize the impact of roof drainage, it also a a solution that will be required to be maintained, subject to annual inspections and provide the total discharge (Q) generated from the roof. A temporary drainage easement will also be required to be recorded with docket and page provided on the plan. This office reccommends removing the proposed sediment basin and replace it with an erosion protection measure at the bottom of the down spout. Revise. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/19/2007 | VFLORES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/19/2007 | VFLORES1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |