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 - T07CM01436
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/19/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: A-Atlas Discount Storage - Broadway @ Stoner T07CM01436 Site Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 19, 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 compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC) for full code compliance. 2. Zoning acknowledges the information provided on the plan but if the proposed sign is to remain within the SVT then a Development Standards Modification Request (DSMR) is required. After looking at you plan future the future SVT is shown incorrectly. The SVT should align with the future curb along Broadway Blvd., this should remove the majority of the sign from the SVT. Show the future SVT's correctly. Zoning recommends that the sign be move to the west to remove it from the SVT. An easement will be required for the sign. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13 Zoning acknowledges the location of the proposed monument sign for this project. Provide the size and height of proposed sign. This proposed sign is located within the future SVT as currently shown on the plan. Additional comments maybe forth coming. 3. This comment was not addressed. Zoning acknowledges your response of "Attached" but was unable to find any documentation to support the shared easement. Please provide. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20 There is a "10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT BY JOINT USE AGREEMENT" called out on the plan. Per Development Plan D06-0053 this easement is called out as a drainage easement but not shared. Provide documentation that supports the shared drainage easement. 4. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.3 Based on addresses listed on TDOT maps there is discrepancies in the address listed on the plan and the address shown on TDOT maps, please clarify. 5. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 Provide a setback dimension from the south property line to building 14. 6. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 Per D.S. 2-09.5.1.A and 2-09 Figure 9 the 30" dimension between bicycle racks is 30" clear between the posts, revise detail. 7. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 At the northwest corner of the property, between buildings 1 & 2 it appears that there is a vehicle use area which has access to the adjacent property. Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1 some type of barrier is required to prevent access to unpaved areas off site. 8. Zoning is willing to provide an over the counter review once all the above comments have been addressed. Please call or email for an appointment. 9. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan. 10. 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\t07cm01436-2nd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 09/19/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/28/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Floodplain comments. The plan proposes to disturb 100% of the limited Protected Riparian Area in the project area. A DSMR is required per DS 9-06.4.2 because the justification for encroachment is beyond the scope of necessry development as described in DS 9-06.2.5.B.2 2) The mitigation plan proposes to plant in an existing utility and access easement. Revise the mitigation plan to propose plantings in locations able to support their long-term health and survival. The preferred location would be in the floodplain. 3) Refer to the Sign Code regarding the proposed off-site sign. If the sign location is approved a street landscape border will be required in that area (because it is part of the site) along with dust control treatments for disturbed areas. |
| 10/01/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 1, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T07CM01436 PROJECT NAME: A-Atlas Discount Storage PROJECT ADDRESS: 9615 East Broadway Blvd 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 1. Correct the location of the future sight visibility triangles. See Zoning's comment number 2. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. 2. Indicate on the site plan the retaining walls will be obtained by separate permit. 3. The site plan must provide the docket and page for the 30' ingress/egress easement. Revise accordingly. DS 2-02.2.1.A.20. 4. It appears that the lighting fixture keynote 19 is blocking pedestrian access. Clarify. 5. Per the Major Street and Routes Plan 6' sidewalk is required for all arterial streets. Broadway Blvd is designated as an arterial street. Revise the site plan appropriately. DS 2-02.2.1.A.19. 6. Show the erosion hazard setback for the entire length of the southwest lot line for the property. It must be clear that building 3 is not with in the erosion hazard setback. DS 2-02.2.1.A.15. 7. Indicate the 100-year quantity for the flow going through the scupper (keynote 13). DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 8. Due to the fact retention has not been addressed additional comments could be forthcoming. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. Threshold retention systems must be incorporated within all commercial/industrial projects larger than one acre in size. The drainage report states the project site is under an acre. This is not correct. This project is over 3 acres in size. The site must meet the maximum retention requirement, the volumetric difference between developed and the existing 5-year runoff. The drainage report must provide discussion, analysis, details and calculations addressing 5 year threshold retention. Resubmit a drainage report addressing retention requirements. Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual 2.2. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS 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. 2. Grading in excess of 5000 cubic yards is designated as "engineered grading," which requires the soil's report to comply with DS 11-01.4.D. Ensure the site plan provides the soil's report recommendations for engineered grading. |
| 10/01/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Subject to site and landscape plan approval. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/08/2007 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/08/2007 | GERARDO BONILLA | REJECT SHELF | Completed |