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: SITE
Permit Number - T07OT01539
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/13/2007 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/19/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See Zoning Comments |
| 07/19/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: El Rio Health Center - Congress Parking T07OT01539 Site Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 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 for area of expansion only. 2. This project is comprised of six (6) different parcels. There are two (2) options in regards to utilizing the six (6) parcels as one site. Prior to approval of the site plan provide; 1) A Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property, or 2) Provide a site plan for each parcel that shows how the parcels can stand alone and meet the requirements of the LUC if sold separately along with a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property. 3. Add a note to the plan stating "THIS SITE PLAN IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OVERLAY ZONES CRITERIA: SEC. 2.8.3 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE 4. Provide a letter stating what type of services are provided at the El Rio Health Center. Zoning will verify the required disabled parking spaces once the letter is provided. 5. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12. Provide a dimension from the proposed northeast parking space directly south to the proposed curb. Additional comments maybe forth coming. 6. 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. I:\planning\site\t07ot01539.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 07/19/2007 | SSHIELD1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 08/01/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. An approved site plan is required indicating how the project will comply with LUC requirements when the MS&R right-of-way can no longer be used as part of the site. Such plan is to be an exhibit to an executed covenant for recordation stating the responsibility of the property owner, successor, or assignee as to the removal of improvements and compliance with the LUC at no cost to the City per LUC 2.8.3.5.F. 2. Within a vehicular use area, one (1) canopy tree is required for each 10 motor vehicle parking spaces and every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk) per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1. 3. Planting Plan. The planting plan and layout calculations will include the following information: § Both the proper and common name of each type of plant material. § Locations, size, and name of existing vegetation to remain in place. § Identify the plant materials used for screening element. 4. When vegetation is used to satisfy a screen requirement, the size of the plant material specified will be 5- gallon minimum and be of a type that will maintain an opaque screen year round. 5. Submit an Application for Exception; include acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. 6. All landscape areas will be depressed to accept water flow from roofs, PAAL, and parking areas. Show by detail or spot elevations how landscape areas will accommodate water harvesting. 7. Additional comments may apply. |
| 08/01/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit an Application for Exception; include acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. |
| 08/01/2007 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 1, 2007 TO: Frank Mascia, RA / Metro Permit Express REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach, PE ACTIVITY NUMBER: T07OT01539 SUBJECT: 843 W CONGRESS ST submittal Site Plan Review PARCEL: 116-18-1960, T14S R13E Sec14 LOCATION: portion of lot 10 of BLK 14 within MENLO PARK-MENLO PARK ANNEX. & SMP WARD: 1 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed parking lot plan submittal which included site and landscape plans. No drainage reports were submitted. There is a proposed drainage structure on the plans that must be clarified before engineering can approve the plans. Engineering Division does not recommend approval at this time. Address the following comments. PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS: 1) This proposed parking area project lies within a non-designated basin management plan area and is less than one acre, where no retention or detention is required, unless there are needs for mitigating existing adverse drainage conditions at this site. If there are no existing drainage mitigation issues that need to be addressed, then the only required runoff storage is for general waterharvesting. Address the following comments: a) DS Sec. 10-01.3.5.1, DS Sec.10-02.14.5: Remove all references to "dry wells". The proposal for a dry well may not be approved for this project in accordance with current Engineering Administration policy. Consideration is based on issues for maintenance and future function of the dry well system, failure rate of infiltration within the City of Tucson for other dry well projects, as well as the protection of groundwater from potentially unsafe recharge. Dry wells and pumps are only being considered as last-resort or temporary mitigation for post-constructed basins that have failed all other drainage solutions. b) Other engineering alternatives must be explored, such as water harvesting, shallow basins, or engineered basin floors. At minimum, show location of water harvesting area with a keynote or general note that clarifies 6-inch maximum depth of water harvest area in locations where flow will concentrate from parking lot stormwater runoff. c) Other than water harvesting, any proposed retention areas (basins, engineered-bottom retention areas, etc) will require a drainage statement at minimum with percolation rates. Any basin design shall meet the infiltration rate constraints for retention. d) Remove reference to Ret/Det basin, if no basin is proposed in resubmittal. If a basin is proposed, provide drainage statement discussing need for retention, detention, engineered basins, or other drainage structure for the site, and provide percolation results. e) If the resubmittal / revised plan indicates only waterharvesting, then no drainage statement will be required. 2) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.3: No grading permit will be required for the parking project if no basin/dry well is proposed. On sheet 1.0, it will still be necessary to provide a note stating estimated cut and fill quantities for the additional new vehicular access / parking area, and associated earthwork. 3) Add a note stating that: separate building permit applications are required for any walls, and a note stating that any walls shall have wall openings. 4) DS Sec.2-08.4.1.E: For clarification of the function of waterharvesting, indicate flow directions in parking area with flow arrows. For resubmittal provide three copies of the revised Site Plan sheets, a drainage statement (if any drainage structure is proposed aside from waterharvesting), and a response letter. Call if you have any questions, or if you are ready to go over comments with me in order to review and approve at a meeting. I can be reached at 837-4934. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 08/13/2007 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Passed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/29/2007 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 08/29/2007 | GERARDO BONILLA | REJECT SHELF | Completed |