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 - T08CM02219
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/02/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Las Amigas - Parking Lot T08CM02219 Site Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 2, 2008 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 code compliance. 2. This comment was not fully addressed. Show the future curb on the site plan and provide a building setback dimension from the back of future curb. Zoning acknowledges that the building will meet setbacks once the setback dimension is shown correctly. D.S.2-02.2.1.A.7 Provide the required street perimeter yard setback dimension on the plan. This setback is measured from the back of future curb. 3. D.S.2-02.2.1.A.8 On the parking details provide a dimension for the location of the concrete wheel stops. 4. This comment was not fully addressed. Review revised D.S. 2-09 and provide all required dimensions per D.S. 2-09.5.0 on the plan layout. Also per D.S.2-02.2.1.A.9 provide materials for lighting, paving, fully dimensioned layout; specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports. D.S.2-02.2.1.A.9 Provide a detail for the proposed bicycle parking. This bicycle parking is required to meet D.S. 2-09.0. 5. D.S.2-02.2.2.A.4 There are two (2) vehicle and bicycle parking calculations shown on the plan. The calculation shown under "CALCULATIONS" appears to be correct, The calculation shown under "LAND USE DATA" is not correct. Please remove the vehicle, bicycle and loading space calculations from under "LAND USE DATA". 6. D.S.2-02.2.2.A.5 Zoning acknowledges that an error may have been made when addressing loading spaces during our meeting. As you have decided this is two (2) separate uses, Office and Residential Care, per LUC Section 3.4.4.1.B.1 a separate loading space is required for both uses. For Administrative and Professional Office, less than 5000 sq. ft. per LUC Section 3.4.5.6 one 10 x 18 loading space is required. For Residential Use Group, Residential Care Services greater than 5000 sq. ft. per LUC Section 3.4.5.4 one 12 x 35 loading space is required. 7. This comment has not been addressed. Zoning does not view any structure as temporary unless a temporary use permit (TUP) has been issued. Provide documentation that a TUP was issued for the temporary structures or provided the required expansion calculation on the plan. D.S.2-02.2.2.A.6 Provide a building area expansion calculation on the plan. This calculation includes storage sheds. 8. 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\t08cm02219-2nd RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents. |
| 09/12/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Document continued compliance with the landscape and screening regulations in effect when the site received zoning approval per LUC 3.7.1.2 A review of the applicable regulations and the approved plans indicate that the following is required: A) The site was calculated as containing 559 sq. ft. of landscaping in addition to the screen to meet the landscape requirement. The plan also included 5608 sq. ft. of usable open space. Revise the landscaping and Screening note on sheet A1 to include the 3' screen along Silverbell, 559 sq. ft. of additional landscaping, and at least 5608 sq. ft. of usable open space. B) Note the type (species) of vegetation used for the screen along the east property boundary. There sould be a continuous visual barrier. |
| 09/22/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 09/29/2008 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: September 29, 2008 TO: Dennis Donovan, PE SUBJECT: Site Plan Engineering 2nd Review for Las Amigas Parking lot LOCATION: 502 N Silverbell Rd, T14S R13E Sec10, Ward 1 REVIEWERS: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY: T08CM02219 SUMMARY: Development Services Department Engineering Division has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval until the remaining comments have been addressed. SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3: A revise drainage statement is needed. Revise drainage statement to clarify discussion of jurisdictional floodplain for the drainage condition along Silverbell Road. The assessment for the stormdrain system does not appear complete. Zone x-shaded should be clarified in the statement - as to whether this is a 500-year floodplain area. Also, for any flows of 100 cfs or more for the 100-year event, a jurisdictional floodplain exists and should be stated as such in the statement. If floodplain limits are not contained within the stormsewer system and right-of-way, add any floodplain limit delineation from a drainage study on planview. The assumption regarding the Anklam Road flow splitting from the Silverbell Road conveyance area is not substantiated. The excluded flow rate in all the storm drain pipes in both Anklam and Silverbell should be clarified. The remaining flow is still unclear. The plan indicates a cut condition and the pavement reconstruction should take into account elevations needed to assure the site is free of flooding. A Floodplain Use Permit is required for construction in the floodplain. 2) Clarify detail 1 on sheet C1. Elevated pavement is effective for maintaining watershed delineations and preventing stormwater from entering the parking lot as in pre-developed conditions. Clarify detail against any drainage findings and for construction and inspection purposes. 3) DS Sec.10-02.2.2.5: A Floodplain Use Permit Application may be required for the proposed development if there is jurisdictional floodplain on the site. 4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Regarding parking space detail with accessible aisle, it unclear whether there is a curb for this as the truncated domes are located on south end of handicapped aisle. Clarify 5'-4" dimension. 5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.10: Label the existing and future SVT's on the planview for sheet C1. 6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: A concrete pad is indicated on the plan view with 2-ft dimension (min required for dumpster. Clarify whether this are will be the new location for the dumpster, and clarify solid waste container dimensions on sheets A1 and C1. 7) DS Sec.11-01.2.2.I: A grading permit application is required for this project due to drainage related grading for the site. The repaving plan may be revised to be titled a repaving/grading plan, or a separate grading plan may be submitted. A meeting is needed prior to resubmittal to assure all comments are addressed. The re-submittal should address all of the above items. Submit 2 copies of the revised plans, a grading application, a floodplain use permit if applicable, a revised drainage statement, and response letter. You are welcome to call me at 837-4934 for any questions. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/09/2008 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/09/2008 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |