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 - T11CM01939
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/23/2011 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/24/2011 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 06/24/2011 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Arroyo Chico Urban Greenway T11CM01939 Site Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 28, 2011 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 the changes to the parking area at 450 S. Tucson Blvd. The following comments are for 450 S. Tucson Blvd only. 2. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.5 Provide all property lines on the plan along with the lot dimensions and bearings. 3. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8, D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11 & D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Provide a fully dimensioned parking and parking area access lane (PAAL) layout. 4. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 Provide a vehicle parking space calculation that includes the number required and provided. This calculation can be completed one of two ways; 1. Provide a copy of the last approved site plan and use the number of required vehicle parking spaces shown on that plan, or 2. Provide a vehicle parking space calculation based on the current requirements in the Land Use Code (LUC). 5. Depending on how the above comments are addressed additional comments may be forth coming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\site\2011\t11cm01939 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan. |
| 07/07/2011 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET SP-2 1. The ramp and detectable warning located at the East end of the pathway creates a hazardous condition because it leads visually impared persons into a three way vehicle intersection with no further directions as where to go to a safe area. a. Please delete this ramp and detectable warnings and replace with a raised concrete curb. |
| 07/14/2011 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Being reviewed with drainage review T11OT01226. ===== TO: Olsson Associates SUBJECT: City of Tucson Park - Arroyo Chico Urban Greenway Engineering Review ADDRESS: 410 S Tucson Bl LOCATION: Tucson Bl to Parkway Terrace FLOODPLAIN STATUS FOR PHASE 1: X-unshaded zone & AE zone, 2283L REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E. ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T11CM01939, T11OT01226 SUMMARY: A submittal package was submitted for the proposed City of Tucson Arroyo Chico Urban Greenway Park improvements. Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the plan sheets, W.A.S.H. - ERR report, drainage report, and SWPPP review. Engineering Division does not recommend approval until the following items are addressed. COMMENTS: 1) Tucson Code chapter 29, DS Sec.2-01.3.7.A.6.b, DS Sec.9-06.2.3, DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.2: Project is subject to the Watercourse, Amenities, Safety, and Habitat Ordinance. Please revise the Environmental Resource Report and plans to address the following comments: a) Revise ERR and drainage statement to include purpose of compliance with W.A.S.H. Ordinance. Clarify title of ERR report and associated exhibits, as this report in not exclusively an ERR report but rather a W.A.S.H. Ordinance - ERR Report. b) Provide an exhibit that includes the W.A.S.H. Ordinance information (include the 50-ft study areas) in planview for this phase. Entitle the exhibit as the "W.A.S.H. - ERR" exhibit. Include discussion of impact by the proposed project (trail system) and how there is little or no encroachment into the W.A.S.H. Study Area. c) Include a summary /conclusions section for the W.A.S.H. - ERR Report, stating whether or how this project meets the intent of W.A.S.H. Ordinance by (a) Maximizing opportunities for groundwater recharge through the preservation of specific washes with earthen channels and banks; (b) Protecting existing vegetation found within and near specific washes; (c) Providing for the restoration of vegetation disturbed as a result of development in and adjacent to specific washes; (d) Assist in the reduction of the urban heat island effect by retaining existing vegetation and minimizing structural improvement of urban washes. For example, the proposed asphalt trail could be considered from an engineering aspect, a benefit to help protect vegetation along the W.A.S.H. study area and in the wash, since it would help minimize erosion control and slow down any runoff flows across the top of bank toward the wash and could be considered as meeting the purpose/intent per Sec. 29-12(b) of the W.A.S.H Ordinance. 2) Provide the following clarifications in the drainage statement: a) TC Chap.26. Art.1.Sec.26-11.3: Clarify in drainage statement that proposed fences or walls provide for conveyance of 100-yr floodplain. b) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.2: In section 5.0 of the drainage statement, include statement that the project lays within a non-designated basin management area. c) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.2.E: Clarify / indicate locations of any scuppers or drain pipes beneath trail with associated permanent erosion control. Show on plans - civil sheets and SWPP sheets. d) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.2.C: Clarify that the WSEL's shown on planview sheets C-3 and -4 are FEMA or other derived data. 3) DS Sec.2.1.A.17: Provide estimated cut and fill quantities as on note on cover sheet. 4) DS Sec.2.1.B: Address the following legend / drafting comments: a) Keynotes are missing for sheets SP-1 and SP-2. b) Update matchline references on sheets C-6 and C-7. c) For legibility on planview sheets, consider using a different delineation for the FEMA 100-YR FP line. 5) DS Sec.3-01.5.1.A.1: On sheet L-1 add existing/remaining and proposed SVT's and clarify maximum growth height for proposed vegetation in the SVT areas to assure that sight visibility is provided. 6) DS Sec.2.1.A.23: Provide local vertical benchmark with elevation and provide datum. 7) TC Chap.26.ART.II, Sec. 26-42, Part III.D.3, DS Sec.2.2.A: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Provide supplementary SWPP report that includes and addresses the following SWPPP comments: a) Include a copy of the completed NOI form that will be submitted to ADEQ. The NOI must be signed by the owner prior to SWPPP approval. b) Provide copy of NOT, AzPDES General Permit, BMP details, etc. c) Clarify disturbance limits. Revise the location of either the SWP controls or the disturbance limits on planviews so that the proposed SWPP BMP's are shown within the limits of the disturbed area. Please provide a revised set of plan sheets, revised Drainage Report, revised W.A.S.H. - ERR Report, and comprehensive response letter, per DS Sec.2-04.3.3, that addresses the comments provided above. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department ===== Grading permit required. |
| 07/14/2011 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Replot sheets C-3, C-4, and C-6 so that the CATV and sewer lines are legible. |
| 07/18/2011 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. 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. 2. Ensure that all Zoning & Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. 3. Additional comments may apply |
| 07/20/2011 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/26/2011 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/26/2011 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |