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: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL
Permit Number - DP13-0083
Review Name: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/26/2013 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Chick Fil A @ Tanque Verde & Grant. Development Package (2nd Review) DP13-0083 TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 27, 2013 DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administrative Manual (AM) & Technical Standards Manual (TSM) were addressed. 1. This site was reviewed for full code compliance for the entire site. The following comments are based on the requirements of Administrative Manual (AM) 2-06.0. Development package review comments; 1. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a The dimension shown for the wheel stop location is not shown correctly, see UDC Section 7.4.6.H.3. 2. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.d Per UDC Section 7.4.3.G Fractional Amounts. When the calculation of required motor vehicle and bicycle parking spaces results in a fractional number, a fraction of one-half or more is adjusted to the next higher whole number, and a fraction of less than one-half is adjusted to the next lower whole number. That said the short-term bicycle parking calculation is not correct. The required number should be two (2). 3. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.d It does not appear that the proposed short-term bicycle rack can support five (5) bicycles. Demonstrate on detail 2 sheet 2 how this is accomplished. 4. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.d Demonstrate on detail 3 sheet 2 how the requirements of UDC Sections 7.4.9.B.1.b &.e, 7.4.9.2.b. .c, .f, .g & .h 5. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.d Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1 COMMERCIAL USE GROUP, Food Service, the required number of long-term bicycle parking is two (2), provide the required number in you long-term bicycle parking calculation. 6. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.d Demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.9.D.4 are met. 7. Remove the reference to "PRELIMINARY" from all sheets. 8. Clarify why sheets 3, 4 & 5 were added to the development package. These sheets will be reviewed in the building plans. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package. |
| 10/03/2013 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: October 7, 2013 SUBJECT: Chick-Fil-A Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review TO: Bob Hatch LOCATION: 6675 E Grant Road; T14S R15E Sec06 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP13-0083 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Report (Zell Company, LLC, 01JUL13). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administration Manual (AM) and Technical Standards Manual (TSM). Refer to the links for further clarification: http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN: 1) Acknowledged. Based on TDOT's comments the 25-foot curb returns are not required at the existing driveway entrances. 2) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: It is acknowledged that the applicant is working on a temporary construction easement for all proposed construction on the adjacent property. Provide written notarized approval along with a temporary construction easement for any and all work that is offsite prior to final approval of the plan set. 3) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Provide the cut and fill quantities in the General Note Section (GN #6). The Note does not provide volume quantities for grading plan purposes. A grading permit with application and fees will be required prior to any construction onsite. When the plan was submitted this information was not provided and the Development Plan Package was only reviewed for site plan purposes, it was not submitted as a concurrent site/grading plan review. 4) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Provide a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan with a Grading Plan and the grading application, with fees, due to the area of disturbance shown on the plan set. Per City of Tucson Code Ordinance 10209, Chapter 26 Section 26-42.2: "For land disturbing activities that fall under the jurisdiction of this Article, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan must be prepared and certified by an engineer, or a landscape architect and submitted along with the application for a grading permit to the City of Tucson Development Services Department.". 5) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan document to provide a construction detail for the refuse enclosures. The detail must match TSM Sec.8-01 and Figure 3a for the required double enclosure. The project must provide for both a refuse container and a recycling container. The Plan set only shows a refuse container with a storage area. Provide approval (and possibly a Technical Standard Modification Request) from ES if a recycling area is not required. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 10/11/2013 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Revise the plans as necessary to incorporate revisions requested by other agencies. |
| 10/14/2013 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Denied | RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS PRESENTED IN ALL CAPS 1. Provide a large scale detail of the accessible parking layout showing all accessible requirements including dimensions, van accessible space, asile, access to accessible route, markings, signage and grade slopes. a. Provide a large scale accessible signage detail. FOR ALL PLANS SHOWING THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING LAYOUT, DELETE THE DETECTECTABLE WARNING STRIP SHOW AT THE TOP OF THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING AISLE. 2. OK 3. Show compliance with Section 403.3 for all accessible routes to have a maximum running slope of 5% and a maximum cross slope of 2%. ON SHEET 7 THE NOTE IS ADDED BUT NOT REFERENCED TO ON THE SITE PLAN. 4. OK 5. OK ADDITIONAL COMMENTS SHEET 9 6. At the accessible parking sign, show the bottom of the main sign at 7'-0" from finished grade. END OF RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS |
| 10/18/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/21/2013 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Add to "Streets and Roas notes: Right of way permits required for any work within the right of way for curb cut closures or minor curb cut creplacements. Call city of Tucson permits and codes for additional information 791-4259 |