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

Permit Number: DP13-0210
Parcel: 10707016F

Address:
1306 W GRANT RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP13-0210
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/23/2013 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed
10/24/2013 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
10/28/2013 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: LoanMax Title Loans - 1306 West Grant
Development Package (1st Review)
DP13-0210

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 29, 2013

DUE DATE: November 20, 2013

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed.

This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM).

The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above

1. Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is October 23, 2014.

Remove the development package from the building plans as they are two separate submittals that can run concurrently.

The development package does not match the architectural site plan and building plan. There is an expansion proposed at the southwest corner of the building and bollards called out in different places on the architectural plans. The development package should match the building plans.

Sheets 1 & 2 by Cypress have been reviewed as the development package. All comment are based on these sheets.

2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

1. COMMENT: Provide the development case number, DP1-0210, adjacent to title block on all sheets.

2. COMMENT: Provide the special exception case number, T13SE00002, adjacent to title block on all sheets.

2-06.4.7 - General Notes
The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable.

2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes

2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses.

3. COMMENT: General Note 3 lists the proposed use as "ADMINISTRATIVE & PROFESSIONAL OFFICE", the architectural drawings show the use as "FINANCIAL SERVICE". Clarify what the proposed use is. It appears that the proposed use is a non-chartered financial institute. If this is the case the proposed use should be listed as "NON-CHARTERED FINANCIAL INSTITUTE SUBJECT TO USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS 4.9.4.L.4 & 4.9.13.Q".

2-06.4.7.A.6 - If a plan or plat is prepared in conjunction with other applications or overlays or the parcel being developed is subject to conditions of an application processed previously, additional information must be added to the plan. Such applications and overlays include, but are not limited to: annexations; rezonings; special exceptions; Board of Adjustment variances; Design Development Options; Technical Standard Modification Request; overlays (Airport Environs Zone, Environmental Resource Zone, Gateway Corridor Zone, Hillside Development Zone, Historic Preservation Zone, Major Streets and Routes, Rio Nuevo District, Scenic Corridor Zone, WASH); Modification of Development Regulations through the Downtown Area Infill Incentive District or Rio Nuevo District; Downtown Heritage Incentive Zone; or, Design Review Board. Provide the following information on the plan.

4. COMMENT: As a general note provide the special exception case number, date of approval, conditions of approval.

5. COMMENT: Provide a general note stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESINGED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA, UDC SECTION 5.4 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R)."

2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide:

2-06.4.7.A.8.c - Percentage of building, lot area, or vehicular use area expansion. If the building(s) or lot area have been previously expanded, those calculations shall be included; and,

COMMENT: Provide a building expansion calculation on the plan.

2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions
The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided.

2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC.

6. COMMENT: The vehicle parking space calculation shows 1,646 sq .ft based on the architectural drawings this should be 1,670 sq. ft.

7. COMMENT: Provided a detail for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled vehicle parking space on the plan.

2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided.

8. COMMENT: The bicycle parking calculation shows two (2) short-term bicycle parking spaces provided. Clearly shown the location on the plan.

9. COMMENT: Provide a detail for the proposed short-term bicycle parking that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Sections 7.4.9.B & C are met.

10. COMMENT: The long-term bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Per UDC Section 7.4.8.B.1.a.(1) No long-term bicycle parking is required on a site where there is less than 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. Revise the calculation to show 0 required.

11. COMMENT: If long-term bicycle parking is going to be provided demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Sections 7.4.9.B & D are met.

2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning.

12. COMMENT: If applicable indicate graphically compliance with conditions of the special exception.

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
.
11/01/2013 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Denied 1. Provide an accessible route to the Grant Road public right of way.
a. Provide all marked crossings with detectable warnings as required as per 2009 ICC A117.1, Sections 406.12, 13 and 14 as applicable.
2. Please note and design all accessible route slopes to comply with 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% maximum running slope and 2% maximum cross slope.
3. Insure accessible entrance into building.
4. Provide a large scale detail of the accessible parking showing all accessible requirements including dimensions, slopes, signage, markings, access to accessible route, ramps as required, "Van Accessible" parking space and aisle.
a. Provide a large scale detail of the accessible parking sign.
END OF REVIEW
11/05/2013 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Revise the site drawing to include the point of connection to the existing public sewer. Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual No. 2-06.0.0, Section 4.8 and Section 107.2.13, IBC 2012.
2. Provide the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole and the first floor elevation. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.
11/14/2013 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 11/20/2013,

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package and drainage statement
SUBJECT: LoanMax Title Loans @ 1306 W Grant
DP13-00210, T13S, R13E, SECTION 35

RECEIVED: Development Package and Drainage Report on October 22, 2013

The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the Drainage Statement and on the Development Package where the revisions were made:

Drainage Statement:

1. The Development Package assigned case number is DP13-0210. Revise the report cover sheet accordingly.
2. The x-shaded floodplain zone that impacts the site is classified as the 500-year floodplain by FEMA. Revise the "Project Description and Location" Section accordingly.
3. It is not clear if the pavement that is being proposed for developed conditions already exists or if the site is mostly covered with gravel. The hydrological analysis shall be based on what is actually existing and what is being proposed.
4. Provide the design calculations for all proposed drainage structures including sidewalk scuppers, curb openings, erosion control structures, and all proposed drainage structures.
5. Provide a drainage exhibit that shows clearly and labels all existing and proposed drainage related information including scuppers, ground and water surface elevations, ponding elevations and limits, drainage structures, water harvesting areas, slopes and slope protection, drainage arrows, dimensions, materials, etc.
6. Explain in the text the building roof drainage direction and explain if sidewalk scuppers will be required. Show the roof drainage direction and provide the scuppers design calculations if proposed.
7. The proposed drainage scheme shall maintain the existing drainage patterns. Address this issue in the report in more details.
8. Address water harvesting requirements in more details and demonstrate how roof and site drainage will be directed to maximize water harvesting.
9. Provide a CD for the contents of the drainage report and the development package.

Development Package:

1. The Development Package Case number is DP13-0120. Provide, on every sheet, the correct case number. Additionally, provide the Special Exception case number (A.M. 2-06.4.3).
2. Revise the name of the department from "DSD" to "PDSD" in all applicable General Notes on Sheet 1 of 2.
3. Revise Paving and Grading Note # 13 to read as follows:

"CALL FOR SWPPP INSPECTION AND PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS. FOR A PDSD ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS, CALL IVR (740-6970), OR SCHEDULE WITH A CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE AT THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT DSD ENGINEERING AT 791-5550 EXTENSION 2101, OR SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS ONLINE AT: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/inspections".

4. Add the following grading notes, which are intended to protect the owner/developer and the engineer of record:

a. The approved Grading Plan/Development Package is the only acceptable construction plan onsite. The Contractor may not use any other plans, such as the approved Tentative Plat and/or Development Plan, for construction purposes. The Contractor may ask the Planning and Development Services Inspector to consult with the other approved plans for additional information or details that might not be included on the approved grading plan but needed for completion of work.
b. The contractor shall remove the fine materials from the bottom of the water harvesting basins and scarify the basins bottom once the construction activities are completed in order to remove any fine material build up caused by construction and to restore soil percolation. Install BMP's at the basin inlet(s) to prevent the fines from entering the basins.
c. Any proposed engineering work to be done below grade (i.e. toe-downs, cutoff walls, drainage pipes/structures, etc.) shall not be back filled until Development Services Inspector inspects the work and approves it.
d. The contractor is not permitted to make an autonomous decision to carry out construction field changes without prior written approval from the Engineer of Record and the City of Tucson Development Services Department.
e. A copy of the approved Grading Plan, Grading Permit, and any Geotechnical Reports shall be kept at the site at all times, until final grading approval.
f. Any revision to the Grading Plan MAY require a re-submittal of a revised grading plan for review. Contact PDSD Engineering at 791-5550 to discuss changes in grading design.
g. Contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100 for any questions regarding any right-of-way permit requirements.
h. As-builts and letters of completion for basin and overall project are required.
i. The Engineer of Record shall submit a statement of conformance to as-built plan and the specifications.
j. The permitee shall notify the PDSD when the grading operation is ready for final grading inspection. Final grading approval shall not be given until all work, including installation of all drainage facilities and their permanent protective devices, and all erosion control measures have been completed in accordance with the approved grading plan and grading permit, and any required reports have been submitted.
k. Depress all landscaped areas a maximum of 6" for waterharvesting"

5. Show and label as "Existing", if applicable, any existing onsite easements. Provide the easements description and dimensions (A.M. 2-06.4.8.B).
6. Show, if applicable. Any existing storm drainage facilities on or adjacent to the site (A.M. 2-06.4.8.F).
7. Call out the existing ground cover (A.M. 2-06.4.8.G).
8. Show on the site plan the required right of way dedication and clarify how it will be processed (A.M. 2-06.4.9.I). Additionally, provide the new lot line bearing and dimension (A.M. 2-06.4.9.A). Check with TDOT and ADOT if the new dedication line is acceptable to them before finalizing the dedication process.
9. The western driveway encroaches on the adjacent parcel and it does not conform to the setback requirements. Additionally, according to the "Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson, Section 5.4 Driveway Locations": Entrance and exit drives crossing arterials and collectors are limited to two per 300 feet of frontage along any major roadway. Revise the driveways to meet the requirements and guidelines.
10. The site plan shows two different building finished floor elevations. Is this the case? Define where the elevations change.
11. The Architectural Site Plan shows the building's southwestern corner filled in. Is this a proposed addition?
12. Provide all proposed driveways and PAAL's dimensions (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.).
13. Show the waterharvesting basins ponding limits with water surface elevations.
14. Show proposed buildings roof drains and sidewalk scuppers if the roof drains discharge onto sidewalks or walkways (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.2 & 3).
15. Show required waterharvesting basins setback lines based on the geotechnical report recommendations. Ensure that all existing and proposed buildings are outside the ponding setback lines (A.M. 2-06.4.9.O).
16. Provide the location of the trash enclosure, and demonstrate how it will be accessed. Provide the trash enclosure detail (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.3) and (A.M. 2-06.4.9.T).
17. Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of Special Exception (A.M. 2-06.4.9.U). List the Special Exception conditions in the notes sheets.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov
11/20/2013 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Denied Submit a Native Plant Preservation Plan or Request for Exception. UDC 7.7
11/20/2013 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) Revise the plans to comply with Special Exception Condition 12.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
11/21/2013 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed