Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP16-0235
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/04/2017 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Principal Planner PROJECT: NEC Grant and Tucson - New Development Development Package (1st Review) DP16-0235 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 9, 2017 DUE DATE: January 26, 2017 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments 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). 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 December 26, 2017. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, DP16-0235, adjacent to the 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. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Sheet 1 General Note you list use specific standard 4.9.4.M.1. The way your note is written makes it seem that 4.9.4.M.1 applies to both food service and exercise club. The use specific standards should be listed so that it is clear as to what use they apply, FOOD SERVICE Excluding Soup Kitchens, SUBJECT TO USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS 4.9.4.M.1 and 4.9.13.P & EXERCISE CLUB SUBJECT TO USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS 4.9.13.P. 2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development 3. The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes.2-06.4.9.H.2 - "FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY DETAIL, TUCSON BOULEVARD" sheet 7, does not appear that the future curb is shown correctly therefore the future sight visibility triangles are not shown correctly. 4. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - The vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Per UDC Article 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 number required for the "EXERCISE CLUB" 3340/200 = 16.7 plus the "FOOD SERVICE" 4000/100 = 40 the total would be 56.7 or 57 not 56 as shown on the plan. 5. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - The UDC code references for the proposed reductions in vehicle parking not correct, see UDC Articles 7.4.5.E. 6. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - The proposed vehicle parking space reduction based on 7.4.5.E.8 is not applicable to this project. 7.4.5.E.8 states Reduction Based on Providing Trash and Recycling Enclosures, When an existing development is modified to comply with the enclosure requirement for trash and recycling, the number of required parking spaces may be reduced up to two parking spaces per container enclosure, but not to exceed 10% of the required parking. This is not an existing site that is being modified to comply, this is a new development. 7. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - The "FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY DETAIL GRANT ROAD" sheet 7, shows two (2) vehicle parking spaces within the future SVT's. These vehicle parking spaces cannot count toward the provided number or you need to show how the vehicle parking will be met in the future when Grant is widened. 8. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - As modifications are proposed to the adjacent development, DP15-0190, the development package will need to be revised to show the additional vehicle parking along with a revised vehicle parking calculation. 9. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Provide a fully dimensioned short term bicycle parking detail, see redline. 10. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - It does not appear that the short term bicycle location meets the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.C.2.d. 11. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - It appears that the long term bicycle parking will be located within so type of equipment room. As this equipment room will most likely be locked provide signage the will provide direction on how access is provided to the long term bicycle parking. 12. 2-06.4.9.J - "FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY DETAIL, TUCSON BOULEVARD" sheet 7, does not appear that the future right-of-way (ROW) is shown correctly. If does not match what is shown on DP15-0190. 13. 2-06.4.9.L - It appears that at a minimum cross access is proposed between this site and the parking to the north. Provide some type of agreement or easement and provide the recordation information on the plan. 14. 2-06.4.9.O - Until comment 12 above is addressed the future required street perimeter yard setback to Tucson Blvd. cannot be verified. Provide a setback dimension on the detail. 15. 2-06.4.9.O - "FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY DETAIL, GRANT ROAD" sheet 7 does not provide a street perimeter yard setback dimension. 16. 2-06.4.9.Q - Clearly show the proposed "400 SF PATIO" on the plan. 17. 2-06.4.9.R - Clearly show the proposed accessible route from the proposed accessible vehicle parking spaces to the accessible building entrances and to at least one of the ROW pedestrian circulations. 18. 2-06.4.9.R - Clearly show the required handrail extensions, called out under keynote 23, see ICC A117.1-2009 Section 505.10, so that minimum sidewalk widths can be verified. 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 |
| 01/09/2017 | SSHIELD1 | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | SEE ZONING COMMENTS |
| 01/13/2017 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/17/2017 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/17/2017 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE 4.1 Identification and Descriptive Data A. All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan. B. The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet: 1. Legal description and address of site; 2. Cross-reference to: a. Rezoning case; b. Subdivision case; c. Board of Adjustment case; d. Design Development Option case; e. Development Review Board (DRB) case; and/or, f. Any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site. Ensure that all zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply. |
| 01/23/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (2430.27') is higher than the first floor elevation (2425.50'). Provide a note on the plans requiring the installation of a backwater valve when future plumbing activities take place. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 01/23/2017 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Drainage Report Comments: 1. Revise the drainage report to provide a consistent parcel area. On page 2 the drainage report lists a parcel area of 1.01 acres. The sum of the on-site watersheds is 1.01 acres. Page 5 says that since the site is less than one acre it is not subject to 5-year threshold retention. Since the site is at least one acre in size, five-year threshold retention must be accounted for. It appears the retention volume may be met with the water harvesting proposed. 2. MapTucson indicates an approximate floodplain in the Tucson Boulevard alignment. The report completed by JE Fuller for the associated floodplain doesn't show this area as a flood hazard area. Please discuss whether the discharge or breakout from Tucson Boulevard affects the project site. Development Package site and grading comments 3. Specific Plan R-2014-004 has been adopted for Grant Road between Oracle Road and Swan Road as part of the Major Streets and Routes Plan. (MS&R Plan Page 24) Show this alignment on the plan as future MS&R right of way. Questions about this alignment should be directed to the Grant Road project team. This specific plan was adopted on March 17, 2015 with Mayor and Council resolution 22369. See http://www.grantroad.info/pdf/align_concept_2009.pdf sheet 8. 4. The large water harvesting/retention basin shown on the plan sheets appears to be within the MS&R right-of-way. Discuss how the loss of the basin to the road widening will be mitigated. 5. The site plan shows drainage directed toward the future right-of-way. Show coordination with the TDOT project managers for future drainage solutions. Once the drainage and MS&R comments have been addressed, additional comments may be forthcoming. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/07/2017 | ARUIZ1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |