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 and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP17-0046
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/09/2017 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: May 10, 2017 DUE DATE: June 5, 2017 SUBJECT: New Convenience Store with a fuel Canopy TO: Greg Bennett, PE LOCATION: 333 W Grant Road REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM ACTIVITY: DP17-0046 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. The following items need to be addressed: 1) Per previous comment number 5 and TSM 2-01.4.1C6 please update the plan to comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical report first submitted with the second submittal. These recommendations include page 11 of the geotechnical report, which states that the 28 day compressive strength of the concrete shall be a minimum of 3,700 psi. Please update paving and grading note 21 on sheet 2 and the 3,000 psi concrete callout in detail H on sheet 3 to both require 3,700 psi minimum compressive strength concrete per the geotechnical report. Another recommendation is found on page 4 of the geotechnical report which states that roof drainage should be directed through internal roof drains and piped to retention basins or discharge points located at least 10 feet away from the building. Further, "A minimum slope of at least 5 percent for a distance of 10 feet is recommended for unpaved landscaped areas." Sheet 6 of the plans shows a water harvesting area within 10 feet of the south side of the proposed structure where the grades need to be clarified/modified. Per AM 2-06.4.9N this may require updating section 3.3 of the drainage report to reflect the actual amount of water harvesting provided. 2) Per previous comment 7 and TSM 10-01.3.2C (ie. Figure 6) please show curb returns at a minimum 25' radius for PAALs that enter onto arterials and collectors (ie. Grant Road) or apply for or update/modify the existing TSMR. This applies to sheet 5. If you have any comments questions or wish to discuss new information, please call or email Loren Makus at 520-837-4927 or loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov. |
| 05/17/2017 | SSHIELD1 | HC SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See Zoning comments. |
| 05/17/2017 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Principal Planner PROJECT: Circle "K" Grant and Oracle Development Package (2nd Review) DP17-0046 TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 17, 2017 DUE DATE: June 05, 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 March 9, 2018. 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 1. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide the following within General Note 3 "subject to Use Specific Standard 4.9.9.B.1". 2-06.4.7.A.4 - The existing use listed under General Note 3 is not correct and should be listed as General Merchandise Sales subject to Use Specific Standard 4.9.9.B.1. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 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. Until a building permit has been initiated a hold cannot be put on the building certificate of occupancy and this comment stands. Also per Engineering comment 21 all easements the conflict with the building location will need to be abandoned. 2-06.4.8.B -There is a "15' ELEC ESMT" shown to be abandoned/relocated in the lower right corner of the plan. This easement will need to be abandoned prior to approval of the development package. 2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes. 3. Until a building permit has been initiated a hold cannot be put on the building certificate of occupancy and this comment stands. 2-06.4.9.A - As this site is made up of two (2) parcels, 115-05-087J and 115-05-087K, a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request form with your next submittal. 4. This comment was not fully addressed. Sheet 1 provide the zoning for the parcels west of Oracle Road and south of Sahuaro Street. 2-06.4.9.F - All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. 5. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Clarify if cross access is still proposed to the parcel to the east. If so provide an access lane width dimension from the northwest corner of the proposed trash enclosure north to the curb. Sheet 5 shows what appears to be a curb running from the northeast corner of the trash enclosure north to the curb but it is not shown on sheets 6 or 7, clarify what is happening in this area. 6. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Zoning acknowledges that this comment should have been made on the first review but as other corrects are still required and you exceed the number of required vehicle parking spaces the required number of vehicle parking spaces needs to be modified to include the outdoor seating area shown on the plan. Reference UDC Article 7.4.3.F.4. 7. This comment was not addressed. UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1.e states "Outdoor bicycle parking areas must be lighted so that they are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent sidewalks, parking lots, or buildings during hours of use." Clearly demonstrate on the plan or details how this requirement is met. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Clearly demonstrate on the plan or details how the requirement of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1.e are met for both the short and long term bicycle parking. 8. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - As you have relocated the short term bicycle parking to be adjacent to the building provide a dimension that demonstrates that UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.g is met. 9. This comment was not fully addressed. Show that the required perimeter yard setback is measured from the nearest edge of travel lane along Sahuaro Street. 2-06.4.9.O - Sheet 1 and 5 required street perimeter yard setback for Sahuaro Street is not correct. Per UDC Table 6.4.5.C-1 ADT of 140 to 1000 the required street perimeter yard should be 21' or the height of the exterior wall measured from the nearest edge of travel lane. 10. This comment was not fully addressed. If you are electing to process a TSMR the TSMR will need to be submitted and approved prior to approval of the development package. If approved Provide the TSMR case number adjacent to the title block on all sheets and provide a general note stating the TSMR case number, date of approval, what was modified and if applicable any conditions of approval. 2-06.4.9.R - Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.A At least one sidewalk is required to a project from each street on which the project has frontage, unless there is no vehicular access from a street because of a physical barrier, such as a drainageway or an unbroken security barrier (e.g., a wall or fence). The sidewalk should be located to minimize any conflict with vehicular access to the project. That said clearly show the required sidewalk out to Grant and Oracle Road. The sidewalk cannot run between the proposed trash enclosure and the access to the enclosure. 11. 2-06.4.9.R - Until comment 5 above is addressed sidewalk requirements cannot be verified from the southeast end of the trash enclosure to the sidewalk located along Grant Road. If you are proposing to close off the cross access to the parcel to the east a sidewalk, physically separated from the vehicle use areas is required. If the cross access is to remain the only area that can be stripped asphalt paving would be from the northeast corner of the trash enclosure across the access lane. 12. 2-06.4.9.R - Sheet 7 keynote 11 points to a ramp located at the southeast corner of the trash enclosure. Keynote 11 references "PC/COT STD. DTL. 207" the ramp shown does not match any ramps referenced under PC/COT STD. DTL. 207. Provide a ramp detail for this ramp that demonstrates how the requirements of ICC A117.1-2009 Section 405 are met. 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 |
| 05/30/2017 | JVINCEN1 | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/31/2017 | 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. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply. |
| 06/02/2017 | ARUIZ1 | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Needs Review |