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: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Permit Number - T06CM03269
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/31/2007 | BETSY COTTLE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Completed | impact fees do apply, no site/development plan within the deadline central district 4320 sf $6662.88 |
| 02/01/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Capin Grant Road Brake Shop T06CM03269 Site Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 2, 2007 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with redlines 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 full code compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC) for the proposed expansion only. Due to the change of use proposed on this plan from the last submittal, a complete review has been done based on Commercial Services Use Group, Automotive - Service and Repair. Addition comments have been generated. 2. It appears that this parcel was recently split. Provide documentation that shows that the lot split was processed through The City of Tucson. 3. The provided document which talks about "AGREEMENTS AND EASEMENTS" is not clear as to what project this relates to, provide the full document. Also there is no reference to cross parking in the document, therefore provide recorded documentation which allows for the proposed cross parking. 4. Add a note to the plan stating "THIS SITE PLAN IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OVERLAY ZONES, MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE". 5. There are several references to sheet "C3", sheet C3 is not in the set, revise the references accordingly. 6. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6 Provide the proposed building height on the plan. Addition comments may be forth coming. 7. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 Zoning acknowledges that the building more then meets the minimum required setback to Grant Road. This said the required setback is measured from the back of future curb. Delineate the future curb on the plan and show the required setback from the back of future curb at the closest point along the taper. 8. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 The proposed parking located along the south property line cannot be located within the future site visibility triangle (SVT). Either relocated or provide a Major Streets and Routes Covenant along with a future site plan indicating how the project will comply with LUC requirements when the MS&R ROW can no longer be used as part of the site. 9. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 The proposed vehicle parking shown at the northwest corner of the proposed building appears to encroach into the drive leading into the service bays, clarify. 10. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Provide wheel stops for all vehicle parking spaces where the adjacent sidewalk is less then 6'-6" in width. Show the wheel stops on both the handicapped and standard parking spaces detail as provide where required. 11. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Detail 2/C-2 Handicapped Parking - Van Accessible, does not meet the minimum width requirements of ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003. Per Section 502.2 the minimum width for the vehicle parking space and access aisles combined is sixteen (16) feet. Zoning acknowledges that the handicapped space shown on the site plan meets these requirements. Revise the detail to match what is shown on the plan. 12. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Details 3 & 4/C-2 Van Accessible Sign & Handicapped Parking Sign, the dimension shown for the height of the sign should be seven (7) feet from finish grade, pavement or sidewalk to the bottom of the sign, revise. The sign detail is also incorrect. See the detail provided on sheet C-2. 13. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 Per D.S. 2-09.4.3 bicycle parking facilities will be separated from vehicle parking and drive areas by a barrier or sufficient distance to prevent damage to the parked bicycles. This can be accomplished with the use of curbing or a raised concrete pad. This said it is unclear weather the proposed concrete pad is flush with the pavement or raised. Please clarify. 14. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11 Provide dimensions for the width of the entrances off of Grant Road. 15. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Per D.S. 2-08.3.1 & D.S. 2-08.4.1.D A pedestrian access/accessible route (sidewalk) is required to connect this project to the existing buildings to the east and west. Zoning acknowledges your response of "As per CC & R's for this whole site this can't be done. This said CC & R's do not govern over The City of Tucson's Development Standards or Land Use Code. 16. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Per D.S. 2-08.3.1 & D.S. 2-08.4.1.A A pedestrian access/accessible route (sidewalk) is required to connect this project to the sidewalk in the right-of-way (ROW) along Grant Road. Zoning acknowledges your response of "As per CC & R's for this whole site this can't be done. This said CC & R's do not govern over The City of Tucson's Development Standards or Land Use Code. 17. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.C Provide a sidewalk along the existing parking on the east side of the property and along the proposed parking located at the northwest corner of the building. 18. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13 If applicable provide the location, type, size and height of existing and proposed freestanding signage and billboards. 19. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13 Per LUC Sec. 3.4.3.2 the proposed loading zone cannot be placed in vehicular use area, i.e. access to motor vehicle service bays. Relocate the loading zone and provide the maneuvering area. 20. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13 Label West Grant Road as an MS&R Route. 21. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20 If applicable show all easements of record graphically on the plan together with recording docket and page reference. 22. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.25 If applicable provide existing and proposed freestanding lighting layout and type. Provide a detail; list the height of pole and type of lighting. 23. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.31 Under the "PROPOSED USE: AUTOMOTIVE - SERVICE AND REPAIR" and "SUBJECT TO: SEC. 3.5.13.5 24. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.32 The proposed refuse container location cannot be located within the future SVT. Either relocated or provide a Major Streets and Routes Covenant along with a future site plan indicating how the project will comply with LUC requirements when the MS&R ROW can no longer be used as part of the site. 25. D.S. 2-02.2.A.4 The parking calculation is incorrect. Under the "UP TO AND INCLUDEING 4 BAYS = SHOULD BE 10" and the "2 SPACES PER BAY FOR EACH ADDITIONAL BAY PROVIDED OVER 4 BAYS = SHOULD BE 8, for a total of 36 spaces required. 26. D.S. 2-02.2.A.4 It is unclear what is meant by "SHARED PARKING SPACES". Cross parking on adjacent property can only be used if there are excess vehicle parking spaces available on adjacent properties. Based on the last approved site plans provided: Walgreens had and excess of 14 vehicle parking spaces, but the site was not developed per the last approved plan. Based on an available arial photo it appears that 5 spaces were not put in along the west property line of Walgreens and an addition space was not put in along the south property line which would leave 8 spaces available from the Walgreens site. Burger King's plan shows 29 spaces provided but based on available arial photos the site only has 28 spaces provided for an excess of 1 vehicle parking space. This said there are only 9 spaces available for use by the proposed project. With 22 provided on site and the 9 spaces available the parking provided is only 31, 5 short of the required. Provide the additional required vehicle parking spaces or documentation showing that there are 5 additional vehicle parking spaces on site. Additional comments may be forth coming. 27. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape & grading plan. 28. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 791-5608 ext. 1180. C:\planning\site\t06cm03269-2nd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 02/09/2007 | SUZANNE BOHNET | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: February 9, 2007 FROM: Suzanne Bohnet, CFM Engineering Division SUBJECT: 462 W. Grant Rd. Capin Grant Road Brake Shop Site Plan T06CM03269 (Second Review) RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan. The Site Plan cannot be approved as submitted. Please include a response letter to the comments below along with the corrected copies of the Site Plan with your next submittal. Site Plan: 1. The City of Tucson does not have any "Type" Grading Permits. Additionally, a Grading Permit is not required per the estimated amounts of cut and fill for the proposed development. Amend General Note 5 accordingly or delete. 2. Revise the length of the near side limb for the west driveway sight visibility triangles (SVT) - both existing and future - from 165' to 365'. 3. Per Zoning's comment 8, either relocate the parking spaces outside the future SVT or provide a MS&R Covenant with a future plan showing the required number of parking spaces outside the future SVT. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Thank you, Suzanne Bohnet, CFM Engineering Associate (520) 791-5550 x1188 office Suzanne.Bohnet@tucsonaz.gov |
| 02/13/2007 | SREEVES1 | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Passed | SITE WORKFLOW SHOULD NOT HAVE BLDG IN IT. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/15/2007 | SUE REEVES | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 02/15/2007 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |