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: T06CM05073
Parcel: 10707018B

Address:
1102 W GRANT RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T06CM05073
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/26/2006 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Denied 1) Show locations of new fire hydrant(s). Locations shall comply with C.O.T. amendments to the 2003 IFC, Sections
508.1 & 508.2.
2) Vehicle gate shall meet all requirements of C.O.T. amentments to the 2003 IFC, Sections 503.6, 503.6.1 & 503.6.2
09/29/2006 SUZANNE BOHNET ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied TO: Jesse Pleger
Oracle Engineering Group
DATE: October 12, 2006
FROM: Suzanne Bohnet, CFM
Engineering Division

SUBJECT: 1102 W. Grant Rd.
Farmer John Storage
Site plan T06CM05073 (First Review)

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan and Drainage Report.

The Site Plan and Drainage Report cannot be approved as submitted. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the SP and GP with your next submittal.

Site Plan:
1. Please provide the elevation datum in General Note 5.
2. Please remove the word "not" from General Note 6 because the subject parcel is in a Flood Zone X.
3. Please ensure the curb access ramps include truncated domes rather than the grooves as shown in the Standard Detail and note this on the Site Plan.
4. All proposed sidewalks located in the right-of-way are required to be a minimum 6 feet in width. Please correct.
5. Please provide a detail for the refuse enclosure (see attached).
6. There are two Key Notes calling out the same feature on the Site Plan at the location of the riprap. Please verify where the 30" wall is and where the concrete header is.
7. Please clarify if the riprap is sloped or stepped. Also, please clarify the type of barrier at the riprap for traffic (i.e., barrier posts).
8. Please provide a basin cross-section and a detail for the weir. Please call out general dimensions of the basin on the Site Plan.
9. Please demonstrate the Loading Zone maneuverability.
10. Per the Transportation Access Management Guidelines 5.8, the driveway throat should be of sufficient length to enable the intersection at the access connection and abutting roadway and the onsite circulation to function without interference with each other. Vehicles entering the property at the proposed ingress may be stopped from in the right-of-way to wait for a vehicle parked in the handicapped parking spot to back out. Additionally, there is not enough space for a vehicle in that location (the handicapped parking spot) to back up without going into the right-of-way. Please review and revise as necessary.
11. Please add the access ramps for the right-of-way sidewalk at the driveway apron.
12. Please clarify the face of future curb.
13. Please revise the future sight visibility triangle (SVT) to show a stem of 20 feet from the face of future curb.
14. On the north side of the building, the pedestrian use area (i.e., sidewalk) is flush with the vehicular use area, per comment response #8 from the Second Review. Please provide truncated domes the length of the sidewalk where there is no vertical separation between the pedestrian use and the vehicle use areas.
15. Please contact Jose Ortiz of Traffic Engineering on the 5th floor of the Public Works Building for assistance in detailing the existing right-of-way dimensions, the future right-of-way dimensions, the future intersection dimensions, the existing and future sight visibility triangles (SVT). This request is due to the lack of consistency in existing right-of-way width on the eastern side of the property and the effect of the tapering of intersection widening at the corner.



Drainage Report:
1. Please amend the second paragraph on page 2 in the Section 2.1.2 Onsite Hydrology by removing the words "but a floodplain (Zone X) exists to the west of the site."
2. The discharge volume table on page 3 (the second table) lists the unit of measurement as "cfs". Please change the unit of measurement for the volume table to cubic feet (cf).
3. Please provide the site location on the map provided in Figure 4.
4. Please amend the Hydrologic Computations Data Sheets (both pre- and post-development) in Appendix A by removing the dark shading from the input fields. The dark color makes the data difficult to read.
5. The report mentions there will be minor offsite flow from the centerline of Flowing Wells Rd. (Section 2.1.1 Offsite Hydrology). It appears there is a 45-foot right-of-way area between the edge of pavement of Flowing Wells Rd. and the northern property boundary. Additionally, there is an existing wall running the length of the property's northern boundary along Flowing Wells Rd as well as proposed new walls. Please explain how much flow is minor flow and state clearly whether or not the runoff flow from Flowing Wells Rd. will affect the project site. Please address how the existing and proposed walls will affect the existing runoff flow.
6. The calculations for the Retention/Detention Basin do not follow the procedures laid out in the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual and the wording of the paragraph on page 3 under Section 2.2.2 Detention/Retention is not complete and/or misleading. Please be advised of the following:
6.1. The site is located in a critical basin, which requires a 15% reduction in the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year peak discharges (i.e., the amount of cubic feet per second), not the 2-, 10- and 100-year discharge volumes (Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual 2.1).
6.2. The site is in excess of 1 acre in size (3.89 acres), which requires the retention of the volumetric (i.e., cubic feet) difference in the pre-development and post-development 5-year discharge (per Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual 2.2).
6.3. The calculation provided on the very last page of the Drainage Report shows a volumetric difference between the pre- and post-development 5-year storm as 7,202 cubic feet but the report states the basin must retain a volume of 4,363.3 cubic feet. Please clarify this discrepancy.
6.4. Please provide the general dimensions of the proposed basin and volume calculations.
6.5. Please review the procedure outlined in the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual page 37 and provide the following:
6.5.1. The stage-storage relationship for the proposed detention basin configuration.
6.5.2. The stage-discharge relationship for the proposed detention basin/outlet-structure configuration.
6.5.3. The storage-discharge relationship from the stage-storage and stage-discharge relationships.
6.5.4. Routing tables for the 2-, 10- and 100-year storm events.
Please be advised that infiltration is not acceptable for any detention calculations.

Additional Notes:
The amount of estimated fill called out on the Site Plan requires a Grading Permit and Grading Plan. Please provide a revised Drainage Report, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), a Soils or Geotechnical Report and a copy of the Site Plan (preferably approved) with the Grading Permit Application. Please address how the amount and placement of the estimated fill will affect drainage patterns. Please note that a Grading Permit cannot be approved until the Site Plan has been approved and comments made on the Site Plan may affect the Grading Plan and vice versa.

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
10/10/2006 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied See zoning comments
10/10/2006 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: FARMER JOHN SELF STORAGE
T06CM05073
Site Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 10, 2006

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 compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC).

2. Remove all references of the items to be demolished from the site plan for clarity.

3. Provide a dimension for the location of the wheel stop curb shown on the parking details. Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.2 this dimension is 2'-6". D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8

4. The proposed handicapped parking space does not meet the minimum requirements of ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Section 502.2 & 502.4.2. Revise detail and plan to meet ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 the space is either 8' parking space and 8' aisle, or a 11' parking space with a 5' aisle.

5. The location of the handicapped parking sign cannot reduce the width of the sidewalk to less then 4', provide a dimension which verifies the width of the sidewalk or relocate the sign. D.S. 2-08.5.1 Provide a detail for the handicapped sign.

6. Demonstrate access to the existing building and provide a floor plan.

7. Please clarify what the one (1) foot band is that borders the proposed 4' pedestrian refuge area around all of the proposed storage buildings.

8. Per DS 2-09.0 Bicycle Parking Facility Design Requirements, Supplement 9 the location of the Class 2 bicycle parking space is required to be within fifty (50) feet of the main entrance of the building, clarify where the main entrance is located. Demonstrate accessibility to the bicycle parking area, pedestrian circulation and the accessible routes are not to be used for access to the bicycle parking space. DS 2-09.3.2, D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9

9. The pedestrian circulation route is not allowed between the loading areas and the PAAL that provides access to that space. D.S. 2-08.4.1.F, D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12

10. All curb access ramps are required to have truncated domes per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Section 406.13

11. If applicable provide the location, type, size and height of existing and proposed signage. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13

12. Large vehicle access to the loading zones appears to be restricted. Recommend relocating the side next to the building with the loading areas located to the west of the sidewalk. This would eliminate comment 8. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13

13. If applicable all easements of record must be graphically shown on the plan together with recording docket and page reference. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20

14. If applicable provide existing and proposed lighting layout and type. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.25

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\t06cm05073.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents
10/17/2006 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Denied Submit NPPO plan or Application for Exception; include acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants.
10/17/2006 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. Submit a landscape plan per DS 2-07.0. to verify that entire site meets current minimum requirements. Indicate all improvements.

2. A street landscape border, per Sec. 3.7.2.4 of the LUC, is a landscape area with a minimum width of ten (10) feet, running the full length of the street property line(s) bounding the site except for points of ingress-egress. On streets designated as Major Streets and Routes (MS&R), the street landscape border is measured from the MS&R right-of-way line as determined by LUC 2.8.3.4.

3. Street landscape borders shall be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee. Up to five (5) feet of the required ten (10) foot width be placed within the adjacent right-of-way area or within the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) right-of-way area on MS&R streets.

4. Fifty (50) percent or more of the street landscape border area must have shrubs and vegetative ground cover per LUC 3.7.2.4

5. Indicate square footage of all landscaped areas and calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage per DS 2-07.2.2.2.g

6. One (1) canopy tree must be provided for every thirty-three (33) linear feet of landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4.

7. A 30" continuous screen along street frontages for vehicle use area must be provided per LUC Table 3.7.2-I

8. Show on the site plan existing and future sight visibility triangles DS 2-02.2.2.1.A.10

9. The planting plan and layout calculations will include the following Information:

§ Both the proper and common name of each type of plant material must be listed.

§ Locations, size, and name of all existing vegetation to remain in place.

§ Material and areas of inert ground cover. All disturbed areas including adjacent right of ways shall be treated with ground cover such as decomposed granite to help reduce dust pollution per LUC 3.7.2.7. Indicate treatment for landscaped areas.

10. Within vehicular use areas, one (1) canopy tree is required for each 10 motor vehicle parking spaces and every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk) per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.a. Verify entire site meets canopy tree requirement

11. Landscaping along parking lots where plants are susceptible to injury by vehicular traffic must be protected by appropriate means, such as curbs, bollards, or low walls per LUC 3.7.2.3.B

12. Landscaping is required along retention basin side slopes, bottom and periphery. Plant materials used in basins shall withstand periodic inundation. A minimum of 20 trees per acre must be provided, 33% of tress shall be 24" box or larger. A minimum of 2 shrubs for each tree is required per DS 10.01. Revise landscape plan to include basin(s) treatment.

13. Submit NPPO plan or Application for Exception; include acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants.

14. Include irrigation system specifications, design, and layout per DS 2-06.5.4.A and 2-06.5.4.B.

15. Additional comments may apply.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
10/19/2006 GERARDO BONILLA OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
10/19/2006 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed