Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T08CM00751
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/06/2008 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/13/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Provide acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. Such documentation includes photographs of the site taken from all sides of the property per DS 2-15.2.0.C. |
| 03/13/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. An unpaved planting area, which is a minimum of thirty-four (34) square feet in area and four (4) feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree. The planter indicated in the Keynote 12 of the site plan and in Detail L-6 does not meet requirements. Include the correct dimensions of strip planter within vehicle use area on the landscape, site and grading plans. 2. The planting plan and layout calculations will include the Both the proper and common name of existing vegetation to remain in place. 3. Provide acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. Such documentation includes photographs of the site taken from all sides of the property per DS 2-15.2.0.C. 4. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape & grading plan. 5. Additional comments may apply |
| 03/21/2008 | SSHIELD1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 03/21/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Grant Wilmot Retail T08CM00751 Site Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 21, 2008 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings 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) for full code compliance. 2. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 The proposed building setback to the east property line does not meet the requirements of LUC Section 3.2.6.4 Perimeter Yard Indicator "DD" adjacent to an RX-2 zone the required setback is 20'-0". A Design Development Option (DDO) is required. 3. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 The perimeter yard setbacks for the east property line shown under "NOTES AND CALCULATIONS" is not correct, see comment 2. 4. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 To maintain consistency with D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 please provide the required typical parking space details for both handicapped and standard vehicle parking spaces on the site plan. Zoning acknowledges that a detail has been provided on the grading plan. 5. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 On the typical parking space detail provide a dimension for the location of the wheel stop, see D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.2. 6. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Provide a detail for the required handicapped signage on the site plan. Include a dimension from the bottom of sign to finish grade of 7'-0" on the detail. 7. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Provide an overhang dimension for the vehicle parking spaces shown along the north and south property lines. 8. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1 provide some type of barrier to prevent vehicles from damaging the retaining wall shown near the northeast corner of the proposed building. 9. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 502.5, show the 1:48 maximum slopes for the handicapped vehicle parking space and the access aisle on the handicapped parking space detail. 10. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 To maintain consistency with D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 please provide the required bicycle parking space details for the required Class 2 and proposed Class 1. For your information per LUC Section 3.3.7.8 A. Any use providing less than fifty (50) motor vehicle parking spaces may substitute Class 2 spaces for Class 1 spaces. The Bicycle Parking detail shown on Sheet 6 of 8, Class 2, dimension do not meet the requirements of revised D.S. 2-09.5. Review the revised standard and revise the detail to reflect the appropriate dimension. 11. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Based on grades shown on the grading plan it appears that the running slope of the sidewalk, located near the northwest corner of the proposed building just north of the proposed retaining wall, exceeds the maximum slope allowed per. ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 403.3 12. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 The Class 1 bicycle parking shown on the plan requires the use of the a pedestrian way for access. Per D.S. 2-09.3.2 access to a bicycle parking facility may cross a pedestrian way at a right angle only. 13. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.18 Label Grant Road as an MS&R. 14. 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. 15. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.28 Provide the zoning for the parcel directly adjacent to the west. 16. 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) 837-4956. C:\planning\site\t08cm00751.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 03/21/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See Zoning comments |
| 03/31/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: April 1, 2008 SUBJECT: 6450 E Grant Road- Engineering Review TO: Rick Engineering Company LOCATION: T14S R15E Sec06, Ward 2 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T08CM00751 (Site Plan) and T08BU00439 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the site plan (T08CM00751), grading plan (T08BU00439), Drainage Report (Rick Engineering Company, 03MAR08) and Geotechnical Evaluation (Western Technologies Inc., 02FEB05) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan nor grading plan applications at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for site plan and grading plan purposes only. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: Engineering Division has reviewed this project for conformance with the Development Standards (DS) and Land Use Code (LUC). More specifically DS Sec.2-02, 3-05, 6-01, and Chapter 25 of the Tucson Code. 1) Revise the site plan package to provide the site plan number (T08CM00751) and the grading plan (T08BU00439) on the lower right hand corner of the plan sheets where indicated by "T08CM-_ _ _" and "T08BU-_ _ _". 2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the back-up spur located within the south parking lot to dimension the required 3-foot radii, clarify that there is a wheel barrier (6-inch curbing or wheel stops) to prevent encroachment onto any un-surfaced area. 3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to dimension the minimum 24-foot PAAL width adjacent to the proposed loading space. Provide the dimension for the PAAL intersection at this location. 4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to clearly dimension wheel stop barrier or curbing for the parking spaces located along any adjacent landscape areas and/or pedestrian circulation paths. The barriers are to be set at 15.5-feet to accommodate the required 2.5-foot overhang to prevent encroachment or damage to the proposed landscape area and/or the required clear 4-foot pedestrian path. Specifically provide an overhang dimension for the vehicle parking spaces shown along the north and south property lines. 5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to provide a wheel stop barrier to prevent vehicles from damaging the retaining wall shown near the northeast corner of the proposed building. Refer to DS Sec.3-05.2.3.C.1 for further clarity. 6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Revise the site plan to label and dimension all setback requirements for the proposed egress and ingress access point for the subject parcel. Refer to the Transportation Access Management Guidelines for all driveway setback requirements. Specifically the setback from the driveway to existing roads, electric poles, light poles, fire hydrants, etc. 7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to provide the required 6-foot wide sidewalk along the street frontage of Grant Road. Per the adopted Mayor and Counsel policy all sidewalks along MS&R right-of-ways for arterial and collector streets require 6-foot wide sidewalks. If an existing sidewalk is already constructed along the frontage of Grant Road provide photo documentation showing that the existing sidewalk is in good condition. If the sidewalk is missing in spots or is cracked and buckled a new 6-foot sidewalk will be required. A DSMR will be required for modifying the development standards to allow a sidewalk that does not meet the minimum 6-foot width requirements along Grant Road. The DSMR must be approved prior to site plan approval. All exhibits and discussion must reflect any changes made by the approved DSMR. Provide a General Note to list the DSMR number, the Development Standard being modified along with the date of DSMR approval. 8) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan, grading plan and associated details for the required handicap ramps at the cross walk location to show the truncated domes located at the transition from pedestrian circulation to vehicular use area. The detail does not meet the minimum requirements per ANSI Standards A117.1-2003 Section 406.13 for truncated dome locations as shown. 9) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to show the location of all proposed scuppers under the pedestrian circulation for roof drainage. Provide a separate keynote call out for the scuppers referencing the detail shown on Sheet 6 (Detail I/6). 10) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan and Detail B/5 to provide the required pedestrian circulation path from the proposed buildings to the refuse enclosure. Revise the refuse container and detail to provide the gate location for pedestrian access on the side closest to the sidewalk. Pedestrian access to the refuse container can not be through the loading zone. 11) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise the site plan to label and dimension all proposed curb openings for the detention basin and the scupper locations for the roof down spouts for design purposes. Verify that all drainage improvements that are within the Drainage Report are clearly labeled with details and dimensions on the revised site plan. 12) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Revise the site plan and grading plan to label Grant Road as "MS&R." 13) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.20: Verify that all easements of record are graphically shown on the proposed site plan along with the recordation information. 14) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.25: Revise the site plan and grading plan to label all existing electric poles and light poles adjacent to the property within the right-of-way of Grant Road. Provide the symbols used to denote the poles in the legend on Sheet 1. 15) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Revise the site plan and Detail B to show that the refuse enclosure meets the minimum requirements of DS Sec.6-01. Refer to Figure 3 (attached to the hard copy of this letter) and DS Sec.6-01.4.2 for specifications and requirements on access, placement of containers, bin enclosure and construction. 16) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise the site plan and all associated details to provide the required 2-feet setback from all property boundaries to the proposed limits of grading, fill slopes, detention basin, proposed channel, and associated erosion protection. Provide additional cross-sections on the site plan for all property boundaries that shows the limits of grading and the required 2-feet setback from property line. Revise details H and J to show conformance with the required 2-foot setback form property boundaries. 17) Review and approval from TDOT Permits and Codes for all improvements within the public right-of-way will be required. A right-of-way use permit application will be required prior to construction. Refer to the following links for TDOT Forms and applications: a) http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/applications.html / b) http://www.dot.ci.tucson.az.us/engineering/pia.php c) Or contact Thad Harvison at 837-6592 for all additional questions regarding r-o-w. 18) Be advised that further comments may be forth coming on resubmittal of the site plan, grading plan, Drainage Report and geotechnical report. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: The project was reviewed for grading plan purposes, however until all site plan and Drainage Report comments are addressed the grading plan could not be shown to be in conformance with an approved plan. The grading plan and SWPPP will be reviewed for more accurate details once all of the major comments associated with the site plan have been addressed. 19) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise the grading plan and all associated details to provide the required 2-feet setback from all property boundaries to the proposed limits of grading, fill slopes, detention basin, proposed channel, and associated erosion protection. Provide additional cross-sections on the site plan for all property boundaries that shows the limits of grading and the required 2-feet setback from property line. Revise details H and J to show conformance with the required 2-foot setback form property boundaries. 20) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the grading plan and associated details for the required handicap ramps at the cross walk location to show the truncated domes located at the transition from pedestrian circulation to vehicular use area. The detail does not meet the minimum requirements per ANSI Standards A117.1-2003 Section 406.13 for truncated dome locations as shown. 21) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Revise the grading plan to label Grant Road as "MS&R." 22) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.20: Verify that all easements of record are graphically shown on the proposed grading plan along with the recordation information. 23) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.25: Revise the grading plan to label all existing electric poles and light poles adjacent to the property within the right-of-way of Grant Road. Provide the symbols used to denote the poles in the legend on Sheet 1. 24) DS Sec.6-01.4.2: Revise the grading plan and Detail B on Sheet 5 to show that the refuse enclosure meets the minimum requirements of DS Sec.6-01. Refer to Figure 3 (attached to the hard copy of this letter) and DS Sec.6-01.4.2 for specifications and requirements on access, placement of containers, bin enclosure and construction. Revise the gate location to be located along the pedestrian access side of the enclosure. 25) Clarify Detail G and J on Sheet 6. Provide the location for these details in plan view or remove the details if they do not apply to this project. 26) Revise Detail H on Sheet 6. Per this detail the joint locations are supposed to be shown in plan view but could not be located, clarify. Provide the required minimum 2-foot setback requirement from the property line. Provide a revised geotechnical evaluation for the building setback to the proposed channel and retaining wall. 27) Clarify Details C, D, and E along with Keynote #13 on Sheet 2 for the asphalt design for the vehicular use area. Clearly show the areas that are used for heavy traffic with a separate call out and provide a call out for Detail E for the refuse and loading zone locations. 28) DS Sec.11-01: Provide general grading note, including a grading/drainage note specifying conformance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (excavation and grading requirements). 29) Provide a general note on the grading plan to state the following; "Call for a Pre-construction meeting prior to start of earthwork. To schedule a DSD Pre-construction meeting, SWPPP inspection or general Engineering Inspections, call IVR (740-6970), or schedule with a Customer Service Representative at the Development Services Department, or contact DSD Engineering at 791-5550 extension 2101, or schedule inspections online at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Online_Services/Online_Permits/online_permits.html 30) Please ensure that any future grading plan will be consistent with the site plan and Drainage Report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf DRAINAGE REPORT: 31) DS Sec.10-01.2.2: Provide a revised geotechnical report with slope stability recommendations for basin/channel design along with slope stability for any other constructed slope or retaining wall system. Clarify if the Drainage Report and site/grading plan match the geotechnical report. 32) Provide a revised Drainage Report showing scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk at all scupper concentration points. Provide details and dimensions in plan view for the scuppers on the proposed site/ grading plan. 33) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.B: Revise the Drainage Report to provide for all basin design requirements. Provide the following within the revised report to show that the proposed basin is designed to meet the detention storage volume requirements per this section. Provide the following: a) Provide and describe Reservoir-Routing Calculation Sheets for the proposed basin for the 2-, 10- and 100-year design floods at a minimum. The R-R Calculation Sheets shall, at a minimum, consist of a working table and a routing-table for each flow event. Note that final basin design must be approved prior to approving the grading plan or site plan. b) Provide and describe any other Hydraulic Calculation Sheets prepared while evaluating stage-storage and stage-discharge relationships or any other pertinent data used in the basin analysis and design. c) Submit plotted inflow and outflow hydrograph. Including any lag-time calculations. GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION: 34) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: Provide a revised geotechnical evaluation that addresses the following: a) Provide a new report or at a minimum an addendum to the submitted report, dated 02FEB05, that is site specific. The report submitted is for the property adjacent to the proposed parcel, the addendum must provide a discussion that the site conditions for this property are the same as for the adjacent property and that all recommendation within the report are valid. b) Provide slope stability recommendations for all proposed constructed slopes. The slope treatment that is shown on Sheet 5 must be verified within a revised geotechnical evaluation. c) Provide a discussion within the geotechnical evaluation for the proposed design of the building and the retaining wall system that is used along the east side of the building adjacent to the proposed channel. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan, grading plan, Drainage Report, and Geotechnical Evaluation that address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Enclose "redlines" with the resubmittal package. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site plan, grading plan, Drainage Report, and Geotechnical Evaluation reviews. If you have any questions or to schedule an appointment I can be reached at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/09/2008 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 04/09/2008 | SHANAE POWELL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |