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: SITE
Permit Number - T08CM02549
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/14/2008 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | NOT A COT PROJECT |
| 08/14/2008 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 14 August 2006 Reviewed by Ron Brown for 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 Accessibility Compliance SHEET SP-1 A. Provide Detectable Warnings at both sides of Marked Crossing from Public Right of Way complying with ICC 117.1, Sections 406.12 and 406.14. B. Provide large scale detail of sidewalk ramp from Public Right of Way complying with ICC 117.1, Section 405 C. Curb ramp located just NE of accessible parking not required. If to remain, provide Detectable Warning strip. D. Reference accessible parking to detail 1/SD1.0. E. Provide spot grades along Accessible Route to show compliance with ICC 117.1, Section 403.3 SHEET SD 1.0 F. Detail 1 is not as designed on site plan. Redraw and show slopes, ramps, accessible routes, dimensions, symbols, min 8'/8'/8' for widths for Van Accessible, identify Van Accessible" space, and every thing else as required by 2006 IBC, Section 1106 and ICC 117.1, sections 502, 405 and 406. Detectable warning strips are not required by code in this situation, Owner option. G. Details 4 and 5: Flared wing slopes max slope 1:10 not 1:12, Detectable Warnings are required only for raised marked crossings, section 406.12, 406.14 and only 2' wide. |
| 08/15/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Taco Bell - 6616 E. Grant Rd. T08CM02549 Site Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 15, 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 code compliance. 2. D.S.2-02.2.1.A.4 Provide a location map which meets the minimum requirements of D.S. 2-05.2.1.D, A small, project-location map shall be drawn on the first sheet of the development plan, preferably in the upper right corner. The map should cover approximately one (1) square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of 3" = 1 mile, and provide the following information; Show the subject property approximately centered within the one (1) square mile area. Identify conditions within the square mile area, such as major streets and watercourses. Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled. 3. D.S.2-02.2.1.A.6 Within the foot print provide the building height and label any overhangs and canopies. 4. D.S.2-02.2.1.A.7 Provide the required street perimeter yard setback dimension on the plan. This setback is measured from the back of future curb. Zoning acknowledges that Grant Road is at full future right-of-way (ROW) width but the existing curb is not at the future location. The future curb location is twelve (12) feet from ROW line (property line). 5. D.S.2-02.2.1.A.8 Some type of wheel stop will be required the majority of the vehicle parking spaces shown on this site plan. Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.2 When wheel stop curbing is used, it is to be located two and one-half (2½) feet from the front of the parking space. (See Figure 5.) The only vehicle parking space that may not require wheel stop curbing are the two (2) southern most vehicle parking spaces located on the west side of the drive-through. 6. D.S.2-02.2.1.A.8 The wheel stop shown on detail 1 sheet SD 1.0 does not meet the requirements of D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.2 and 3-05.0 Figure 5. Also show the wheel stop location on the STANDARD PARKING STALL DETAIL. 7. D.S.2-02.2.1.A.9 Provide a fully dimensioned layout on the plan view of detail 2 sheet SD 1.0, see D.S. 2-09.5.1 & 5.2. 8. D.S.2-02.2.1.A.9 On detail 2 sheet SD 1.0 clarify how lighting is provided for the bicycle rack, i.e. building lighting, site lighting etc. 9. D.S.2-02.2.1.A.10 Zoning acknowledges that the existing sight visibility triangles (SVT's) are shown on the plan. Based on the future curb location show the future SVT's on the plan. 10. D.S.2-02.2.1.A.12 Provide a dimension from the top of the access ramp, located at the northeast end of the proposed building, to the building and landscape area so that the minimum four (4) sidewalk width can be verified. 11. D.S.2-02.2.1.A.12 Why is there an access ramp shown at the northeast corner of the proposed handicapped parking? 12. D.S.2-02.2.1.A.12 Per D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.3 provide the two (2) foot setback from the proposed drive-through PAAL to the southeast property line. 13. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13 Provide the size and height of the proposed sign called out under keynote 25. 14. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14 Per LUC Section 3.4.5.3 for a building square footage of 2756 one (1) twelve (12) by thirty-five (35) loading space is required. The proposed twelve (12) by thirty (30) does not meet this requirement. 15. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14 Show the maneuvering area for the loading space on the site plan. 16. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.18 Label Grant Road as an MS&R. 17. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.19 Label the "75' RW" as "75' ½ ROW, EXISTING AND FUTURE". 18. 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. 19. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.25 The zoning shown for the parcel located to the northwest is not correct. There is split zoning of C-1 and O-3. 20. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.31 Provide the existing and proposed use on the plan. The proposed use should be listed as "FOOD SERVICE "30", SUBJECT TO: SEC. 3.5.4.6.C AND SEC. 3.5.13.5." 21. D.S.2-02.2.2.A.3 Per LUC Section 3.2.3.2.B, Development Designator "30" Lot Coverage is not applicable for this use but Floor Area Ration (FAR) is. Remove the "BUILDING LOT COVERAGE" and provide a FAR calculation, "ALLOWED FAR & PROPOSED FAR" on the plan. See LUC Section 3.2.11. 22. D.S.2-02.2.2.A.4 Once the use of the office space is clarified, see comment 22, the vehicle parking calculation can be verified. Also in the parking calculation provide the number of vehicle parking spaces provided. 23. D.S.2-02.2.2.A.4 Provide a fully dimensioned copy of the proposed floor plan show that the parking calculation, 1,335/50 = 27 can be verified. 24. D.S.2-02.2.2.A.4 It appears that cross parking is proposed with the center to the southeast. Provide a copy of the last approved site plan or development plan for that center showing that there are additional vehicle parking spaces available over the required number of vehicle parking spaces. 25. D.S.2-02.2.2.A.4 A recorded cross access, cross parking agreement with the center to the southeast is required prior to approval of the site plan. The proposed "11 EXISTING PARKING SPACES AT 9'-0" EA. IN NEW PARKING EASEMENT" does not meet these requirements. 26. D.S.2-02.2.2.A.4 The bicycle parking calculation shown is not correct. Per LUC 3.3.3.5 Bicycle Parking Requirements. The number of required bicycle parking spaces is calculated as a percentage of the total number of motor vehicle parking spaces provided. If the calculated number of required bicycle parking spaces is less than two (2), the minimum number of required spaces is two (2). This said the site plan only shows sixteen (16) vehicle parking spaces on site, 16 x 8% = 1.28. Based on LUC Section 3.3.3.5 the required number of bicycle parking spaces would be 2. Also per LUC Section 3.3.7.8.A Bicycle Parking Requirements. Any use providing less than fifty (50) motor vehicle parking spaces may substitute Class 2 spaces for Class 1 spaces. This said your bicycle parking calculation could be "BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED 2, BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED 2 CLASS 2 PER LUC SECTION 3.3.7.8.A." 27. D.S.2-02.2.2.A.4 Once the vehicle parking issues have been worked out the bicycle parking requirement can be verified. 28. D.S.2-02.2.2.A.5 Provide the number of load spaces required on the plan. 29. As this site is made up of two separate parcels, 133-16-021B & 133-16-021C a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Assessors Combination Request Form and a recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property. 30. All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. 31. There is a heavy line running along the southeast property line please clarify what this line is for. 32. 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\t08cm02549 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents. |
| 08/20/2008 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/28/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | Exception |
| 08/28/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Street landscape borders shall be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee. Obtain permission for any off site landscaping. 2. Show the future site visibility triangles on the landscape plan D.S.2-02.2.1.A.10. Note: Any vegetation higher than thirty (30) inches must be located outside of the sight visibility triangle per 3.7.3.4 revise plant locations if necessary. 3. A minimum of 4' in width must be provided for each canopy tree. The measurement is always within the planter area and does not include any material which defines the outer edge of the unpaved area per DS 2-06.3.3.C. Dimension all planters within vehicle use area on the landscape plan. 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 plan. 5. Additional comments may apply. |
| 09/10/2008 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | September 12, 2008 T08CM02549 Site Plan Review The site plan cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following comments. 1. Revise the detail for the solid waste enclosure. The enclosure walls at the back and sides must be protected by concrete filled steel posts. The clear area between the bollard along the opposite sides and the distance between the rear bollards and the gates must be 10 feet. 2. Show the Sight Visibility Triangles for the driveway adjacent to this project. This is required to demonstrate that the features of this project don't adversely affect the adjacent driveway. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/19/2008 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 09/19/2008 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |