Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: DP12-0012
Parcel: 11612152B

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - DP12-0012
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/25/2012 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
01/25/2012 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed
02/06/2012 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Denied 1. Identify all accessible routes and show slope complinace with IC A117.1, Swection 403.3.
2. Call out widths of all accessible routes.
END OF REVIEW
02/08/2012 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: February 8, 2012
SUBJECT: Speedway Triplex Development Plan Package
TO: Dana Holguin
LOCATION: 1331 W Speedway Blvd T14S R14E S11 Ward 1
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP12-0012


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under Development Standard 2-01. All comments reflect Site Plan review. The following items need to be addressed:


SITE PLAN: It is recommended that Development Standard 2-01 "Development Package" be reviewed prior to resubmittal. DS Sec.2-02 no longer exists and all reviews fall under DS Sec.2-01 for Development Package. The standard has changes that must be incorporated into the plan sheets for review and approval.

1) DS Sec.2-01.2.4: Revise the plan sheets to include the title block in the lower right quadrant of each sheet.

2) DS Sec.2-01.2.5: Revise the development plan document to include the correct CDRC approval stamp in the lower right quadrant of each sheet. The link to the stamp can be found here: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/cdrc-rezoning/cdrd-stamp

3) DS Sec.2-01.3.2: The corrected title block shall include a brief legal description and the page number and number of pages within the set.

4) DS Sec.2-01.3.3: The relevant Development Plan Package number (DP12-0012) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets.

5) DS Sec.2-01.3.7.A.6.b: Provide a General Note on the Development Plan Package that references all special overlay zones that are applicable to this site, specifically state that "the project is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria for Sec.2.8.3 Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone."

6) DS Sec.2-01.3.7.B.1.a: Revise the Drainage Note to include all of the note per the referenced standard specifically; "The developer, any successors and assigns, will hold the City of Tucson, its officers, employees, and agents harmless from any and all claims for damages related to the use of this development as shown hereon, now and in the future, by reason of flooding, flowage, erosion, or damage caused by water, whether surface flood or rainfall."

7) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.F: Revise the plan set to label all existing storm drainage facilities on and adjacent to the site. Provide the Improvement Plan reference Number in plan view.

8) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.1: Revise the development plan documents to label the required 25-foot radii for the concrete curb returns for the proposed driveway location per City of Tucson Transportation Access Management Guidelines (TAMG), Section 5.5. Refer to DS Sec.3-01.3.2.C for street development standards.

9) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.2: Revise the development plan documents, specifically the site plan to show the existing and future sight visibility triangles for the PAAL access and Speedway Blvd. Since Speedway is a designated MS&R street the SVTs are based on the MS&R cross section

10) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan document to clearly label and dimension all areas of the proposed vehicular use area per DS Sec.3-05. Label all radii, parking space dimensions (or label Keynote to reference detail), back-up spur, etc.

11) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.I: Provide written approval from both TDOT and Real Estate Departments for the proposed improvement within the future public right-of-way of Speedway Blvd. Provide all Real Estate conditions on the development plan document, i.e. Temporary Revocable Easement with conditions.

12) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.J: Revise the development plan document to label all dimensions for the MS&R Route, Speedway Blvd. Since the project site is adjacent to a Major Street & Route clearly label and dimension the MS&R future sidewalk, curb, and sight visibility triangles.

13) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project.

14) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.T: Provide approval (email or letter) from Environmental Services for the proposed rollout dumpsters and alley access pickup. Verify that the rollout meets all requirements within DS Sec.6-01.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments.

Further comments may be generated upon re-submittal of the Development Plan Package. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929.



Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
02/09/2012 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: 1331 W. Speedway Blvd. - Triplex
Development Package
DP12-0012

TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 10, 2012

DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed.

Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development package. If, at the end of that time, the development package has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is January 16, 2013.

The following comments are based on Development Package Submittal Requirements:

1. All general notes, calculations, legends should be placed on the first sheet unless space is not available.

The following comments are based on Development Standard 2-01.0:

D.S. 2-01.3.1 The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property
owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s),
or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided
on the right half of the cover sheet.

1. D.S. 2-01.3.2.B Provide a brief legal description in the title block.

2. D.S. 2-01.3.2.D Remove the address from the title block and place it adjacent to the title block in the lower right corner of the page.

3. D.S. 2-01.3.3 Provide the following relevant case numbers adjacent to the title block on each sheet; D12-0012.

4. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.2 List the gross area of the site by square footage and acreage.

5. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.4 Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the Land Use Code. List all Land Use Code sections each proposed use is subject to. That said the existing use should be listed as "FAMILY DWELLING "I", SUBJECT TO: SEC. 3.5.7.1.F", the proposed use should be listed as "FAMILY DWELLING "K", SUBJECT TO: SEC. 3.5.7.1.F".

6. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.6.b Provide a general note on sheet 1 stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA: SEC. 2.8.3, MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE"

7. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.b Per LUC Section 3.2.3.1.C, Development Designator "K" Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is not applicable. Provide a Lot Coverage calculation that meets the requirements of LUC Section 3.2.9.

8. D.S. 2-01.3.9.E As it appears that a lot line reconfiguration is proposed the reconfiguration will need to be done prior to approval of the Development Package. The following documents will need to be provided to the zoning review section for the reconfiguration; meets and bounds legal descriptions, residential plot plan for parcel 116-12-151B showing that all zoning requirements are met. A separate lot split application will required.

9. D.S. 2-01.3.9.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.

10. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.2 Show future and existing sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section.

11. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.4 Indicate if existing streets are public or private; provide street names, widths, curbs, sidewalks, and utility locations, all fully dimensioned.

12. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H Per LUC Section 3.3.6.6.2 Access lanes and PAALs shall be setback at least two (2) feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction. The additional area is necessary to provide clearance for fire, sanitation, and delivery vehicles. That said show this two (2) foot setback along the east side of the proposed parking area access lane (PAAL). For your information the area of the access lane that does not provide direct access to parking can be twenty (20) feet wide.

13. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Under the "PARKING CALCULATIONS", there is reference to "REDUCTION PER LUC 3.3.5.1 (0%)". Is an Individual Parking Plan proposed?

14. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a It appears that the sidewalk proposed west of the vehicle parking spaces is less than 6'-6" wide. Provide wheel stops for the vehicle parking spaces.

15. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Provide a detail for a standard vehicle parking space that includes wheel stops.

16. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.c Clarify what the "'30' + '32'" means under the loading space calculation.

17. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d the bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.3.8.2.B, RESIDENTIAL USE GROUP, Multifamily Dwellings and Group Dwellings, SHORT-TERM Required = 0.10 spaces per bedroom. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces, LONG-TERM Required = 0.5 spaces per bedroom. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. For your information Per LUC Section 3.3.9.4.B LONG-TERM bicycle parking maybe provided inside a residential unit. If the required LONG-TERM bicycle parking will be provided within a residential unit, provide a note on the plan stating that.


18. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Provide a Short & Long Term bicycle parking calculation on the plan.

19. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Provide a detail for both Short & Long Term bicycle parking that clearly shows how the following LUC Sections are met; LUC 3.3.9.2., .3 & .4.

20. D.S. 2-01.3.9.J As this project is full code compliance and the existing and proposed buildings do not meet street perimeter yard setback requirements provide a future site plan that shows how this site will meet future perimeter yard setback requirements. The future site plan is required to meet the requirements of D.S. 2-01.0.

21. D.S. 2-01.3.9.O Provide a perimeter yard setback dimension from the building to the west property line.

22. D.S. 2-01.3.9.Q Provide the building height within in the building foot print.

23. D.S. 2-01.3.9.Q Under the "PARKING CALCULATIONS", "S.F." there appears to be a building square footage of 2,800. Under "L.U.C. PROJECT DATA", "TOTAL BLDG. AREA" the square footage is shown as 3,286. And if the square footage shown within the foot print on Sheet C2.0 is added up the total is 3,207 S.F., clarify.

24. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Provide a width dimension for all sidewalks on the plan.

25. Provide the CDRC stamp on all sheets of the development package. This stamp can be found at the following web site "http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/cdrc-rezoning/cdrd-stamp"

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com

Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ DP12-0003

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package.
02/13/2012 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied Revise the site drawing to include the following information:
a. the size of the water meter
b. the location, invert, and rim elevation of the upstream and downstream manholes
c. the first floor elevation for the building
Reference: City of Tucson Development Standard No. 2-01.0.0, Section 3.8 D and Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006.
02/17/2012 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. On streets designated as Major Streets and Routes (MS&R), the street landscape border is measured from the future MS&R right-of-way line as determined by LUC 2.8.3.4.

2. An approved site plan is required indicating how the project will comply with LUC requirements when theMS&R right-of-way can no longer be used as part of the site. Such plan is to be an exhibit to an executed covenant for recordation stating the responsibility of the property owner, successor, or assignee as to the removal of improvements and compliance with the LUC at no cost to the City LUC 2.8.3.5.F

3. A 10' interior landscape border is required along site boundaries of the adjacent residential properties per LUC Table 3.7.2-I

4. Where motor vehicle parking spaces or parking area access lanes (PAALs) are located next to the property line or where the interior landscape border conflicts with a utility easement, an interior landscape border is not required if:

a. An equivalent number of trees are planted elsewhere on the site between the building(s) and theproperty line. When the use on the site does not include buildings, the required canopy treesmust be located between the principal use and the property line;

b. The trees are evenly distributed over the site; and

c. The minimum planting area required in Sec. 3.7.2.3.A.1.c is provided for each canopy tree.

5. A 5' wall is required to screen vehicle use are from adjacent residential properties per LUC Table 3.7.2-I.

6. All landscape areas will be depressed to accept water flow from roofs, PAAL, and parking areas. Show by detail or spot elevations how landscape areas will accommodate water harvesting.

7. 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.

8. Additional comments may apply.
02/17/2012 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
10/26/2012 FERNE RODRIGUEZ OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed