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 and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP13-0046
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/02/2013 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 04/05/2013 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 2510 E. Broadway Blvd. - Façade Development Package (1st Review) DP13-0046 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 9, 2013 DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administrative Manual (AM) & Technical Standards Manual (TSM) were addressed. 1. This site was reviewed for full code compliance for the areas of change only, i.e. façade elevation changes and parking. 2. As a signed LUC waiver was not provided this project has been review under the UDC. Remove all references to the LUC and provide the correct UDC references. The following comments are based on Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) 2-06.0: 3. A.M. 2-06.4.3 Provide the development package number, DP13-0046, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 4. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.4 Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses. That said the proposed use should be listed as "MEDICAL SERVICES OUTPATIENT SUBJECT TO USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS 4.9.4.O.2 and 4.9.13.O. 5. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.6.b Provide a general notes stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA SEC. 5.4, MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE & Sec. 5.5, GATEWAY CORRIDOR ZONE (GCZ)." 6. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.8.b Remove the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) & Building site coverage calculations from the plan as they are no longer applicable. 7. A.M. 2-06.4.8.A Provide site boundary perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted. 8. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.c The Loading Zone Calculation is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.5.5-A REQUIRED LOADING AREAS, Commercial Services Use Group, Medical Services Outpatient the required number of loading spaces is 0. 9. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d Provide a Short & Long Term bicycle parking space calculation. This calculation should include the number required and provided. 10. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d Keynote 24 calls out details 1 and 2 on sheet 1 of 2. There are no details provided on sheet 1 of 2. Provide a detail for both Short & Long term bicycle parking that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Sections 7.4.9.B, .C & .D are met. 11. A.M. 2-06.4.9.O Sheet 1 of 2 the Perimeter Yard 3. East is not listed correctly. Per UDC Table 6.3-4.A DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE C-1, C-2, C-3, OCR-1, & OCR-2 ZONES- Nonres Use to Nonres Zone the required setback is 0. 12. A.M. 2-06.4.9.O Provide building elevations so that all required perimeter yard setback requirements can be verified. 13. A.M. 2-06.4.9.O Based on Keynote 25 the west street perimeter yard setback is 26', proposed west street perimeter yard setback is not provided. Provided a perimeter yard setback dimension from the back of future curb to the building wall. 14. A.M. 2-06.4.9.O As building elevations a wall height was not provided for the southeast corner of the building the required perimeter yard setback for Manchester Street cannot be verified. 15. A.M. 2-06.4.9.Q Provide the height of the building within the footprint on the plan. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ DP13-0046 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package. |
| 04/16/2013 | KEN BROUILLETTE | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/18/2013 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise the sight visibility triangles for the driveway onto Manchester Street. The SVTs should follow the curb line rather than the tangents. TSM 10-01 Figure 18. 2. The plan shows an existing enclosure for a solid waste container. The enclosure appears to be in a location that is not serviceable: there is no curb opening and the enclosure is under the overhang of the building. Google Maps and aerial photography back to 1998 show the solid waste container at various locations around the property and in the adjacent right-of-way. On the development plan indicate the existing overhang or indicate the existing overhang is to be removed. Provide a letter from Environmental Services accepting the existing service location or provide an acceptable alternate location. |
| 04/22/2013 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Approved | . |
| 04/25/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Revise the site drawing to include the following information: a. The point of connection to the existing public sewer (BCS). b. The invert and rim elevations of the manholes upstream and downstream of the BCS. c. The locations of any gas lines, electric and telephone lines, poles, and communications cables, on-ground junction boxes, and street lights. d. Any existing or proposed utility easements e. The first floor elevation for the building Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual No. 2-06.0.0, Section 4.8 and Section 107.2.13, IBC 2012. |
| 04/26/2013 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 04/29/2013 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/29/2013 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Provide previous approved site and landscape plans for reference. If no plans exist then this submittal will become the document of record. Provide the following information if necessary AM 2-10.4.0.2.A.d.e. " Location, size, and name of existing vegetation to remain in place. " Both the proper and common name of each type of plant material. Note: Existing development on the site is subject to the zoning regulations in effect at the time the existing development received zoning approval per LUC 7.6.2.1.1.b 2. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed 3. Additional comments may apply |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/03/2013 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |