Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP13-0174
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/09/2013 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Passed | City of Tucson owned and/or operated Property |
| 09/17/2013 | KEN BROUILLETTE | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/18/2013 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Old Vail Road - Park and Ride Development Package (1st Review) DP13-0174 TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 19, 2013 DUE DATE: October 04, 2014 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. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM). The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above 1. Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is September 07, 2014 . 2-06.3.12 - An index of sheets in the development package shall be provided on the first sheet. COMMENT: The drawing index provide on sheet C1 should include all sheets submitted with this development package. 2-06.4.2.D - The page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx). COMMENT: The "Sheet # of #" should include all sheets submitted with this package, "Sheet # of 12". 2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet. COMMENT: Provide the development package number D13-0174 and the annexation case number C9-84-84 adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 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. COMMENT: Add the "USE SPECIFIC STANDARD" UDC Section 4.9.13.Q to GENERAL SITE NOTE #3. 2-06.4.7.A.5 - On residential projects, list the total number of units/lots proposed. 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - List additional applications and overlays, by case number (if applicable), in lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note provide the type of application processed or overlays applicable, a statement that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the additional application or overlay, the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any. COMMENT: Provide a General Note stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESINGED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA, UDC SECTION 5.4 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R) & UDC SECTION 5.6 AIRPORT ENVIRONS ZONE (AEZ)." 2-06.4.8.B All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided. 2-06.4.8.B There are several locations where the proposed fence is located with easements. Either relocate the fence out of the easement or provide written permission allowing the fence to be located within the easement from any agency having rights to the easement. 2-06.4.9.E - Proposed land splits or existing lot lines shall be drawn on the plan with dimensions and the identification number and approximate square footage of each lot. (Please be aware that, if land division occurs and the number of lots falls within the definition of subdivision, a subdivision plat is required.) Land splits require a separate permit and review. COMMENT: As this site is comprised of two (2) parcels, 141-11-4030 & 141-11-4040, a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the Pima County approved Combination Request form with you next submittal. 2-06.4.9.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. COMMENT: Show the applicable sight visibility triangles (SVTs) on the plan. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6.H.1 Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. That said some type of barrier is required at all areas where a vehicle may be able to access landscaping or unimproved portions of the site. The long dimension between wheel stops will not prevent vehicles from access landscape and unimproved portions of the site. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.9.B.1.e Outdoor bicycleparking areas must be lighted so that they are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacentsidewalks, parking lots, or buildings during hours of use, are met. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.9.B.1.g Vehicular Use Areas. Short- and long-term bicycle parking are permitted in vehicular use areas provided the parking area is separated from vehicular parking and drive areas by a barrier or is located a sufficient distance from vehicular uses areas to prevent damage to the parked bicycles are met. 2-06.4.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual. COMMENT: Per TSMR Section 7-01.3.3.A Within all development, a continuous pedestrian circulation path is required as follows, This path must connect all public access areas of the development and the pedestrian circulation path located in any adjacent streets. That said provide a sidewalk to the sidewalk located in the right-of-way along Camino De Café. COMMENT: Per TSMR Section 7-01.4.2.F Sidewalks associated with PAALs must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation (minimum six inches), barriers, railings, or other means, except at designated crosswalks. That said the sidewalk shown running north/south, called out under Key Notes 8 & 11 must be physically separated from the vehicle parking spaces. COMMENT: Per TSMR Section 7-01.4.1.F Sidewalks or pedestrian refuge areas cannot be located between any motor vehicle parking space and the PAAL providing access to that space. That said the accessible vehicle parking spaces only provide to the PAAL. Provide a sidewalk along the south end of the parking spaces to provide access to the sidewalk system. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 09/19/2013 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET C2 1. The pedestrian concrete walkway crossing the parking lot and then turning west to the public right of way is not required to be accessible. Please delete all detectable warning strips and curb ramps. 2. Please provide an accessible route in front of the accessible parking lot layout and connect to the bus loading zone walk way. 3. Please reference the accessible parking layout to the large scale detail 4/C4. 4. Please insure and note on the drawings that all accessible route slopes are to comply with 2010 ADASAD, Section 403.3; 5% max running slope and 2% max cross slopes. SHEET C4 5. At detail 4: a. Delete the detectable warning strip. Reference comment 1 above. b. Provide an accessible route in front of the accessible parking layout. Reference comment 2 above. c. Show how access is obtained from the accessible parking aisles to the accessible route. d. Indicate a maximum 2% (1:48) slope in all directions at all areas of the accessible parking layout as per 2010 ADASAD, Section 502.4. e. Reference note "C" to a new detail 12/C4. 6. Provide a new large scale detail 12/C4 of the accessible parking sign. END OF REVIEW |
| 09/23/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. An approved development plan is not to be used for construction of on-site utilities (e.g. site lighting). The construction of the on-site utilities requires a building permit. 2. Revise the site drawing to show the location and size of both the water meter and the reduced pressure backflow preventer assembly. Reference: Section 107.2.13, IBC 2012. |
| 09/27/2013 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS Identification and Descriptive Data All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan. Ensure that all Zoning & Engineering comments and concerns are addressed and appropriate revisions are indicated on the landscape plan The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet: The case number for reviews. Additional Information: Purpose and location of utility easements Show future and existing sight visibility triangles. Additional comments may apply |
| 09/27/2013 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/03/2013 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 10/03/2013 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | This review is for site approval only. A complete grading submittal along with a SWPPP will be required. Provide a note indicating that water harvesting will be provided in the landscape areas and show how runoff will be directed to the landscape areas. Make sure the site and grading plans are consistent with the water harvesting plan in this regard. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/30/2013 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/30/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |