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

Permit Number: DP13-0207
Parcel: 12711069A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP13-0207
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/18/2013 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed
10/22/2013 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office
FROM: David Rivera
Principal Planner

PROJECT: DP13-0207
Quick and Clean - Self Service Carwash Development (Tunnel Type)
6042 E Speedway Blvd.

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 24, 2013

DUE DATE: November 18, 2013

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code and Technical/Administrative Standards were addressed. This plan was reviewed by zoning under the guidelines of the Administrative Manual 2-06 and the Unified Development Code. No request to have the development package under the LUC was included in the package therefore any codes sections listed on the plans that are related to the old Land Use Code and Development Standards must be revised to list the current and correct UDC sections in the Administrative Manual and Technical Standards.

This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Development Package Standards listed in section 2-06 of the City of Tucson Administrative Manual. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC).

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 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 .

2. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS)
Section

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS


2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.1.1 PURPOSE
This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews.

The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property.

This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes.

2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY
This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review.

2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided.
The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application:

2-06.2.1 Application Form
A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee;

2-06.2.2 Development Package
A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein;

2-06.2.3 Related Reviews
In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the;

2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews
The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and,

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

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.

1. - COMMENT: Revise the referenced LUC code sections to the current UDC sections.
2-06.4.7.A.6.b - If there is more than one lot within the site, the note should specify which lots are affected by the additional applications or overlay zones.

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. - COMMENT: Zoning could verify the location of any existing easements on the plan sheets. If applicable all existing recorded easements must be, dimensioned, recordation information listed for each easement, and the purpose of the easement labeled.

2-06.4.9.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. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. The basis for this requirement is that some zoning requirements on a project are based on the zoning classification of adjacent property. Also, in some instances, each zone has to be taken into consideration on property that is split by two or more zoning classifications, as each may have different requirements.

3. - COMMENT: Label the existing zoning classifications adjacent to the property boundary including across the street.

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.

4. - COMMENT: Draw and label the existing future Sight visibility triangles.

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.

5. - COMMENT: Per my conversation with Erin Harris a minimum of two employees will be manning the site. Parking spaces for the employees have not been provided. Per the plan it appears that all of the spaces shown are to be vacuum bays and not employee parking. If parking is to be provided the best location would be along the northwest corner of the property.

While the UDC does not require vehicle parking for self service car wash developments it is assumed that the car wash is not manned. In this case there are at least two employees proposed on site during working hours. Is there a location for parking spaces for the employees or no parking at all?


2-06.4.9.J - If street dedication is not required or proposed and the project site is adjacent to a Major Street or Route, draw the Major Street right-of-way lines for those streets. (Add the MS&R future sidewalk, right-of-way lines, sight visibility triangles, etc.)

6. - COMMENT: Speedway Blvd. is considered an Arterial street per the MS&R map. The future mid block width for Speedway is 120 feet. Draw, dimension and label the future right of way line and future curb location.

2-06.4.9.M - Grading Plan

2-06.4.9.M.1 - A conceptual grading plan is required on projects with significant topographic conditions. The PDSD Engineering Administrator or designee will determine the need for such a plan.

7. - COMMENT: Once the development package site plan is approved it the grading plan is also approved concurrently. Ensure that any changes made to the site plan are also made to the grading and landscape plan sheets.

2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the square footage and the height of each commercial, industrial, or business structure and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building(s).

8. - COMMENT: Label the heights of all existing buildings within the footprint or as a key note.

2-06.4.9.T - Show refuse collection areas, including locations of dumpsters, screening location and materials, and vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned, and access route. If dumpster service is not proposed, indicate type of service. For specific information on refuse collection, refer to Section 8-01.0.0, Solid Waste and Recycle Disposal, Collection, and Storage, of the Technical Standards Manual. Refuse collection on all projects shall be designed based on that section, even if collection is to be contracted to a private firm.

9. - COMMENT: While the refuse standard is not a zoning review purview I did see a possible problem with location and accessibility. I sent an a copy of the plan to Ken Perry for a quick review as ES would have to do deal and pick up. The following the response I got from Ken Perry.

Email correspondence:

Hello David,
The enclosure as shown isn't acceptable as it doesn't allow access for the truck per TSM 8.01.0.0 Figure 5 which shows how the enclosure can be configured next to a PAAL. And, there needs to be a full size enclosure for
a metal recycling container that provides the same 10' x 10' clear space for the recycle container. The applicant also needs to show how the truck will exit the site. It looks as if the truck could not pull through as there does not appear to be a circular drive. The applicant would need to place the enclosures and show that the truck would not need to back up more than 80 ft as measured from the front of the collection vehicle (TSM 8.05.3F),
and that adequate turn around area is provided per one of the methods in Figures 6 and 7 of TSM 8.01.

I can't tell the size of the enclosure, nor the construction details, but I don't see bollards within it.

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: David Rivera [mailto:David.Rivera@tucsonaz.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 2:32 PM
To: kperry@perryengineering.net
Subject: 6042 e Speedway Blvd.

Ken

I have a plan that is relocating or providing a dumpster in a location where it is possible that the access may be a problem. Can you look at the attached PDF and let me know if you see any issues?

Thanks,

David Rivera

David Rivera
Principal Planner
Development Services Department
(520) 837-4957
david.rivera@tucsonaz.gov

2-06.4.9.W - Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Indicate if there are any existing billboards on site. Compliance to the Sign Code, Chapter 3 of the Tucson Code, is required.

10. - COMMENT: Label any existing or proposed freestanding monument signage.

2-06.4.9.X - Show compliance with landscaping and screening requirements by locations, material descriptions, and dimensions. Specific plant or hardscape material shall be detailed on a landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan is required. In accordance with Section 2-11.0.0, Landscape Plan Requirements.

11. - COMMENT: See the Landscape Reviewer comments related to the screening and L.S. buffer requirements.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608.

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents.
10/29/2013 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
11/14/2013 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Denied SHEET 2
1. Reference the marked crossing to the soon to be enumerated Detail D/4.
2. Provide 1 "Van Accessible" parking space. Include a large scale detail showing all accessibility reqirements.
3. A building permit will be required for the new canopies. Code requires a 1 hour fire separation rcmu fence between the new canopy that is within 10' of the property line, 2012 IBC, Table 602.
SHEET 4
4. Provide an alphabetical letter to all details.
5. At detail "D":
a. Change the 1:10 slope of the ramps to 1:12 maximum.
b. Add a note requiring 5% maximum running slope at the marked crossing.
END OF REVIEW
11/18/2013 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.

The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet:

Relevant case number for reviews

Label the existing zoning classifications adjacent to the property boundary including across the street.

Additional comments may apply
11/18/2013 LEERAY HANLY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Passed
11/18/2013 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
01/14/2014 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed