Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP13-0208
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 | |
| 10/24/2013 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/30/2013 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Michael St Paul Planning Technician PROJECT: DP13-0208 2140 North Kolb Road Self serve carwash TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 30, 2013 DUE DATE: November 15, 2013 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code, The Administrative and Technical Manuals were addressed. 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). COMMENT: Revise the zoning and land use notes to reflect the Uniform Development Code (UDC) rather than the Land Use Code (LUC). Also revise the Development Standards to Technical Standards references. This site is located in the C-2 zone (UDC 4.7.2). Automobile Service Minor (carwash) is a permitted use in the C-2 zone (UDC Table 4.8-4). Outdoor activity may occur (UDC Section 4.9.13.E). The Major Street and Routes (MS&R) plan requirements are located under UDC Section 5.4 and the MS&R setbacks are in Table 6.4.5.C.1. 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 October 17, 2014. 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, 2-06.2.5 Fees Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.1 - Each sheet shall measure 24 inches by 36 inches and include a minimum one inch margin on left side and one-half inch margin on all other sides to facilitate efficient record keeping. A larger sheet format may be used with the approval of the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD). 2-06.3.2 - All mapped data shall be drawn at an engineering scale having no more than 50 feet to the inch. This scale is the minimum accepted to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for record-keeping purposes. The same scale shall be used for all sheets within the set. Smaller scales (60:1 or greater) may be used for some or all of the sheets with the prior approval of PDSD when it is determined legibility and the ability to be digitized and/or reduced for archiving will not be affected. 2-06.3.3 - All lettering and text (upper or lower case), and numbering, shall be a minimum of three-thirty-seconds inches in height to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for archiving. 2-06.3.6 - Provide a blank three-inch by five-inch block in the lower right corner of the plan adjacent to the title block on the first sheet of the development package for use by Pima County Addressing. COMMENT: Provide the block for addressing. 2-06.3.10 - A legend that shows and describes all symbols used on the drawing is to be provided, preferably on the first sheet. COMMENT: Revise the legend for the "proposed new canopy" to match the line that you used on the site and grading plans. 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.7 - General Notes The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. 2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes 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: Provide the following information on the site plan. The proposed use is Automotive Service Minor, Self-Service Carwash (UDC Table 4.8-4). "Outdoor Activity: Activity may occur outside" (UDC Section 4.9.13.E). 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.D - Utilities Note All development package documents are to include the following note: "Any relocation or modification of existing utilities and/or public improvements necessitated by the proposed development will be at no expense to the public." 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. COMMENT: There is an electrical easement that is identified and depicted on the ALTA that does not appear on the site plan. Place that easement (DKT 4225, Page 283, P.C.R.) on the site plan. 2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes. 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. COMMENT: Provide the zoning of the adjacent parcels on the site plan. 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: Provide the sight visibility-triangles (SVTs), with dimensions, on the site plan. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. COMMENT: If this is a self-service carwash than there are no parking spaces required. State that there is zero (0) parking spaces required and than whatever number of spaces provided. If there are parking spaces provided, at least on of the spaces must be handicapped accessible. Clarify the spaces with the new canopies. What are they? 2-06.4.9.L - All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. The easements may have to be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval. COMMENT: Depict, with dimensions and use any proposed easements. 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. COMMENT: Depict all existing and proposed signs. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Michael St. Paul, (520) 837-4959. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents. Provide a comment letter with the revised plans and CD. |
| 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 | ARTICLE 7: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING. Street landscape borders must be a minimum of ten feet wide as measured from the street property line. On streets designated as Major Streets and Routes (MS&R), the street landscape border must be measured from the future MS&R right-of-way line as determined by Section 5.4.4. Dimension street landscape border. Street landscape borders must be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee, up to five feet of the required ten foot width may be placed within the adjacent right-of-way area or within the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) right-of-way area on MS&R streets. Obtain written permission for use of ROW. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/19/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |