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: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL
Permit Number - DP13-0220
Review Name: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/08/2014 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | 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 and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior to landscape approval signature. |
| 01/08/2014 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Per previous comments: Please indicate location of fire service underground and approximate location of service into building. (A note on the response letter is insufficient. Need to indicate on plan) Provide information AND DETAILS on how gates conform to section 503.6 of the 2012 International Fire Code. Twenty feet wide unobstructed? No center post? Key box provided? Additionally: There appears to be a symbol for a fire hydrant in the east driveway. New installation? There needs to be a way for a fire truck to turn around (refer to City of Tucson Technical Standards for specifications) or a way for the truck to circle the property, in which case the paved road on the east side of the property needs to a minimum of 20' wide. Please clarify. |
| 01/14/2014 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP13-0220 1515 E Ajo Way Purcell Tire Service Center - Development Package TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 17, 2014 DUE DATE: January 31, 2014 (SEE FOLLOW UP COMMENTS 01 - 06) COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the UDC and Administrative and Technical Standards 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 Unified Development Code (UDC). The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and relevant or applicable technical standard 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. Re-submittals 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. 2-06.3.4 - A title block shall be provided in the lower right quadrant of each sheet. 01. Follow up Comment: The title block on sheet five was not completed as requested by the previous comment. Add the information to the title block to match the other sheets. PREVIOUS COMMENT 01, Comment: All sheets shall include the same information in the title block as noted on the development package plan sheets. For consistency, revise the title blocks of all other sheets to match the DP plan sheets. (The title of the sheet i.e. SWPP, Landscape plan can remain.) 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.2.C- Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled. 02. Follow Up Comment: The northwest section corner has been mislabeled. The section number listed as 18 should be 19. Correct as required. PREVIOUS COMMENT 09, COMMENT: Correct the section number on the location map as follows. The section labeled as 18 should be labeled as 19and the corner labeled as 19 should be labeled as 20 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 03. Follow Up Comment: Under the zoning data table, revise the loading and bicycle parking data to reflect the required number and number provided of each for the Commercial (Automotive Service Major) and Commercial Storage uses. PREVIOUS COMMENT 10, COMMENT: Provide on the cover sheet, a full zoning data table that includes land use criteria, development standards applicable to the proposed use, parking, loading, setbacks heights etc. The table shall include the allowed or required development criteria and the actual or proposed. 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. 04. Follow Up Comment: The project now includes a separate principal use that needs to be identified in general note 3 along with the applicable Use Specific Standard. List the Commercial Storage use and applicable Use Specific Standards. PREVIOUS COMMENT 12, COMMENT: Correct or include in general note 3 the "use specific standard" applicable to this use as listed in the UDC use table. The "use specific standard" is 4.9.13.Q. 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. 2-06.4.9.S - Show existing or proposed pedestrian circulation along abutting rights-of-way. Such sidewalks must comply with accessibility requirements for the physically disabled and the design criteria in Section 10-01.0.0, Street Technical Standards, of the Technical Standards Manual. 05. Follow Up Comment: Previous Comment 31.a was not labeled with the width as requested. Keynote 8 can be revised to list the width of the east sidewalk. Previous Comment 31.b was not labeled with the width as requested. Label the width or add keynote 42. PREVIOUS COMMENT 31, COMMENT: Address the following pedestrian circulation comments .a - .d. a. Label the width of the sidewalk along the east side of the building. b. Draw and label a striped crossing minimum four feet wide along the front of the service bay connecting the sidewalk from east side of the building to the sidewalk in front of the lobby. c. Provide a striped crossing minimum four feet wide along the front of the Truck Service Bays from the sidewalk along the west side of the lobby to the sidewalk along the west side of the truck Service Bay. d. All sidewalks must be constructed of concrete except at crosswalks. The sidewalk from the Ajo street right of way connecting to the Sidewalk in front of the lobby must be concrete except for the striped crossing in the PAAL. See redlines. 06. Follow Up Comment: As noted in the previous comment that additional comments may be forthcoming. The Follow Up Comments noted in this review are based on the previous comments not being completely addressed or portions of the comments not being addressed. However, the remaining zoning review comments are minor in nature and zoning is willing to review the revised plans over the counter with an appointment and assuming that the applicant will not be required to do a re-submittal of the development package. PREVIOUS COMMENT 34, Comment: Additional comments may be forthcoming on the next review based on the responses to the zoning review comments and changes to the plans. 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. |
| 01/17/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Comment not resolved; provide the rim elevation of the next upstream manhole, 4812-05. Also, verify the invert of the existing sewer connection; at 75.60' it is lower than the invert of the next downstream manhole (4812-06), 75.62' [Initial comment: Provide the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.] |
| 01/24/2014 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. As per the 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 406.13.1 the detetcable warning strips must be located in the direction of travel of the marked crossing. At both the NW and SW corners of where the detetcable warnings are positioned, relocate both to the fronts of both N and S overhead door elevations so as to be in the directrion of travel. Extend the concrete sidewalk to the North and South as required. 2. The only place where curb ramps are required is in the public right of way where all accessibility requirements are to be as pet COT, DOT. Please change the note on detail 2/4 to read "as Per COT DOT requirements". 3. At detail 5/4 delete the detectable warning strip at the top of the 8' wide accessible parking aisle. 4. Add a note to both sheets 2 and 3: "All slopes of the accessible routes are to comply with ICC A117.7, section 403.3, 5% max running slope and 2% max cross slope." END OF REVIEW |
| 01/27/2014 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/14/2014 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |