Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP13-0223
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/27/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/02/2014 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 720 E. Lester Street Development Package (1st Review) DP13-0223 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 2, 2014 DUE DATE: April 24, 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 December 14, 2014. 2. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) Section 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.12 - An index of sheets in the development package shall be provided on the first sheet. 1. COMMENT: The drawing index does not appear to be correct. What is sheet 4 of 4 for and why is not included on the drawing index. If sheet 4 of 4 is included then the total number of sheets should be 5. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.2.D - The page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx). 2. COMMENT: The page number and total number of pages does not appear to be correct. See comment above. 2-06.4.4 - The project-location map to be located on the first sheet of the development package in the upper right corner, shall cover approximately one square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of three inch equals one mile, and provide the following information. 3. COMMENT: The location map shown on the 1st is not correct. The location map shown on the second sheet meets the minimum requirements for a location map. Provide a location map on the 1st sheet that meets the minimum requirements of this section. 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. 4. This was not addressed. COMMENT: Provide the zoning for the parcels north of Lester Street. 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. 5. The comment was not fully addressed. Provide a width dimension for the eastern most vehicle parking space adjacent to the screen wall. COMMENT: Provide a dimension from the proposed screen wall, called out under key note 6, to the vehicle parking spaces to the south. Per UDC Section 7.4.6.D.2.b Minimum Width Requirement When Adjacent to Barrier. A motor vehicle off-street parking space must have a minimum width of ten feet when the side(s) of the parking space abuts a vertical barrier over six inches in height, other than a vertical support for a carport. 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. 6. This comment was not addressed correctly. The 2' dimension is from the edge of the rack not the center. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.9.B.2.f & UDC Figure 7.4.9-C Show the two (2) foot by six (6) foot parking space for each short-term bike on the detail. 7. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: As the proposed short-term is located near UNIT #1 shown the minimum required two (2) foot six (6) inch dimension to the building on the detail, see UDC Section 7.4.9.B.2.g & UDC Figure 7.4.9-C. 2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown. 8. COMMENT: Sheet 1 of 4 under "SETBACKS" east and rear remove "12" or change "12" to "13". 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 . |
| 04/02/2014 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: April 2, 2014 SUBJECT: Pinnacle Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review TO: David Major LOCATION: 720 E Lester St; T14S R14E Sec06 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP13-0223 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administration Manual (AM) and Technical Standards Manual (TSM). Refer to the following link for further clarification: http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN: 1) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.3.5: Revise the development plan package to provide the approval stamp in the lower right quadrant of each sheet, specifically Sheet 4 (Solid Waste Sheet) needs to have the stamp provided. 2) Complied. 3) Complied. 4) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Plan Package case number (DP13-0223) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets, specifically Sheet 4 (Solid Waste Sheet) needs to have the stamp provided. 5) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.4.C: Revise the development plan package and project location map to correctly label the sections corners, scale and have it cover approximately one square mile. Standard scale is 3"=1 mile for a location map. It is acknowledged that the location map on Sheet 1 of 4 has been revised however the Cover Sheet is still incorrect, revise or remove. 6) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.4.C: Revise the development plan package and project location map to label the Township, Range and Section of the subject parcel and accurately label the west Section line of Section 6 along 1st Ave and not along Stone Ave as currently shown. It is acknowledged that the location map on Sheet 1 of 4 has been revised however the Cover Sheet is still incorrect, revise or remove. 7) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.5: Revise the development plan document to include a Sheet Index on the 1st Sheet that describes all sheets in the package, specifically the Sheet count should read Sheet 1 of 5, 2 of 5, 3 of 5, etc. The cover sheet being Sheet 1 of 5 and the Solid Waste Sheet being Sheet 5 of 5, revise the page count of each sheet to reflect. 8) Complied. 9) Complied. 10) Complied. 11) Complied. 12) Complied." 13) Acknowledged. 14) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Provide written approval from TDOT Permits and Codes that the proposed project does not have to meet the minimum 18-foot radii and that a standard driveway apron can be utilized. The resubmittal did not include anything from TDOT for the approval of the standard driveway apron. 15) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package and provide a Keynote for the existing driveways that are to be closed off to clearly label the curbing and sidewalk dimensions along with a reference to the Standard Detail for Public Improvements to match existing for construction purposes. It appears from the aerial that at a minimum 2 driveways will not be utilized and/or realigned for this project. The existing driveways that are not to be used or that are being revised must be closed off from access. 16) Complied. 17) Complied. 18) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: It is acknowledged that the plan was revised to dimension the minimum 20-foot access lanes, however per the second submittal the location of the water meters as shown on the east driveway will not work. Water meters can not be located within the driveway entrance. Refer to Tucson Water for further clarity. 19) Complied. 20) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the Parking Space Detail so that it is designed in accordance with Sec.7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. Specifically 2.5 foot overhang should be measured from the face of curb not back of curb as shown to ensure the 15.5 foot parking area. 21) Complied. 22) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan document to label the minimum dimensions for the proposed back-up spur at the end of each PAAL per UDC Sec.7.4.6.F.4. Specifically the 3-foot radii needs to be labeled for the curb return. 23) Complied. 24) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to provide a dimension for space #1 adjacent to the 30-inch screen wall. Per UDC Sec.7.4.6.D.2.b a motor vehicle off-street parking space must have a minimum width of ten feet when the side(s) of the parking space abuts a vertical barrier over six inches in height, other than a vertical support for a carport. 25) Complied. 26) Complied. 27) Complied. 28) Complied. 29) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to clearly label the sidewalk connection to all proposed structures. The plan calls out an accessible route but does not clarify how it is to be constructed. Verify with a Keynote that it is a concrete sidewalk per Keynote #7. 30) Complied. 31) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project. 32) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package and Keynote #8 to provide a call out for PC/COT Standard Detail #200 for the proposed sidewalk to ensure conformance with the minimum City of Tucson requirements. Also the plan was revised so that Keynote #7 is shown in the right-of-way, revise to have it reflect Keynote #8 or just use one Keynote for all sidewalks per PC/COT Standard Detail #200. 33) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan package to provide for centralized onsite solid waste and recycle collection service pick up per TSM Sec.8-01.5.1.A. Provide written approval for the proposed refuse collection location. Per TSM Sec.8-01.5.3.G specifically Figure 1 this type of collection requires prior approval from Environmental Services (ES). Also verify with ES that the proposed joint use agreement is acceptable for both property owners. a) New: Per TSM Sec.7-01.3.3.B all areas of development must be connected to the refuse areas. Revise the development plan package to provide for a pedestrian circulation path to the refuse containers on the adjacent lot if the design location is acceptable to ES. 34) Acknowledged. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package and written approval as requested that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 04/09/2014 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/10/2014 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |