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: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP14-0011
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/21/2014 | CPIERCE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/31/2014 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 02/05/2014 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP14-0011 - (Revision) 3915 e Fort Lowell Road Development Package - Site Review for Puente Nuevo Plaza Condominiums TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 3, 2014 DUE DATE: February 18, 2011 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 zoning review comments include the actual 2-06 Administrative Manual Standard (AM) first with the applicable AM 2-06 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 Link to the Digital Development Package Plan Stamp for all development package applications. http://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/dsd/CDRC/acad-cot_stamp_model_1.pdf 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 . A.M. Section 2. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) Section A.M. Section 2-06.1.0 GENERAL A.M. Section 2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS A.M. Section 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS A.M. Section 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS A.M. Section 2-06.1.0 GENERAL A.M. Section 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. A.M. Section 2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review. A.M. Section 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: A.M. Section 2-06.2.1 Application Form A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee; A.M. Section 2-06.2.2 Development Package A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein; A.M. Section 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 development package documents; A.M. Section 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, A.M. Section 2-06.2.5 Fees Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule. A.M. Section 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS A.M. Section 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). A.M. Section 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. A.M. Section 2-06.3.5 - A three-inch by five-inch space shall be reserved in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for an approval stamp. 01. COMMENT: Revise the approval stamp to match the current version that can be downloaded from the PDSD website. Use the link above to download the Digital PDSD Approval Stamp. A.M. Section 2-06.3.12 - An index of sheets in the development package shall be provided on the first sheet. 02. COMMENT: Include a sheet index on the cover sheet. A.M. Section 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS A.M. Section 2-06.4.1 - The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided on the right half of the cover sheet. The applicable registration or license number shall be provided if prepared by or with the assistance of a registered professional, such as a surveyor, architect, landscape architect, or engineer. All sealing shall be consistent with Arizona Board of Technical Registration guidelines. 03. COMMENT: Provide the information as noted above and include the email addresses each registrant, owner etc. A.M. Section 2-06.4.7 - General Notes The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. A.M. Section 2-06.4.7.A.1 - List as a general note: "Existing zoning is ____." 04. COMMENT: Revise general note 2 on the cover sheet to state the existing zoning only. The rezoning from R-2 to C-1 has been effectuated. A.M. Section 2-06.4.7.A.3 - If the plan/plat has been prepared in conjunction with a rezoning application, add the following note next to the existing zoning note: "Proposed zoning is ____." List the applicable rezoning file number and conditions of approval. Also place the C9-__-__ (if applicable) and the plan/plat file numbers in the lower right corner of each sheet. 05. COMMENT: This project has been assigned the PDSD Development case number DP14-0011. List the case number in the lower right corner of all DP plan sheets. A.M. Section 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. 06. COMMENT: Revise general note 4 to include the words "Land Use Code" in front of the subject to section. A.M. Section 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: A.M. Section 2-06.4.7.A.8.c - Percentage of building, lot area, or vehicular use area expansion. If the building(s) or lot area have been previously expanded, those calculations shall be included; and, 07. COMMENT: Under the Parking Calculations Section 1, include a building expansion calculation whether it is a positive or negative expansion. A.M. Section 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. 08. COMMENT: The class 1 bicycle parking depicted adjacent to the northeast corner of building 4 only indicates 3 class I facilities. Per the keynote there should be 4 facilities. Draw the additional class 1 facility. Within the same location it appears that 2 of the boxes may be within the depressed water harvesting area. Revise the plan in this area as needed. A.M. Section 2-06.4.9.M - Grading Plan A.M. Section 2-06.4.9.M.2 - Concurrent Review. For all projects, grading plans may be included in the development package and will be reviewed concurrently. 09. COMMENT: Grading plans are assumed approved once the development package is approved. A.M. Section 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). 10. COMMENT: Building 3 appears to be labeled with a height of 36 feet. The zone allows a maximum height of 30 feet. Verify the height of the existing building and correct the height note or if a variance request application for the height was approved list the case number, date and conditions of approval. If the height of the building 3 is 36 feet, a variance for the building 3 height will be required prior to approval of this DP. A.M. Section 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 11. COMMENT: Conditions of rezoning are still applicable and must be addressed with any new construction where applicable to the site. A.M. Section 2-06.4.9.V - For gang mailboxes indicate location to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping. 12. COMMENT: Depict on the plan the type of postal service that is to be provided, gang mailboxes, individual postal service, internal service to each building etc. If a central or gang mailboxes are proposed draw and label the type and location on the site plan sheets. 13. COMMENT: Keynote 33 for security gates could not be verified on the plans. It is also not clear if the security gates are at pedestrian access points or vehicle entrances. Draw and label the security gates on the site plan sheets. 14. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on the revisions to the plan sheets and responses to the zoning comments. 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. |
| 02/05/2014 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Passed | |
| 02/06/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | I have no issues with this request. CSO Becky Noel #37968 Tucson Police Dept 837-7428 |
| 02/18/2014 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | This plan is reviewed for site and tentative plat purposes only. In your response letter provide the cut and fill quantities for this phase of the development. If a grading permit is required, a separate grading submittal is required. The bridge connection to Alvernon Way has been constructed. Change the label so it is no longer proposed. Add the current DP number to all sheets. |
| 02/19/2014 | GBONILL1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Resubmit the following items: 1) Two rolled sets of the plans 2) All items requested by review staff 3) All items needed to approve the plans. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/21/2014 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |