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 and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP14-0030
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/20/2014 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: August 20, 2014 DUE DATE: September 11, 2014 SUBJECT: FEDEx Ground Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review TO: DOWL HKM; Attn Thomas Meehan, PE LOCATION: 7050 S Palo Verde Rd; T15S R14E Sec16 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP14-0030 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Drainage Report (DOWL HKM, 26FEB14 revised 15APR14) and Geotechnical Engineering Report (Pattison-Evanoff Engineering, LLC, 24OCT13). 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: 14) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label in plan view the vehicular separation on Sheet 4. Per UDC Section 7.4.6.H.1 Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. The 10-foot curb openings that are shown are wide enough to allow a vehicle to drive onto unimproved portions of the site; either provide the openings at 5-feet or install a bollard in the middle of the 10-foot space to meet the referenced section of code. 17) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: Revise the development plan package to provide the SEQ# in plan view or as a note under the General Note Section for the proposed 10-foot pedestrian access easement as shown on Sheet 8. The easement must be recorded prior to development plan package approval. If Zoning will allow the building plan CofO can be used to ensure that the easement has been recorded and the development plan package can be approved if this is the only outstanding item. NEW COMMENT: 1) It is acknowledged that a separate grading plan and SWPPP was submitted for the initial rough grading of the site and was reviewed and approved to allow the foundation building permit to be issued however the development plan application for site review still has additional grading information and details that was not reviewed under the rough grading permit application (DP14-0031) and required Engineering review during this submittal. Fees have been added to DP14-0030 for the review of all construction related items associated with the vehicular use area, curbing, drainage infrastructure, pedestrian access, sidewalk, etc. These fees will need to be paid for prior to issuance of the site plan development plan package. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package 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 |
| 09/05/2014 | RONALD BROWN | HC SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | SHEETS 4, 7 and 24 1. Flip the locations of the turnstile and the mangate so that the mangate (accessible entrance) is directly in front of the marked crossing. Turnstiles are not an acceptable accessible door way. 2. Mark a 5' deep by 20' long area of the asphaltic paving directly in front of the turnstyle and man gate as an accessible passenger loading zone as required by the 2012 IBC, Section 1106.7 and the 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 503.3. 3. Redesign the turnstile area so that a 4'-0" wide accessible route is available for passage around the gate on both sides. END OF REVIEW |
| 09/08/2014 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: FedEx Ground Co-Location Development Package (1st Review) DP14-0030 TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 20, 2014 DUE DATE: September 11, 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 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 August 20, 2013 . SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) Section 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 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, 2-06.4.9 - 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.E - Proposed land splits or existing lot lines shall be drawn on the plan with dimensions and the identification number and approximate square footage of each lot. (Please be aware that, if land division occurs and the number of lots falls within the definition of subdivision, a subdivision plat is required.) Land splits require a separate permit and review. 1. Zoning acknowledges that a copy of a Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property was provided with this submittal. Provide a copy of the recorded document with you next submittal. COMMENT: As this site is made up of three parcels, 140-41-1300, 140-41-8660 &140-41-8670, a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combination Request form with your next submittal. 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. 2. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1 Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. That said some type of barrier is required for the following areas; a. Sheet 4 the 10' openings along the west perimeter of the vehicle parking area will allow vehicles access to the unimproved area provide bollards or some other type of barrier at these openings. 3. Revise the vehicle parking space calculation to include 1 space per 300 sq. ft. gfa "OF ADMINISTRATIVE OR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AREA ONLY". COMMENT: The vehicle parking space calculation appears to be incorrect. Transportation Service Land Carrier should be parked at a ratio of 1 space per 300 sq. ft of GFA 4. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide the recordation information on the plan. If the recordation information is not available when all other zoning comments have been addressed Zoning will conditionally approve the development package and put a hold on the building, T14CM01923, C of O until the recordation information is provided on the development package. COMMENT: Sheet 8 shows private sidewalk that appears to cross on to the adjacent property to the east. A pedestrian access easement will be required. Once the above comments have been addressed Zoning is willing to provide and over-the-counter review. Call or email to schedule and appointment for the review. 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 & recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property. |
| 09/08/2014 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior to Landscape approval signature. |
| 09/10/2014 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved |