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 - RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - DP14-0089
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/26/2014 | AROMERO4 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/28/2014 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 09/02/2014 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Chapman Automotive East Development Package (2nd Review) DP14-0089 TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 2, 2014 DUE DATE: September 24, 2014 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments 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 May 27, 2015 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. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.7.A.7 - If the property is part of a subdivision plat that is being reviewed or has been recorded, provide the case number in the lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note, indicate whether the project is part of a Flexible Lot Development (FLD), condominium, or another similar type project. 1. COMMENT: Subdivision S13-009 will need to be approved prior to approval of this development package. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided. 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. 2. Zoning acknowledges that you are addressing the access control easement via a final plat. Provide the sequence number on the plan. COMMENT: The existing "1' ACCESS CONTROL ESMT. PER BOOK 52 OF MAPS & PLATS, PAGE 25, P.C.R." will need to be abandoned and the new access control easement recorded prior to approval of the development package. 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.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. 3. 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. Zoning acknowledges that a wall has been added along the west property line. Show the 2'-6" distance from the face of curb to the wall. This distance is to prevent parking vehicles from damaging the wall. 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. 4. COMMENT: Provide the recordation information for the proposed "1' ACCESS CONTROL EASEMENT" on the plan. 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. 5. This comment was not fully addressed see red line. COMMENT: Provide width dimensions for all proposed side walks on the plan. 6. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.4.1.B A sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located. That said a four (4) foot side walk is required along the west side of the Service building. 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 7. Provide written documentation from Glenn Moyer. COMMENT: It does not appear that the proposed detail 5, sheet 5 meets the requirements of Rezoning condition 5. 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. 8. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6.F.2.b Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches. The additional area is necessary to provide clearance for fire, sanitation, and delivery vehicles. That said show the require two (2) foot setbacks to both sides of the proposed monument sign. 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 . |
| 09/09/2014 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Reqs Change | MICHELENE NOWAK ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 721-9512 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: MICHELENE NOWAK, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: DP14-0089 CHAPMAN AUTOMOTIVE EAST/DEVELOPMENT PLAN / 2ND REVIEW DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project with the following condition: Insert recording Sequence# for Chapman Automotive East, Lot 1 (S13-009) in Title Block on all Sheets. 1.) Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar or bond paper of approved Development Plan to City Planning. ***PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING MUST RECEIVE A COPY OF THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRIOR TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF ANY ADDRESSES. PLEASE COORDINATE THE DELIVERY WITH THE CITY OF TUCSON PLANNING*** 2.) All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. ***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files. These CAD files can be e-mailed to: CADsubmittals@pima.gov The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County’s Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.*** |
| 09/15/2014 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/15/2014 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Michael Baker, P.E., Larry Roberts, P.E. SUBJECT: DP14-0089 Chapman Automotive East Development Package (SP) 2nd submittal Engineering Review ADDRESS: 4426 E 22ND ST, 85711, Ward 5 REZONING: C9-96-1 LOCATION: T14S R14E Section 22 PROPERTY: 130-14-439B, 22nd Street Commerce Center FLOODPLAIN: FEMA zone X-shaded, 100-yr, 2284L REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E. SUMMARY: Engineering has reviewed and provides comments to the Development Package including and Drainage Report. Due to proposed finished floor elevations, Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Package or the Drainage Report at this time. Prior to resubmittal, address the remaining comments based on Tucson Code Chapter 26, Unified Development Code, Technical Manual, and Administrative Manual. MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES: 1) [Remaining comment 1)] Tech Man Sec.2-01.4.1.C: As a note, add verbiage for drainage maintenance per drainage manual: Tech Man Sec.4-04.14.3.2. The standard verbiage for regular maintenance verbiage stating (a) that the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for drainage structures and detention basins; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage facilities at least once each year, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; (c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage facilities to verify that scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner or owners agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with maintaining the drainage and detention/retention facilities, should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities. BASE LAYER SHEET COMMENTS: 2) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.9.O: There is some illegibility on sheet 4; assure type-overs are corrected so labeling, elevations, and notations are legible on plan views. SITE PLAN SHEET COMMENTS: 3) Tucson Code Sec. 26-8(b)(2): As stated in previous meetings, floodproofing may be proposed in lieu of FFE compliance. A conceptual design should be included in next submittal, and detailed grading and floodproofing design and methods can be submitted at grading plan review stage. Per regulation, development projects in floodprone areas shall be accompanied by conceptual grading plans and conceptual drainage improvement plans included in a drainage report prepared by a state-registered professional civil engineer, and should include the proposed floodplain management methods for floodproofing (existing nonresidential structure only). All floodproofing (nonresidential structures only) shall be certified by a state-registered professional civil engineer. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 4) [Remaining comment 9h)] Tech Man Sections: 4-04.7.6.1, 4-04.2.2, Tuc Code 26-5.2(9),Tech Man Sec.4-03.3.5.1.10: Proposed FFE's for proposed building on the civil sheets are lower than the proposed FFE in the approved Drainage Report. It is imperative that the proposed FFE's on the development plan sheets meet regulatory minimum finished floor requirements. Proposed FFE's: 2543.83, 2545.00, and 2545.58, yet the approved RFE is 2545.6. Per City of Tucson Floodplain Ordinance, Sec. 26-5.2(9) states: "development in the floodway fringe shall" ... "place the first (including basement) floor one (1) foot above the base flood elevation. Following the pouring of the first slab or finish floor installation and prior to any framing, the applicant shall submit to the city engineer certification by state-registered land surveyor or a state-registered professional civil engineer that the elevation of the lowest floor is in compliance with that approved by the city engineer's office." Also per Tucson Code Sec. 26-11.2(h): Prior to the issuance of final occupancy permits for development undertaken pursuant to a floodplain permit, the applicant shall submit, on a form provided by the city, certification that the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floors (including basement) of all new structures, is at or above the regulatory flood elevation. The certificate shall also disclose the method used to determine the regulatory flood elevation and the required erosion hazard setback, if any. The certification shall be signed by a state-registered professional civil engineer or land surveyor. LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS: 5) No comments. GRADING, PAVING, DETAIL SHEET COMMENTS: 6) No comments at this time since this Development Package is not intended for grading permit review. Additional comments pertaining to more specific grading information may be forthcoming in grading permit submittal. At that time, a drainage statement may be required to be submitted. The elevation certificate form will be provided with grading plan approval. UTILITIES / EASEMENTS COMMENTS: 7) [Remaining comment 12a)] Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.8.B: a) To assure complete information is provided for easements for this project, provide sequence number for revised 1-ft access control easement, otherwise revise kenotes on sheet 2, to state sequence number is on plat or grading plan, or obtain approval of plat prior to issuance of grading permit. b) On planview and with notations, clarify 10-ft & 16-ft sections (as discussed in recent correspondence) of public drainage maintenance easement on sheet 4. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN COMMENTS: 8) No comments at this time since this Development Package is not intended for grading permit review. SOILS/GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENT: 9) No comments at this time. Please submit a copy of the geotechnical investigation report with grading submittal. Please provide a revised Development Package plan sheets and comprehensive response letter that address the remaining comments provided above. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 09/16/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 09/18/2014 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approv-Cond | From TDOT Zelin Cacnhola SUBJECT: DP14-0089 Chapman Automotive ADDRESS: 4426 E 22ND ST, 85711, Ward 5 REZONING: C9-96-1 LOCATION: T14S R14E Section 22 Left turn Lane on 22nd street is acceptable. Dimention taper lenght. Minimum langht is 100 feet. Show this on the plan. Add note to plan: All proposed work in the right of way will require a right of way excavation permit or a private improvement agreement. Contact Permits and codes at791-4259 for additional information. |
| 09/23/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Reqs Change | The resubmittal of the Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services. Please address the following on the resubmittal: Detail 4 on Sheet 4 for the Trash Enclosure is not in compliance with the standard detail for a double enclosure which is Figure 3A in TSM Section 8. For instance, the overall outside dimensions are correct, however the slab needs to be reinforced with #4 rebar, 12 inch on center both ways per the Figure 3A detail, and not reinforced with woven wire fabric. Also, the space between the bollards and the walls is also incorrect. There are other parts of the detail which are incorrect. Either revise the detail on Sheet 4 to show the same construction features, dimensions, etc. as in Figure 3A, or remove the conflicting notes, call outs, etc. and state next to the detail that the enclosure is to be constructed per Figure 3A of TSM Section 8. If there are any questions, I can be contacted at kperry@perryengineering.net |
| 09/24/2014 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1) The proposed screening along 22nd Street and Belvedere Ave. is required to be 30" in height to screen the parking lot. UDC 7.6.4-1. Opaque screens are required. Please provide a detail. 2) Tree planters in vehicular use areas are required to be designed per or equivalent to 5-01.3.3.B. The proposed diamond design may render the affected the parking spaces unable to accomodate the many types or models of vehicles. |
| 09/25/2014 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items: 1) Two rolled sets of the plans 2) A disk containing all items submitted 3) All items requested by review staff 4) All items needed to approve this plan |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/07/2014 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |