Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP14-0096
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/16/2014 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 06/23/2014 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: O'Rielly Commercial & Fleet Development Package (1st Review) DP14-0096 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 14, 2014 DUE DATE: March 12, 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 August 20, 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. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 1. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP14-0096, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 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. 2-06.4.2.C - Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled. 2. COMMENT: Provide the section, township, and rage under the location map. 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 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.1 - List as a general note: "Existing zoning is ____." 4. COMMENT: The existing zoning shown under General Note A. 1. is not correct. This zoning should be shown as C-2 & R-2, see comment 10 below. 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. 5. COMMENT: Revise General note 3 to read "Existing use is Vehicle Sales and Rentals. Proposed use is Vehicle Sales and Rentals subject to Use Specific Standards 4.9.9.G.1 & .2". 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - List additional applications and overlays, by case number (if applicable), in lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note provide the type of application processed or overlays applicable, a statement that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the additional application or overlay, the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any. 6. COMMENT: Provide a general note on the cover sheet stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA, UDC ARTICLE 5.4 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R)." 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.7.A.8.a - Floor area for each building; 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Percentage and area in square feet of building and accessory building coverage; 8. COMMENT: Remove General Notes A.5 & A.6 as lot coverage is not applicable to this project. 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.A - Provide site boundary/subdivision perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system. 9. COMMENT: As this site is comprised of two (2) parcels, 131-01-053E & 131-01-0520, a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request form with the next submittal. 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.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. 10. COMMENT: The existing zoning is not shown correctly. At the southeast corner of this parcel there is a small area that is zoned R-2. Clearly show the zoning boundaries on the Plan. 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. 11. COMMENT: Provide a width dimension for the entrance access lane off of Mountain View Avenue. 12. COMMENT: There is what appears to be a one-way access lane shown at the northwest corner of the proposed building, provide a width dimension for the access lane. 13. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4.a A back-up spur must be provided at the end of a row of parking if no ingress or egress is provided at that end. That said show the required dimensions for the required back-up spur for the area between parking space 97 and accessible space 8 and for the area between parking space 93 and accessible space 4 on the plan. See Article 7.4.6.F.4.b & c for required dimensions. 14. COMMENT: There are two (2) areas the call out "DEPRESSED CURB FOR WATER ACCESS", one at the northwest corner of the site and one near the northeast corner of the site. Clearly shown the depressed area on the plan. If the depressed area is large enough for vehicle access some type of barrier may be required, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H. 15. COMMENT: There is an area of R-2 zoned property at the southeast corner of this site. It appears that vehicle use area is proposed in the R-2 zoned area. As vehicle sales and rentals is not an allowed use in the R-2 zone this area may not be used for the proposed use. If this site meets the requirements of UDC Article 1.4.2.E you may be able to encroach up to 25' into the R-2 zone area. 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. 16. COMMENT: The numbering on the vehicle parking and/or vehicle display spaces is very confusing. Based on the Legend on sheet 1, hatched area for "DISPLAY PARKING" there are only 19 display spaces. Based on the vehicle parking space calculation there are only 61 vehicle parking spaces provided. It appears that there are well over a hundred spaces, required parking and display spaces, shown on the plan, clarify. Zoning acknowledges that the required number of vehicle parking spaces appears to be provided. 17. COMMENT: Detail D sheet 5 shows eight (8) vehicle parking spaces with H.C. parking signs for each space. If all eight (8) spaces are to be accessible than access isles are required. It the northern most four (4) spaces are not going to be accessible remove the signs from the detail and plan. 18. COMMENT: Detail D sheet 5 there are accessible signs that appear to encroach into the 2'-6" vehicle overhang Cleary indicate on the plan that the minimum 2'-6" is maintained, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3. 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. 19. COMMENT: Cleary demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1.d, .e & .g are met on the plan or details. 20. COMMENT: It does not appear that the proposed short-term bicycle parking meets the requirement of UDC Article 7.4.9.C.2.a. 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. 21. COMMENT: The perimeter yard requirements listed under General Note 9 are not correct. Per a Zoning Administration determination when a property boards on a street shown on the COT MS&R map all street perimeter yard setbacks are based on developing area, see UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2 22. COMMENT: The perimeter yard requirements listed under General Note 9 are not correct. Interior perimeter yard setbacks are based on UDC Table TABLE 6.3-4.A: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE C-1, C-2, C-3, OCR-1, & OCR-2 ZONES. The required perimeter yard setback to the west property line is based on Nonres Use to a Nonres Zone or 0 perimeter yard required. As the adjacent zoning to the south is split, C-2 & R-2 the required perimeter yard setback to the south would be based on Nonres Use to a Nonres Zone or 0 perimeter yard required and Nonres Use to a Res Zone or 1 ½ times the height of the exterior wall perimeter yard required. 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). 23. COMMENT: Provide the height of the proposed building and awnings within the footprint on the plan. 24. COMMENT: Provide the overall building dimensions on the plan. 25. COMMENT: General Notes H.4 & H.5 square footages do not match what is called out in other general notes. 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. 26. COMMENT: Provide sidewalk width dimensions for the sidewalks along the north and east side of the proposed buildings. 27. COMMENT: Detail D sheet 5 there are accessible signs that appear to encroach into the sidewalk. Cleary indicate on the plan that the minimum sidewalk width of four (4) feet is maintained, see TSM 7-01.4.3.A. 2-06.4.9.T - Show refuse collection areas, including locations of dumpsters, screening location and materials, and vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned, and access route. If dumpster service is not proposed, indicate type of service. For specific information on refuse collection, refer to Section 8-01.0.0, Solid Waste and Recycle Disposal, Collection, and Storage, of the Technical Standards Manual. Refuse collection on all projects shall be designed based on that section, even if collection is to be contracted to a private firm. 28. COMMENT: There is an area of R-2 zoned property at the southeast corner of this site. It appears that the refuse collection area is located in the R-2 zoned area. As vehicle sales and rentals is not an allowed use in the R-2 zone this area may not be used for the proposed use. If this site meets the requirements of UDC Article 1.4.2.E you may be able to encroach up to 25' into the R-2 zone area. Additional comments. 29. COMMENT: There is a detail call out shown west of the entrance off of 22nd Street. This reference is to detail H on sheet 2.2. There is no detail H on sheet 2.2 in this plan. 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, Pima County Combo Request form. . |
| 06/25/2014 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Please indicate location of new and/or proposed fire hydrants. Refer to 2012 International Fire Code, chapter 5, for guidance. Please indicate proposed use of building, and whether or not fire sprinklers will be installed. |
| 07/01/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. An approved development plan is not to be used for construction of on-site utilities (e.g. water service to the building, building sewer, site lighting, or electrical service to the building). The construction of the on-site utilities may be included with the permit for constructing the building or as a separate permit. 2. Provide the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole, 5905-02B. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 07/09/2014 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | SHEET 4 1. At detail "B", provide the dimension of the ramp run. SHEET 5 2. At detail 5: a. Insure that the location of the accessible parking signs are not positioned in the asphaltic paving. Place them just inside the concrete line. b. Show a maximum of 2% gtrade slope for all accessible parking and aisle areas. END OF REVIEW |
| 07/11/2014 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 7: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING Minimum Width Street landscape borders must be a minimum of ten feet wide as measured from the street property line. On streets designated as Major Streets and Routes (MS&R), the street landscape border must be measured from the future MS&R right-of-way line as determined by Section 5.4.4, Establishment of MS&R Right-of-Way Lines and Gateway Routes. Verify that property and ROW lines are indicated correctly on site and landscape plans. 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. The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet: Relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply |
| 07/14/2014 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/14/2014 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The existing conditions as described in the April 2008 drainage report from JE Fuller are accepted for the purposes of this development for retention and detention purposes. 2. The April 2008 drainage report includes floodplain boundaries that impact the site. Include the floodplain boundaries for the floodplains within or adjacent to the site along with water surface contours. 3. Show the erosion hazard setback for the Naylor Wash. 4. Clearly identify the water harvesting areas on the grading plan and include their volumes in the estimated cut and fill quantities. 5. Show how the site will be graded to direct the maximum practicable runoff to the water harvesting areas. 6. Confirm the property boundaries are correct. Indicate whether the public sidewalk crossing the corner of the property has the benefit of an easement. 7. Provide dimensions for the curb radii for the driveway curb returns. 8. Provide written permission from the Traffic Engineer for a driveway entrance that exceeds the maximum allowed in City Code Section 25-39. The maximum width at the property line is 30 feet. 9. Clarify the extent of grading. Show limits of grading on the grading plan. The misc notes on the cover sheet must match the information on the remaining sheets as well as the SWPPP. 10. Provide dimensions for all curbs. Include radii dimensions. 11. There is a callout on sheet 2 that doesn't have a corresponding detail. 12. According to the Pima County Assessor, the parcel includes a piece of land on the south side of the drainage way. Include the additional land in the development package. Also identify both parcels that are proposed for development. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/17/2014 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |