Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: DP14-0096
Parcel: 131010520

Address:
4780 E 22ND ST

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL

Permit Number - DP14-0096
Review Name: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/08/2014 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
08/08/2014 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Approved
08/11/2014 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Approved
08/14/2014 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 (2nd Review)
DP14-0096

TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 14, 2014

DUE DATE: September 08, 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

2-06.4.7 - 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

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.

1. Zoning acknowledges that a copy of a signed Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property was submitted. This covenant will need to be recorded along with a copy of sheet 2, Exhibit A. of the development package prior to approval of the development package. Provide a copy of the recored document with your next submittal. 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.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: As curbing has been added to the proposed bicycle parking area provide a PAAL width dimension from the northwest corner of the curbing to the stripped area to the northwest.

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.

3. This comment was not fully addressed. Demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1.d, & .e are met. COMMENT: Cleary demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1.d, .e & .g are met on the plan or details.

4. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: It does not appear that the proposed short-term bicycle parking meets the requirement of UDC Article 7.4.9.C.2.a.

Once the above comments have been addressed Zoning is willing to provide and over-the-counter review. Call or email to schedule this appointment for this review.

With the next submittal provide a response letter that addresses all comments.

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.
08/22/2014 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

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.

Car display area(s) do not match the site & grading plans revise landscape plan as necessary.
09/02/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change Clarify the location of the proposed connection to the public sewer. The public manhole labeled "5831-20 Upstream" is not upstream from the sewer connection shown on the drawing. As drawn, manhole 5905-2B is upstream and manhole 5905-01B is down stream of the sewer connection. [Initial comment: 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.]

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
09/11/2014 SHANAE POWELL OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
09/11/2014 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed