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

Permit Number: DP14-0103
Parcel: 113100080

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP14-0103
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/05/2014 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: August 5, 2014
DUE DATE: August 29, 2014
SUBJECT: Campbell Facade Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review
TO: Metro TED; Attn: Lisa Bowers
LOCATION: 2723 N Campbell Avenue; T13S R14E Sec31
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP14-0103

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Statement (Cypress Civil Development, 12JUN14). 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).

The following items need to be addressed:

SITE PLAN:

1) Complied.
2) Complied.
3) Complied.

4) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.A: Revise the development plan package to provide a lot combination approval through Zoning to eliminate the lot lines that run through the parcel. The parcel functions as 1 site and should be on parcel without the additional lot lines. The comment letter stated that a lot combination for these lots has been processed however per PRO a lot combination number could not be found nor did the resubmittal provide documentation that this was completed, provide.

5) Complied.
6) Complied.
7) Complied.
8) Complied.

9) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.J: Revise the development plan package and the associated detail on Sheet 4 to include all dimensions for the MS&R Street adjacent to the project. Specifically provide the correct 6-foot width dimensions for the sidewalk not the 4-foot as currently dimensioned.

10) Complied.
11) Complied.
12) Complied.
13) Complied.
14) Complied.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package that addresses the comment provided above. For expedite purposes the development plan package can be reviewed over the counter (PDSD Engineering Division comment only) for stamp approval once all items have been addressed. Please call to schedule an appointment when ready.

For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929.


Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
08/11/2014 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Campbell Facade
Development Package (2nd Review)
DP14-0103

TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 12, 2014

DUE DATE: August 29, 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 June 15, 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;

CONTENT 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

2-06.4.7.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.

1. This comment was not completely addressed. Add UDC Section 5.5 GATEWAY CORRIDOR ZONE (GCZ) to General note 23.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) & UDC ARTICLE 5.5 GATEWAY CORRIDOR ZONE (GCZ)."

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.

2. This comment was not addressed, provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request with your next submittal. COMMENT: This site is comprised of four (4) parcels, 113-10-0050, 113-10-0060, 113-10-0070, & 113-10-0080 a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request with your 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.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.

3. COMMENT: Provide a fully dimensioned back-up spur at the north end of the proposed vehicle parking area, see UDC Section 7.4.6.F.4

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.

4. COMMENT: The vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. The total square footage for the center based on the square footage shown within the footprint should be listed as 11,504 Sq. Ft./300 = 38 required.

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.

5. COMMENT: The bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1 RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP, The required number of bicycle parking spaces for multiple or mixed use development composed of more than one building are be calculated on a per building basis using the formulas provided above. That said Retail Trade Uses Less Than 50,000 sq. ft. GFA, Short-Term 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces, Long-Term 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. Based on two (2) buildings Short-Term required 4, Long term required 4.

6. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: For the Short-Term bicycle parking demonstrate on the details or plan how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1.d, & .e, 7.4.9.B.2.g & .h are met.

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.

7. This comment was not addressed. It does not appear that the proposed façade will meet the required street perimeter yard based on the location shown for future curb. COMMENT: Provide a street perimeter yard dimension for the proposed façade based on the future curb location for Campbell Avenue.

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, approved combo request form.
.
08/19/2014 RONALD BROWN HC SITE REVIEW Needs Review For both entrance doors in the corner of the accessible parking, a 54" clearance is required as per ICC A117.1, Section 404.2.3.2, Figure (d).
END OF RVEIEW
08/29/2014 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change 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.

Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.

Additional comments may apply