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 - DP14-0109
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/22/2014 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: September 23, 2014 DUE DATE: October 07, 2014 SUBJECT: Old Pueblo Harley-Davidson Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review TO: Baker & Associates Engineering Inc.; Attn: Michael Baker, PE LOCATION: 7501 E 22nd St; T14S R15E Sec17 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP14-0109 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Drainage Statement (Baker & Associates Engineering, Inc., 13MAY14 revised 04SPE14) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Baker & Associates Engineering, Inc., JUN14). 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: 2) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Plan Package case number (DP14-0109) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets. It is acknowledged that the number was added; however the development plan package cannot be approved with white out, revise to include the number without the white out. 7) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.2: It is acknowledged that the development plan package was revised to label and dimension the SVTs; however per Sheets 2 and 3 the proposed monument sign cannot be located within the future SVT area unless it is less than 30-inches. Provide a label to dimension the signage or remove the sign from the future SVT location. 14) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.2: It is acknowledged that the filter fabric wording was added to the bubbler box detail; however for construction purposes the filter fabric specifications must be added to the detail to ensure minimum survivability. 16) Acknowledged. Approval from TDOT will satisfy right-of-way requirements. NEW COMMENTS: 1) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to provide the required separation of the new pedestrian access lane that is adjacent to the 35-foot PAAL and the south side of Building "A." Per TSM Sec.7-01.4.2.A sidewalks associated with PAALs must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation (minimum 6-inches), barriers, railing, or other means. Clearly label and dimension the separation in plan view or with a Keynote. 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 |
| 09/24/2014 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Old Pueblo Harley-Davidson Expansion Development Package (2nd Review) DP14-0109 TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 24, 2014 DUE DATE: October 07, 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 July 22, 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. 2-06.4.9 - 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. 1. It appears that there are bollards shown along the west side of the proposed "TOWER". If these area bollards show the required 2' setback to the PAAL to the bollard. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 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. That said provide a dimension from the proposed "TOWER" west the access PAAL. 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. 2. The striped "NEW 4' PEDES. CIRCULATION/REFUGE AREA" shown along the south side of Building "A" is required to be a four (4) foot sidewalk physically separated from the vehicle use area. Show the required sidewalk on the plan. COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.4.1.A At least one sidewalk is required to a project from each street on which the project has frontage. That said clearly show the required sidewalk from the proposed expansion to Prudence Avenue. 3. The striped "NEW 4' PEDES. CIRCULATION/REFUGE AREA" shown along the south side of Building "A" is required to be a four (4) foot sidewalk physically separated from the vehicle use area. Show the required sidewalk on the plan. COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.3.3.B The areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings. That said clearly show the required sidewalk from the proposed expansion to Building "A". 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 . |
| 10/01/2014 | RONALD BROWN | HC SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ALL RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS PRESENTED IN ALL CAPS SHEET 2 OF8 1. Reference the accessible parking layout to the large scale detail A/4. NON-RESPONSIVE. PROVIDE NUMBERS ON ALL DETAILS AND REFERENCE THE PLAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING TO THE LARGE SCALE DETAIL ON SHEET 2. 2. Relocate the accessible parking signage to a position out side of the paved asphalt, just inside the concrete walkway. OK 3. All accessible route slopes are to comply with ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% maximum running slope and 2% maximum cross slope. ADD A NOTE TO SHEETS 2, 3 AND 4: "All accessible route slopes are to comply with ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% maximum running slope and 2% maximum cross slope." SHEET 4 OF 8 4. Detail A a. Relocate the accessible parking signage to a position out side of the paved asphalt, just inside the concrete walkway. OK b. Note a maximum of 2% grade slope in all directions is required in the accessible parking and aisle areas. OK 5. Provide a 5' x 5' turn around (ICC A117.1, Section 403.5.2) at the midway point on the accessible route to 22nd Street. OK ADDITIONAL NOTES SHEET 4 6. AT DETAIL 9: DELETE THE FLARED SIDES OF THE CONCRETE CURB RAMP AND MAKE A NEW SIDEWALK RAMP AS WIDE AS THE EXISTING WALKWAY. PROVIDE RETURN CURBS AS NECESSARY. END OF REVIEW |
| 10/07/2014 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | The tree planters in the parking lot may prevent vehicles from being able to occupy the parking space. The space as drawn should be marked as compact. |
| 10/15/2014 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/16/2014 | SHANAE POWELL | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/16/2014 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |