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 - DP14-0120
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/29/2014 | AROMERO4 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/02/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | Already has water service |
| 09/05/2014 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 1825 W. Price Development Package (2nd Review) DP14-0120 TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 5, 2014 DUE DATE: September 26, 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). COMMENTS: This is a full code review for UDC Section 7.4, 7.5 & TSM Section 7 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 06, 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 2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) - ADDITIONAL 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 2-06.4.8 - 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.C - The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. 1. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: It does not appear that the right-of-way (ROW) width for Price Road is correct, see plan I-85-033. 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.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. 2. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Provide a long term bicycle parking space calculation on the plan. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1, Industrial Use Group, 1 space per 15,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. Maximum required is 10 spaces. Based on a total GFA of 58,220 sq. ft. / 15, 000 = 4 long term bicycle parking spaces required. 3. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Sheet 2, Keynote 4 calls out "4 LONG TERM BICYCLE PARKING SPACES - SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 4". There is no long term bicycle parking detail shown on sheet 4. Provide a detail that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Sections 7.4.9.B & .D are met. 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). 4. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Based on the most current aerial photos there are two (2) awnings attached to the Office structure, one (1) on the west end and one (1) on the north side. The awning on the north side shows up after 2005, provide permit documents for this awning. 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 5. COMMENT: There is a "4" WIDE DG PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY" called out under Keynote 7, Sheet 2. Provide documentation from John Beall 837-6966 that states this path meets the requirements of rezoning condition 29. If this path meet the conditions provide a pedestrian access easement on the 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. |
| 09/16/2014 | EDUARTE1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Approved | |
| 09/17/2014 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/24/2014 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | Consultant is using the 1-ft depth for X-shaded 100-yr zone. Discussion occurred on 19SEP14 with David Rivera, and Floodplain Administrator Jim Vogelsberg, P.E., regarding Rezoning C9-13-05 condition 22, the minimum materials storage at 2-ft above highest adjacent grade. Per Floodplain Administrator, the 2-ft min height shall apply to bldg min FFE, not material storage (since the Floodplain Ordinance RFE applies to fuel tanks and bldg structures, and the Floodplain Administrator's concern for safety hazard potential increase for increased height of material stacking). Therefore, for the proposed material storage, the plans will be approved with a minimum of one-foot above ground. Anchoring to be clarified on plans. |
| 09/24/2014 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | Plans provided at meeting 24SEP14 are conditionally approved; requiring clarification of topo datum on sheet 2, FFE labeled on sheet 2, and EOR to provide diskette with info. - E Leibold P.E. 24SEP14 |
| 09/24/2014 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | Met with EOR to go over minor clarifications on plans. Site Plan and FPUP's approved. See El Cert under T14OT01210 for FFE info. - EL 25SEP14 |
| 09/26/2014 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/29/2014 | 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) All items requested by review staff 3) All items needed to approve these plans. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/29/2014 | AROMERO4 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |