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: DP14-0138
Parcel: 137276530

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP14-0138
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/28/2014 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
11/04/2014 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Panda Tucson Center
Development Package (2nd Review)
DP14-0138

TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 5, 2014

DUE DATE: November 25, 2014

COMMENTS: As there are no buildings proposed at this time all comments will be based on a vehicle parking area. New development packages will be required when buildings/uses are proposed. Remove the building outline and all building information from the pads.

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 1855 n 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 14, 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.

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.3.12 - An index of sheets in the development package shall be provided on the first sheet.

COMMENT: What is there a second sheet index on Sheet C3.0 that does not match the index shown on sheet G-001?

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

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.

1. This comment was not completely addressed. The location map shall be drawn at a minimum scale of three inch equals one mile. COMMENT: Provide a project location map on sheet G-001 in the upper right corner of the sheet. The location map shall cover approximately one square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of three inch equals one mile.

2-06.4.2.C - Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled.

2. This comment was not completely addressed. Label the section corner and provide the scale of the location map. COMMENT: Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled on 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

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.

3. This comment was not addressed. General Note 2 Sheet G-001 references "ADJACENT PARCELS ARE ALSO ZONED AS C-2". The existing use should be lists as "GENERAL MERCHANDISE SALES" and the proposed use should be listed as "PARKING". COMMENT: Provide a general note on either sheet G-001 or A-100 identifying the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses.

2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide:

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.B - All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided.

4. This comment was not completely addressed. Provide the recordation information, i.e. book and page or sequence number, for all existing easements shown on the plan .COMMENT: Show all existing easements on sheet A-100 along with the recordation information, book and page or sequence number.

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.

5. This comment was not completely addressed. Provide dimensioned widths of the paving and distance from curb to property line. COMMENT: Provide the above right-of-way (ROW) information on sheet A-100.

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.

6. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Provide all existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) on sheet A-100 with zoning boundaries clearly defined.

2-06.4.9.H.4 - Indicate if existing streets are public or private; provide street names, widths, curbs, sidewalks, and utility locations, all fully dimensioned.

7. This comment was not completely addressed. Provide dimensioned widths of the paving and distance from curb to property line. COMMENT: Provide the above information on sheet A-100.

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.

8. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Provide a fully dimensioned vehicle parking area on sheet A-100. Zoning acknowledges that some dimensions are provided on sheet C1.2 but not all.
PAAL width for the northern most PAAL.
Access lane providing access to the adjacent parcel to the north.
Access lane to Midvale Park Road
Access lane to Valencia Road
Drive thru width

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.

9. This comment was not completely addressed. Provide a location dimension for the wheel stops shown on detail 4 sheet C1.4. COMMENT: Until all sidewalk widths have been provided, see comment 40, the requirement for wheel stop curbing cannot be determined. If wheel stops are required show the wheel stop on the required standard and accessible vehicle parking space details along with a location dimension, see UDC Section 7.4.6.H.3 & UDC Figure 7.4.6-C.

10. COMMENT: As no buildings are proposed at this time the vehicle parking calculation should be as follows "REQURIED 0 PROVIDED 47".

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.

11. COMMENT: As no buildings are proposed at this time remove all references to bicycle parking, i.e. calculations etc.

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.

12. COMMENT: As no buildings are proposed at this time remove all references to perimeter yard setbacks from 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
11/19/2014 RONALD BROWN HC SITE REVIEW Approved
11/20/2014 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.

Ensure that all zoning comments and concerns are addressed prior to landscape approval
11/24/2014 ELIZABETH LEIBOLD ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change Please address the remaining comments per Tech Man 8-01.5, Admin Man 2-06.4.9:
1) On sheet C3.0, update sheet index to reflect C1.0 as civil general notes, not "Cover" sheet.
2) On sheet C3.1 remove depiction of drain rock on either side of silt fence in detail 1.
3) Label Midvale Park and Valencia each as "MS&R Arterial" with plat recordation info (ie Bk/pg).
4) Revise sheet A400 trash enclosure detail: a) provide interior bollards and assure min. 10-ft (or min. 20-ft for double enclosure) is dimensioned between lateral bollards and min.10-ft is dimensioned between rear bollards and inside of gate, b) add note that gate shall be opaque, c) 2% min slope needed to assure trash is elevated out of local stormwater runoff flowlines.
5) Eastern solid waste pick-up area does not appear to provide required back-up area; provide documentation from Environmental Services Dept for acceptance of proposed layout or revise layout geometry to provide sufficient back-up area.
6) Correction: Oak Tree Channel is part of different watershed; correct sheet C3.0 to name Mid-section wash to the north, and then the Santa Cruz River as the receiving waters for SWPPP purposes.
Call me if you have questions, Elizabeth Leibold P.E. 837-4934
11/25/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed