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: REVISION - SITE
Permit Number - DP14-0138
Review Name: REVISION - SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/26/2015 | ELEIBOL1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/26/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 03/26/2015 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/02/2015 | 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 (Revision) DP14-0138 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 2, 2015 DUE DATE: April 23, 2015 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 2-06.4.7 - General Notes The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 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. COMMENT: Provide a width dimension for the proposed drive-through lane. 2. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6.F.2.a.(2) Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least one foot from: A structure when the access lane or PAAL serves as a drive-through lane. That said show the required one foot setback on the plan. 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. 3. COMMENT: The vehicle parking space calculation does not appear to be correct. There appears to be an outdoor seating area, is this square footage included in the 2,691 Sq. Ft. listed under the "SITE PARKING CALCULTIONS"? Per UDC Section 7.4.3.F.4 the outdoor seating area must be included in the square footage. Also it appears that the main parking calculation is done as a shopping center at 1 space per 200 Sq. Ft. of gross floor area but it appears that this Panda Express is parked at 1 space per 100 Sq. Ft. of gross floor area. Clarify what calculation you are using. 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. 4. COMMENT: The short and long term bicycle parking calculation is not correct. This calculation should break out the requirements for short and long term bicycle parking. If this site is part of a shopping center, see comment 3, the requirement for short term bicycle parking is two (2) and the requirement for long term is two (2). 5. COMMENT: Provide a detail for the short term bicycle parking detail that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.9.B.1.e & 7.4.9.B.2 are met. 6. Provide a detail for the short term bicycle parking detail that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.9.B.1.e, 7.4.9.B.2 and 7.4.9.D are met. Once the above comments are correctly addressed Zoning is willing to provide and over the counter review. Call or email to schedule this review. 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 |
| 04/14/2015 | SPOWELL1 | NPPO | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 04/14/2015 | SPOWELL1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Needs Review |