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: REVISION - - 3RD

Permit Number - DP14-0138
Review Name: REVISION - - 3RD
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/09/2015 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Approved
09/10/2015 SSHIELD1 ADA REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Panda Tucson Center
Accessibility Review - On Site Only
Development Package (3rd Revision
DP14-0138

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 10, 2015

DUE DATE: September 17, 2015

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

1. Clearly identify the accessible route from the accessible parking space to all accessible entrances of the building.

2. Provide running slope directional arrows, running slope percentages, cross slope directional arrows and cross slope percentages for all surfaces along the required accessible route from the accessible parking space to all accessible entrances of the building. ICC A117.1-2009 403.3 and IBC 107.2.1
09/10/2015 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 (3rd Revision)
DP14-0138

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 10, 2015

DUE DATE: September 17, 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.

2-06.4.7 - 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:

2-06.4.7.A.8.a - Floor area for each building;

1. COMMENT: As a general note provide the floor area for both the existing and proposed buildings. It appears that there maybe outdoor seating proposed. If so provide the square footage.

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.

2. COMMENT: It appears that some type of site wall is being placed over the existing 6'-0" communication easement shown on the plan. Provide documentation from all parties having interest in the easement that they have no objection to the proposed structures within the easement or abandon the easement.

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 width dimension for the proposed drive-through lane, see UDC Table 7.4.6-2.

4. COMMENT: Show the required 1'-0" setback from the proposed building to the drive-through, see UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.a.(2).

5. COMMENT: Show the required vehicle stacking spaces for the drive-through, see UDC Table 7.4.7-1.

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.

6. COMMENT: Provide a revised sheet A-100 with an updated vehicle parking space calculation. Until the proposed building square footage is provided the vehicle parking space requirements cannot be verified. See comment 1 & 12.

7. COMMENT: There is a vehicle parking space shown just east of the electrical transformer that does not appear to meet the minimum width requirements, see UDC Table 7.4.6-1. Provide a width dimension for this space.

2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Show all loading zones, vehicle maneuverability fully dimensioned, and access route. Provide as a note the number of loading spaces required, the number provided, whether the loading space is a Type A or B as provided in UDC Section 7.5.4.

8. COMMENT: Until the proposed building square footage is provided the loading space requirements cannot be verified. See comment 1 & 12.

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.

9. COMMENT: Provide a revised sheet A-100 with an updated bicycle parking space calculation. Until the proposed building square footage is provided the short and long term bicycle parking space requirements cannot be verified. See comment 1 & 12.

10. COMMENT: Show the location on the plan for the required short & long term bicycle parking.

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.

11. COMMENT: Provide a street perimeter yard setback dimension for both Valencia & Midvale Park on the plan, see UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2. Until the height of the proposed building is provided the street perimeter yard setback requirements cannot be verified. See comment 12.

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).

12. COMMENT: Provide the square footage and the height of the proposed building within the footprint.

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.

13. COMMENT: Clearly show all proposed sidewalks on the plan.

14. COMMENT: Provide a width dimension for the required sidewalks along the north and west side of the proposed building. Per TSM 7-01.4.3.A the minimum width is 4'-0".

2-06.4.9.W - Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Indicate if there are any existing billboards on site. Compliance to the Sign Code, Chapter 3 of the Tucson Code, is required.

15. COMMENT: Show proposed signs on the plan. Provide a general note stating "ALL PROPOSED SIGNAGE REQUIRES A SEPARATE PERMIT".

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
09/15/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
09/15/2015 ELIZABETH LEIBOLD ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change TO: Mike Jackson, P.E. TMAD Taylor & Gaines
SUBJECT: Lottaburger commercial development Engineering Submittal Review
FLOODPLAIN STATUS: X-unshaded zone, 040076-2288L
REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E.
ADDRESS: 1600 W Valencia Rd
PROJECT AREA: 1.15 Acres
CASE NUMBER: DP14-0138-R3
DATE: September 15, 2015

SUMMARY: The development package was submitted for the proposed improvements at the eastern portion of the parcel known as the southeastern Track 3 Lot 3 of Midvale Park Commercial Center. PDSD Engineering Division does not recommend approval until the following comments are addressed for next submittal.

MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES:
1) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.7.A, Tech Man Sec.2-01: Address the following general note comments:
a) Correct total disturbance area on sheet C1.0 cover sheet or grading for this project.
b) On sheet C1.3, revise Grading Note 5 to read: Call for SWPPP inspection and Grading Pre-construction meeting. For a PDSD Engineering Inspections, call IVR (791-3111), https://www.velocityhall.com (after registration) or schedule with a Customer Service Representative at the Planning & Development Services Department, or contact PDSD Engineering at 837-4888.
BASE LAYER SHEET COMMENTS:
2) Admin Man Sec.2-06.3: Add case number "DP14-0138-R3" to Development Package sheets, or clarify under Revision table Blake's Site Revision "3".

SITE PLAN SHEET COMMENTS:
No comments at this time.

DRAINAGE, GRADING, PAVING, DETAIL UTILITIES / EASEMENTS SHEET COMMENTS:
3) Tech Man Secs.2-01.4.1.C, 8-01.5.2.G: Address the following grading comments:
a) Clarify, identify, and label on planview sheet C1.3 the roof drainage direction (flow arrows) and locations of scuppers.
b) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.9.H.6: Clarify disturbance limits on plan sheet C1.3.
c) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.9.H: Clarify construction around near or for relocation of existing miscellaneous pipes shown on proposed eastern turn bay at northeast side of proposed building.
d) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: On planview on sheet C1.3 show callouts or label locations of types of pavement that are shown on sheet C1.4 detail for pavements structural design.
4) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Explain in response letter and clarify on plans that there are no structures proposed over easements or provide documentation with acceptance from utility/entity with vested interest of easement. Footprint of proposed buildings can not be in conflict with easements.

STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN COMMENTS:
No comments at this time.

SOILS/GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS:
5) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.8.H: For archiving purposes, submit copy of closure documentation or Soil Investigation Report that includes information regarding removal of fuel tanks from site, and pavement structural design recommendations for pavement.
For resubmittal, provide 2 copies of revised Development Package sheets, closure documentation or Soils Investigation Report, and response letter. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934.
Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM
Civil Engineer
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
City of Tucson
09/17/2015 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
09/23/2015 KROBLES1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed