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 - DP14-0192
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/09/2015 | STEVE SHIELDS | 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) A disk that contains all items submitted 3) All items requested by review staff 4) All items needed to approve these plans |
| 01/09/2015 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Family Dollar - 1340 W. Ajo Way Development Package. Concurrent Review with Rezoning (1st Review) DP14-0192 & C9-14-11 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 9, 2015 DUE DATE: January 14, 2015 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a detailed 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 August 15, 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.3 - If the plan/plat has been prepared in conjunction with a rezoning application, add the following note next to the existing zoning note: "Proposed zoning is ____." List the applicable rezoning file number and conditions of approval. Also place the C9-__-__ (if applicable) and the plan/plat file numbers in the lower right corner of each sheet. 1. This comment was not addressed. Additional comments may be forth coming. COMMENT: Once finalized provide the rezoning conditions on the plan. 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.L - All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. The easements may have to be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval. 2. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: As vehicular access is proposed to the parcel to the west either a recorded cross access agreement or easement is required. Provide the recordation information on the plan. 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 3. COMMENT: Until the rezoning conditions are provided the requirements of this section cannot be verified. 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 . |
| 01/09/2015 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 01/13/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 01/14/2015 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Until the rezoning review and conditions are provided the requirements of these sections(s) cannot be verified. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. |
| 01/14/2015 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/15/2015 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DP14-0192 was not on Engineering queue 14JAN15 - may have been due to re-installation of programs on Engineering Reviewer's computer. |
| 01/15/2015 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | TO: Kevin Hall P.E. DATE: January 15, 2014 SUBJECT: Ajo Retail Development Package (SP/GP/SWPP) 2nd submittal Engineering Review ADDRESS: 1340 W Ajo Wy T14S R13E Sec26 PROJECT: Ajo Retail Rezoning: (C9-14-11) FLOODPLAIN: FEMA zone X-unshaded, 2286L REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E. ACTIVITY: DP14-0192 SUMMARY: Engineering has reviewed resubmitted Development Package for site plan and grading review including Drainage Report review, and does not recommend approval of the Development Package at this time until the remaining comments are addressed. MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES: 1) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.7.6.a,B.2.b: Address the remaining Development Package general note comments: a) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.7: Submit Rezoning conditions and show compliance. List the applicable rezoning conditions of approval. b) List additional applications and overlays, by case number (if applicable), in lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note provide the type of application processed or overlays applicable, a statement that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the additional application or overlay, the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any. Provide sequence number for any easements on site, utility, and/or grading sheets (base layer preferred). SITE PLAN SHEET COMMENTS: 2) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Assure Title report Schedule B Section II Exception 5 and 9 are labeled with docket/pages on site plan sheet. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 3) Tech Man Sec.4-03.3.5.5.3, 4-03.3.5.1.3.a: Please be aware that ponding stormwater issues during final grading permit inspections can hold up CofO and final approvals. Infiltration rates shall meet Water Harvesting and Detention / Retention criteria per Tech Man Sec.4-03.III.3.5.1.3.a. Sufficient infiltration tests must be provided within the vicinity of the proposed retention/waterharvesting basin to establish acceptable percolation rates, with factor of safety. Add notes to plan that acknowledge that post construction percolation testing may be required if bleed pipes are not proposed at outlets to drain lower elevation of basins. For this project, please be aware that if standing water is found at the site, before final grading inspection, for more than 12 hours, final grading inspection approval will be denied and a re-submittal of the drainage report and plans with a re-engineered basin bottom will be required to be formally submitted for a Revision review. If standing water occurs after final grading inspection, submittal of a drainage report with plans showing a re-engineered basin bottom will be required to be formally submitted for review. It is imperative that stormwater runoff disposal drain down time is achieved within 12 hours. 4) Tech Man Sec.4-03.3.5: Basin should have bleed pipes provided. 5) Tech Man Sec.4-03.3.5.1.10, 4-04.13.4: Consider adding "minimum" to FFE label on planview. GRADING, PAVING, DETAIL SHEET COMMENTS: 6) Tech Man Secs.2-01.4.1.C, 8-01.5.2.G: Show roof flow direction arrows. UTILITIES / EASEMENTS COMMENTS: 7) Admin Man Sec.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. Assure complete information is provided for easements on the site. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN COMMENTS: No comment. SOILS/GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS: 8) Tech Man Sec.4-03.III.3.5.1.3.a: Provide infiltration testing results unless detention is provided. Also provide recommendations for pavement structural design, and building setback from basin if basin is within 20-ft of proposed building. Please provide a revised Development Package plan sheets, revised Drainage Report, Soils Report, and comprehensive response letter that address the comments provided above. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 12/15/2014 | CPIERCE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/18/2014 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Reqs Change | Regional Traffic Engineering/ADOT Permits have not received a permit application, plans or traffic documents for this development’s request to access SR -86, Ajo Way. ADOT does not have sufficient data to support this submittal. Thank you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. . |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/18/2015 | AROMERO4 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |