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: SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP14-0209
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/10/2014 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 11/13/2014 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Unless these are single family houses built under the International Residential Code, fire sprinklers are required. Please indicate on plans location of fire service water supply. |
| 12/02/2014 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/04/2014 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: South Cherry Residential Development Package (1st Review) DP14-0209 TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 4, 2014 DUE DATE: December 09, 2014 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 November 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 2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 1. COMMENT: Provide the development plan case number, DP14-0209, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 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.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. 2. COMMENT: Provide the dimensioned width of curb and sidewalk along Cherry Avenue. 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. 3. COMMENT: Clearly define the zoning boundary along the alley way to the north. There is a portion of C-1 zoning that is not shown on the plan. 2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles (SVTs). On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. 4. COMMENT: Keynote 14 calls out new wall. This wall is shown within the SVTs. Provide wall heights within the SVTS or remove the wall from the SVTs. 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). 5. COMMENT: Provide the height and square footage of the proposed Ramada within the footprint on the plan. 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. 6. COMMENT: Provide width dimensions for the pedestrian gate shown in the wall along 12th street and the wall opening shown along Cherry Avenue. The minimum sidewalk width must be maintained, See TSM 7-01.4.3.A for minimum width. 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 |
| 12/08/2014 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 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. The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet: Any relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply |
| 12/09/2014 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/09/2014 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 12/09/2014 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Show the SVTs for the intersection of Cherry Avenue and 12th Street. Note for all local streets where parking is allowed, the baseline of the SVTs may be at the outside of the parking lane. Provide the height of the wall or revise the plan so the wall is outside of the SVTs. Provide dimensions for the sidewalk along Cherry Avenue. Where the sidewalk is less than 4 feet wide, it must be replaced with 5-foot sidewalks. Show access and maneuverability for the solid waste enclosure. A TSMR may be required. |
| 12/10/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/22/2014 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 12/22/2014 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 12/22/2014 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |