Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - DP14-0210
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/13/2015 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/17/2015 | KEN BROUILLETTE | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/20/2015 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 2101 CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Old Vail Plaza Development Package (3rd Review) DP14-0210 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 23, 2015 DUE DATE: March 02, 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 November 17, 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 2-06.1.0 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.A.7 - If the property is part of a subdivision plat that is being reviewed or has been recorded, provide the case number in the lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note, indicate whether the project is part of a Flexible Lot Development (FLD), condominium, or another similar type project. 1. Addressed COMMENT: Provide the tentative plat/development package case number, DP14-0248, adjacent to the title block on all sheets 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Percentage and area in square feet of building and accessory building coverage; 2. COMMENT: Your FAR calculation exceeds the allowed FAR in the ADC 3, see UDC Section 5.6.8.C.1.b For all other non-residential land use groups, the maximum FAR is .20 of the project site area. Project site is defined as: In general application, the area of the project. A site may be any number of contiguous lots, separated by no more than 600 feet, or it may be one lot. As applicable in Section 5.6, Airport Environs Zone (AEZ), the land area designated for development and managed as a single entity, exclusive of any abutting public right-of-way. The project site utilizes common facilities such as parking, structures, and vehicular and pedestrian access. Noncontiguous lots shall, at a minimum, be connected by pedestrian facilities. That said the provided FAR is correct. The site area should be for the entire site. 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.A - Provide site boundary/subdivision perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system. 3. COMMENT: There is what appears to be a property line called out on the plan with distance and bears of S89,55'20"E 262.00' and S00,04'40"E 128.00'. This area is not shown on final plat S07-156 or tentative plat/development package DP14-0248. Clarify what these lines, distance and bearing are for. 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. 4. This comment was not addressed. The dimensioned width of the paving, curbs, and sidewalks has not been provided on sheets C-02 thur C-05, provide the required information. COMMENT: Provide the above information for Houghton Road on the plan. 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.G - If the project is to be phased, provide calculations, setbacks, etc., to indicate that each phase complies with all requirements as a separate entity. Show phase lines on the drawing. Show and label any temporary improvements that may be needed to make the site function for each phase as one entity. If such temporary improvements are off the site of the phase under consideration, a temporary easement or other legal documentation to assure legal use of the property is required. Note recording information. 5. COMMENT: Until the proposed phasing plan, DP14-0248, has been approved this development package cannot be approved. 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. This comment was not addressed correctly. The vehicle parking space calculation does not provide the ratio used. Based on a proposed building square footage of 1,949/100 the required number of vehicle parking spaces should be 19. COMMENT: Until the square footage for this building is provided, see comment 9, the required number of vehicle parking spaces cannot be verified. Zoning acknowledges that it appears that the provided number should more than exceed the required number. Provide the ratio used for this vehicle parking calculation. It appears that UDC requirements are proposed of the number of loading spaces, see comment 22. If this is the case than the vehicle parking space calculation will need to be revised also. 7. COMMENT: The vehicle parking layout shown along the east end of the site does not match the layout shown on Development Package (Tentative Plat) DP14-0248. 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. 8. COMMENT: The long term bicycle parking calculation shown on sheet C-0.0 shows 2 provided but none are shown on the plan. Coordinate your response and location with Development Package (Tentative Plat) DP14-0248. 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. 9. This comment was not addressed correctly. The sidewalks shown along the east side of the building do match what is shown on DP14-0248. Coordinate your response with Development Package (Tentative Plat) DP14-0248. COMMENT: The striped area shown at the west end of the vehicle parking area located along the north side of the building is required to be a sidewalk physically separate from the vehicle use area, see TSM Section 7-01.4.2 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 |
| 02/25/2015 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Second Time: Non Responsive to Accessible Comments. No written response provided. |
| 03/02/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 03/02/2015 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/02/2015 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1) Submit new landscape plans for the project that coordinate with DP14-0248 . AM 2-10.2.0 These plans should be the same or similar to those approved with S07-156. The setback from the right of way line to the parking lot should remain the same. 2) Revise the plans as necessary to comply UDC 5.3 SCENIC CORRIDOR ZONE 3) Revise sheet C.03 (and others) to demonstrate copmpliance with the Scenic Corridor Zone regulations. UDC 5.3.4.A.4 "The buffer area shall be restored as closely to its natural state" Any portion of the Scenic Route buffer area and the MS&R right-of-way disturbed by development activity shall be revegetated with native vegetation. UDC 5.3.4.D 4) Revise the note stating "wall and screen by others" on Sheet C.03. The plans need to clearly show all required screening. UDC Table 7.6.4.-I 5) Clarify if this development is part of an approved phased plan. Add labels and delineations as necessary. UDC 3.2.12.D, UDC 2-06.4.9.G 6) UDC 2-06.4.9.A. Draw in all proposed lot lines with approximate distances and measurements. B. Identify each block or lot by number within the subdivision boundary and include the approximate square footage of each, or a note may be provided stating that all lots comply with the minimum lot size requirements. 7) Demonstrate compliance on the landscape with the approved landscape and Native Plant Preservation plans. Incorporate the required plant species and quantities. |
| 03/03/2015 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | 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) All items requested by review staff 3) All items needed to approve this plan. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/19/2015 | AROMERO4 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 03/19/2015 | AROMERO4 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/19/2015 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |