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 - DP14-0215
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/30/2015 | AROMERO4 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/12/2015 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 02/13/2015 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Sentinel Peak RV Park Development Package (2nd Review) DP14-0215 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 13, 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 24, 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. This comment was not fully addressed. The address has not provided on sheets 7, 8 & 9. COMMENT: Provide the administrative street address, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. The address is not provided on sheet 2, 7, 8 & 9. 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.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. 2. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6..D.2.b Minimum Width Requirement When Adjacent to Barrier. A motor vehicle off-street parking space must have a minimum width of ten feet when the side(s) of the parking space abuts a vertical barrier over six inches in height, other than a vertical support for a carport. That said the accessible vehicle parking space adjacent to the trash enclosure is required to be 10'-0" wide. 2-06.4.9.I - Show all right-of-way dedications on or abutting the site and label. If the development package documents have been prepared in conjunction with a subdivision plat or is required as a condition of approval of a review process, such as a rezoning, street dedications in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan may be required by these processes. Projects bounded by streets having only a portion of the right-of-way width dedicated will be required to dedicate right-of-way, up to one-half, to complete the street width. Should there be any proposed street or alley vacation, provide this information. If vacation has occurred, include the recording information. 3. Until this comment is addressed the development package cannot be approved. COMMENT: Keynote 12 states '10' ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY GRANTED TO CITY OF TUCSON BY THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN". This development plan will not grant the right of way contact COT Real Estate office for process to abandon this ROW. Provide the recordation information for this abandonment on the plan. This abandonment will need to be completed prior to approval of this development package. 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. 4. COMMENT: Revised Key Note 53 to include "UNDER 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 |
| 02/19/2015 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS 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: Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply |
| 02/23/2015 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approv-Cond | February 23, 2015 Zelin Canchola TDOT Sentinel Peak RV Park DP14-0215 TDOT concurs with comment from Zoning regarding right of way: 3. Until this comment is addressed the development package cannot be approved. COMMENT: Keynote 12 states '10' ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY GRANTED TO CITY OF TUCSON BY THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN". This development plan will not grant the right of way contact COT Real Estate office for process to abandon this ROW. Provide the recordation information for this abandonment on the plan. This abandonment will need to be completed prior to approval of this development package. |
| 02/25/2015 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: February 25, 2015 DUE DATE: March 02, 2015 SUBJECT: Sentinel Peak RV Park Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review TO: Thomas Guido, PE LOCATION: 450 N Grande Ave REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP14-0215 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Drainage Report (T&T Engineering LLC, 14NOV14 revised 27DEC14) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (T&T Engineering LLC, 15JAN15). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administration Manual (AM) and Technical Standards Manual (TSM). Refer to the links for further clarification: http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN: 1) Complied. 2) Complied. 3) Complied. 4) Complied. 5) Complied. 6) Complied. 7) Complied. 8) Complied. 9) Complied. 10) Complied. 11) Complied. 12) Complied. 13) Complied. 14) Complied. 15) Complied. 16) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to either label the 2-foot setback or 10-foot wide handicap parking space located adjacent to the proposed refuse container. It is acknowledged that the space adjacent to the bollards was revised; however the revision of the refuse enclosure generated this comment. Per UDC Sec.7.4.6.D.2.b a motor vehicle off-street parking space must have a minimum width of ten feet when the side(s) of the parking space abuts a vertical barrier over six inches in height, other than a vertical support for a carport. 17) Complied. 18) Complied. 19) Complied. 20) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.I: Revise the development plan package and Keynote #12 to provide the required recordation information for the required right-of-way dedication. Since the development plan package is not a Final Plat that will be recorded through the County's Recorders Office a separate SEQ # will be required. It is acknowledged that COT Real Estate is working with the applicant to produce this easement. 21) Complied. 22) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: Revise the development plan package and Keynote #33 to provide the recordation information for the new 10'x10' TEP easement. Once all other comments have been addressed and if this comment is the last outstanding one based on TEP review then with Zoning approval this easement maybe recorded prior to the Building CoO and/or Final Building Inspection for T14CM08849. 23) Complied. 24) Complied. 25) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to correctly label Keynote #20 in plan view for the proposed pedestrian cross walk. The arrow currently points to the 40-foot PAAL dimension, revise. 26) Complied. 27) Complied. 28) Complied. 29) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the required handicap access ramps within the right-of-way per PC/COT Standard Details for Public Improvement #207. Currently the plan labels it as #52 which is for ANSI onsite and does not meet the right-of-way requirements, revise. 30) Complied. 31) Acknowledged: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan package to provide for centralized onsite solid waste and recycle collection service pick up per TSM Sec.8-01.5.1.A. The proposed refuse enclosure does not meet the minimum requirements of the referenced code however since Environmental Services is on the DP Package review their final approval of the package satisfies this comment. DRAINAGE REPORT: 32) Complied. 33) Complied. SWPPP: 34) The proposed SWPPP meets the minimum requirements of the AzPDES 2013 Construction General Permit (CGP). However the SWPPP and Exhibits can not be stamped approved until approval of the development plan package. Provide both copies with resubmittal for stamp approval. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package and SWPPP that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 02/26/2015 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. At both previous comments number 1a and number 5e, if only one accessible parking space is required then it must be a van accessible space at 11' wide with a 5' wide aisle. |
| 02/27/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Reqs Change | The Development Plan has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal: 1. The turning movements associated with the ability of the service vehicle to turn around on site are inadequately shown. Per discussion at our meeting, a portion of the concrete surface at space 23 should be deleted as it would reside in the radius area of the hammerhead turnaround. Show the full hammerhead turnaround and shorten space 23 as needed so that it does not extend into the turnaround. 2. In order to allow for the rolling container service, the enclosure and the apron slabs must be relatively flat and sloped at no greater than 0.25 percent. Revise the grading plan to show the proper grading of the enclosure and apron. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net |
| 03/02/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | An approved development plan is not to be used for construction of on-site utilities (e.g. water service to the building, building sewer, site lighting, or electrical service to the building). The construction of the on-site utilities may be included with the permit for constructing the building or as a separate permit. 2. Provide cleanouts for the building sewer; the cleanouts shall not be located greater than 100-feet apart, measured from the upstream entrance of the cleanout. Reference: Section 708.3.1, IPC 2012. |
| 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) A disk containing all items submitted 3) All items requested by review staff 4) All items needed to approve this plan. |