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 - DP14-0220
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/02/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Approved | The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services and is approved. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net |
| 01/05/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 01/05/2015 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | TO: Matt Cawley, P.E. DATE: January 5, 2015 PARCEL: 110-12-0980 ADDRESS: 5301 E Grant Rd (parcel address: 2620 N WYATT DR) WATERSHED: Alamo W.A.S.H. FLOODPLAIN STATUS: FEMA X-unshaded zone 1649L SUBJECT: TMC (PAD 16) shop addition Development Package Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E. CASE NUMBER: D14-0220 SUMMARY: The development package was submitted for the proposed TMC Shops Buildings Addition and improvements at north portion of TMC campus. Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the Development Package including Drainage Memo (as the drainage statement). Engineering Division does not recommend approval until the following comments are addressed on resubmittal of the package. MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES: No comments at this time. BASE LAYER SHEET COMMENTS: 1) Admin Man Sec.2-06.3: Add DP14-0141 case number to Development Package sheets. 2) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.2.D: Assure all page numbers are legible and sequential. SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 3) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.3: Explain or clarify discrepancy in address/parcel info on cover sheet. (Parcel for project site appears to be parcel 110-12-0980 which has an address of 2620 N WYATT DR.) 4) 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. 5) Admin Man Sec. 2-06.4.3: Provide the development package case number, DP14-0220, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. DRAINAGE STATEMENT COMMENTS: No comments at this time. LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS: No comments at this time. GRADING, PAVING, UTILITIES PLAN / DETAIL SHEET COMMENTS: 6) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.8.B: 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 structure or 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 the easements within this project site. Explain what depths and types of existing utility infrastructure is located underground in these easements. Provide temporary construction easement, or copy of existing cross access easement, or explain use of offsite parcels. Also, explain whether there are any conflicts with proposed footprints of the replacement structures and existing easements. Provide any previous documentation from prior TMC phases, regarding the use of these existing utility/drainage easements for improvements. 7) Admin Man Sec.4.9.M.1: Provide grading sheet for north portion of project - this appears to be missing in package although listed in legend. Update index sheet accordingly. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN COMMENTS: No comments at this time. SOILS/GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS: No comments at this time. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 01/05/2015 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Michael St Paul Planning Technician PROJECT: DP14-0220 5301 East Grant Road TMC (PAD 16) shop addition TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 2, 2015 DUE DATE: January 5, 2015 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code, The Administrative and Technical Manuals were addressed. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Development Package Standards listed in section 2-06 of the City of Tucson Administrative Manual. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC). 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 requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above 1. 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 . 2. 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. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.1 - Each sheet shall measure 24 inches by 36 inches and include a minimum one inch margin on left side and one-half inch margin on all other sides to facilitate efficient record keeping. A larger sheet format may be used with the approval of the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD). 2-06.3.2 - All mapped data shall be drawn at an engineering scale having no more than 50 feet to the inch. This scale is the minimum accepted to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for record-keeping purposes. The same scale shall be used for all sheets within the set. Smaller scales (60:1 or greater) may be used for some or all of the sheets with the prior approval of PDSD when it is determined legibility and the ability to be digitized and/or reduced for archiving will not be affected. 2-06.3.3 - All lettering and text (upper or lower case), and numbering, shall be a minimum of three-thirty-seconds inches in height to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for archiving. 2-06.3.12 - An index of sheets in the development package shall be provided on the first sheet. 1) COMMENT: The index of sheets must provide the continuous sheet numbering system. It is a good idea to provide both sheet numbering systems as both are being used. 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.1 - The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided on the right half of the cover sheet. The applicable registration or license number shall be provided if prepared by or with the assistance of a registered professional, such as a surveyor, architect, landscape architect, or engineer. All sealing shall be consistent with Arizona Board of Technical Registration guidelines. 2-06.4.2.D - The page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx). 2) COMMENT: The sheet numbers for the continuous numbering system did not print on sheets 20 and 21. 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.6.a - 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. 3) COMMENT: Add DP13-0069 to the list of case number in the lower-right corner. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Michael St. Paul, (520) 837-4959. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents. Contact me when resubmitting these plans. Approval can be done over the counter. |
| 01/06/2015 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | WRITE DECISION LETTER | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items: 1) 2 rolled copies of the plans 2) All items requested by review staff 3) All items needed to approve this plan |
| 12/05/2014 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 12/12/2014 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/16/2014 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Please 1 van accessible parking space and aisle. Provide a large scale detail showing all accessible requirements such as dimensioning, markings, grade slopes, ramps as required, aisle, signage, access to accessible route and accessible route. Provide a large scale detail of the accessible parking sign. END OF REVIEW |
| 12/29/2014 | 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: Rezoning case; Subdivision case; Board of Adjustment case; Design Development Option case; Development Review Board (DRB) case; and/or, Any other 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 |
| 12/30/2014 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/08/2015 | AROMERO4 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 01/08/2015 | AROMERO4 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/08/2015 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |