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

Permit Number: DP15-0010
Parcel: 117042400

Address:
529 N 6TH AV

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL

Permit Number - DP15-0010
Review Name: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/15/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: 529 N. 6ht Avenue
Development Package (2nd Review)
DP15-0010

TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 15, 2015

DUE DATE: June 25, 2015

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with 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 March 18, 2016.

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.

2-06.4.7 - General Notes
The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable.

2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes

2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses.

1) This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Provide a general note identifying the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC.

2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide:

2-06.4.7.A.8.a - Floor area for each building;

2) COMMENT: Zoning acknowledges that the existing building square footage has changed on this submittal. Based on the last approved C of O the previous square footage was correct. Provide supporting documentation for the new existing square footage.

2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Percentage and area in square feet of building and accessory building coverage;

3) This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Remove the reference to "LOT COVERAGE" form the plan as it is not applicable.

2-06.4.7.A.8.c - Percentage of building, lot area, or vehicular use area expansion. If the building(s) or lot area have been previously expanded, those calculations shall be included; and,

4) Until comment 2 is addressed the expansion calculation cannot be verified. COMMENT: Provide a building area expansion calculation on the plan. Based on the floor areas provided this is a 27% expansion of existing floor area.

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.

5) It does not appear that the vehicle parking spaces calculation is correct. Clarify why the square footage shown under "FLOOR AREA" is different than the square footage shown in the vehicle parking space calculation? Until comments 1 & 2 are addressed vehicle parking requirements cannot be verified. COMMENT: Provide a vehicle parking space calculation on the plan. This calculation should include the ration used, number required and provided.

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.

6) The provided short and long term bicycle parking space calculation does not appear to correct. Until comments 1 & 2 are addressed bicycle parking requirements cannot be verified. COMMENT: Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1: Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, provide a short and long term bicycle parking space calculation on the plan. This calculation should include the number required and provided.

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).

7) This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Provide the square footage and the height of the proposed and existing structure within the footprint of the building 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.

8) COMMENT: Clarify how the accessible vehicle parking space works with vertical curb running along the east side of the parking space.

9) COMMENT: Based on the most recent Google Streetview the existing sidewalk shown connecting to Ferro Avenue is not shown in the correct location.

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.

10) This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Provide a general note stating "ALL SIGNS TO BE PERMITTED UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT".

Additional Comments

11) COMMENT: Provide a detailed response letter with your next submittal.

12) COMMENT: Remove the detailed floor plan from the building footprint from this plan.

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, detailed response letter
06/15/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change Comment not resolved. Revise the site drawing to include the following existing utility information:
a. The location and size of public sanitary sewers, including the pipe diameter and the invert and rim elevations of all manholes and cleanouts; along with the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number.
b. The first floor elevation for the building
Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.
06/15/2015 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

Identification and Descriptive Data:

The following comment were not address from the previous review:

Planting Plan

Vegetation Plan and Schedules

Provide the previously approved landscape plan or:

Indicate on site plan or on a separate landscape sheet, both the proper and common name of each type of plant material to remain in place.

Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.

Additional comments may apply
06/18/2015 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: June 18, 2015
DUE DATE: June 25, 2015
SUBJECT: Rossetti Addition Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review
TO: Eugene Rossetti
LOCATION: 529 N 6th Ave; T14S R13E Sec12
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP15-0010

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. 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 following link 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: Due to the full code expansion requirement per the Zoning Section make sure that all dimensions, details, sections, keynotes, proposed improvements and all other aspects of this project meet the minimum requirements within Administration Manual, Technical Standards Manual and the Unified Development Code and are reflected on the development plan package.

1) Complied.
2) Complied.

3) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.1: Revise the development plan package to provide the email address for the Owner under the Owner/Developer Sections. "N/A" is not acceptable since the application shows an email address of GENEVINCE@AOL.COM.

4) Complied.
5) Complied.
6) Complied.
7) Complied.
8) Complied.
9) Complied.
10) Complied.

11) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to label the required minimum 25-foot radii at the driveway entrance per TSM Sec.10-01.3.2.C and Figure 6. No response comment letter was provided with this review to verify why this comment was not addressed. Also the submittal did not include any correspondence with TDOT, therefor the curb returns are required unless a TSMR application is submitted and approved to reduce the curb returns to standard driveway entrances.

12) Complied.
13) Complied.
14) Complied.
15) Complied.
16) Complied.
17) Complied.
18) Complied.

19) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package to verify conformance with handicap accessibility for the existing sidewalk within the right-of-way. Provide existing longitudinal and cross slopes to ensure maximum 2% or provide written approval from TDOT Permits and Codes that the existing sidewalk meets accessibility requirements.

20) Restated: 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 for both waste and recycling containers per TSM Sec.8-01.5.1.A. Provide specific details on the development plan document for construction purposes. The details must match TSM Sec.8-01, Figure 2 and Figure 3a for the required double enclosure walls with gates, concrete thickness and compressive strength, concrete approach apron dimensions, space from wall to bollards, anchoring bolts, 14'x40' clear approach for each container, etc. Or provide approval from Environmental Services for the use of APC and curbside pickup. Label and dimension the APC storage location on the plan and verify that it is screened from view. Per the aerial it does not appear that the APC is screened per ES requirements. This submittal did not provide approval from ES to maintain the use of curb side pickup.

NEW COMMENTS: Due to the revisions on the second submittal the follow comments have been generated:

21) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package correctly label the location of the onsite sidewalk from the building to Ferro Avenue. Per the aerial photograph and Google Street view the sidewalk on the plan is depicted in the wrong location. Either revise to correctly show or provide a detail for the new sidewalk for construction purposes.

22) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to clarify how the handicap parking space accesses the existing sidewalk with the vertical curbing. Provide a Keynote in plan view for an existing and/or proposed handicap access ramp.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package 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
06/22/2015 PATRICIA GEHLEN HC SITE REVIEW Needs Review

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
07/29/2015 PGEHLEN1 APPROVAL SHELF Completed
07/29/2015 PGEHLEN1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
07/29/2015 PGEHLEN1 REJECT SHELF Completed