Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: DP15-0127
Parcel: 12510048A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP15-0127
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/20/2015 KEN BROUILLETTE FIRE REVIEW Approved
08/25/2015 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
08/25/2015 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:

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
08/31/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Quebedeaux Automotive Sales - 3434 E. Speedway Blvd
Development Package (1st Review)
DP15-0127

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 1, 2015

DUE DATE: September 02, 2015

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans 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 , 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.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

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.

1. COMMENT: As this site is made up of two (2) parcels, 125-10-0490 & 125-10-048A, a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Lot Combination form with your next submittal.

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 width of all sidewalks located within the public right-of-way (ROW) 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.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: Provide the zoning for the parcels north of Speedway on the plan.

2-06.4.9.H.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC.

4. COMMENT: Provide a PAAL width dimension for the PAAL between the vehicle parking spaces and the sidewalk to the north.

5. COMMENT: Provide a width dimension for the vehicle entrance off of Speedway Blvd.

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. COMMENT: The vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.4-1: MINIMUM NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLE SPACES REQUIRED, RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP, Vehicle Sales, the required number of vehicle parking spaces is based on 1 space per 400 sq. ft. GFA of show room, retail, and office area, plus 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft. of gross lot area, plus 1 space per 300 sq. ft. GFA of Automotive and Vehicle Repair use. That said the vehicle parking calculation shown under General Note 17 uses 28,000 square feet of gross lot area where General Note 4 calls out 52,385 feet of gross lot area. Total number required should be 11.

7. COMMENT: As wheel stops are proposed provide a location dimension, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3.

8. COMMENT: On the accessible parking grading detail it appears that the proposed accessible sign will encroach into the 2'-6" vehicle overhang. Clearly show that the sign does not encroach in the overhang area.

9. COMMENT: It does not appear that the accessible vehicle parking space meets the van accessibility requirements, see Accessibility comments.

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.

10. COMMENT: Zoning acknowledges that the long term bicycle parking will be provided within the building. Provide a detail that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.D are met.

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.

11. COMMENT: Provide a width dimension from the top of the accessible ramp, shown north of the building, to the wall. See TSM 7-01.4.3.A.

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 & copy of the approved Pima County Lot Combination form.
09/01/2015 SSHIELD1 ADA REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Quebedeaux Automotive Sales - 3434 E. Speedway Blvd
Accessibility Review - On Site Only
Development Package (1st Review)
DP15-0127

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 1, 2015

DUE DATE: September 2, 2015

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

1. Clearly show the proposed accessible route from the propose accessible vehicle parking space to the accessible entrance of the building and to at least one of the sidewalks located within the right-of-way. Provide running slope directional arrows, running slope percentages, cross slope directional arrows and cross slope percentages for all surfaces along the required accessible route per ICC A117.1-2009 403.3 and IBC 107.2.1

2. It does not appear that the accessible vehicle parking space meets the van accessibility requirements, see IBC Section 1106.5.

3. Provide details for all proposed accessible ramps on the plan.

4. Provide a mounting height dimension from the van accessible sign to grade on detail A Sheet 6. This dimension should be 7'-0".
09/02/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change Revise the site drawing to include the point of connection to the existing public sewer. Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.
09/24/2015 PAUL BAUGHMAN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: August 26, 2015
DUE DATE: September 2, 2015
SUBJECT: Quebedeaux Automotive Sales Speedway
TO: Cypress Civil, Jeff Hunt, PE
LOCATION: 3434 East Speedway
REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP15-0127
SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Drainage statement (Cypress Civil August 4, 2015) and Geotechnical Report (Terracon August 5, 2015). The critical issue found in this review is the need to verify that the existing scupper that provides roof drainage is large enough to accommodate the increased roof size. An additional scupper may be needed if this scupper is undersized for the increased roof runoff. Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development plan package at this time.
The following items need to be addressed:
1) The project description and location section from the drainage statement lists the project site as the northwest corner of Speedway and Holly Avenue. Please revise this to reflect the southwest corner where this project is located.
2) The existing conditions section of the drainage statement indicates that there are no existing engineered drainage facilities within the subject parcel. Per keynote 10 on sheet 3 of the development package, an existing scupper is noted to remain. Please update this section of the drainage statement as appropriate.
3) The proposed conditions watershed map shows the existing building and the proposed addition to this building draining to two difference concentration points. Only a single scupper is shown that conveys roof drainage under the pedestrian way. Per the Drainage Standards Manual section2.3.1.3B1 please update the proposed conditions watershed map and hydrologic calculations as appropriate.
4) Per AM 4.8F existing storm drainage facilities should be shown. There is an existing scupper shown at the southwest side of the existing building which is also the southeast side of the proposed addition. Since this scupper conveys roof drainage under the pedestrian way it should be analyzed per TSM 7-01.4.3E as part of this report to ensure 10 year storm water conveyance is available for the increased building footprint.
5) Per AM 2-06.43 please provide the development plan number DP15-0127.
6) Per TSM 2-01.4.1D the geotechnical report should provide pavement section recommendations. The borings table showed the existing asphalt section in the parking lot to be 3 ½ to 3 ¾ inches thick instead of the 2" thickness proposed for the new asphalt.
7) The thin strip of new pavement running from the northwest corner of the site to the improved entryway on the north side shows a 0.3' fall. Please verify that this fall provides at least a 0.5% positive drainage slope. Per AM section 4.8E1 an additional spot grade may be appropriate at the midpoint along this strip of new pavement.
8) Per TSM 10-01.3.2 please show 25' curb radius for modified access to Speedway Blvd.
9) Per AM 2-06.4.8C please provide dimension for the width between existing curb and right of way line.
10) TSM 10-01.5.3, revise the Site Development package to show the line of sight triangle for traffic turning off of Holy Avenue onto Speedway Blvd.
11) Per AM 2-06.4.9R Handicap ramps are missing between the striped pedestrian accesses and the sidewalk by the public right of way. There is a 6" grade difference shown between the finished surface and top of curb spot grades.

If you have any comments questions or wish to discuss new information, please call or email me at 520-837-5007 or paul.baughman@tucsonaz.gov.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
09/29/2015 AROMERO4 OUT TO CUSTOMER Approved