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 - DP15-0130
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/02/2015 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Chapman Audi of Tucson - Addition and Remodel Development Package (1st Review) DP15-0130 TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 2, 2015 DUE DATE: September 9, 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; a 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. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP15-0130, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 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.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses. 2. COMMENT: Revise General Note 3 to include the use specific standards 4.9.9.G.1& .2, see UDC TABLE 4.8-4: PERMITTED USES - COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE ZONES 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: Provide a general note on the cover sheet stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA, UDC ARTICLE 5.4 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R)." 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 - 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 width dimensions for the entrance lane, parking area access lanes and access lane highlighted in yellow on the plan. 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. COMMENT: Provide a detail for the proposed accessible vehicle parking spaces. As wheel stops are proposed provide a location dimension per UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3. 6. COMMENT: Provide a detail for the proposed standard vehicle parking spaces. 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. 7. COMMENT: As additional short term bicycle parking is required show the proposed location on the plan and provide a detail that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B & .C 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. 8. COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.C provide a sidewalk between the two (2) "CUSTOMER PARKING" spaces shown along the west side of the "REMODELED AUDI" building. As the proposed vehicle parking spaces will allow vehicles to overhang the sidewalk the sidewalk will need to be 6'-6" wide. 9. COMMENT: Provide sidewalk width dimensions for all sidewalks highlighted in blue. 10. COMMENT: The striped area shown north of the proposed accessible vehicle parking spaces the runs between the vehicle parking spaces is required to be a sidewalk physically separated from the vehicle use area, see TSM 7-01.4.2.A. 11. COMMENT: Provide a 4' sidewalk along the north side of the building just south of the "CUSTOMER PARKING" spaces shown along the west side of the "REMODELED AUDI" building. See area circled with pink highlighter. Additional comments 12. COMMENT: Under "CODE TABULATIONS" remove the reference to "DEVELOPMENT DESIGNATOR", "MAXIMUM LOT COVERAG" and "PERIMETER YARD DD" as they are not longer applicable. 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 |
| 09/03/2015 | SSHIELD1 | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Chapman Audi of Tucson - Addition and Remodel Accessibility Review - On Site Only Development Package (1st Review) DP15-0130 TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 2, 2015 DUE DATE: September 9, 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 accessible parking space to the accessible route with in the right-of-way and to the accessible building entrance. 2. Provide a note on the plan that all accessible route slopes are to comply with ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% maximum running slopes and 2% maximum cross slopes. 3. Provide a large scale detail of the accessible parking space showing all accessible requirements such as dimensions, markings, grade slopes, accessible parking aisle, signage, van accessible space and access to the accessible route. One of the accessible vehicle parking spaces should be a van accessible. 4. Provide a large scale sign detail including a van accessible sign. 5. Provide running slope directional arrows, running slope percentages, cross slope directional arrows and cross slope percentages for all surfaces along the required accessible route from the proposed building entrance to the sidewalk located in the right-of-way per ICC A117.1-2009 403.3 and IBC 107.2.1 |
| 09/08/2015 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 09/08/2015 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 09/08/2015 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Revise the drainage notes 2 to reference the Technical Standards instead of the Development Standards which have been superseded. Revise all other references to the Development Standards. Provide the Development Package number on each sheet. |
| 09/09/2015 | KEN BROUILLETTE | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/10/2015 | BVIESTE1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 09/11/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/13/2015 | KROBLES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |