Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP15-0135
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/10/2016 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/11/2016 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 601 N. Stone Avenue Development Package (2nd Review) DP15-0135 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 12, 2016 DUE DATE: February 22, 2016 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. 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. 1. COMMENT: This comment was not addressed correctly. The zone is not shown correctly; a. Along the west side of Ash Ave. b. Along the north side of this property. c. The zoning was not provided south and southwest of 5th Street. 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. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: The accessible vehicle parking space detail on sheet SD-2 does not match what is shown on the plan. 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. 3. COMMENT: Show the 2'x6' bicycle parking spaces, see UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.f, on the detail. 4. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.g A bicycle rack must be a minimum of two and one half feet from a wall or other obstruction. That said the short term bicycle parking detail shown on sheet SD-2 is not correct. The 1.5' dimension should be 2'-6" to the edge of curb at the vehicle parking space, see UDC Figure 7.4.9-C. Once the above comments have been addressed Zoning is willing to provide an over-the-counter review. Call of email to schedule and appointment for this review. 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 |
| 02/16/2016 | 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: Any relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 7: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING This comment was not addressed from the previous review: Continuous screens along street frontages for vehicle use area are determined by Table 7.6.4-I. Provide and identify 30" screening for vehicle use area adjacent to street frontages. Ensure that all Zoning comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply. |
| 02/19/2016 | PGEHLEN1 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Patricia, The City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department (ES) has reviewed Development Plan Package DP15-0135 for the proposed building remodeling and parking lot improvements at the Cirrus Visual property located at 601 N. Stone Avenue from a solid waste storage and collection standpoint. The Development Plan Package is approved with the following condition: The applicant proposed the use of two 95 gallon Automated Plastic Containers (APCs), one container for refuse and one container for recycled materials. With the generation of 234 gallons per week of refuse and recycled materials, three 95 gallon APCs are required. Two of the APCs shall be used for refuse and one APC shall be used for recycled materials. The APCs shall be stored on the owner's property until the day of collection. The APCs shall be rolled out to the alley on the west side of the building on the day of collection. Service to the APCs shall be in the alley. No enclosure around the APCs is required. Please let me know if there are any questions concerning this plan review. Thomas G. Ryan, P.E. City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department |
| 02/19/2016 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | HC SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 601 N. Stone Avenue Accessibility Review - On Site Only Development Package (2nd Review) DP15-0135 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 12, 2016 DUE DATE: February 22, 2016 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. This comment was not addressed. The accessible vehicle parking space detail on sheet SD-2 does not match what is shown on the plan. 2. This comment was not addressed. Provide a vertical dimension from the bottom of the van accessible sign and the standard accessible sign. This dimension should be 7'-0" measured to finish grade. |
| 02/22/2016 | FDILLON1 | DESIGN PROFESSIONAL | REVIEW | Approved | This project has reviewd by PDSD Design Review Staff and the Design Professional and is in compliance with the IID Standards. |
| 02/23/2016 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | WRITE DECISION LETTER | Reqs Change | The 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 the items submitted 3) All items requested by review staff 4) All items needed to approve this plan |