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: DP15-0141
Parcel: 119413710

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - DP15-0141
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/22/2015 KROBLES1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
10/26/2015 PAUL BAUGHMAN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: October 29, 2015
DUE DATE: November 17, 2015
SUBJECT: New Car Wash
TO: Gary Grizzle - WLB
LOCATION: 3820 S Pandora Ave
REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP15-0141
SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. The main concern is that comments and recommendations from the geotechnical report be incorporated into the construction of this project. The following items need to be addressed:
1) Per page 3 of the Geotechnical report there is existing fill, 5 to 7 feet deep, that was placed on this site in an uncontrolled manner. Based on field and laboratory test results this existing fill is not considered suitable for any type of structural support on the project. Please add a general note to ensure this fill is removed or disposed of or replaced per geotechnical recommendations.
2) Per pages 4, 6 and 10 of the Geotechnical report because of potential expansive characteristics of the on-site soils, a minimum depth of 14 inches of approved imported low volume change materials along with 4 inches of aggregate base course should be placed beneath interior floor slabs as specified in the earthwork section of said report. Over excavation of 18" beneath the 14 inches of approved imported low volume change material is required. Please add a general note and update the cross sectional detail 1/2 on sheet 2 of the development package showing how this will be accomplished. This should include a minimum pad extension of five feet beyond the proposed perimeter of the building walls and any exterior columns per the earthwork section of the report.
3) Per page 8 of the geotechnical report, in areas where sidewalks or paving do not immediately adjoin the structure, protective slopes need to be provided with a minimum grade of 5% for at least 10 feet from perimeter walls. Please add a general note and update cross sectional detail section 1/2 on sheet 2 of the development package showing how this will be accomplished in the 12' existing landscape area adjoining the proposed building site. It is acknowledged that Exhibit A-1 from the geotechnical report shows an existing 10' landscape street border to remain.
4) Per page 13 of the geotechnical report all concrete for rigid pavements should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi, and be placed with a maximum slump of 4 inches. Please add a detail such that it takes precedence over general note 16 on the development plan that only requires 3,000 psi concrete unless otherwise noted. This must be noted as a general note.
5) The existence of an underground electric line located near the proposed building site and sometimes outside of the 10 foot electric easement raises concerns about damage to this line or conflict during excavation of a footing for a pad that per the geotechnical report is supposed to extend 5 feet beyond the proposed perimeter of any building walls or exterior columns. Please address with a detail for footing and foundation with electric line in a cross section.
6) Please show an upstream/downstream invert elevation for the SD 205 outlet from the Basin 1 where the 0.2 cfs is being discharged. Please note that sheet 4 of the development package shows a 0.2 cfs discharge from this basin and sheet 5 of the development package shows a 2.3 cfs discharge from this basin. Please clarify to reflect the drainage report calculations.
10/28/2015 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approv-Cond Regional Traffic Engineering has one comment on this submittal;
note that the second phase of the Ajo Way T. I. project will install a raised median on SR 86 (Ajo Way) restricting westbound turning movements to the south side accesses on SR 86.

Regional Traffic supports the acceptance of the Development Plan. Thank you.
11/04/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Dynamite Car Wash
Development Package (2nd Review)
DP15-0141

TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 4, 2015

DUE DATE: November 20, 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 August 26, 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.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.

1. The proposed nine (9) foot wide one-way access lanes to the "SELF SERVE PAY ISLANDS' do not meet the minimum width for a one-way access lane, see UDC Table 7.4.6-2. Either provide ten (10) foot wide access lanes or apply for a Parking Design Modification Request (PDMR) UDC Article 7.4.10. If a PDMR is applied for and approved provide the PDMR case number adjacent to the title block on all sheets and provide a general note stating the PDMR case number, date of approval, what was modified, and if applicable any conditions of approval. COMMENT: Provide width dimensions for the access lanes at the "SELF SERVE PAY ISLANDS".

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).

2. COMMENT: There is a canopy shown on the "ARCHITECTUREAL NOTED SITE PLAN," Sheet A1.1 of the building plan at the pay station that is not clearly shown on the development package. Cleary identify the canopy on the development package and provide the height.


Once the above comment is addressed Zoning is willing to provide an over-the-counter review. Call or 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
11/17/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
11/18/2015 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.

Add note to landscape plan as follows: Existing landscape must be installed per approved plans dated_____ (and reference activity # of approved plans)

Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.
11/30/2015 JOHN BEALL COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Approv-Cond PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COMMENTS

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

DP15-0141 3820 S. Pandora Avenue 11/18/15

() Tentative Plat
(X) Development Plan
(X) Landscape Plan
() Revised Plan/Plat
() Board of Adjustment
() Other - Elevations


SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:

(X) Conditional Approval - Subject to DP revised to include C9-09-10 conditions of rezoning.
(X) No Resubmittal Required:
() Tentative Plat
() Development Plan
() Landscape Plan
() Other


REVIEWER: msp DATE: 11/18/15

COMMENTS


Plan Tucson on the Future Growth Scenario Map identifies the project site as Existing Neighborhoods. Existing neighborhoods are primarily developed and largely built-out residential neighborhoods and commercial districts in which minimal new development and redevelopment is expected in the next several decades. The goal is to maintain the character of these neighborhoods, while accommodating some new development and redevelopment and encouraging reinvestment and new services and amenities that contribute further to neighborhood stability. Plan Tucson supports infill and redevelopment projects that reflect sensitivity to site and neighborhood conditions and adhere to relevant site and architectural guidelines.

Project in compliance with Plan Tucson.


Note - Conditional approval; subject to proposed development plan DP15-0141 revised for zoning review, to include rezoning case C9-09-10, conditions of rezoning.
11/30/2015 BVIESTE1 ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) Two rolled sets of the plans
2) All items requested by review staff
3) All items needed to approve this plan
11/30/2015 BVIESTE1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Approved The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of the Environmental Services Dept. and is approved. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/01/2015 KROBLES1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed