Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP15-0160
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/14/2015 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 10/07/2015 | MSTPAUL1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 10/07/2015 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Michael St Paul Planning Technician PROJECT: DP15-0160 5101 East Farness Addition and change of use: Adult Day Care Facility TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 7, 2015 DUE DATE: Walk through 1) COMMENT: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code, The Administrative and Technical Manuals were addressed. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Development Package Standards listed in section 2-06 of the City of Tucson Administrative Manual. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC). 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 requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above 1. 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 . 2. 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 2-06.1.0 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. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.7 - A small, project-location map shall be provided in the upper right corner of the cover sheet. 2) COMMENT: See comment six below. 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.1 - The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided on the right half of the cover sheet. The applicable registration or license number shall be provided if prepared by or with the assistance of a registered professional, such as a surveyor, architect, landscape architect, or engineer. All sealing shall be consistent with Arizona Board of Technical Registration guidelines. 3) COMMENT: Provide the email address for the owners. 2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet: 2-06.4.2.B - A brief legal description and a statement as to whether the project is a resubdivision are to be provided. On resubdivisions, provide the recording information of the existing subdivision plat; 4) COMMENT: Provide the brief legal description on the Pima County Assessor's parcel detail page. 2-06.4.2.D - The page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx). 5) COMMENT: The page numbering is incomplete on the lower corner of each sheet provided. The index appears to be for a building set and not for a development package. Provide an index for the development package. 2-06.4.4 - The project-location map to be located on the first sheet of the development package in the upper right corner, shall cover approximately one square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of three inch equals one mile, and provide the following information. 2-06.4.4.C - Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled. 6) COMMENT: Provide section corners on the projection map. Also Farnes is drawn incorrectly. 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.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 - Proposed Traffic Circulation 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. 8) COMMENT: Provide the dimensions for the PAAL and driveway in the north parking area. You have not provided the last approved site plan, to which you refer. It is required. In addition, provide all dimension, as this shall become the last approved site plan and the plan of record. 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. 9) COMMENT: There are two long-term bicycle parking spaces required, but only vague location reference is provided. See UDC Section 7.4.9.D for Long-term Bicycle Parking. Provide the location(s) in the building and a detail of location. See UDC Section 7.4.9.D.2. b and c concerning location and security. 2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown. 10) COMMENT: The correct interior lot line setbacks are zero (0) to the north and east property lines. The required setback to Rosemont Boulevard is twenty-one (21) feet to the future curb. The setback to Farness Drive is twenty-one (21) feet to the travel lane. Revise all the setbacks on the site plan. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Michael St. Paul, (520) 837-4959. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents. Provide a copy of the last approved site plan. The expansion calculations for this plan are based upon that plan. Please be aware that this plan, when approved, shall become the last-approved site plan. Therefore, the site information needs to be relatively complete. |
| 10/07/2015 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/09/2015 | AROMERO4 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 10/09/2015 | AROMERO4 | NPPO | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 10/09/2015 | AROMERO4 | FIRE | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 10/09/2015 | AROMERO4 | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Needs Review |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/09/2015 | AROMERO4 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |