Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP15-0190
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/04/2016 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | 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) A disk containing all items submitted 3) All items requested by review staff 4) All items need to approve this plan |
| 12/04/2015 | KROBLES1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/09/2015 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/11/2015 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Reqs Change | See additional comments in PRO. Request for corrections please see attached plan with Addressing comments attached as sticky notes. |
| 12/21/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 12/21/2015 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: The Yard on Grant Road Development Package (2nd Review) DP15-0191 TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 21, 2015 DUE DATE: December 31, 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 October 28, 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 2-06.4.7 - 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.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses. 1. COMMENT: The existing use, "CONSTRUCTION SERVICES", listed under General Note 3 is not correct. The existing use should be listed as Construction Material Sales. 2-06.4.7.A.6 - If a plan or plat is prepared in conjunction with other applications or overlays or the parcel being developed is subject to conditions of an application processed previously, additional information must be added to the plan. Such applications and overlays include, but are not limited to: annexations; rezonings; special exceptions; Board of Adjustment variances; Design Development Options; Technical Standard Modification Request; overlays (Airport Environs Zone, Environmental Resource Zone, Gateway Corridor Zone, Hillside Development Zone, Historic Preservation Zone, Major Streets and Routes, Rio Nuevo District, Scenic Corridor Zone, WASH); Modification of Development Regulations through the Downtown Area Infill Incentive District or Rio Nuevo District; Downtown Heritage Incentive Zone; or, Design Review Board. Provide the following information on the plan. 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. 2. COMMENT: As a TSMR is proposed provide the TSMR Case number in lower right corner of each sheet along with a general note stating the TSMR Case number, date of approval, what was modified and any conditions of approval. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.7.A.8.a - Floor area for each building; 3. COMMENT: Clarify what the fenced area shown at the northwest corner of the building will be used for. 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.A - Draw in all proposed lot lines with approximate distances and measurements. 4. COMMENT: A lot combination will be required for all parcels associated with this project. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request form with your next submittal. 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. 5. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.a (1) show the required one (1) foot setback from the existing canopy to the PAAL. 6. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.H Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings. That said there are two (2) vehicle parking spaces shown north of the wall called out under Keynote 5 that required some type of barrier to prevent parking vehicles from damaging the wall. 7. COMMENT: Along the northwest side of the proposed building there appears to be a line missing. It appears that a vehicle parking in the western most vehicle parking space is allowed to access the landscape area. 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. 8. COMMENT: Per the future right-of-way detail for Tucson Blvd sheet 6 there are four (4) vehicle parking spaces shown within the future SVTs. As parking encroaches into the SVTs these four (4) spaces cannot be counted as required spaces. As additional reductions are required at the time of widening and additional site work will be required a recorded Major Streets and Routes Covenant is needed prior to approval of the development package. 2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Show all loading zones, vehicle maneuverability fully dimensioned, and access route. Provide as a note the number of loading spaces required, the number provided, whether the loading space is a Type A or B as provided in UDC Section 7.5.4. 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. 9. COMMENT: Provide a street perimeter yard setback dimension from the existing building/wall called out under Keynotes 5 & 6 to the back of future curb along Grant Road. The minimum setback is 21' or the height of the wall, which ever is greatest. 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). 10. COMMENT: Provide the height of the existing building called out under Keynote 6. 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: Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.A At least one sidewalk is required to a project from each street on which the project has frontage, unless there is no vehicular access from a street because of a physical barrier, such as a drainageway or an unbroken security barrier (e.g., a wall or fence). The sidewalk should be located to minimize any conflict with vehicular access to the project. That said show the required sidewalk to Tucson Blvd. Zoning acknowledges that a TSMR is proposed. 12. COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.4.2.A Sidewalks associated with PAALs must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation (minimum six inches), barriers, railings, or other means, except at designated crosswalks. That said the striped area between the two (2) vehicle parking spaces shown along the north east vehicle parking area must be a sidewalk physically separated. 13. COMMENT: The proposed pedestrian circulation shown running from the building to Spring Street runs through the loading space. The loading space is looked at as a vehicle parking space therefore the requirements of TSM 7-01.4.1.F apply. 14. COMMENT: Near the northeast corner of the building there appears to be a curb blocking the proposed pedestrian sidewalk that provides circulation to Spring street. 15. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan that the minimum 4'-0" sidewalk width is maintained between the short term bicycle parking space and the building wall. 2-06.4.9.W - Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Indicate if there are any existing billboards on site. Compliance to the Sign Code, Chapter 3 of the Tucson Code, is required. 16. COMMENT: Provide a note on the plan stating all signage requires a separate permit. Additional Comments 17. COMMENT: Zoning acknowledges that there are not code references that would require this but it is strongly recommended that some type of openings be provided in the north and south walls of the wall called out under keynote 5 to provide visibility for vehicles backing out of the parking spaces. 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 |
| 12/21/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | TDOT | Reqs Change | Patricia - I've met with Cypress to discuss the Grant Road future impacts with regard to this project. On sheet 6 there is a future ROW detail for Grant Road that will most likely require revision. Per discussions with Daryl Cole, TDOT is in the process of doing some engineering evaluations to further quantify the extent of the ROW that will be necessary as part of Grant 5 and 6 at this location. Per our discussions with Cypress, TDOT would issue a memo/letter outlining the findings of our evaluations and giving an actual necessary new ROW setback from existing. I'm assuming this info would be included as part of the detail on Sheet 6, but PDSD may want additional notes outlining how the future ROW was determined elsewhere in the plan set. This will also help inform the discussions as to what landscape and other features would be permanent versus having the potential for removal in the future. I wasn't sure how to impart any of this into your forum for comments. Please call me if you have questions or concerns. Regards, Beth |
| 12/22/2015 | SSHIELD1 | HC SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: The Yard on Grant Road Accessibility Review - On Site Only Development Package (2nd Review) DP15-0191 TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 21, 2015 DUE DATE: December 31, 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. Detail A, sheet 6 provide a height dimension from the bottom of the van accessible sign to grade, 7'-0". |
| 12/23/2015 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/23/2015 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | The location and orientation of the solid waste enclosures cannot be approved as shown. If the location is approved the enclosures should be oriented to allow for pickup from the adjacent right of way. Although Spring Street was platted as an alley it is considered a street since it is now named. If it is determined that it may be considered an alley for solid waste purposes, then the orientation change is all that would be required. Otherwise, a TSMR would be required to allow pickup from the street. TSM 8-01.3 Remove grading note 32 unless the applicant and developer choose to provide as-builts. Since there are no retention or detention basins, note 33 may also be omitted. Provide curb openings or scuppers to direct parking lot and building drainage to landscape areas. Also show how pavement grades will direct run-off to the landscape island and other landscape areas to the maximum practicable. UDC 7.6.6.C |
| 12/30/2015 | 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: Board of Adjustment case; Design Development Option case; Development Review Board (DRB) case; and/or, Any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 7: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Screening for individual land uses must be provided as determined in Table 7.6.4-1 and in addition to the required landscape borders. A 5' wall is required to screen parking lots from adjacent residential zoned properties. Use of the Public Right-of-Way Nonrequired landscaping may be placed in the public right-of-way, if the following standards are met: 1. The landscaping is approved by the City Engineer or designee and complies with the City Engineer's standards on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type; 2. All vegetation complies with the standards of Section 7.6.4, Landscaping Standards; and, 3. The landscaping does not interfere with the use of the sidewalk.. Obtain permission for use of public right of way. Barriers 1. Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping.. Provide wheel stops for parking spaces along E. spring street. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply |
| 12/30/2015 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Reqs Change | December 29, 2015 ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP15-0190 PROJECT NAME: The Yard PROJECT ADDRESS: 2543 E Grant Rd PROJECT REVIEWER: Zelin Canchola TDOT Traffic Engineering recommends the following modification to the plan prior to approval: Driveway on country Club requires 25 feet readius curb returns. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/27/2016 | KROBLES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |