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: DP15-0195
Parcel: 13812017A

Address:
5920 S 6TH AV

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP15-0195
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
11/12/2015 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
11/25/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Mr. Pete's Tire & Auto Repair
Development Package (1st Review)
DP15-0195

TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 30, 2015

DUE DATE: December 10, 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 November 09, 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

2-06.4.4 - 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.

1. COMMENT: The location map does not appear to be to scale. It appears that you have labeled 1st as Park & Park as Campbell.

2-06.4.2.C - Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled.

2. COMMENT: Label the section corners on the map.

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:

2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions
The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided.

2-06.4.8.E.1 - For land that slopes less than approximately 1%, contour lines shall be drawn at intervals of not more than one foot. Spot elevations shall be provided at all breaks in grade and along all drainage channels or swales and at selected points not more than 100 feet apart in all directions.

3. COMMENT: It appears that some type of lot line realignment has been done on this site. Provide the approved documents for the lot line realignment with your next submittal.

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.

4. COMMENT: The zoning listed for the parcels north and south of this project is not correct and should be listed as R-2.

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: Sheet 1 under "PARKING" the parking calculation is based on "RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP". The use listed under "Zoning and Land Use Note 3 is "Commercial - Automotive (Major Service & Repair). If the use is Automotive (Major Service & Repair) than the vehicle parking would be based on UDC Table 7.4.4-1 COMMERCIAL SERVICES USE GROUP @ 1 space per 300 sq. ft. GFA. Also under "PARKING" there is a reference to "UDC SECTION 7.4.4.4.1" section 7.4.4.4.1 does not exist, clarify what article of the UDC you are referencing.

6. COMMENT: Provide a detail for both a standard and accessible vehicle parking space. As wheel stops are proposed provide a wheel stop location dimension on the details. Zoning acknowledges that a 2'-6" dimension is shown on the plan but it appears that this dimension is from the center of the wheel stop not the edge as shown under UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3 & Figure 7.4.6-C.

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: Provide a short & long term bicycle parking space detail. The short term detail should demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Sections 7.4.9.B.1.d, e & g, 7.4.9.B.2.a, f, g & h and 7.4.9.C.2.c are met. The long term detail should demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Sections 7.4.9.D.2, 3 & 5 are met.

2-06.4.9.J - If street dedication is not required or proposed and the project site is adjacent to a Major Street or Route, draw the Major Street right-of-way lines for those streets. (Add the MS&R future sidewalk, right-of-way lines, sight visibility triangles, etc.)

8. COMMENT: It does not appear that the future curb is shown correctly. Per the MS&R plan the sidewalk area for a 100 foot right-of-way is 11 feet measure to the face of curb.

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: The street perimeter yard setback dimension is not show correctly. The dimension should be shown from the back of curb not the "FORMER EXISTING R.O.W. LINE (PRE RE-ZONING).

10. COMMENT: It does not appear that the temporary construction trailed shown on the plan meets the required perimeter yard requirements, north and east. Show that the trailer meets perimeter yard setback requirements or provide a plan that approved the trailer.

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).

11. COMMENT: Provide the height of all structures within the footprint of the building on the plan.

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.

12. COMMENT: The sidewalk shown on the north side of the entrance access isle is require to be physically separated from any vehicle travel lane, see TSM Section 7-01.4.2.A. Clearly demonstrate on the plan that this requirement is met.

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.

13. COMMENT: Provide a note on the plan stating "ALL SIGNAGE REQUIRES A SEPARATE PERMIT".

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
12/01/2015 SSHIELD1 H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Mr. Pete's Tire & Auto Repair
Accessibility Review - On Site Only
Development Package (1st Review)
DP15-0195

TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 30, 2015

DUE DATE: December 10, 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. 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.

2. Provide a large scale sign detail including a van accessible sign.

3. 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 accessible vehicle parking space and the sidewalk to the right-of-way per ICC A117.1-2009 403.3 and IBC 107.2.1
12/10/2015 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. (General comment, pertaining to plan contents)

The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet:

Any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site.

UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE

ARTICLE 7: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

7.4.6. MOTOR VEHICLE USE AREA DESIGN CRITERIA

Barriers

Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from driving onto unpaved portions of the site.

Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.

Additional comments may apply.
12/10/2015 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
12/22/2015 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Approved
12/22/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (2504.6') is higher than the first floor elevation (2504.19'). Provide a note on the plans requiring the installation of a backwater valve when future plumbing activities take place. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/29/2015 EGALLET1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed