Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP16-0014
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/25/2016 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: April 25, 2016 DUE DATE: May 5, 2016 SUBJECT: Ventura TO: Ray Quintero - A.D.G. LOCATION: 22 E Ventura Avenue REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM ACTIVITY: DP16-0014 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development plan package at this time. The remaining comment is relatively minor in nature and an over the counter approval should be possible. The following item needs to be addressed: 1) Per previous comments 1, 2 and 5 please clarify water harvesting/ runoff mitigation measures on the north side of the site. Sheet 1 is missing a callout for keynote 18 north of the building in the 200 cubic yard water harvesting area. The scupper as called out by keynote 20 on sheet 5 is discharging flow at an elevation lower than the finished grades shown in the 6" depressed basin bottom where 200 cubic feet of retention should be occurring per the drainage statement. Please clarify scupper invert and basin bottom spot grades to show no discharge is occurring until 6" of water harvesting has occurred. If you have any comments questions or wish to discuss new information, please call or email me at 520-837-5007 or paul.baughman@tucsonaz.gov. |
| 04/26/2016 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Venture - 22 E. Venture Street Development Package (2nd Review) DP16-0014 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 26, 2016 DUE DATE: May 05, 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 January 20, 2017. 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. 1. Provide a note on the plan or detail stating the lighting is provided from building lighting. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1.e are met for both the short and long term bicycle parking. 2. This comment was not addressed correctly. The 5' access aisle may not encroach into the 2' x 6" area required for each bicycle along the short term rack. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.h are met between the short and long term bicycle parking spaces shown on the plan. It does not appear that there is adequate access provided to the west end of the long term bicycle parking. 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. 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. 3. The DDO will need to be approved prior to approval of the development package. Prior to submitting for the DDO you will need to provide a street perimeter yard setback dimension on the plan. Also building elevations are needed to verify exterior wall height prior to writing Final Unified Development Code (UDC) Zoning compliance comments. COMMENT: The setback listed under "PERIMETER YARD: (PER TABLE 6.3.5-A) listed for the north perimeter yard is not correct. The north perimeter yard is a street perimeter yard and is required to meet UDC Article 6.4.5.C.1. Based on a wall height of 22' the required street perimeter yard is 33'. As a street perimeter yard setback dimension was not provided the street perimeter yard setbacks requirements could not be verified. It does not appear that the setback is met, a Design Development Option (DDO) will be required to approve this development package. If the DDO is applied for and approved provide the DDO case number adjacent to the title block on all sheets and provide a general note stating the case number, date of approval, what was approved and if applicable any conditions of approval. Zoning is willing to provide an over the counter review once the above comments have been addressed. 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 |
| 04/26/2016 | SSHIELD1 | ADA | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/29/2016 | 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: Design Development Option case and post any conditions imposed Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply. |
| 05/03/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed |