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
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP16-0020
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/10/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Revise the site drawing to include the location of sanitary sewers and the pipe diameters and the invert and rim elevations of all manholes. Determine if a backwater valve is required. Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual No. 2-06.0.0, Section 4.8 and Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 02/18/2016 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1) Screen walls are required per UDC Table 7.6.4.-1. UDC 7.6.5.C.1 requires that these walls be located on the property lines. Revise the plans to clearly show the locations of required walls. The walls are required to be on the site or adjacent sites with a joint use agreement. |
| 02/18/2016 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | Exception |
| 02/29/2016 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. The Development Package number (DP16-0020) must be included on each sheet. I will review the completed revision at the counter. |
| 03/03/2016 | KEN BROUILLETTE | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/04/2016 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Vantage West Credit Union - Corporate Center Development Package (1st Review) DP16-0020 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 7, 2016 DUE DATE: March 7, 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 UDC, AM & TSM can be viewed at www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd. 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 February 04, 2017. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, DP16-0020, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 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. 2-06.4.7.A.8.a - Clarify what the area shown south of the proposed building is. It appears to be some type of wall or fence with gates. 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. 3. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Revise the vehicle parking space calculation to include number required and the ratio used. 4. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Remove all references to "ADAAG" and "2010 ADASAD" from the plans as they are not applicable. All references should be to the IBC and the ICC A117.1-2009. 5. 2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Provide a loading space calculation on the plan that provided the number required and provided. 6. 2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Show the required loading space on the plan. 7. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - There is a keynote 26 called out near the southwest corner of the proposed addition the calls for 15 long term bicycle parking but it appears that there is only 1 space provided in this location, clarify. 8. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Provide a detail for the proposed long term bicycle parking on the plan that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1,.2 and 7.4.9.D are met. 9. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Demonstrate on the how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.B.1.e, 7.4.9.C.2.a are met. 10. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Detail 4 sheet L4.0 should match what is shown on the plan. 11. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Detail 4 sheet L4.0 dimensions are not correct. Clearly show the required 2' x 6' space required for each bicycle see UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.f & figure 7.4.9-A. The 3-'0" dimension shown between racks is not correct see UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.f & figure 7.4.9-A, this dimension should be 4'-0" clear between racks not to the center of rack. The 2'-4" dimension shown to the wall should be 2'-6" per UDC Article 7.4.9.B.g. Show the proposed long term bike locker on the detail and provide a dimension showing that UDC Article 7.4.9.B.g. is met from the rack to locker. 12. 2-06.4.9.O - Provide a perimeter yard setback dimension from the east property line to the building. 13. 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the height of the existing building within the footprint on the plan. 14. 2-06.4.9.R - Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.B A sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located. That said provide a sidewalk, the meets the requirements of TSM Section 7-01.4.3. along the east & south side of the proposed building. 15. 2-06.4.9.R - Provide details for the proposed stairs shown along the north side of the existing building. The details should address handrail extensions. 16. 2-06.4.9.R - Provide a sidewalk width dimension for the sidewalk shown near the northeast corner of the existing building. 17. 2-06.4.9.R - The striped area shown between the two rows of accessible vehicle parking spaces is required to be a sidewalk, see TSM Figure 5. 18. 2-06.4.9.R - Provide a width dimension for the striped area shown between the two rows of accessible vehicle parking spaces. 19. 2-06.4.9.R - Based on detail J sheet C8 it appears that the proposed accessible signs will encroach into the minimum 4'-0" sidewalk width. 20. 2-06.4.9.R - Show the required sidewalk to the proposed trash enclosure, see TSM Section 7-01.3.3.B. Additional Comments 21. Sheet C3 there is a keynote 31 shown on the plan but no keynote is provided. 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 |
| 03/07/2016 | SSHIELD1 | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See Zoning comments |
| 03/08/2016 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 03/09/2016 | PGEHLEN1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | WRITE DECISION LETTER | 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 the plans |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/22/2016 | ARUIZ1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |
| 03/09/2016 | PGEHLEN1 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 03/09/2016 | PGEHLEN1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |