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: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP16-0046
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/16/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 06/22/2016 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/30/2016 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Principal Planner PROJECT: Old Dominion Freight Line - Tucson Development Package (2nd Review) DP16-0046 TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 1, 2016 DUE DATE: July 12, 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). 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 April 03, 2016. 1. 2-06.4.9.E - There is a lot split, lot line reconfiguration, in progress, S16-008. This lot split will need to be completed prior to approval of the development package. 2. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide an access lane width dimension for the southern entrance/exit along Palo Verde Road. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Provide a fully dimensioned vehicle use are to include but not limited to, curb radius, access lane width, gate width, back-up spur, etc. 3. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - As wheel stops are now proposed show the wheel stops on details 1 & 6 sheet A102 and provide a location dimension per UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3. 4. ICC A117.1-2009, 502.7 states "Such signs shall be 60" minimum above the floor of the parking space above the floor of the parking space, measured to the bottom of the sign." As the ICC references minimum the COT 7'-0" requirement is more restrictive and will govern in this case. Revise the detail to show 7'-0" to the bottom of the sign. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Sheet A102 detail 4 the dimension shown to the bottom of the accessible sign is not correct and should be called out as 7'-0". 5. Zoning acknowledges that "TC" is now shown on the legend shown on sheet C-2 as "TOP OF CONCRTE" but based on the legend shown on sheet A105 this area is proposed to be "LIGHT DUTY ASPHALT". Due to the inconsistencies of your plan it is very difficult to determine if the requirements of the 2012 IBC Chapter 11 and the ICC A117.1-2009 are met. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Sheet C-2 there are spot elevations called out in the middle of the parking area, "TC 16 ", typically "TC" relates to top of curb, clarify what "TC" relates to on this plan. 6. This comment was not fully addressed. Detail 8 sheet A102 does not meet the requirements of UDC 7.4.9.D.2, .3 & .5. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show the required long term bicycle parking on the site plan and provide a detail that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC 7.4.9.B & .D are met. 7. This comment was not addressed. 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the square footage and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building(s). 8. 2-06.4.9.R - As accessible curb ramps will be required for the sidewalk within the right-of-way at the entrance access lanes off of Palo Verde it appears that the required accessible route from the building to the street runs directly into the side of a ramp on the south side of the north entrance access lane. Provide a detail that clearly shows how this will work. 9. 2-06.4.9.R - ICC A117.1-2009 Section 505.3 Inside handrails on switchback or dogleg stairs or ramps shall be continuous between flights or runs. That said sheet A508 detail 1 the handrail shown at the switch back must be continuous, see yellow high light. 10. 2-06.4.9.R - ICC A117.1-2009 Section 505.10.1provide a 12" extension for the west handrail show at the bottom of the proposed ramp, sheet A508 detail 1. 11. 2-06.4.9.R - Clearly dimension all proposed handrail extensions on sheet A508 detail 1. 12. Sheet A508 there are several detail and section callouts that reference sheets that were not provided. Once the above comments have been addressed Zoning will provide an over-the-counter review. Call or email to schedule an appointment for this review. 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 |
| 07/01/2016 | SSHIELD1 | HC SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See Zoning comments |
| 07/08/2016 | CPIERCE1 | NPPO | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 07/08/2016 | CPIERCE1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Needs Review |