Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP16-0063
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/18/2017 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Principal Planner PROJECT: 1122 S. 6th Avenue - Take-Out Kitchen Development Package (2nd Review) DP16-0063 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 18, 2017 DUE DATE: February 13, 2017 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 10, 2016. 1. This comment was not addressed. The Development Package, DP16-0063 should only be sheets IS_01 & IS_01a for a total of 2 sheets, the title block shows 10 sheets. The Development Package is a separate submittal from the building plans. 2-06.4.2.D - The total number of pages should only be two (2). 2. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Detail 5 sheet 2 references the 98 edition of the ICC but should reference the 2009 3. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Detail 5 sheet 2 references "PER ICC SECTION (1:10 MIN SLOPE)", remove the reference to (1:10 MIN SLOPE) as this section of the ICC references numerous slopes. 4. This comment was not addressed. This comment was not fully addressed. The sign mounting height is 7'-0" from the bottom of the van accessible sign to grade. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Provide a large scale sign detail including a van accessible sign. 5. Based on what appears to be top of finished sidewalk, F.S. = 2411.95' and finished pavement, F.P. = 2411.60' it does not appear that the proposed sidewalk that runs along the south side of the building meets the requirements of TSM 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). 2-06.4.9.R - It is not clear that the sidewalk shown along the south side of the proposed building meets the requirements of TSM 7-01.4.2. Provide spot elevations. 6. This comment was not addressed. 2-06.4.9.R - It appears that the sidewalk shown running from the proposed building to the sidewalk shown within the right-of-way along 6th runs into a ramp. Demonstrate that this area meets all running and cross slope requirements of ICC A117.1-2009. 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 |
| 01/18/2017 | SSHIELD1 | HC SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See Zoning comments |
| 01/23/2017 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/31/2017 | PIBARRA1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 01/31/2017 | PIBARRA1 | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Needs Review |