Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: DP16-0066
Parcel: 14041056A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP16-0066
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
04/19/2016 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
05/06/2016 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change Revise the site drawing to include the invert and rim elevation of the upstream manhole along with the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number.
05/11/2016 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Principal Planner

PROJECT: Brake Max 15 - 3206 E. Valencia Road
Development Package (1st Review)
DP16-0066

TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 12, 2016

DUE DATE: May 16, 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 11, 2016.

1. 2-06.4.3 - Remove the street address from the title block and provide it adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

2. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, DP16-0066, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

3. 2-06.4.2.C - Sheet 1, location map, the section corners are not labeled correctly.

4. 2-06.4.7.A.1 - General Note 2 remove the reference to "EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION" show it as "EXISTING ZONING".

5. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - The proposed use listed under General Note 3 is not correct. Brake repair does not fall under Automotive - Minor Service and Repair and should be listed as Automotive - Major Service and Repair. See UDC Article 11.3.4.E. Also provide the use specific standard 4.9.13.E that applies for the C-2 zone and 4.9.13.Q that applies to the I-1 zone.

6. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Based on the ratios used in the vehicle parking space calculation it appears that two separate uses are proposed for this site. Under General Note 3 list the second use and any applicable use specific standards that apply.

7. 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - General Note 15 lists and old LUC code reference for the Major Streets and Route. This note should show UDC Article 5.4. This note should also include a reference to Gateway Corridor Article 5.5.

8. 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - General Note 5 remove the reference to "FLOOR AREA RATIO" as it is no longer applicable.

9. 2-06.4.9.A - As a lot combination is required provide a copy of the approved Pima County Lot Combination form with your next submittal.

10. 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. Clearly show the C-2 zoning to the west and the C-2 and I-1 to the north side of Valencia.

11. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Provide an access lane width dimension for the access between the parcel to the east shown near the southeast corner of the site.

12. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Fully dimension all back-up spurs shown on the plan, see UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4.

13. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Until all proposed uses are listed, see comment 6, the required number of vehicle parking spaces cannon be verified.

14. 2-06.4.9.H.5.b - As the long-term bicycle parking spaces shown near the southwest corner of Building 1, are directly adjacent to a vehicle parking space demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.D.2.b are met.

15. 2-06.4.9.H.5.b - As both short-term bicycle parking spaces are shown directly adjacent to a vehicle parking space demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.D.2.b are met.

16. 2-06.4.9.H.5.b - Detail 8 sheet 4 provide a mounting height dimension from the bottom of the "VAN ACCESSIBLE" sign. This dimension should be 7'-0".

17. 2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Until all proposed uses are listed, see comment 6, the requirements for loading spaces cannot be determined.

18. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Sheet 2 near the northwest corner of Building #1 it appears that you are providing two (2) racks for a total of four (4) short-term bicycle parking spaces. See UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.d. Clarify what is happening in this area and if applicable revise the numbers of provided spaces.

19. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - As both short-term bicycle parking spaces are shown directly adjacent to a vehicle parking space demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.B.2.g are met.

20. 2-06.4.9.H.6 -As phasing is proposed provide all applicable phased calculations.

21. 2-06.4.9.R - Provide a detail for what appears to be an accessible access ramp shown near the northwest corner of Building 2.

22. 2-06.4.9.R - Provide a sidewalk width dimension form the top of the proposed accessible ramp, shown west of Building 1 to the proposed building.


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
05/12/2016 SSHIELD1 ADA REVIEW Passed
05/12/2016 SSHIELD1 H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change See Zoning comments
05/16/2016 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change 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:

Rezoning case;

Subdivision case;

Board of Adjustment case;

Design Development Option case;

Development Review Board (DRB) case; and/or,
Any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site.

LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING

Minimum Width
Street landscape borders must be a minimum of ten feet wide as measured from the street property line.

TECHNICAL STANDARDS MANUAL

SECTION 5-01.0.0: LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING

4.3 Streetscape Landscape Border - Maximum Width
In situations where the street landscape border is wider than the minimum ten foot standard, the landscape border width needs to be determined for the purposes of calculating the 50% vegetative coverage standard. The width is that area between the required screen and the property line.

Continuous screens along street frontages for vehicle use area must be as determined by Table 7.6.4-I. Identify screening elements on the landscape plan

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

Additional comments may apply
05/16/2016 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
05/16/2016 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Revise the note on sheet 2 indicating the phase 2 area will be bare earth. The area must be stabilized per the SWPPP regulations.
2. Show roof drainage patterns and show how roof drainage will not be discharged to sidewalk and sidewalks will be kept flood free up to a 10-year event. TSM 7-01.4.1.E.
3. Provide a complete SWPPP for the project. Include a completed checklist from ADEQ showing where each requirement has been met.
4. Keynote 31 on sheet 2 is used in front of the adjacent property and doesn't seem to be correctly described. Ensure all keynotes and descriptions are correct.
5. Ensure all landscape areas are depressed for water harvesting. To the maximum extent practicable, direct drainage to these areas.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
06/14/2016 KROBLES1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed