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 - DP16-0236
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/06/2017 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/13/2017 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Principal Planner PROJECT: Guard Glass Development Package (1st Review) DP16-0236 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 17, 2017 DUE DATE: February 03, 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 January 04, 2018. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 1. 2-06.3.5 - Provide the PDSD approval stamp on sheets C2.0 & C2.1. 2. 2-06.3.5 - As the survey sheets will not be stamped by PDSD mark these sheets as "REFERENCE ONLY". 3. 2-06.3.12 - The drawings are not in the order as shown on the index, sheet C1.1 follows sheet C1.0 prior to the survey sheet. 4. 2-06.3.12 - If the survey sheets are to remain in the set list both sheets in the index. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 5. 2-06.4.2.D - If the survey sheets are to remain in the set then the total number of sheets shown is not correct and should be "8". 6. 2-06.4.2.D - If the survey sheets are to remain in the set, based on the sheet index the sheet numbers should be 2 & 3 of 8. 7. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, DP16-0236, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 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 8. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Under "UDC ANALYSIS", "PROPOSED LAND USE" you list the use as "OFFICE/WAREHOUSE". Warehouse is not a use listed in the UDC. Based on UDC Article 11.3.10 the definition of Commercial Storage includes warehouse. Clarify what the primary use is, either Administrative and Professional Office or Commercial Storage. Also list the applicable Use Specific Standard. If the use is Administrative and Professional Office the Use Specific Standard would be 4.9.13.Q, if the use is Commercial Storage the Use Specific Standards would be 4.9.10.A and 4.9.13.Q. 9. 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - Near the lower right corner of the first sheet you list "C.O.T DESIGN DEVELOPMENT OPTION: DDO-XX-XX". It does not appear that a DDO will be required for this project, remove this reference from the plan. 2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided. 10. 2-06.4.8.B - Provide the recordation information for all easements shown on the plan. 11. 2-06.4.8.C - Provide the following information for Fairview Avenue on the plan, right-of-way width, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. 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. 12. 2-06.4.9.F - Provide the zoning for the parcels to the south of this site. 13. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Under "UDC ANALYSIS", "PARKING REQUIRED" you list "INDUSTRIAL USE"; Industrial Use is not a use but a use group. Plus neither Administrative and Professional Office or Commercial Storage is a use listed in the Industrial Use Group. Until comment 8 is addressed the vehicle parking requirement cannot be verified. 14. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Provide a typical parking space detail for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. The detail should also include the proposed wheel stops along with a location dimension, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3. 15. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Detail 1 Sheet C1.1 the mounting height dimension shown for the sign should be shown to the bottom of the Van Accessible sign. 16. 2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Under "UDC ANALYSIS", "LOADING ZONE" you list "COMMERICAL SERVICES; INDUSTRIAL USE", Commercial Services & Industrial Use is not a use but a use group. Until comment 8 is addressed the vehicle parking requirement cannot be verified. If the primary use is Commercial Storage than per UDC Table 7.5.5-A, Commercial Storage, Less Than 50,000 sq. ft. GFA he loading space, one (1) 12 x 35 loading space is required. 17. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Under "UDC ANALYSIS", "BIKE PARKING" you list "INDUSTRIAL USE", Industrial Use is not a use but a use group. Until comment 8 is addressed the short and long term bicycle parking requirements cannot be verified. 18. 2-06.4.9.M.1 The Paving & Grading and the SWPP plans do not match the site plan, i.e. two accessible spaces shown, accessible signage shown in different location, flush sidewalk in place of ramps. 19. 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the square footage and the height of each commercial, industrial, or business structure and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building(s). 20. 2-06.4.9.R - It is not clear that the proposed sidewalk shown along the east end of the access lane is physically separated from the access lane. See orange highlighter. 21. 2-06.4.9.R - Provide a width dimension between the flare of the proposed accessible ramp, shown at the proposed accessible vehicle parking space, and the edge of sidewalk. The minimum width should be 4'-0". 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 |
| 01/17/2017 | SSHIELD1 | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See Zoning comments |
| 01/30/2017 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/30/2017 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/02/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Revise the site drawing to include the following existing utility information: a. The location and size of sanitary sewers, including the pipe diameter and the invert and rim elevations of all manholes and cleanouts; along with the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number. b. The points of connection to existing public sewers. c. The locations of gas lines, electric and telephone lines, poles, and communications cables, on-ground junction boxes, and street lights. d. Any existing or proposed utility easements Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. |
| 02/03/2017 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. The grading and paving plan needs to have dimension and proposed ground elevations throughout. A geotechnical report with infiltration test results may be required if the basin depth exceeds 6 inches. 2. Dimension the distance between the existing building on the adjacent parcel and the retention basin. Include a discussion in a geotechnical report of the potential effect of the basin on the existing building if the distance is less than 10 feet. 3. Make sure the various plan sheets are consistent. 4. Since the various plans are incomplete or inconsistent, additional comments may be forthcoming in the next review. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/08/2017 | KROBLES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |