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 - DP16-0236
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/09/2017 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera for Steve Shields - Principal Planner PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: Guard Glass Development Package (2nd Review) DP16-0236 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 9, 2017 DUE DATE: April 5, 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. Follow Up To Previous Comment 7; The case number was not listed on sheets 6 and 7. Previous Comment 7; 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, DP16-0236, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2. Follow Up To Previous Comment 8; The principal use was listed as requested, however the zoning of this parcel is I-1 and the use specific standard listed after the use is not applicable to the Wholesaling/Business Supply use in the I-1 Zone for this use. Remove the use specific standard listed. Previous Comment 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. 3. Follow Up To Previous Comment 11; The information requested and required by the standard was not included on any of the sheets. Provide the information on the cover sheet. Previous Comment 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. 4. Follow Up To Previous Comment 13; Clarify if the concrete pad along the north side of the building is for outside storage. If so this area must be included in the parking calculation. Previous Comment 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. 5. Follow Up To Previous Comment 20; it is still not clear if the sidewalk is physically separated from the access lane area. Provide a detail drawing or cross section through the access lane and the sidewalk. Also clarify if the slab along the north side of the building is the same elevation as the sidewalk. Previous Comment 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. 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 |
| 03/09/2017 | DAVID RIVERA | HC SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera for Steve Shields - Principal Planner PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: Guard Glass Development Package (2nd Review) DP16-0236 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 9, 2017 DUE DATE: April 5, 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. Follow Up To Previous Comment 7; The case number was not listed on sheets 6 and 7. Previous Comment 7; 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, DP16-0236, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2. Follow Up To Previous Comment 8; The principal use was listed as requested, however the zoning of this parcel is I-1 and the use specific standard listed after the use is not applicable to the Wholesaling/Business Supply use in the I-1 Zone for this use. Remove the use specific standard listed. Previous Comment 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. 3. Follow Up To Previous Comment 11; The information requested and required by the standard was not included on any of the sheets. Provide the information on the cover sheet. Previous Comment 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. 4. Follow Up To Previous Comment 13; Clarify if the concrete pad along the north side of the building is for outside storage. If so this area must be included in the parking calculation. Previous Comment 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. 5. Follow Up To Previous Comment 20; it is still not clear if the sidewalk is physically separated from the access lane area. Provide a detail drawing or cross section through the access lane and the sidewalk. Also clarify if the slab along the north side of the building is the same elevation as the sidewalk. Previous Comment 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. 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 |
| 03/27/2017 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Provide dimensions on the grading plans. All significant features on the site, especially the basins should be fully dimensioned. 2. Show the proposed grades for the basin floors including landscape water harvesting basins. 3. Provide calculations to substantiate the volumes provided in the basins. |
| 03/28/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed |