Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP17-0014
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/24/2017 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/30/2017 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Andrew Connor Principal Planner PROJECT: Development Package (1st Review) DP17-0014 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 30, 2017 DUE DATE: February 23, 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). The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above 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 , 2016. 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 2-06.1.1 PURPOSE This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews. The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property. This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes. 2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review. 2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided. The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application: 2-06.2.3 Related Reviews In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the; 2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and, 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet: 2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 1. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP17-0014, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 2-06.4.4 - The project-location map to be located on the first sheet of the development package in the upper right corner, shall cover approximately one square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of three inch equals one mile, and provide the following information. Add section 1 & 6 on location map 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.C.2 - List the following note on all development package documents: "No structure or vegetation shall be located or maintained so as to interfere with the sight visibility triangles in accordance with Section 10-01.5.0, Sight Visibility, of the Technical Standards Manual." 2. COMMENT Reference the correct UDC code section(s) in Required City Notes on sheet 2 of 5 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. 2-06.4.9.H - Proposed Traffic Circulation 2-06.4.9.L - All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. The easements may have to be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval. 3. COMMENT: Provide information if applicable for above comment. 2-06.4.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual. 4. COMMENT: Verify that there is no cross access to the property to the West 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 build 5. Provide the over-all height in feet for structure. 2-06.4.9.S - Show existing or proposed pedestrian circulation along abutting rights-of-way. Such sidewalks must comply with accessibility requirements for the physically disabled and the design criteria in Section 10-01.0.0, Street Technical Standards, of the Technical Standards Manual. 6. COMMENT: Indicate cross slopes and dimension area between parking wheel-stops and sidewalks. 2-06.4.9.T - Show refuse collection areas, including locations of dumpsters, screening location and materials, and vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned, and access route. If dumpster service is not proposed, indicate type of service. For specific information on refuse collection, refer to Section 8-01.0.0, Solid Waste and Recycle Disposal, Collection, and Storage, of the Technical Standards Manual. Refuse collection on all projects shall be designed based on that section, even if collection is to be contracted to a private firm. 7. COMMENT: Confirm that trash containers are appropriate for refuse collection. 2-06.4.9.X - Show compliance with landscaping and screening requirements by locations, material descriptions, and dimensions. Specific plant or hardscape material shall be detailed on a landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan is required. In accordance with Section 2-11.0.0, Landscape Plan Requirements. 8. COMMENT: See Landscape review comments Additional comment may apply upon subsequent reviews. 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. |
| 02/02/2017 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/02/2017 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 2-06.4.9.X - Show compliance with landscaping and screening requirements by locations, material descriptions, and dimensions. Specific plant or hardscape material shall be detailed on a landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan is required. In accordance with Section 2-11.0.0, Landscape Plan Requirements. |
| 02/02/2017 | ACONNOR1 | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See zoning comments regading cross slopes for sidewalks. |
| 02/02/2017 | ACONNOR1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 02/13/2017 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | 1. Clearly indicate the top of the sidewalk adjacent to the back-up spur will be 6 inches above pavement grade. 2. Show the screening for the trash containers. |
| 02/13/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/22/2017 | MMENDIB1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |