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 - DP17-0040
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/18/2017 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/01/2017 | SSHIELD1 | HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/01/2017 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Principal Planner PROJECT: IHOP @ Valencia and Headley Development Package (2nd Review) DP17-0041 TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 1, 2017 DUE DATE: May 12, 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 February 21, 2018. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. Addressed 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, DP17-0 040, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide case number S16-079 on sheets 7-10. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the following case number, S16-079, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 3. Addressed 2-06.4.4.B - Identify Headley Road on the 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.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes 4. Addressed 2-06.4.7.A.1 - The "C-2" zoning listed under Development Package Note 4 is not correct and should be listed as C-1. 5. Zoning acknowledges and error in this comment. The use specific standard should be 4.9.13.O, not 4.9.43.O. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Development Package Note 6, use specific standard," 4.9.13" is listed and should be listed as 4.9.43.O. 6. Addressed 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - Revise Development Package Note 20 to include UDC ARTICLE 5.4 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R). 7. This comment needs to be addressed. 2-06.4.7.A.7 - Subdivision S16-079 will need to be recorded prior to approval of this development package. 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. 8. This comment needs to be addressed. 2-06.4.9.E - It appears that a lot line reconfiguration (land split) is proposed. As shown on the plan subdivision S16-079 will need to be recorded prior to approval of the land split. The development package cannot be approved until both items are completed. 9. Addressed 2-06.4.9.F - The existing zoning shown for adjacent parcels is not correct and should be C-2. Also provide the zoning for the parcels north of Valencia Road. 10. Addressed 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Per UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1 Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. That said some type of barrier is required along the east side of the proposed eastern PAAL. 11. Addressed 2-06.4.9.H.5 - The proposed southern access road will need to be constructed prior to issuing the certificate of occupancy for the proposed IHOP. 12. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide the number of required and provided accessible spaces in the parking calculation. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Sheet 1 vehicle parking space calculation provide the number required and provided for accessible vehicle parking including van accessible. Per 2012 IBC Chapter 11 Table 1106.1, 76 to 100 vehicle parking spaces provided 4 accessible spaces are required one being van accessible. 13. Addressed 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Provide the number required for both the short and long term bicycle parking. 14. The dimensions provided on the detail on sheet 5 do not align with the short term bicycle parking. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Per UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.f each required short-term bicycle parking space must be at least two feet by six feet. Show the required 2' x 6' parking space on the detail. 15. Addressed 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of 7.4.9.B.1.e and 7.4.9.B.2.a are met for both the short and long term bicycle parking. 16. This comment needs to be addressed. 2-06.4.9.L - There are several proposed easements shown on the plan that will need to be recorded prior to approval of the development package. 17. Addressed 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the specific use for the proposed building within the footprint. 18. Addressed 2-06.4.9.R - Per TSM 7-01.4.3.A the minimum width for a sidewalk is 4'-0". There are several areas where parking vehicles are shown to be allowed to overhang the proposed sidewalks. Show the 2'-6" vehicle overhang on the plan and clearly demonstrate on the plan that the minimum 4'-0" sidewalk is maintained. 19. This comment was not addressed. From the north end of the bicycle rack to the edge of sidewalk needs to be dimensioned to 2'-6". 2-06.4.9.R - Clearly demonstrate on the short term bicycle detail that a parked bicycle will not encroach into the 4' sidewalk, see UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1.a. 20. Addressed 2-06.4.9.R - Keynote 14 calls out for accessible ramps with truncated domes, for your information truncated domes are not required on site. 21. Addressed 2-06.4.9.W - Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. 22. Addressed Clarify why some of the keynotes are provided on some sheets but not all keynotes that are reference on that sheet Addition comment. 23. Standard, Accessible and bicycle parking detail, sheet 5 notes and dimensions do not align with what they are calling out or dimensioning. 24. The administrative address shown on the plans does not come up in the map system, clarify. 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 |
| 05/12/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 05/15/2017 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Plans referenced for DP16-0112 are not on file and must be approved prior to approval of this case. |