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 - DP17-0055
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/28/2017 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: The Slaughterhouse Development Package (1st Review) DP17-0055 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 28, 2017 DUE DATE: October 11, 2016 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards 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). 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 March 13, 2018. 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. 2-06.4.3 - Remove the reference to "DP17-0257" from all sheets and provide the new development package case number, DP17-0055, 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.8 - For development package documents provide: 2. 2-06.4.7.A.8.a General Note 18 lists the total building square footage as 24,740 but when you add the square footage shown within the footprint of the two existing buildings shown on sheet C2 the total is 27,263, clarify the difference. 3. 2-06.4.7.A.8.a The storage containers listed under keynote 35 and the existing sheds called out under keynote 11are considered structures and should be included in the total square footage listed in General Note 18. 4. 2-06.4.7.A.8.c - The storage containers listed under keynote 35 are considered structures and constitute an expansion of building square footage, provide an expansion calculation on the plan. 2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions 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. 5. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - It appears that the number of accessible vehicle parking space provided is not correct. Based on sheet C2 there are three (3) shown on site, one (1) along the east side of the building near the primary entrance and two (2) within the proposed vehicle parking area. 6. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Provide a detail for a standard vehicle parking space. 7. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Clearly demonstrate on the plan that the accessible vehicle parking space shown near the primary entrance call out under keynote 1, meets the requirements of the 2012 IBC Section 1104 and the ICC A117.1-2009. 8. 2-06.4.9.H.5.c - It does not appear that the loading space calculation is correct. Per UDC Table 7.5.5-A REQUIRED LOADING AREAS, Storage Use Group, Commercial Storage and Personal Storage w/o Direct Vehicular Access: Less Than 50,000 sq. ft. GFA, 1 Type A loading space is required. The provided number does not clarify what type of space is provided. Also the provided number does not appear to be correct. Sheet C2 has three (3) different areas called out under Keynote 5. 9. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Under the short and long term bicycle parking space calculation you list "ENTERAINMENT" as a use, General Note 3 does not include "ENTERAINMENT" as a use. Clarify what the proposed uses are? 10. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - It does not appear that the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.C.2.a & .d are met as no short term bicycle parking is provided at the primary entrance called out under keynote 1. 11. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Demonstrate on the detail or plan how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1.e are met for the short term bicycle parking. 12. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Provide a detail for the proposed long term bicycle parking that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.D are met. 13. 2-06.4.9.J - If street dedication is not required or proposed and the project site is adjacent to a Major Street or Route, draw the Major Street right-of-way lines for those streets. Add the MS&R future sidewalk, right-of-way lines, sight visibility triangles, etc.) Show the future sidewalks for both Grant and Flowing Wells on the plan. 14. 2-06.4.9.O - The street perimeter yard setbacks shown under General Note 14 are not correct. Per UDC Article 11.4.6 Definitions - E, Established Area Setback a street designated as a MS&R is considered developing area. Per UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2 and Table 6.4.5.C-1 ADT of 1,000 or great the required street perimeter yard for both Grant and Flowing Wells should be listed as 21' or the height of the exterior building wall, greater of the two, measured from the back of future curb. 15. 2-06.4.9.O - Provide a street perimeter yard setback dimension from the propose storage containers to the back of future curb along Grant and Flowing Wells. It does not appear that the storage container along Grant will meet street perimeter yard setback, a Board of Adjustment for Variance may be required. 16. 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the square footage and height for the sheds called out under Keynote 11 on the plan. 17. 2-06.4.9.R - Per 2012 IBC Section 1104 clearly show the required accessible route from the proposed accessible vehicle parking spaces to an accessible entrance of the building. Clearly demonstrate that this route meets the requirements of ICC A117.1-2009. The proposed accessible route from the two (2) accessible spaces shown within the new vehicle parking area runs up to near the northwest corner of the existing building and stops. 18. 2-06.4.9.R - Clearly demonstrate that there is an accessible route from the accessible vehicle parking space shown near the primary entrance call out under keynote 1 to the building. 19. 2-06.4.9.R - Per TSM 7-01.4.1.C A sidewalk is required adjacent to any parking space accessed by a PAAL where the space is located on the same side of the PAAL as any building and no other parking spaces or PAALs intervene. That said the area between the proposed storage containers west to the storage containers is required to be a 4'-0" sidewalk. 20. 2-06.4.9.R - Detail C sheet C4 clearly demonstrate that there is a 4'-0" clear sidewalk is maintained between the accessible sign and the existing fence. 21. 2-06.4.9.R - Sheet C4 Keynote 10 calls out "NEW TRUNCATED DOMES" for your information truncated domes are not required on site of accessibility. 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 |
| 03/28/2017 | SSHIELD1 | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See Zoning comments. |
| 04/05/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 04/06/2017 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Show the drainage flow directions on the site plan. Ensure that each basin receives the design volume in the design storm for effective retention and detention. |
| 04/12/2017 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | Exception. |
| 04/12/2017 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/12/2017 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Based on the expansion of vehicular use area the Landscape & Screening standards (UDC 7.6) apply to the entire site. If variances or modifications apply, note the case number(s), date of approval, and any conditions of approval on the landscape plans. AM 2-10.4.1.B 1) The site is required to provide street landscape borders per UDC 7.6.4.C.2 2) The site is required to provide include screening per UDC 7.6.5.A in locations consistent with UDC 7.6.5.C.2 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/04/2017 | LBOJORQ1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |