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

Permit Number: DP18-0117
Parcel: 10605008A

Address:
535 W ROGER RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP18-0117
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
05/15/2018 KELLY LEE START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
05/16/2018 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
05/30/2018 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: David Rivera
PDSD Zoning Review Section

PROJECT: Tucson Subaru Commercial Storage Site - Vehicle Storage
Development Package (1st Review) - I-1 Zoning
DP18-0117 - Address: 533 and 535 W. Roger Road

TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 30, 2018
DUE DATE: June 13, 2018

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.

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 May14, 2019.

SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS)
Section


1. COMMENT: 2-06.3.5 - Remove Development Package PDSD approval stamp on all sheets. Reserve a three-inch by five-inch space in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for an approval stamp. The approval stamp will be applied electronically.

2-06.3.5 - A three-inch by five-inch space shall be reserved in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for an approval stamp.


2. COMMENT: Rotate the site drawing on the site plan sheets so that north is oriented with north to the left hand side of the sheets as noted by the standard below.

2-06.3.9 - The plan drawing shall be oriented with north toward the top of the sheet. If it is not practical to orient north to the top of the sheet, the plan drawing shall be oriented with north to the left side of the sheet.


3. COMMENT: List the Owner's telephone and email address on the cover sheet.

2-06.4.1 - The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided on the right half of the cover sheet. The applicable registration or license number shall be provided if prepared by or with the assistance of a registered professional, such as a surveyor, architect, landscape architect, or engineer. All sealing shall be consistent with Arizona Board of Technical Registration guidelines.


4. COMMENT: Include the following information in the title block of all plan sheets.

2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet:


5. COMMENT: The description in the title block is insufficient. Use the legal descriptions as listed by the PC assessor's information.

2-06.4.2.B - A brief legal description and a statement as to whether the project is a re-subdivision are to be provided. On re-subdivisions, provide the recording information of the existing subdivision plat;


6. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP18-0117, adjacent to the title block 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.


7. COMMENT: Provide the following formation on location map.

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.


8. COMMENT: Label "Wetmore Road and Prince Road" on the location map.

2-06.4.4.B - Identify major streets and regional watercourses within the square mile area and all streets that abut the subject property; and,


9. COMMENT: Revise general note 5 to state the use specific standards applicable are UDC 4.9.10.A and 4.9.13.Q. (UDC 4.9.10.A is all inclusive.)

2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses.


10. COMMENT: Provide the information 50 feet beyond the east boundary of the development site. Along the south side of the east parcel appears to be a roadway that provide access to the south parcel. If there is an ingress / egress easement still in place indicate on the plan the location, width, recording info and type of easement on the plan.

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.


11. COMMENT: Zoning is requesting that the parcels be combined via a Pima County Tax parcel combo prior to approval of the DP.

2-06.4.8.A - Provide site boundary/subdivision perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system.


12. COMMENT: There are two annotations related to easements on the east parcel. One is for an ingress/egress easement but it is not clearly drawn or depicted on the site plan. Draw the full easement and annotate. The second easement is for a Quit Claim Encroachment Easement which is also not clearly drawn or depicted on the site plan. Draw the full easement and annotate.

On the landscape sheets the note related to the Quit Claim Encroachment Easement is listed but is not drawn or annotated. The annotation related to the easements should be consistent between the site plan and landscape sheets. Revise as required.

Clarify if the existing ingress/egress easement is to remain to provide access to the parcel along the south boundary or is there an easement elsewhere that allows access to the south parcel. If the existing easements are to be abandoned, the abandonment must be completed prior to approval of the DP and copies of the abandonment documents shall be submitted with the DP.

2-06.4.8.B - All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided.


13. COMMENT: Provide the information for Roger Road on the site plan sheets as noted by the standard below. (It is acknowledged that curbs and sidewalks are not constructed at this time along the street boundary of the proposed development.)

2-06.4.8.C - The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks.


14. COMMENT: Label the existing zoning classification R-2 and C-3 across Roger Road right of way.

2-06.4.9.F - All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. The basis for this requirement is that some zoning requirements on a project are based on the zoning classification of adjacent property. Also, in some instances, each zone has to be taken into consideration on property that is split by two or more zoning classifications, as each may have different requirements.


15. COMMENT: Assure that the existing and future SVT's have been drawn correctly. See the PDSD Engineering reviewer's comments for additional information.

2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section.


16. COMMENT: If vehicular access is provide to the south parcel via the easement the vehicular use are or drive will have to be drawn, dimensioned and labeled. The vehicular access will have to be paved to the south property line. Add the information as noted above.

2-06.4.9.H.3 - Indicate fire circulation, including accessibility and vehicle maneuverability.


17. COMMENT: Add the information Roger Road as noted by the standard below.

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.)


18. COMMENT: If applicable provide the easement information.

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.


19. COMMENT: Dimension the setback from the screen wall to the property line along Roger Road.

2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown.


20. COMMENT: Clarify if there is any proposal to provide freestanding signage for this development?

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. Indicate if there are any existing billboards on site. Compliance to the Sign Code, Chapter 3 of the Tucson Code, is required.


If you have any questions about this transmittal, Contact David Rivera on Tuesday or Wednesday at (520) 837-4957 or by email David.Rivera@tucsonaz.gov or contact Steve Shields any time during the week at (520) 837-4956 or email Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package
05/30/2018 DAVID RIVERA ZONING HC REVIEW Approved
06/11/2018 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL
SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS
4.1 Identification and Descriptive Data
A. All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan.
B. The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet:
Any relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site.
ARTICLE 7: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
SECTION 4-01.0.0: COMMERCIAL RAINWATER HARVESTING
The plan shall detail the landscape water demand and the harvested water supply needed to meet 50 percent of landscape demand.
Verify water budget data, along with the background data and assumptions used to develop it.
Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.
Additional comments may apply
06/12/2018 JOHN VAN WINKLE ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DP18-0117

1)Per City of Tucson Technical Standards Manuel (TSM) section 10-01.2.8.A show on plans and provide for sidewalk and curbing along Roger Rd
2) Per City of Tucson TSM section 7-01.0.0, provide a pedestrian circulation/access path along the proposed entry way, to connect Roger Rd to the vehicle storage area
3) Per City of Tucson Unified Development Code Section 7.4.6.H, provide a 6" vertical curb or other barrier along both sides of the proposed entry way
4) Per City of Tucson TSM Section 10-01.6.2.C.2, provide for a vehicle turn around at the end of the proposed entry, prior to the gate into the vehicle storage area
5) Clarify how vehicles are delivered to the storage area. Entry way and turn around must be sized to accommodate the delivery method. Vehicles delivered by car carrier trailer as an example.
6) Sheet 3. Detail 1 "WALL OPENING DETAIL". Revise detail to show that bottom of drainage block OPENING is at grade. Current detail shows that the opening is the wall thickness of the block above grade. Given that the wall thickness of a standard CMU block is approximately 1", confirm that cumulative provided openings are sufficient.

John Van Winkle, P.E.
John.VanWinkle@tucsonaz.gov
520-837-5007
06/12/2018 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
06/15/2018 ALEXANDRA HINES ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change Plan Returned for Corrections Notice: DP18-0103Project Description: E SITE/GRADE/SWPPP- TUCSON SUBARU

Fees Outstanding: $2,949.79. We will not review 2nd submittal until review fees are paid.
To see reviewer's comments about your plans, please visit https://www.tucsonaz.gov/pro/pdsd/activity_search.You will need to enter the activity number shown above to see comments about the plan.
This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Prepare a Comment Response Letter which tells the reviewers what changes have been made to the plan and what comments are addressed. When you have made the necessary corrections to the plans, please resubmit the following items to PDSD Filedrop and the plans will re-enter the 20 working day review cycle:1) Corrected plan set2) Items requested by review staff
Please remember to name your files appropriately, for example: second (2nd) submittal,2_plan_set.pdf2_response_letter.pdf
Alexandra Hines, AICP
Lead Planner at Planning and Development Services, City of Tucson
201 N Stone Ave 1st Floor, Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 837-6975 - alexandra.hines@tucsonaz.gov

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
06/15/2018 AHINES2 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed