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: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - DP18-0235
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/02/2018 | ALEXANDRA HINES | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 11/09/2018 | EHAMBLI1 | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See Zoning comments. |
| 11/09/2018 | JOHN VAN WINKLE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DP18-0235 1) Trash enclosure detail 9 on sheet 4 is missing 2) Previous comment 2. Show how the proposed plan is in compliance with City of Tucson (COT) Unified Development Code (UDC) section 7.6.6.C. Particularly the grading of the vehicular use areas should be in such a manner that runoff is directed into all landscaped areas. Curb cuts should be provided at optimal locations to allow runoff to enter landscaped areas. Provide impervious surface tributary area and curb cuts to basins 3,4,5,10,11. Add note on plans that "All landscaped areas to be depressed 6" for rain water harvesting" 3) Previous comment 3. Storm drain inlets in basins are about 3" below the HW mark for the basin. Adjust the drain inlet elevation to be at or just below the HW mark 4) Infiltration areas should not have decomposed granite which silts and will reduce infiltration and clog inlets. Modify landscape plan to reflect crushed rock or another material other than decomposed granite in infiltration areas 5) Landscape plans show 2" of decomposed granite. If there is a 2" layer of rock in the infiltration basins the excavated depth of the basin should be over excavated so that the finished grade is as specified. 6) Previous Comment 10. Per COT Administrative manual section 2-06.4.8 show on plans the 100 year flood plain limits for the greyhound wash 7) Pima Associations of Governments "PAG" standard details have been adopted to replace City of Tucson Standard Details. Update notes/details on all sheets to reference the appropriate "PAG" standards. See following link http://apps.pagnet.org/standardspecifications/ John Van Winkle, P.E. John.VanWinkle@tucsonaz.gov 520-837-5007 |
| 11/09/2018 | ELISA HAMBLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Elisa Hamblin, AICP; Lead Planner PROJECT: Project Cactus - Commercial (Transportation Service Land Carrier) Development Package (2nd Review) - 775 W Silverlake Road DP18-0235 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 9, 2018 DUE DATE: November 30, 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. 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 September 18, 2019. 1. 2-06.4.2.D - Previous comment 4 not fully addressed. Re-label the landscape plan sheets labeled LS-5.1 and L5.2 to be labeled 29 and 30 in the plan set. 2. 2-06.4.7.A. - Per previous comments 7-9, provide the following as three separate general notes. Inclusion with the calculations section is fine, but the information must also be listed as general notes. a. "Existing zoning is I-1 and shall remain." b. List the gross area of the site/subdivision by square footage and acreage. c. Identify the existing use and proposed use of the property as "Transportation Service, Land Carrier" Subject to UDC Use Specific Standards 4.9.13.Q. 3. 2-06.4.8 - Previous comment 12 not fully addressed. Provide information for the site adjacent to the subject site. Existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site shall be provided. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided. Existing conditions (lot boundaries, zoning, etc.) across Silverlake have not been provided. 4. 2-06.4.8.A - Previous comment 14. Please clarify what is happening with the Parcel 118-11-015M. The lot line boundaries illustrated on the plan set do not match the parcel lines associated with lots 118-11-015M and 118-11-016B. They have different alignments (shape) than what is shown on the plan set. 5. 2-06.4.8.C - Previous comment 16. 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. Right-of-way width and dimensions for all components shall be included for the entire width of Silverlake. 6. 2-06.4.9.B - Previous comment 17 not fully addressed. Identify each lot by number and include the approximate square footage of each. The total square footage in the parcel ID section does not match the gross or net area provided in the calculations section. Which is accurate? 7. 2-06.4.9.F - Previous comment 18 not fully addressed. 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. Zoning across Silverlake has not been included and boundaries are not defined. 8. 2-06.4.9.H.4 - Previous comment 20 not fully addressed. Indicate if existing streets are public or private; provide street names, widths, curbs, sidewalks, and utility locations, all fully dimensioned. See previous comment regarding full right-of-way information for Silverlake. 9. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Previous comment 22 not fully addressed. Clarify and correct the parking calculations provided on the cover sheet. Provided standard parking spaces listed do not match the count found on sheet 3. 10. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Previous comment 23 not fully addressed. There is a requirement for 4 long-term bicycle parking spaces. The rack provided on the site plan and detail do not meet standards for long-term bike parking spaces. See UDC Article 7.4.9 Bicycle Parking Design Criteria. 11. 2-06.4.9.O - Previous comment 26 not fully addressed. Setback lines are measured from the back of the future curb, not the property line. 12. 2-06.4.9.R - Previous comment 28 not fully addressed. Provide dimensions for all sidewalks and details for all accessible ramps. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Elisa.Hamblin@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4966. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 11/19/2018 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS 4.1 Identification and Descriptive Data 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. Water Harvesting Implementation Plan General Information The Implementation Plan shall graphically show the following information drawn from tabulated data. 1. For the WHIA: a) Indicate the boundary of each WHIA and show its identifier Note: The WHIA is the area that is accepting water created by the site, not the entire lot area of each WHIA. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments are addressed. Additional comments may apply. |
| 11/28/2018 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | |
| 11/28/2018 | SBEASLE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Reqs Change | 11/27/18 At the request of the applicant, Lisa Bowers, the TAA is not going to accept the 2nd submittal of the project, DP18-0235. The applicant has identified that the property is currently changing ownership, with the applicant identifying that they need additional time so the project can be resubmitted for review by the other reviewers and to have the Avigation Easement signed by the property owners. The TAA finds what the applicant is proposing is acceptable. The TAA will formally review this project during the next formal submittal or the 3rd submittal for this project. Thank you, Scott Robidoux, Senior Airport Planner |
| 11/28/2018 | CHRIS POIRIER | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | DP18-0235 Project Cactus / 2nd Submittal is Approved by Pima County Addressing with the understanding that the Lot Consolidations will be completed once the new owner takes title to the subject property. Thank you, Robin Freiman Addressing Official Pima County Development Services Department 201 N Stone AV – 4th Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 724-7570 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/28/2018 | SBEASLE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |