Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - DP20-0018
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/01/2020 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/02/2020 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Site Section Manager PROJECT: TEP Harrison Substation 9411 E Speedway Blvd. – C-1 Zone Development Package (3rd Review) DP20-0018 TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 2, 2020 DUE DATE: December 29, 2020 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 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 June 07, 2021. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) Section 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 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: 2-06.2.1 Application Form A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee; 2-06.2.2 Development Package A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein; 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, 2-06.2.5 Fees Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS PRIOR COMMENT 4. This comment was not fully addressed. The case number was not provide on sheets 14 & 15. 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, DP20-0019 , adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 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. PRIOR COMMENT 14. This comment was not addressed. No adjacent zoning has been shown on sheet C-3. 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. PRIOR COMMENT 15. This comment was not addressed. 2-06.4.9.H.5 – As you have modified this site and this effects the site to the east demonstrate on this plan that the minimum 24’ parking area access lane is maintained for the vehicle parking spaces to the east. Also, if a low wall is proposed demonstrate that the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.b are met. PRIOR COMMENT 16. Your comment response states “Please reference PDMR #. It does not appear that the PDMR has been submitted. PDMR is a separate submittal from the DP. .2-06.4.9.H.5.a – A PDMR must be submitted and approved for the vehicle parking space reduction. If approved provide the PDMR case number adjacent to the title block on all sheets. Also provide a general note stating the PDMR case number, date of approval, what was modified and if applicable any conditions of approval. PRIOR COMMENT 17. This comment was not addressed. There is no UDC section provided and it should be listed as UDC 7.4.5.E.3. The plans only provide for 6 short-term bicycle parking spaces. To use this reduction you 6 space are require to be over and above the required number for the use. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – For the proposed vehicle parking space reductions shown in the parking calculation provide the applicable UDC sections used for this reduction. PRIOR COMMENT 19. This comment was not addressed. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Provide a short - & long – term bicycle parking space calculation on the plan that included the number required and provided. This calculation needs to demonstrate that the 6 short-term spaces used to reduce the number of vehicle parking spaces is over and above the required number for this use. PRIOR COMMENT 20. This comment was not addressed. It appears that the detail sheet was changed to C3.5 and no changes or information was provided on how the bicycle parking meets the UDC Article. Also sheet C-3 has a note that references “BIKE RACKS. RE:2SP101 (TYP. OF 6) 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Detail 2 sheet SP101 needs to address how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1.a, .b, .c, .e, 7.4.9.B.2.d, .f, .g & .g are met. PRIOR COMMENT 21. This comment was not addressed. 2-06.4.9.Q – Provide the square footage and the height of building and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building, if applicable this includes outdoor seating. NEW COMMENTS: 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 1. 2-06.3.12 - An index of sheets in the development package shall be provided on the first sheet. 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 |
| 12/03/2020 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: December 3, 2020 RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS NOTICE Your Next Steps: Resubmittal of updated/corrected documents IMPORTANT - NEW FILEDROP: https://docs.tucsonaz.gov/Forms/tucsonpermitapp Select "Existing Application" FYI - For all NEW submittals (not this resubmittal) on the new Filedrop page, select the box: "Site Review..." so it is routed to correct staff member for quicker processing. PERMIT/ACTIVITY: DP20-0018 DESCRIPTION: SITE - Chipotle Mexican Grill, exterior patio seating. FEE BALANCE: $0 (zero) Thank you for the payment. SEE REVIEW COMMENTS and your submitted documents on PRO: www.tucsonaz.gov/pro (If information is not available, check back later after data transfers to PRO.) - Home page, Activity Search, enter the Activity/Permit Number - Permits - click on blue tab - Reviews - click on Review Details - Documents - click on View to the right of each document YOUR NEXT STEP: Submit documents (LINK to new Filedrop): https://docs.tucsonaz.gov/Forms/tucsonpermitapp 1) Comment Response Letter (your response to the reviewer's Requires Change comments) 2) Plan Set (all pages, full set, even if no changes were made) 3) Any other documents requested by review staff - Title the documents for your 4th submittal starting with the submittal number, for example: 4_Plan_Set City of Tucson Attn: Sharon Beasley, Permit Specialist Planning and Development Services email: COTDSDPermits@TucsonAz.gov |