Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: DP20-0112
Parcel: 10120036J

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP20-0112
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
05/28/2020 SBEASLE1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
05/29/2020 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
06/02/2020 GDAURIA1 FIRE REVIEW Completed
06/04/2020 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.

The development package will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet:

Any relevant case numbers for reviews or modifications that affect the site.

Provide Case # DP20-0112 on each sheet.

Ensure that Zoning and Engineering comments are addressed prior to landscape section approval.


Additional comments may apply
06/16/2020 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Site Section Manager

PROJECT: Preferred Concrete Pumping
Development Package (1st Review)
DP20-0112

TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 16, 2020

DUE DATE: June 25, 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 actual standard first with 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 May 27, 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

1. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, DP20-0112, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide:

2. 2-06.4.7.A.8.a - The gross floor area for the proposed building is confusing. List the gross floor area only. Gross floor area is defined as The sum of the horizontal areas of all floors of all buildings, including accessory buildings on a lot, measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls or from the centerline of walls separating two buildings and includes elevator shafts and the stairwells at each story. Gross floor area includes floor space with structural headroom of six feet and six inches or more used for mechanical equipment; penthouses; attic space; interior balconies; mezzanines; and service bays but does not include any interior space used for parking, loading, or loading space that is incidental to the principal use." see UDC Article 11.4.8.

2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions

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.

3. 2-06.4.8.B - Provide a copy of an access easement and the recordation information that provides access to this parcel.

4. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - The vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Based on a gross floor area of 6,800 sq. ft., 1,400 + 5,400 sq. ft/300 = 22.67 or 23 space required, see UDC Article 7.4.3.F.4 & 7.4.3.G.

5. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - The height dimension for Accessible Parking Sign detail on sheet 5 is not correct and should be 7'-0" to the bottom of the "VAN ACCESSIBLE" sign.

6. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - The short-term bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Per UDC Article 7.4.3.A.2 Each Land Use Group (Group), except for Residential and Storage, has a standard minimum parking formula. The standard formula applies to every Land Use Class (Class) within that Group, except for those Classes specifically listed in the parking tables. That said per UDC Table 7.4.8-1: Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, COMMERCIAL USE GROUP, 2 short-term bicycle parking spaces are required. Revise the short-term bicycle parking calculation, show the short-term bicycle parking on the development package and provide a detail that demonstrates the short-term bicycle parking meets the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1, .2 and 7.4.9.C.

7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Provide a detail for the long-term bicycle parking that demonstrates how the long-term bicycle parking meets the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1, .2 and 7.4.9.D.

8. 2-06.4.9.O - As this property does not boarder on a street remove the reference to "STREET YARD: 21' or H (MEASURED FROM THE EDGE OF NEAREST ADJACENT TRAVEL LANE).

9. 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the gross floor area within the footprint. Also, the use should be listed as construction services.

10. 2-06.4.9.R - Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.B A sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located (See Figure 1);. That said provide a 4' wide sidewalk along the south and west side of the building. Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.H provide a 4' wide pedestrian refuge area along the east side of the building.

11. 2-06.4.9.R - It appears that the proposed accessible vehicle parking space signs may reduce the sidewalk width to less than 4' as vehicles are allowed to over hand the sidewalk at the accessible parking spaces shown on the north side of the proposed building. Clearly demonstrate that a minimum 4' sidewalk is maintained.

12. 2-06.4.9.R - It is not clear how access is provided from the accessible access aisle shown at the north side of the proposed building to the sidewalk.

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
06/16/2020 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Clarify building plan note 80. Show the location of the hydrants on the plans.
2. Areas shown as asphalt on the site plan are labeled as dirt on the landscape plans. Please make sure the plans are consistent.
Loren Makus, EIT
loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov
06/24/2020 SBEASLE1 ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS NOTICE
Your Next Step: Resubmittal of documents

DESCRIPTION: SITE/GRADING - Preferred Concrete Pumping.
PERMIT/ACTIVITY: DP20-0112
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 blue icon to the right of each document

YOUR NEXT STEP: Submit documents to the Filedrop
https://www.tucsonaz.gov/file-upload-pdsd

FOR FASTER PROCESSING, when on the Filedrop page, select the box
"Development Package or Land Division". This applies to all
DP submittals, DP resubmittals, and DP revisions - and all Land Splits.
(For Building Permits, continue to select "Resubmittals/Revisions...".)

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

- Name the 2nd submittal documents starting with the
submittal number, for example: 2_Plan_Set

Thank you.
Sharon Beasley, Permit Specialist

City of Tucson
Planning and Development Services
email: COTDSDPermits@TucsonAz.gov
06/24/2020 CHRIS POIRIER PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Reqs Change (The attached PDF mentioned below can be viewed online: www.TucsonAz.gov/Pro. See the Documents section.)

DP20-0112, Preferred Concrete, 1st submittal, is being Returned for Corrections by Pima County Addressing.
The attached pdf contains Addressing’s comments.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Robin Freiman, Addressing Official
Pima County Development Services Department
(520) 724-7570

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
06/24/2020 SBEASLE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed