Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP20-0122
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/12/2020 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/23/2020 | GDAURIA1 | FIRE | REVIEW | Completed | * Verify that throughout parking lot, fire access with 18' radii is provided * Gate north of building must be 20' wide * If gate secured TFD requires immediate access and must approve the locking system |
| 07/07/2020 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 07/08/2020 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Site Section Manager PROJECT: 4760 S Park Ave - New Building Development Package (1st Review) DP20-0122 TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 8, 2020 DUE DATE: July 13, 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 11, 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. 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. 2-06.4.1 - Provide email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, also provide the email address for the Consultants. 2. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the Development Package case number, DP20-0122, 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 - Zoning and Land Use Notes 3. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Provide the Use Specific Standards listed in UDC Table 4.8-5: PERMITTED USES - INDUSTRIAL ZONES for an Administrative and Professional Office use in the I-1 zone. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 4. 2-06.4.7.A.8.d - Zoning acknowledges that a land split as been submitted and that existing vehicle parking is being eliminated from the site to the north. A development package for the property to the north is required to demonstrate that the access and vehicle parking requirements are still met. 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.A - The land split will need to be approved prior to approval of this DP. 6. 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. 7. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Provide the required and provided number of van accessible vehicle parking spaces with in the vehicle parking space calculation. 8. 2-06.4.9.H.5.c - The loading space calculation states that a "12' x 41'" loading space is provided but the dimensions on sheet 2 show "12'x36'". 9. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - The long-term bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. Per UDC Article 7.4.4.G Fractional Amounts when the calculation of required motor vehicle and bicycle parking spaces results in a fractional number, a fraction of one-half or more is adjusted to the next higher whole number, and a fraction of less than one-half is adjusted to the next lower whole number. That said 100,000/6000=16.6667 or 17 required. 10. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - The dimensions shown on the "SHORT TERM" bicycle detail is not correct for the 2'x6' required space for each bicycle parking space. Per Figure 7.4.9-C: Bicycle Parking Layouts the 2' is measured from the edge of the rack not the center. 11. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Per UDC Article 7.4.9.C.2.a Short-term bicycle parking must be within 50 feet of each public entrance to a building as measured along the most direct pedestrian access route. It does not appear that any short-term bicycle parking is within 50' of the covered entry along the east side of the building. 12. 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. That said a 4' sidewalk is required near the northwest corner of the building. 13. 2-06.4.9.R - Provide a sidewalk width dimension for the sidewalk that runs out to Park Ave. 14. 2-06.4.9.S - It appears that some of the required sidewalk along Park Ave is on private property and access easement is required. 15. 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. Also provide a general note on the plan stating "ALL SIGNAGE REQUIRES SEPARTE PERMITS". 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 |
| 07/09/2020 | 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 # DP20-0122 on each sheet. Ensure that Zoning and Engineering comments are addressed prior to landscape section approval. Additional comments may apply |
| 07/14/2020 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS NOTICE Your Next Step: Resubmittal of documents DESCRIPTION: Site/Grading/SWPPP - 4760 S. Park Avenue, new office building. PERMIT/ACTIVITY: DP20-0122 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 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 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...".) Thank you. Sharon Beasley, Permit Specialist City of Tucson Planning and Development Services email: COTDSDPermits@TucsonAz.gov |
| 07/14/2020 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. The majority of the parking for the existing Davis Kitchens facility is on this proposed project site. Show how the provision of parking for Davis Kitchens will affect overall drainage. If this is fully addressed in the lot division process, it won't need to be addressed as a part of this project. 2. Show compliance with Tucson Code 26-7.2. Provide 20-foot setback from the wash where erosion protection is provided or provide correspondence with the City Engineer accepting a lesser setback. 3. Since the parcel is to be divided, show the adjusted parcel information in General Note 2 on Sheet 1. 4. The HEC profile for the wash doesn't match plan E-70-01. I recognize the wash might not have been maintained consistently since construction. Explain source of profile for the wash used for this analysis. 5. This project proposes disturbance within the regulatory floodplain. Provide an ERR in accordance with Technical Standard (TS) 4-02. Demonstrate no unnecessary disturbance of riparian resources per TC 26-5.2 (4). |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/14/2020 | SBEASLE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |