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: TD-DEV-0123-00098
Parcel: 141176820

Review Status: Requires Resubmit

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE REVIEW v.1

Permit Number - TD-DEV-0123-00098
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE REVIEW v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
02/21/2023 Commercial Plumbing APPROVED
02/16/2023 NPPO APPROVED
03/06/2023 CDRC Post Review PENDING ASSIGNMENT
02/17/2023 Fire New Construction REQUIRES RESUBMIT -Provide the type of construction to determine if you meet the fire flow requirement. IFC Table B105.1(2)
-Provide the actual building height to determine if fire aerial access will be required. Buildings over 30' shall comply with IFC section D105 for aerial access requirements.
john.vincent@tucsonaz.gov
5203495581
02/17/2023 Site Engineering REQUIRES RESUBMIT 1. This plan lies in the "Ace Commons" Subdivision, platted in 2004 (S04-115). That subdivision included a drainage common area to the North, which may have accounted for a developed condition in your parcels with its retention volume. If that is true, your required FF volumes could potentially be lowered/negated depending on the actual retention volume provided for these parcels. If this is the case, ensure this is reflected in your drainage report

2. Provide curb cuts into the upper (more elevated) ends of the East WH basins to maximize water harvesting

3. Show elevation of grate to confirm retention depth its WH basin

4. Show how roof drainage up to the 10-yr storm is directed away from/under adjacent sidewalks through the use of scuppers/gutters (TSM 7-01)

5. Clarify the back-up spur width, should be minimum 3' per UDC 7.4.6. Moreover, the minimum overhang distance from the edge of the spur is also 3' (See figure 7.4.6-B in the same UDC section)

6. Clarify parking detail: 2.5 ft overhang from wheel stop should leave minimum 4' width sidewalk area (TSM 7-01)

7. Keynote 15 labelled on site plan but described on grading plan, please ensure label and description are on same page

8. Specify per ADA requirements that sidewalks have a max. 2% cross slope, 5% running slope. Also that ADA ramps have max. 8.33% running slope

9. Please label all start and stop points for the different types of curb. Clarify if the southern edge of the parking lot will be wedge curb

10. Label top and bottom elevation of channel. Depending on the depth, a security barrier between parking lot and channel will be required if 100-yr headwater elevation (2965.72 from drainage report) exceeds 2 ft.

11. Ensure vertical separation between PAAL and sidewalk (including at parking spaces) (TSM 7-01)


Underground Retention: As per the updated Detention/Retention manual, underground retention requires city engineer approval based on the following comments:

a. As per the updated Detention/Retention manual 4.13.1.4, show how 150% of the required 100-yr detention volume is provided in the site drainage improvements (Looks like it is met via my own calculation but please explicitly show)

b. Show how necessary first flush volume is retained and infiltrated into the surrounding soils and that the soil beneath the chamber will infiltrate in a reasonable amount of time through a geotechnical report (now), or an infiltration test completed
(Note: This has been shown in the geotech report, page 8)

c. Ensure any landscaping comments regarding rainwater harvesting are addressed. Water harvesting must be maximized. Onsite flow should be primarily directed towards landscaping through the use of grading and curb cuts/scuppers

d. Include plans for the design for the underground basin, including manufactures maintenance process. Include a note in the plan set requiring a maintenance schedule and process that follows the manufacturer's process. (Note: This has been shown in the last pages of the drainage manual and cover sheet of plan set)

e. As per the Detention/Retention Manual 4.13.1.5, include an inspection and maintenance port into each chamber, or provide 5ft of clearance

f. As per the detention/retention manual 4.13.1.7, process a covenant agreement for this project, a sample can be found at:

https://webcms.pima.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/File/Government/Flood%20Control/Rules%20and%20Procedures/Stormwater%20Detention-Retention/dssdr-final-201406-appendix-g.pdf

g. Apply for city engineering approval by emailing Stephen Blood stephen.blood@tucsonaz.gov and Loren Makus loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov. Please provide proof of addressing the comments 18a-18f in that email

Scott Haseman
scott.haseman@tucsonaz.gov
03/06/2023 Site Landscape REQUIRES RESUBMIT PROJECT: KOCH PARCEL
ACTIVITY NO. TD-DEV-0123-00098
ADDRESS/PARCEL: 7441 S HOUGHTON RD/141-17-6820
ZONING: I-2

This plan has been reviewed for compliance with applicable development criteria in the City of Tucson Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-11 and Technical Manual (TM) Section for landscape, native plants and water harvesting.

Comments:
1. Please put the correct case# on all plans. (TD-DEV-0123-00098)
2. Please label the site visibility triangles on the landscape plans.
3. The Commercial Rainwater Harvesting Plan does not meet the requirements of the Code. 29.42% is not maximizing rainwater harvesting. The Code requires 50%. On the Grading Plan, there are three (3) water harvesting basins not included in the commercial rainwater harvesting plan. Please revise the plan to include those.

If you have any questions about these comments, I can be reached at Matthew.Carlton@tucsonaz.gov or 520-837-4988
02/17/2023 Site Zoning REQUIRES RESUBMIT PDSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: PDSD Zoning Review

PROJECT: Koch Parcel
Development Package (1st Review)
TD-DEV-0123-00098

TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 17, 2023

DUE DATE: February 17, 2023

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings 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 February 07, 2024.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

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

1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – The use proposed under Zoning and Land Use note 5 is a use group and a use. Clarify what the proposed use is. Depending on how this is addressed ensure that the applicable Use Specific Standards are provided.

2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a – As Houghton As is designated as an Arterial Scenic on the COT MS&R Map and this site is located within 400’ of the future right-of-way line the requires of UDC Article 5.3 Scenic Corridor Zoning (SCZ) apply. Provide a general note on the cover sheet stating “THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA, UDC ARTICLE 5.3 SCENIC CORRIDOR ZONE (SCZ), UDC ARTICLE 5.3”.

3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a – Clearly demonstrate that all applicable requirements of UDC Article 5.3 are met to include but not limited to, structure height, siting and view corridors, etc.

4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.7 -

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

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. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.A – Clarify what the dashed line is that runs along the north side of this parcel.

6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.E – Development Package note 2 talks about a lot line reconfiguration. This reconfiguration will need to be approved and recorded prior to approval of this DP.

7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Review UDC Article 7.4.6.H.F.4.c and provide the correct dimension from the proposed bollards to the back of the back-up spur located at the west end of the southern vehicle parking area.

8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Until comment 1 is addressed Zoning cannot verify the required number of vehicle parking spaces.

9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Based on the number of provided vehicle parking spaces, 27, the required number of accessible vehicle parking spaces is not correct. Review 201 IBC, Table 1106.1 and provide the correct number of accessible spaces. Also with the calculation provide the number of required & provided van accessible parking spaces.

10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – In the southern vehicle parking area and on detail A sheet 7 you show wheel stop curbing. This wheel stop curbing will not allow vehicles to overhang the end of the parking space as designated on plan. This wheel stop curbing appears to reduce the parking space to less than 15.5”.

11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Until comment 1 is addressed Zoning cannot verify the required number of sort- & long-term parking spaces.

12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Show the location of the proposed long-term bicycle parking on the plan and provide a detail that addresses the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.

13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.L – As you are proposing vehicle access across the parcel to the east some type of easement/agreement is required. Provide a copy of the recorded documents with the next submittal.

14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – The street perimeter yard setback listed under Development Package Calculations note 3 is not correct. As this site does not have street frontage on a street designated on the COT MS&R Map, and the street frontage has development exceeding the 50%, this site is considered Established Area for determining street perimeter yard setbacks, UDC Article 11.4.6. Review UDC Article 6.4.5.C.1.a and provide the correct street perimeter yard setback.

15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – The maximum permitted building height listed under Development Package Calculations note 2 is not correct. Review UDC TABLE 6.3-5.A: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE P-I, I-2, & I-2 ZONES and provide the correct allowed height.

16. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – As it appears you are allowing vehicles to overhang the sidewalk located along the south side of the proposed building clear show that the proposed overhang does not decrease the sidewalk width to less than 4’-0”, TSM Section 7-01.4.3.A.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Nicholas Martell at Nicholas.Martell@tucsonaz.gov.

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package
01/31/2023 CDRC Application Completeness REVIEW COMPLETED
02/16/2023 CDRC Review Coordinator REVIEW COMPLETED
01/31/2023 OK to Submit - Engineering REVIEW COMPLETED
02/01/2023 OK to Submit - Landscape REVIEW COMPLETED
02/08/2023 OK to Submit - Zoning REVIEW COMPLETED
02/22/2023 ROW Engineering Review REVIEW COMPLETED No Comments