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 - DP12-0099
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/22/2013 | CPIERCE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/23/2013 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 10/28/2013 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL FROM: David Rivera For Steve Shields Principal Planner PROJECT: Total Transit (Previously Discount Cab) Development Package (2nd Review) DP12-0099 TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 28, 2013 DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. This development package was reviewed for full code compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.), Land Use Code (LUC). The Development package was re-reviewed in full for compliance with DS and Code requirements. The previous redlines/drawings were not included with the new set and the professional that created this drawing is not the same professional. However, all previous zoning comments will be reviewed to ensure that they have been addressed. Changes or revisions made to the plans may result in additional zoning comments. 2. Technically this application has expired as there was no activity for more than one year. The actual plan check expiration was 6 months from the date of submittal which would have been January 1, 2013. Zoning will review this development package under the assumption that the applicant has received an extension of the application activity number DP12-0099. You must contact Gerardo Bonillas at 837-4923 or Claudia Buford at 837-4904. My suggestion is to start with Gerardo. Any future review must include the extension or a new submittal of the development package and compliance with the current codes and standards will be expected. The expiration date cannot be provided until the extension is granted or new application is required. Previous Comment: Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is July 4, 2013 The following comments are based on Development Standard 2-01.0: 1. Sheets A1.0 through A1.2 should include a title block that matches the development package sheets. All sheets shall have the same title block for consistency. Previous Comment: D.S. 2-01.2.4 - Provide a title block in the lower right quadrant of the landscape, irrigation and water harvesting sheets. 2. All Development plan (site, grading, landscaping, SWPP, NPPO etc.) sheets shall be numbered accordingly, i.e. 1 of 17 2 of 17, 3 of 17 etc. The sheet index on the cover sheet may include the reference type of sheet i.e. A1, L1, C1 etc but should be labeled with the actual sheet number, 1, 2, 3 , 4 etc. Revise the title blocks to match and sheet numbers as required. Previous Comment: D.S. 2-01.3.2.E - The landscape, irrigation and water harvesting sheets should have the page number and number of sheets within the title block. 3. The sheet index on the cover sheet includes sheets that are not in this development package. The sheet index should include the sheets 1-17. Remove all sheet numbers that are not included in this development package. Previous Comment 5: D.S. 2-01.3.5 The "SHEET INDEX" located on sheet 1 should include the landscape, irrigation and water harvesting sheets. 4. DS 2-01.2.6 and .3.7 - The location map is only required on the cover sheet and must be placed in the upper right corner of the sheet and must include the following: The project-location map shall cover approximately one (1) square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of 3" = 1 mile, and provide the following information. A. Show the subject property approximately centered within the one (1) square mile area. B. Identify major streets and regional watercourses within the square mile area and all streets that abut the subject property. C. Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled. 5. DS 2-01.2.7 - The contour interval used on this plan must be labeled under the north arrow on the appropriate sheets. Add the contour interval as required. 6. DS 2-01.3.2.B - A brief legal description and a statement as to whether the project is a re-subdivision are to be provided. On re-subdivisions, provide the recording information of the existing subdivision plat. (i.e. PTN N520' E435.58' W981' NW4 SE4 EXC RD 3.23 AC SEC 23-14-13) 7. DS 2-01.3.9.F - 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. 8. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Development Standard 2-09.0. Provide dimensioned detail drawing for the long term bicycle parking facility or provide a dimensioned detail drawing of the space within the building. The building plans and site plans are not reviewed concurrently, add the requested detail to the development package. Previous Comment 10: - D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.9.4 Long-term Bicycle Parking is met. 9. DS 2-01.3.9.M - The grading plan and site plan in the development package are reviewed concurrently. Once the site plan is approved it is assumed that the grading plan is also approved. If any changes are required on the site plan due to review comments, ensure that the changes are also reflected on the landscape and grading plans sheets. 10. DS 2-01.3.9.Q - Q. Provide the square footage and the height of each commercial, industrial, or business structure and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building(s). Label on the building footprints of both buildings shown on the site plan sheet the height of each building. 11. DS 2-01.3.9.W - Indicate the locations and types of proposed free- standing, pedestal signs to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal location requirements can be met. Indicate if there are any existing billboards on site. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package. |
| 11/08/2013 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: November 8, 2013 SUBJECT: Discount Cab Development Plan Package- Engineering Review LOCATION: 829 W Silverlake Rd, T14S R13E 2 Ward 1 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP12-0099 and T12OT01005 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Floodplain Use Permit, Drainage Report (NOE Engineering, 13SEP13) and Geotechnical Infiltration Test (Terracon, 03SEP13). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under Development Standard 2-01. All comments reflect Site Plan and Grading Plan. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN: 1) This development package was reviewed for full code compliance with the City of Tucson Land Use Code (LUC) and Development Standards (DS). The Development package was re-reviewed in full for compliance with all Code requirements. The previous redlines/drawings were not included with the new set and the professional that created this drawing is not the same professional as the previous submittal. However, all previous Engineering comments will be reviewed to ensure that they have been addressed. Changes or revisions made to the plans may result in additional Engineering comments. 2) DS Sec.2-01.3: Revise the DP permit application, Floodplain Use Permit and Permits + to reflect the new applicant and engineer of record for the project. The old applications and Permits + still has the last civil and architect listed as the applicant which is not the case. Revise to reflect the current professionals who prepared the plan documents. 3) LUC Sec.5.3.8.2: Permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan package. If the development plan package has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time (Unified Development Code), and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan was July 4, 2013. This application has expired as there was no activity for more than one year. The actual plan check expiration was 6 months from the date of submittal which would have been January 1, 2013. Engineering will review this development package under the assumption that the applicant has received an extension of the application activity number DP12-0099. You must contact Gerardo Bonillas at 837-4923 or Claudia Buford at 837-4904 to request a permit extension. Any future review must include the extension approval or a new submittal of the development package and compliance with the current codes and standards (Unified Development Code) will be expected. The expiration date cannot be provided until the extension is granted or new application is required. 4) DS Sec.2-01.2.4: Revise the development plan document to include the Title Block in the lower right quadrant of each sheet. 5) DS Sec.2-01.2.6: Revise the development plan document to place the location map in the upper right hand corner of the cover sheet only. The location map does not need to be included on each sheet and is currently located in the lower left corner, revise. 6) DS Sec.2-01.2.7: Revise the development plan document to provide the contour interval used on this plan. The contour interval must be labeled under the north arrow on the appropriate sheets. 7) DS Sec.2-01.3.2.E: Revise the development plan document to include the page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., Sheet XX of XX). 8) DS Sec.2-01.3.4: Revise the development plan document to revise the location map to be drawn at the minimum 3"=1 mile scale. 9) DS Sec.2-01.3.4.B: Revise the development plan document to revise the location map to reference all Major Watercourses that fall within the project area. 10) DS Sec.2-01.3.4.C: Revise the development plan document to revise the location map to provide the section, township, and range, label the sections corners and scale on the location map. 11) DS Sec.2-01.3.5: Revise the development plan document and "Sheet Index" to include the landscape, irrigation and water harvesting sheets. The sheet index on the cover sheet includes sheets that are not in this development package. The sheet index should include the sheets 1-17. Remove all sheet numbers that are not included in this development package. 12) DS Sec.2-01.3.7.A.6.b: Provide a General Note on the Development Plan Package that references all special overlay zones that are applicable to this site, specifically state that "the project is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria for Sec.2.8.3 Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone." 13) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I: Revise the development plan document to clearly label and delineate the existing 100 year water surface elevation for both the Channel Breakout and the 100-year water surface elevation associated with the Mission View Wash. Provide cross sections along the wash to clearly show the results from the HEC-RAS model in the Drainage Report. 14) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5: Revise the development plan document to verify the extent of the area on site called out as "Existing Chip-Seal". Per aerial photography it appears that there are areas of the site that are still vegetated, these areas may not be disturbed without approval from the Landscaping Section and mitigation of those areas. 15) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.M: Revise the grading plan and SWPPP Exhibits to clearly show all areas of disturbance. Specifically provide the grading limits around the proposed fire access road. All areas of disturbance including any area of existing chip seal that is to be patched, repaired, or replaced is to be included in the area of disturbance. The SWPPP Exhibit must show temporary sediment controls to prevent offsite sediment into the Mission View Wash. 16) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.1: Revise the development plan document to show the areas of required retention that meet the volume calculation as required in the Drainage Report. Per TSM Sec.4-03.2.2 the subject property is within a non-designated basin and is larger than 1 acre therefore requires 5 year retention. 17) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.6: Per TC Sec.26-5.2.9: The new building falls within a mapped regulatory 100-year floodplain per the submitted Drainage Report. The new building must be built in conformance with TC Chapter 26.5.2. All items within the referenced section must be addressed and the proposed development plan document must clearly show the elevation of the buildings finished floor 1-foot above the calculated water surface elevation per the proposed Drainage Report. Currently the plan sheets and cross sections show the FFE below the required 1-foot freeboard, revise. 18) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.6: Per TC Sec.26-5.2.9: Since the subject property is located within a mapped regulatory floodplain per the submitted Drainage Report, it will be required that 2 elevation certificates for the proposed building be filled out by an Arizona Registered Land Surveyor showing that the lowest finished floor of the proposed building and the service facilities are elevated to or above the RFE, and returned to our office. The first elevation certificate must be returned to this office prior to the pouring of the slab. The second elevation certificate must be returned to our office prior to the certificate of occupancy 19) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.6: Per TC Sec.26.8.d.2: Revise the cross section on the proposed development plan document showing the method of elevation for the proposed building. If fill is used for elevating the finish floor of the building the building line must be located not less than 25-feet landward from any edge of fill, unless a study prepared by a state-registered professional civil engineer and approved by the City engineer shows that a lesser distance is acceptable. 20) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.4: Revise all sheets and cross sections of the development plan document to label the required finish floor elevation for the new building. The calculated WSEL as shown in the Drainage Report and RS Section is 2377.97' NAVD which would make the Regulatory Flood Elevation- 3478.97' NAVD, revise. 21) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.O: Revise the development plan document to clearly label and delineate the erosion hazard setback (EHSB). The plan set labels a 50-foot wash buffer area however it does not reference or describe the required EHSB. Verify that the EHSB is the same as the Drainage Report with supporting calculations. 22) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project. 23) A right-of-way use permit application will be required for all improvements within the public right-of-way. DRAINAGE REPORT: 24) TSM Sec.4-03.2.2: Provide a discussion within the Drainage Report to state that this project lies within a non-designated basin per the "Balanced and Critical Basin Map" of January 27, 1987. The discussion within the Drainage Report must include volume calculations and design for full 5-year retention onsite due to the non-designated basin criteria (commercial, greater than 1 acre therefore 5 year retention is required). 25) TSM Sec.4-04.2.3.1.2: Revise the Drainage Report to provide clarification on the stated 50-foot Wash Buffer Zone, verify if this is the same as the required erosion hazard setback or if it relate to riparian area. Per Section 26-7.1 of the Tucson Code the 50-foot setback is only suitably for banks that are stabilized to the level of the base flood. The banks of the regulatory water course appear to be earthen and natural and do not provide an engineering stabilization. Per Sec.26-7.2 when banks are not stabilized the setback shall be calculated from the guidelines in the Standards Manual Chapter 7. Delineate this on the plan set. 26) TSM Sec.4-04.2.3.1.4: Revise or clarify the discharge shown on Figure 10 within the Drainage Report. Per the discussion within the report, other attached Figures and the development plan document the breakout of the Mission View Wash is 453 cfs; however Figure 10 shows 508 cfs. 27) TC Sec.26-5.2.9: Revise the Drainage Report and all sheets and cross sections of the development plan document to label the required finish floor elevation for the new building. Per the referenced section the City of Tucson requires a 1-foot free board (Regulatory Flood Elevation) for all FFE above the calculated WSEL. The calculated WSEL as shown in the Drainage Report and RS Section is 2377.97' NAVD88 which would make the Regulatory Flood Elevation- 3478.97' NAVD, revise. 28) TC Sec.26.8.d.2: Revise the Drainage Report and cross section on the proposed development plan document showing the method of elevation for the proposed building. If fill is used for elevating the finish floor of the building the building line must be located not less than 25-feet landward from any edge of fill, unless a study prepared by a state-registered professional civil engineer and approved by the City engineer shows that a lesser distance is acceptable. Due to the break out flows provide a discussion on the fill pad and any required erosion protection. SWPPP: 29) Per City of Tucson Code Ordinance 10209, Chapter 26 Section 26-42.2: "For land disturbing activities that fall under the jurisdiction of this Article, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan must be prepared and certified by an engineer, or a landscape architect and submitted along with the application for a grading permit to the City of Tucson Planning & Development Services Department." Provide a SWPPP report associated with the exhibit signed and sealed by the engineer of record or by a Registered Landscape Architect. It is acknowledged that the Package had a SWPPP Sheet for review; however a SWPPP Report addressing all requirements within the AZPDES 2013 CGP is required. 30) Part III.C.3.b: Show areas of soil disturbance and areas that will not be disturbed. This includes the area around the 26-foot Fire Access Road. Label all sediment protection around all disturbed areas. 31) Part IV.B.1: Describe measures for preventing and responding to spill, including spill notification requirements. Provide the emergency contact information (name and telephone number) for Pima County and AZ Department of Environmental Quality on the exhibits. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package, Drainage Statement and SWPPP along with the plan extension approval that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon re-submittal of the Development Plan Package. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 11/15/2013 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/20/2013 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Per Zelin |
| 11/20/2013 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/25/2013 | SHANAE POWELL | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 11/25/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |