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: DP13-0056
Parcel: 137070570

Review Status: Active

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP13-0056
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Active
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
04/04/2013 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed
04/05/2013 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Planning and Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Amity Residences for Veterans
Development Package (1st Review)
DP13-0056


TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 5, 2013

DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administrative Manual (AM) & Technical Standards Manual (TSM) were addressed.

1. This site was reviewed for full code compliance for the entire site.

The following comments are based on Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) 2-06.0:

2. A.M. 2-06.4.3 Provide the development package number, DP13-0056, adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

3. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.8.b Provide a lot coverage calculation on the plan. See UDC Section 6.4.3.

4. A.M. 2-06.4.9.E After discussions with staff it has been determined that the proposed lot split can be processed as a simple lot split. This split must be approved and completed prior to approval of the development package. Once a lot split number has been obtained provide the "S" on the development package.

5. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5 Per UDC Section 7.4.6.F.2.b Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches. That said show the required two (2) foot setback along the proposed fence called out under Keynote 27 near the northwest corner of the existing building.

6. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5 Provide a width dimension for the existing access lane shown near the northwest corner of the existing building.

7. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5 There is what appears to be a fence, Keynote 27 that appears to close off the access lane, just south of the proposed northwest trash enclosure, clarify how this will work.

8. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d Provide a Short-Term Bicycle parking detail that shows how the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.9.B.1.d, 7.4.9.B.1.e, 7.4.9.B.2.f & 7.4.9.B.2.g are met.

9. A.M. 2-06.4.9.L The proposed "24' PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT" will need to be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval of this plan.

10. A.M. 2-06.4.9.L At the proposed entrance off of Liberty Avenue there is a sidewalk shown that appears to be both in the right-of-way and on this property. A pedestrian access easement is required for the sidewalk that is located on this property.

11. A.M. 2-06.4.9.L As the proposed property lines are located within the existing vehicular use area and no barriers are proposed some type of easement or cross access agreement is required.

12. A.M. 2-06.4.9.O Provide perimeter yard setback dimensions along the west side of the existing buildings to the new property lines.

13. A.M. 2-06.4.9.O There is what appears to be a wall/fence at the southwest corner of the existing building, provide the height of this wall/fence, and a perimeter yard setback to the new property line.

14. A.M. 2-06.4.9.O There is what appears to be a wall/fence at the northwest corner of the existing building, provide the height of this wall/fence, and a perimeter yard setback to the closest new property line.

15. A.M. 2-06.4.9.O Provide the height of this wall of the proposed trash enclosures and if greater than 6'-0" provide a perimeter yard setback to the new/existing property line.

16. A.M. 2-06.4.9.O Per UDC Section 6.3.3.C Multifamily Development - For the purposes of determining the applicable dimensional standards, multifamily development is considered a nonresidential use. See Section 11.3.7.A.3 for the definition of multifamily development. That said the "BUILDING PERIMETER YARDS" shown for the east and south are not listed correctly. Per UDC Table 6.3-2.A DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-1, R-2, R-3, MH-1, & MH-2 ZONES, Nonres Use to Res Zone the required perimeter yard setback is 10' or ¾ (H) the height of the proposed exterior building wall.

17. A.M. 2-06.4.9.O As the only area that street perimeter yard setbacks are applicable is the southern vehicle access area an additional west perimeter yard setback listing is required. This perimeter yard setback is based on UDC Table 6.3-2.A DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-1, R-2, R-3, MH-1, & MH-2 ZONES, Nonres Use to Res Zone the required perimeter yard setback is 10' or ¾ (H) the height of the proposed exterior building wall.

18. A.M. 2-06.4.9.R Per TSM 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 sidewalk along the west and northwest side of the existing buildings.

19. A.M. 2-06.4.9.R The crosswalk shown at the northeast corner of the site is not allowed to encroach into the access lane. Zoning recommends the alignment as shown on redline sheet 2.

20. A.M. 2-06.4.9.R Clarify where the sidewalk shown at the northeast corner of the site goes to.

21. A.M. 2-06.4.9.R There is a Keynote 4 call out located with the northwest access lane. Clarify how a sidewalk can be located down the center of a vehicle use area.

22. A.M. 2-06.4.9.T It appears that an existing trash enclosure is being removed near the northwest corner of this site. The enclosure appears to be used for the site to the north. Clarify how the site to the north will be able to access the propose enclosure.


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov

Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ DP13-0056

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package.
04/08/2013 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. A private sewer collection system serving multiple buildings and having a projected wastewater flow of over 3,000 gallons per day requires an approval to construct from PDEQ and a separate permit from the City of Tucson. Reference: Title 18, R18-9-E302, 4.02 (General Permit), Arizona Administrative Code.
2. The only existing water meter shown is a 2" meter which is limited by Tucson Water to a demand of 120 GPM. Based on the number of bedroom units proposed for this development plan, the potential water demand could easily exceed 120 GPM. Determine the expected water demand and show it will be met (i.e. show any additional existing water meters or provide additional water meters to meet the expected demand).
04/10/2013 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Denied Confirm new 24' public access easement (northwest corner of sheet 2) meets all requirements for fire department vehicle access. Refer to 2012 International Fire Code, section 507.5.1503.2 for guidance.
Provide detail(s) for 20' wide gate. Refer to 2012 International Fire Code, section 507.5.1 for guidance.
Please indicate proposed and/or existing fire hydrant locations. Refer to 2012 International Fire Code, section 507.3.5 for guidance.
04/11/2013 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 04/16/2013,

TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E.
CDRC Engineering


SUBJECT: Amity Residence for Veterans
DP13-0056, T15S, R13E, SECTION 1

RECEIVED: Development Package on April 03, 2013

The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the Drainage Report and on the Development Package where the revisions were made:

Drainage Report:

1. Provide a drainage exhibit that includes all existing and proposed drainage related information including scuppers, ground and water surface elevations, drainage structures, slopes, drainage arrows, dimensions, materials, etc.
2. Address, in the report, drainage facilities maintenance requirement and responsibility and specify that the inspection shall be performed by a registered civil engineer annually and/or after every major storm. Additionally, provide a drainage facilities maintenance checklist to facilitate the required maintenance.
3. Explain in the text the building roof drainage direction and explain if sidewalk scuppers will be required. Show the roof drainage direction and provide the scuppers design calculations if proposed.
4. The P.A.A.L. drainage capacity calculations should be included. Show on the drainage exhibits the locations of the cross sections, where the P.A.A.L's are being analyzed.
5. Address the maximum disposal time for the proposed retention basins based on the basins infiltration rates found in the Geotechnical Report. Verify, that the basins will completely empty out in about 12 hours or less as required by Section 3.5.1.3.a of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual. If bleeders are utilized to drain the retention basins, verify that they are adequate to drain them in the required time. Provide basins' inlet and outlet details to clarify the proposed structures and the location and elevation of the bleeders.
6. Address the required building setbacks from the retention and water harvesting basins based on the recommendation of the Geotechnical Report.
7. According to Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, Arizona", the proposed retention basins require maintenance access ramps that should be wide enough to accommodate vehicular access. The minimum width should be 15' and the ramp slope should not exceed 15 percent. Please be advised that maintenance ramps should be designed in such a way that does not allow inadvertent vehicular access. Address this issue and determine what kind of maintenance access is required for the proposed basins. Please be advised that small shallow basins may not require access ramps.
8. According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Retention Manual, the proposed basins floors should be sloped to provide positive drainage especially if bleed pipes will be utilized to drain out the basins. The section recommends a minimum of 0.5% floor slope and 0.2% low flow concrete channel slope. Please be advised that based on the City's experience with similar projects, 0.5% slope was difficult to construct and maintain which resulted in nuisance ponding in the basins. Show the provided positive drainage on the drainage exhibit and provide the inlet and outlet proposed grades.

Development Package:

1. Provide, on every sheet, all relevant case numbers (A.M. 2-06.4.3).
2. Show, on the plan, the tie between the basis of bearing and one of the corners of the parcel (A.M. 2-06.4.8.A).
3. Show, if applicable, any existing onsite easements (A.M. 2-06.4.8.B).
4. Provide Liberty Avenue recordation data (A.M. 2-06.4.8.C).
5. Label the existing valley gutter and remove the "Existing Concrete/Sidewalk to Remain" Keynote call out from the valley gutter area.
6. The southern access lane is too narrow for two way traffic. If it is planned to be one way PAAL, provide a note stating that (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.1.)
7. Include a general note that specifies the PAAL's and parking spaces dimensions are taken from the gutter line (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.)
8. The southern access lane is too narrow for two way traffic. If it is planned to be one way PAAL, provide a note stating that (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.1.)
9. If applicable, show the detention/retention basins and water harvesting 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.1).
10. Show proposed buildings roof drainage directions (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.2).
11. Provide sidewalk scuppers if roof drains discharge onto sidewalks or walkways. Additionally, show retention basin bleed pipes if applicable (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.3).
12. Show, if applicable, the retentions basin maintenance access ramp (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.3).
13. Provide the construction details of all proposed drainage structures including materials, dimensions, etc. (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.3).
14. Show the required building setbacks from the proposed retention and water harvesting basins (A.M. 2-06.4.9.O).
15. Either provide the standard construction detail for the trash enclosure or reference the standard detail in the notes (A.M. 2-06.4.9.T).
16. It appears that the proposed trash enclosures are difficult to access and the garbage truck will have to back up more than 40 feet in order to have the proper radius to turn into the collection route PAAL. Revise the trash enclosures as needed (A.M. 2-06.4.9.T).
17. Add the following standard grading notes:

a. The contractor is not permitted to make an autonomous decision to carry out construction field changes without prior written approval from the Engineer of Record and the City of Tucson Development Services Department.
b. Revise Grading Note #46 to read as follows: "CALL FOR SWPPP INSPECTION AND PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS. FOR A PDSD ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS, CALL IVR (740-6970), OR SCHEDULE WITH A CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE AT THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT DSD ENGINEERING AT 791-5550 EXTENSION 2101, OR SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS ONLINE AT: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/inspections".
c. A copy of the approved Grading Plan, Grading Permit, and any Geotechnical Reports shall be kept at the site at all times, until final grading approval.
d. Any revision to the Grading Plan MAY require a re-submittal of a revised grading plan for review. Contact PDSD Engineering at 791-5550 to discuss changes in grading design.
e. If grading construction is expected to last longer than the expiration date of the grading permit, contact PDSD to renew/extend the Grading Permit. If Final Grading Inspection has not been completed before the Grading Permit expires, and the permit has not been renewed, additional fees and reviews may be required.
f. Contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100 for any questions regarding any right-of-way permit requirements.
g. As-builts and letters of completion for basin and overall project are required.
h. The Engineer of Record shall submit a statement of conformance to as-built plan and the specifications.
i. The permitee shall notify the PDSD when the grading operation is ready for final grading inspection. Final grading approval shall not be given until all work, including installation of all drainage facilities and their permanent protective devices, and all erosion control measures have been completed in accordance with the approved grading plan and grading permit, and any required reports have been submitted.

18. Provide the location of the dumpster. Ensure that the location is accessible (A.M. 2-06.4.9.T).
19. Verify that the proposed site paving is in compliance with the IDC 7.4.6.I.

Landscape Plan:

1. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not conflict with the basin inlets, outlets, and access ramps.
2. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not obstruct visibility within the sight visibility triangles.

Geotechnical Report:

1. Revise the Geotechnical Report to address retention basin soils percolation rates.
2. The Geotechnical Report shall address the required building setbacks from ponding water within the retention and waterharvesting basins.

SWPPP:

1. The last paragraph of Section 3 "Spill Prevention and Responses" shall be revised to reflect the appropriate governmental agency in Tucson.
2. Revise "Sequencing and Scheduling of Construction Activities and Disturbance Activities" section, to include the following first two activities:

a- Determine the disturbance limits.
b- Install the proposed BMP's within these limits.

3. Include a copy of the completed (signed by the owner) NOI form that was submitted to ADEQ (Part III.D.3). Provide some blank forms for the unknown operators. (Part IV.F) Each operator is responsible for submitting a completed NOI to ADEQ and to the City of Tucson. Please note that the remaining signatures from the operators must be on the onsite copy of the SWPPP at or before commencement of construction.
4. Include a copy of the authorization certificate received from ADEQ (Part III.D.2).
5. Include a dated and signed certification form for each known operator (including the owner) in accordance with Part VII.K. (Part IV.J.1).
6. BMP's are required around all existing and proposed drainage structures and their inlets and outlets.
7. Show on the SWPPP exhibit the locations of on-site material storage, waste storage or receptacles, borrow areas, (Part III.C.3.e).
8. Identify the nearest receiving waters on the Location Map (Part III.C.4).
9. az Revise the SWPPP exhibits in accordance with the Site and Grading Plan comments.


If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov


RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package and drainage report
04/16/2013 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Denied SHEET 2 OF 11
1. Reference all groups of accessible parking to the large scale partial plans provided on sheet 4.
a. Provide a detail number for reference for each different parking plan layout on sheet 4.
2. Please note that all accessible route slopes comply with 2009 ICC A117.1, Ection 403.3; 5% maximum running slope and 2% maximum cross slope.
SHEET 4
3. For all partial accessible parking plans:
a. Provide alphabetical identification for detail reference.
b. Show grade slopes maximum 2% in all directions.
c. Reference accessible parking signs to large scale detail.
d. Show slope of ramps and dimensions.
END OF REVIEW
04/17/2013 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change 1. This site was reviewed for full code compliance for the entire site.

2. Provide the development package number adjacent to the title block on all sheets AM 2-06.4.3.

3. Lot split must be approved and completed prior to approval of the development package AM 2-06.4.9.E.

4. A 5' wall to screen vehicle use areas from adjacent residential properties must be provided per DS Table 7.6.4-I. Identify all the screening elements on the site, grading, and landscape plans.

5. The landscape plan shall include the following AM 2-10.4.0: Number of parking spaces, including the required and provided parking spaces. Sheet 6 of 11 the parking area can not be discerned.

6. For each tree within the vehicle use area, a planter area with a minimum unpaved area of 34 square feet and a four-foot minimum width is required DS 7.6.4.B.3. Dimension planter areas on the site, grading and landscape plans.

7. Identify the methods by which water harvesting or storm water runoff is used to benefit the planting areas on the landscape plan AM 2-10.0.0.6. Show by detail or spot elevations how landscape areas will accommodate water harvesting.

8. The site, grading and landscape plans must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan.

9. Additional comments may apply.
04/17/2013 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
04/18/2013 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF RECEIVED