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: DP13-0113
Parcel: 10512057E

Address:
26 W ROGER RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP13-0113
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/16/2013 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed
09/17/2013 KEN BROUILLETTE FIRE REVIEW Approv-Cond ACCESS SHALL BE POSTED NO PARKING FIRE LANE, THIS INCLUDES THE TURNAROUND AREA.
09/20/2013 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Roger Road Duplex Project
Development Package (1st Review)
DP13-0113


TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 20, 2013

DUE DATE: October 11, 2013

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.

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

1. 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 September 14, 2014 .

2-06.3.9 - The plan drawing shall be oriented with north toward the top of the sheet. If it is not practical to orient north to the top of the sheet, the plan drawing shall be oriented with north to the left side of the sheet.

COMMENT: Sheets C2, C3 & C4 have north oriented to the right, revise these sheets to meet this standard.

2-06.3.12 - An index of sheets in the development package shall be provided on the first sheet.

COMMENT: Provide a sheet index that includes all sheets submitted, on the first sheet.

2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet:
2-06.4.2.D - The page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx).

COMMENT: Provide the "SHEET ? OF 9" on all sheets.

2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

COMMENT: Remove the administrative street address from the title block and provide it adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, D13-0113, adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

2-06.4.2.A - Show the subject property approximately centered within the one square mile area;

COMMENT: Show the subject property approximately centered within the one square mile area.

2-06.4.2.C - Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled.

COMMENT: Label the section corners on the location map.

2-06.4.7.A.2 - List the gross area of the site/subdivision by square footage and acreage.

COMMENT: Based on the current Assessor's Record Map there appears to be a discrepancy on the property boundary measurements. The Assessor's Record Map shows a north/south distance of 399.5' the plan shows 387.71', clarify the difference. This may change the lot square footage and acreage.

2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses.

COMMENT: Provide the applicable Use Specific Standards, 4.9.7.B.6, .9, & .10 within the "PROPOSED LAND USE" note.

2-06.4.7.A.6.a - List additional applications and overlays, by case number (if applicable), in lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note provide the type of application processed or overlays applicable, a statement that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the additional application or overlay, the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any.

COMMENT: Provide a General Note stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESINGED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA, UDC SECTION 5.4 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R).


2-06.4.8.A - Provide site boundary/subdivision perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system.

COMMENT: Based on the current Assessor's Record Map there appears to be a discrepancy on the property boundary measurements. The Assessor's Record Map shows a north/south distance of 399.5' the plan shows 387.71', clarify the difference.


2-06.4.8.B - All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided.

COMMENT: If applicable show all existing easements on the plan.

2-06.4.8.C - The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way (ROW) adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks.

COMMENT: Provide the existing ROW dimensions and the dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks on the plan.

2-06.4.9.C - If the project has common areas, label each common area individually with a separate letter designation. Enclose with a solid line each common area, private street, etc., that will have separate restrictions, a separate homeowners' association, or any common area that is separated by a public right-of-way.

COMMENT: It appears that you are calling out limited common area "LCA" on the plan. As this is not a condo plat remove this reference from the plan.

2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles (SVTs). On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section.

COMMENT: Show the existing SVTs on the plan.

2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC.

COMMENT: Sheet C-1 the six (6) vehicle parking spaces shown along the west side of the parking area access lane (PAAL) appear to allow vehicles to overhang a sidewalk that appears to be less than 6'-6" wide. Wheel stop curbing is required for these vehicle parking spaces.

2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided.

COMMENT: Sheets C3, C4 & C6 remove all references to Development Standards (DS) as DS are no longer applicable.

COMMENT: Sheets C3, C4 & C6 remove all references to "CLASS II" as it no longer applicable.

COMMENT: Provide a Short-Term Bicycle parking detail that meets the requirements of UDC Sections 7.4.9.B.1.e, 7.4.9.B.2.d, .f & .h & 7.4.9.C.2.c.


2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown.

COMMENT: The Street Perimeter Yard Setback is not shown correctly. Per a Zoning Administrators determination any project with frontage on a street that is shown on the Major Streets and Routes map is given developing area setbacks. Per UDC Table 6.4.5.C-1, ADT of 1,000 or greater, the required perimeter yard along Roger Road is 21 feet or the Height of the proposed exterior building wall, which ever is greatest, measured from the back of future curb. Label the future curb on the plan.

2-06.4.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual.

COMMENT: Sheet C1 provide the width of all proposed sidewalks.

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
.
09/24/2013 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: October 3, 2013
SUBJECT: Roger Road Duplex Development Plan Package- Engineering Review
TO: Coronado Engineering & Development, Inc.; Attn: Paul Nzomo, PE
LOCATION: 26 W Roger Rd; T13S R13E Sec24
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP13-0113

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administration Manual (AM) and Technical Standards Manual (TSM). Refer to the links for further clarification:
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

The following items need to be addressed:

DRAINAGE STATEMENT:

1) TSM Sec.4-03.2.3.1.3: Revise the Drainage Report and all areas of discussion to be specific to the referenced address. The Report was briefly read through and was not given a full review due to the discussion provided. A few examples are Section 2.2 talks about culverts under Mission Road and Section 4.2 talks about an Erosion Hazard Setback Analysis for the Old West Branch of the Santa Cruz River. Since this project is located at Roger Rd and Stone Ave the discussion within the Report does not apply. Engineering did not review any portion of the Report after finding these errors since it could not be determined if the offsite and onsite hydrology used applied to this project.

2) TSM Sec.4-03.2.3.1.6: Revise the Report and development plan package to provide for an onsite retention basin. Verify with volume calculations if the proposed underground StormTech system provides for 5 year retention volumes or if an additional basin is required. If the Engineer and Owner are still proposing to use the existing offsite basin on the adjacent property then the Drainage Report must show that the basin is sized appropriately to hold not only the required volume for the existing development but also the volume proposed for this development. Specific design and dimensions will be required for the offsite basin.

3) TSM Sec.4-03.2.3.1.5.G: Provide a notarized signed letter from the adjacent property owner for the use of the offsite retention basin. All offsite drainage improvements on adjacent properties require a signed written agreement from the owner and adjacent property owner for offsite improvements. The use of the basin may also require a maintenance easement to show how this basin will be maintained and who is responsible for the maintenance.

4) TSM Sec.4-02.3.5.5: The offsite basin on the adjacent property was designed as a dry well basin, T05BA00017, and per the last inspection on 18JUN13 the basin was not functioning as designed and was ponding water due to the dry well being silted in. If a notarized agreement is reached the Drainage Report must provide a discussion and meet all the requirements within TSM Sec.4-02.3.5.5, Sec.4-03.14.5 (1-10) and City Code Section 26-10(c) for dry well development.

5) Provide manufacture recommendations for maintenance of the underground stormwater retention/detention system. Revise the drainage report and development plan to show that maintenance of the dry wells and underground stormwater retention/detention systems meets the recommendations of the manufacture.

6) Provide a revised geotechnical report, or addendum, that specifically assesses the proposed underground stormwater retention system and offsite dry well. The geotechnical report shall state whether the chambers are subject to collapsing or whether the pavement structure would be damaged from heavy traffic loads.

7) Additional comments maybe forth coming on the 2nd submittal once the Drainage Report is revised to accurately reflect the subject property and the drainage design.


SITE PLAN:

8) AM Sec.2-06.3.5: Revise the development plan document to include the approval stamp in the lower right quadrant of each sheet, specifically the Civil Sheets and the SWWP Exhibit. The link to the stamp can be found here: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/cdrc-rezoning/cdrd-stamp

9) AM Sec.2-06.3.9: Revise the development plan document so that the plan drawing is oriented with north toward the top of the sheet. If it is not practical to orient north to the top of the sheet, the plan drawing shall be oriented with north to the left side of the sheet. Specifically revise Sheets C2, C3 & C4 to have north oriented to the left side to match the site plan sheets.

10) AM Sec.2-06.3.12: Revise the development plan document so that the plan sheets are in the same order per the Sheet Index as shown on Sheet C1. Specifically the Landscape Sheets should be the last two sheets of the Development Plan Package.

11) AM Sec.2-06.4.1: Revise the development plan document and the Consultants Section to include the email contact information for the property Owner, registrants and site developer.

12) AM Sec.2-06.4.2.D: Revise the development plan document and the Title Block to include the page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., Sheet XX of XX).

13) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Plan Package case number (DP13-0113) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets.

14) AM Sec.2-06.4.4.A: Revise the development plan document and project location map to show the subject property approximately centered within the one square mile area.

15) AM Sec.2-06.4.4.B: Revise the development plan document and project location map to identify the major watercourse, Rillito Creek, if it falls within the one square mile area shown once revised to center the subject parcel.

16) AM Sec.2-06.4.4.C: Revise the development plan document and project location map to label the Section Corners.

17) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.A.2: Clarify the discrepancy on the development plan document for the property dimensions. The dimensions on the development plan document differ from the dimensions shown on the Pima County Assessor's Record Map for the north-south distance, clarify total gross area.

18) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.A.6: Revise the development plan document to provide a general notes stating; "This project is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria for Sec.5.4, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone."

19) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.C.2: Revise the SVT General Note on Sheet one to read per the referenced standard. Specifically all references on this Development Plan Package should reference the Unified Development Code and/or Technical Standards Manual. SVT requirements are found in TSM Sec.10-01.5.0.

20) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.B: Verify if there are any existing easements on the property. If easements exist provide the location, dimensions and recordation information, if applicable.

21) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Revise the development plan document to include all information for the existing public right of way, label the existing right-of-way dimension (I-85-041) and existing sidewalk dimension per Keynote #14.

22) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.C: Revise the development plan document to either remove the reference to the limited common areas and common area "A" or provide the project under review for a condominium project and provide the necessary information such as CCR's, revised Title Block, etc. Since the project was submitted as a Duplex review LCA and CA do not apply.

23) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan document to label the required 25-foot radii at the driveway entrance on Roger Road per City of Tucson Transportation Access Management Guidelines (TAMG), Section 5.5. Refer to TSM Sec.10-01 for street development standards. Roger Road is a MS&R Collector Route and must be designed per the TAMG.

24) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.2: Revise the development plan document to label and dimension both the existing and future sight visibility triangles (SVTs) in plan view. Correctly label and dimension the near and far side SVT for both existing and future. Per the Sight Matrix, TSM.10-01.5.3, the Near Side dimension for a PAAL to a Collector Street is 20'x265' and the Far Side dimension is 20'x110', revise.

25) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.4: Revise the development plan document to label Roger Road as "Public, MS&R Collector" on the plan sheets. Fully dimension the existing widths, right-of-way, curbs, sidewalks and utility locations.

26) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan document to provide wheel stops for the 6 parking spaces along the west side of the development, refer to the civil sheets, to prevent vehicles from encroaching onto the pedestrian access path.

27) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.J: If MS&R street dedication is not required revise the development plan document to label and dimension the future MS&R right-of-way lines, specifically the future sidewalk, right-of-way, SVTs, etc. Public streets require a minimum 5-feet width for sidewalks.

28) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Per TSM Sec.4-03.14.3.2, Provide a note on the grading plan sheet to state that, "(a) the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for all drainage channels, drainage structures, detention/retention basin and the StormTech underground retention system; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at lease once every 6-months, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; (c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage and retention/detention facilities to verify that scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner or owners agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with the maintaining of the drainage structures and StormTech underground retention system, should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities."

29) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the civil sheets, general notes and Keynotes with reference to the old Development Standards. These standards no longer exist and this review falls under the Unified Development Code. All references within the notes section should be made to the Unified Development Code and/or Technical Standards Manual.

30) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Due to the comments generated from the drainage report the grading plan sheets and associated details were not reviewed in full. Additional comments maybe forth coming depending on the revised Drainage Report and overall drainage design of the project.

31) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N: Revise the development plan package to provide for an onsite retention basin. All offsite drainage improvements on adjacent properties require a signed written agreement from the owner and adjacent property owner for offsite improvements. The use of the basin may also require a maintenance easement to show how this basin will be maintained and who is responsible for the maintenance of said basin.

32) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan document to label and dimension all onsite pedestrian access lanes. Per TSM Sec.7-01.4.3 the minimum width for a sidewalk is 4-feet, revise.

33) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan document to provide for a pedestrian circulation path along the north side of Units 8 and 13. Per TSM Sec.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, revise.

34) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan document to provide for a pedestrian circulation path to the refuse containers. Per TSM Sec.7-01.3.3.B all areas of development must be connected to the refuse areas. Extend the path all the way to the refuse containers on both the north and south side.

35) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project.

36) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan document to label and dimension the existing sidewalk within the right-of-way. Due to the required 25-foot curb returns at the driveway location revise the plan to accurately reflect the curb access ramps and sidewalk for construction purposes.


GEOTECHNICAL REPORT:

37) TSM Sec.4-03.3.5.1.3.a and 4-04.14.2.6: Provide a Geotechnical Report evaluation that addresses the following:

a) Soils report should provide conformance with TSM Section 4-03.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for the retention basin and proposed underground StormTech system, and provide a discussion of the potential for hydro-collapsible soils and building setbacks from the proposed basin and underground retention system.

b) Provide percolation rates for the retention basin for 5-year threshold to show that the drain down time meets the maximum per TSM Sec.4-03.3.5.1.

c) Provide pavement structure design recommendations. Specifically addressing the pavement section and load weights over the proposed underground StormTech Retention System.

d) Provide slope stability recommendations for the proposed constructed slopes that are proposed.

e) Provide a discussion on the proposed underground stormwater retention system and offsite dry well to meet all requirements under TSM Sec.4-02.3.5.5, Sec.4-03.14.5 (1-10) and City Code Section 26-10(c).

38) Provide a General Note to include the reference to the Geotechnical Report and any addendums prepared for this project. Provide the date, job number, engineer who prepared the report, etc.


SWPPP:

39) 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 Development Services Department." Provide a SWPPP Report with the Exhibit (Sheet C7) that meets the requirements under the States AZPDES 2013 CGP; http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/cgp.html

40) Revise the SWPP Exhibit and all references to other jurisdictions. This project falls within the City of Tucson and all notes or references must be labeled as such and comply with the City of Tucson Ordinance 10209 and the AZPDES 2013 CGP.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments.

For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929.



Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
10/03/2013 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. An approved development plan is not to be used for construction of on-site utilities (e.g. water service to the building, building sewer, site lighting, or electrical service to the building). The construction of the on-site utilities may be included with the permit for constructing the building or as a separate permit.
2. A separate permit from the City of Tucson is required for the installation of a private sewer collection system after the authority to construct is obtained from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality. Reference: Title 18, R18-9-E302, 4.02 General Permit, Arizona Administrative Code.
3. Verify the inverts for manhole #2; it appears that they should be shown as 19.61' for the E/W inverts and 19.41' for the south invert instead of 14.61' and 14.41' respectively.
4. The rim elevation of the sanitary cleanout (26.37') upstream of unit 5 on sheet C3 (units 9 and 10 on development plan) is less than 12" below the first floor elevation (27.29). Provide a backwater valve for each HCS from this building per Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.
5. Provide the rim elevation of manhole #2. Determine the need for any backwater valves for the buildings connecting to the private sewer downstream of manhole #2 per Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.
10/03/2013 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Denied 1. Provide 1 Van Accessible accessible parking space with aisle and access to the accessible route.
2. Provide large scale details showing all accessible requirements of the following:
a. Accessible Van Accessible parking space
b. Accessible parking signage
c. All curb ramps including detectable warnings strips as required by 406.12, 13 and 14 as applicable.
3. Insure and note on plan accordingly, that all accessible route slopes are to comply with the 2009 ICC A117.1, section 403.3; 5% maximum running slope and 2% maximum cross slopes.
END OF REVIEW
10/10/2013 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change Submit a native plant preservation plan or application for exception. UDC 7.7.4

Grading, hydrology, and landscape structural plans are to be integrated to make maximum use of site storm water runoff for supplemental on-site irrigation purposes. The landscape plan shall indicate use of all runoff, from individual catch basins around single trees to basins accepting flow from an entire vehicular use area or roof area. UDC 7.6.6.C

An interior landscape border is required adjacent to the existing SFR located near the northeast portion of the site. UDC 7.6.4.C.3

A screen wall is required to screen the parking lot from the adjacent residentially zoned property located near the northeast portion of the site. UDC Table 7.6.4-1

Canopy trees are required for vehicular use areas per UDC 7.6.4.B. Revise the plan to meet the 40' standard UDC 7.6.4.B.1.a.1 for the 2 parking spaces located near the northeast portion of the site.
10/11/2013 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Reqs Change See Landscape comments.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
10/30/2013 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed