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: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP13-0113
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
05/28/2014 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Roger Road Duplex Project
Development Package (2nd Review)
DP13-0113


TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 28, 2014

DUE DATE: June 24, 2014

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 .

2-06.4.9.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.

1. COMMENT: The requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1.e, Outdoor bicycle parking areas must be lighted so that they are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent sidewalks, parking lots, or buildings during hours of use, have not been demonstrated on the plan or detail.

2. COMMENT: The requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.f, Each required short-term bicycle parking space must be at least two feet by six feet, has not been demonstrated on the plan. Show the 2' x 6' space for each bicycle on the plan or detail.

Once the above comments are addressed Zoning is willing to provide an over-the-counter review. Call or email to schedule an appointment for this review.

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
.
06/03/2014 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: June 3, 2014
DUE DATE: June 24, 2014
SUBJECT: Roger Road Duplex Development Plan Package- 2nd 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, Drainage Statement (Coronado Engineering & Development, Inc.; 19MAY14), Geotechnical Exploration (Coronado Engineering & Development, Inc.; 20APR13), and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Coronado Engineering & Development, Inc.; 02AUG13). 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: TSM Sec.4-03.2.3.1.6:

1) Complied.
2) Complied.
3) Complied.
4) Complied.

5) Restated: Revise the Drainage Report or provide a separate Structural Engineering design for the proposed underground stormwater retention/detention system. Per the details provided for the StormTech systems and the manufacture specifications both the inlet and outlet manholes must be designed by a separate structural engineering analysis for construction purposes.

6) Restated: Provide a revised geotechnical report, or addendum, that specifically assesses the proposed underground stormwater retention system. The geotechnical report shall state whether the chambers are subject to collapsing or whether the pavement structure would be damaged from heavy traffic loads, specifically the refuse truck that access the containers over the manhole and the chambers.

7) Refer to the new comments below under the NEW COMMENT Section that were generated on the 2nd review of this project.


SITE PLAN:

8) Restated: 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 Landscape Sheets. The link to the stamp can be found here: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/cdrc-rezoning/cdrd-stamp

9) Complied.
10) Complied.
11) Complied.
12) Complied.
13) Complied.
14) Complied.
15) Complied.
16) Complied.
17) Complied.
18) Complied.
19) Complied.
20) Complied.

21) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Revise the development plan document to include all information for the existing public right of way, Specifically label the dimension from the existing curb to the existing property line.

22) Complied.
23) Complied.
24) Complied.
25) Complied.
26) Complied.

27) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.J: It is acknowledged that the original comment letter stated a 5-foot sidewalk width is required for the MS&R street for future right-of-way; however per TSM Sec.10-01.4.1.A.1.a the future sidewalk needs to be labeled as 6-feet along Collector Streets, revise.

28) Complied.

29) Restated: 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. Specifically General Note #6 on Sheet C3 needs to be revised to reference TSM Sec.2-01.

30) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Refer to the NEW COMMENT SECTION below for all additional comments that were generated due to the revised Drainage Report and overall design of the project.

31) Complied.
32) Complied.
33) Complied.
34) Complied.

35) Restated: 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. Specifically revise the civil sheets and associated Keynotes for all onsite handicap access ramps to reflect ICC requirements as correctly labeled with Keynote #11 on Sheet C1.

36) Complied.


GEOTECHNICAL REPORT:

37) Restated: TSM Sec.4-03.3.5.1.3.a and 4-04.14.2.6: Provide a revised Geotechnical Report evaluation or addendum 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 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. Provide the test and calculation for the percolation rates used in the report.

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

d) Complied.

e) Provide a specific discussion on the proposed underground stormwater retention system.

38) Complied.


SWPPP:

39) Complied.
40) Complied.


NEW COMMENTS:

1) Provide bound copies of all reports. The Drainage Report, SWPPP and Geotechnical Report must be bound together with a binder or a staple to prevent misplacement of sheets or the loss of a sheet due to the clip that is used.

2) Drainage Report: Revise the typographical error on Page 2 located within Table 1 for the Proposed Onsite conditions. Per the calculation sheets the Centroid Length should be 160 (feet) not 2160 as labeled.

3) Drainage Report: Revise the typographical error on Page 3 under Section 2.3 and Table 2. For the Existing Offsite flow there is a discrepancy between the 2 section of 0.1 cfs, revise.

4) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package, specifically Sheet C5, to show that the existing street light (KN #22) is to be relocated as per Keynote #17 on Sheet C1 to accommodate the new driveway entrance.

5) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5: Revise the development plan package and PAAL layout to provide the required 18-foot curb returns at the T-intersection to accommodate for the refuse truck maneuverability.

6) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5: Revise the development plan package and associated detail to remove the proposed handicap signage out of the required 2.5 foot overhang located within the parking stall.

7) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Revise the development plan package to label Keynote #40 at all wall locations to ensure that the wall openings are constructed to allow stormwater to drain per the Drainage Report requirements.

8) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Revise the development plan package to provide a construction detail for the proposed 1'x1' manhole and associated drain pipe that is shown on both ends of the T-intersection. Verify how the proposed 6-inch pipe that runs adjacent to the refuse enclosure works. If the pipe is proposed under the enclosure provide a detail as to how the pipe works with the 6-inch concrete pad and wall footers of the required enclosure.

9) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Revise the development plan package and the StormTech system detail to provide for all aspects of construction. Per the StormTech detail and manufactures specifications the inlet and outlet manholes must be designed by a Structural Engineer. Provide the analysis and construction details on the development plan package for construction purposes.

10) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Revise the development plan package and the StormTech system detail to provide the minimum specifications per the Drainage Report for the discharge pump located in the outlet manhole.

11) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Revise the development plan package and Cross Section 8/C7 to verify erosion protection at the outlet of the 12-inch HDPE Pipe. Provide rock riprap with size, thickness, filter fabric and method of placement.

12) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to ensure all handicap requirements at the driveway locations for the proposed driveway aprons. Ensure the 2% max cross slopes and the 12:1 max slopes from the apron to the sidewalk. The proposed layout does not meet the PC/COT Standard Detail #206 due to the sidewalk not running behind the apron; provide a new detail that is a modified PC/COT Standard Detail #206 for construction purposes.

13) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan package and Detail 1/C7 for the construction of the refuse containers. Verify that the details matches TSM Sec.8-01.9 Figure 3A for the required double enclosure walls with gates, concrete thickness and compressive strength, concrete approach apron dimensions, space from wall to bollards, clear 10'x10' space for each container, bottom slope, anchoring bolts, 10-foot concrete approach apron, 14'x40' clear approach for each container, etc.

14) GeoTech: Revise the Geotechnical Evaluation to provide a discussion on the setback of the building from the proposed underground StormTech system.

15) GeoTech: Revise the Geotechnical Evaluation and the Pavement Design Section to provide specific discussion on the proposed underground StormTech system. The Section must specifically address the loads over the chambers and manhole location due to the loads of the refuse vehicle along with the light traffic loads that were discussed. Verify that the Resilient Modulus used will be sufficient R-value for the heavy truck.

16) GeoTech: Revise the Geotechnical Evaluation to provide conformance with TSM Section 4-03.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for the proposed underground StormTech system. No borings were provide within the report just Test Pits that do not meet the minimum 30-foot testing requirements.

17) SWPPP: CGP Part 6.3(5)b: Revise the SWPPP Exhibit and Note #8 to clarify the area of disturbance noted. Per the Drainage Report and civil sheets along with the Area of Disturbance in the Parcel information block on the same sheet 1.43 acres is to be disturbed not 0.28, clarify.

18) SWPPP: CGP Part 6.3(5)c: Revise the SWPPP Exhibit and/or Report to provide the percentage of the site that is impervious before and after construction.

19) SWPPP: CGP Part 6.3(6)g: Revise the SWPPP Exhibit to identify locations of on-site material, waste, borrow areas, or equipment storage areas and other supporting activities.

20) SWPPP: CGP Part 6.3(6)k: Revise the SWPPP Exhibit and Note #5 to describe and identify the location of the dry well on the adjacent property that the site ultimately drains to. Per the approved basin plan for the property located to the north of the subject parcel the basin was designed and does have a dry well within the bottom of the basin.

21) SWPPP: CGP Part 6.3(8)d: Revise the SWPPP Exhibit and the stabilized construction entrance to meet the minimum design and sizing criteria within the Best Management Practices of the Report. The stabilized construction entrance must meet the 50-feet length to minimize tracking of pollutants from vehicles leaving the site.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package, Drainage Report, Geotechnical Report and SWPPP 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
06/05/2014 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Denied No Parking-Fire Lane signs required on street and ends of turn around. Please refer to City of Tucson amendments to the 2012 IFC, section 503.3 for spacing requirements and markings.
06/13/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
06/17/2014 RONALD BROWN HC SITE REVIEW Reqs Change SHEET 5
1. At detail 1, relocate the accessible parking sign to a position just inside the curb line.
2. At detail 2 provide a "Van Accessible" sign
3. Provide a large scale detail of the garage drive apron showing slope compliance with ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% max running slope and 2% max cross slopes.
END OF REVIEW
06/23/2014 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change 1) Submit a native plant preservation plan or application for exception. UDC 7.7.4

2) 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. The border is required along the full length of the the adjacent SFR properties.

3) 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.
06/23/2014 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Reqs Change Submit a Native Plant Preservation Plan. UDC 7.7.4

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
06/24/2014 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed