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: DP13-0150
Parcel: 10409002D

Address:
475 W WETMORE RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP13-0150
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/12/2013 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed
08/21/2013 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: August 21, 2013
SUBJECT: Wetmore Plaza Development Plan Package- Engineering Review
TO: Metro TED; Attn: Lisa Bowers
LOCATION: 4333 N Oracle Rd; T13S R13E Sec23
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP13-0150


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Statement (Cypress Civil Development, 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 following link 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:

SITE PLAN:

1) AM Sec.2-06.4.2.B: Revise the development plan document to include a brief legal description of the subject property within the Title Block.

2) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Plan Package case number (DP13-0150) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets.

3) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.A.6: Revise the development plan document to reference the special overlay zone that is applicable to this site, specifically state that "the project is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria for Sec.5.4, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone."

4) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.C.2: Revise the development plan document, specifically General Note #7 to read per the referenced Section; "No structure or vegetation shall be located or maintained so as to interfere with the sight visibility triangles in accordance with Sec.10-01.5.0, Sight Visibility, of the Technical Standards Manual." SVTs must be shown on the plan for both proposed PAAL entrances.

5) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.B: Revise the development plan document to provide the abandonment of the 1-foot no access easement at both PAAL entrances. Per plan view it appears that both driveways cross the 1-foot NAE therefore both portion of this easement must be abandoned with SEQ # prior to approval of the entrances. Also verify if the abandoned PAAL entrance that is to be closed off requires the 1-foot NAE.

6) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Revise the development plan document or Keynote #5 to dimension the existing width of curb and sidewalk for Wetmore Road in plan view.

7) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan document to label the required 25-foot radii at all proposed driveway locations on the MS&R Street per City of Tucson Transportation Access Management Guidelines (TAMG), Section 5.5. Refer to TSM Sec.10-01 for street development standards.

8) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.2: Revise the development plan document to label and dimension the existing and future SVTs for both driveway entrances. Arterial Streets require a 20'x345' near side and a 20'x125' far side SVT.

9) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan document to label the minimum dimensions for the proposed back-up spur at the end of the PAAL per UDC Sec.7.4.6.F.4.

10) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Verify on the development plan the minimum 24-foot clear PAAL width for the areas adjacent to the parking stalls and the refuse enclosures. The 24-foot clear width must be maintained even when the refuse container doors are in the open position.

11) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.J: Revise the development plan document to include all dimensions for the MS&R Street adjacent to the project. Provide dimensions for future right-of-way, sidewalk area, intersection tapering, SVTs, etc. Verify that required improvements are not constructed within this area.

12) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise Grading Note #18 to reference the new UDC Standard. Since the Development Standards no longer exists the plan needs to reference the correct UDC Reference for Excavation and Grading, TSM Sec.2-01. Verify all references to the old code are revised to reference the UDC.

13) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Revise the development plan document to provide separate details for the proposed drainage pipes. Include a profile view for both pipes and catch basin as shown in Detail 1 to ensure coverage, pipe slope, ends of pipes (straight or mitered), sidewalk slopes to ensure handicap accessibility, etc for construction purposes.

14) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Clarify on the development plan document the discrepancy between Keynote #34 and Detail 1 for the proposed wall opening. Clarify that the opening is either 3-feet or just 2 standard 16" block openings turned on side to allow water to meter out of the basin.

15) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan document to clearly label all dimensions for existing and proposed sidewalks. Per Keynote #18 it state to see plan for dimensions; however the dimensions could not be located in plan view for all areas, revise.

16) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan document to label and dimension the existing pedestrian cross walk (as shown on the Landscape Plan and field visit) between the existing building to the south and the new proposed building. All buildings must have pedestrian access to the street frontage so the pedestrian cross walk between the 2 must remain. Clarify the location of the sidewalk to the right-of-way between the site plan and the landscape plan.

17) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan document to clearly show how the existing and proposed sidewalk in the right of way connects. If the existing is smaller in width than the proposed verify tapering.

18) 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.

19) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan document and any associated details for the refuse enclosures to show that it meets TSM Sec.8-01. The detail must match TSM Sec.8-01, Figure 2 and Figure 3b for the required enclosure walls with gates, concrete thickness and compressive strength, concrete approach apron dimensions, space from wall to bollards, anchoring bolts, 14'x40' clear approach for each container, etc.

DRAINAGE STATEMENT:

20) TSM Sec.4-03.2.1: Revise the discussion within the Drainage Statement on Page 2 to correctly state that this project lies within a non-designated basin per the "Balanced and Critical Basin Map for Study Session of January 27, 1987. It is acknowledged that by designing the project as if it was within a Balanced Basin the Engineer is being conservative and this is acceptable; however the discussion should still represent the specifics of the project and it's location within the mapped area.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package and Drainage Statement 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
08/23/2013 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
08/28/2013 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Denied Please indicate on plans location(s) of existing and/or proposed fire hydrants, with dimensions to property lines.
08/28/2013 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Wetmore Plaza - Proposed Building
Development Package (1st Review)
DP13-0150

TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 30, 2013

DUE DATE: September 9, 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 Development Package Standards listed in section 2-06 of the City of Tucson Administrative Manual. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC).

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 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 .

2. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS)
Section

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.1.1 PURPOSE
This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews.

The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property.

This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes.

2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY
This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review.

2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided.
The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application:

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

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

COMMENT: There is a difference in site area between this development package and the last approved development package DP12-0045, clarify the difference.

2-06.4.7.A.6 - If a plan or plat is prepared in conjunction with other applications or overlays or the parcel being developed is subject to conditions of an application processed previously, additional information must be added to the plan. Such applications and overlays include, but are not limited to: annexations; rezonings; special exceptions; Board of Adjustment variances; Design Development Options; Technical Standard Modification Request; overlays (Airport Environs Zone, Environmental Resource Zone, Gateway Corridor Zone, Hillside Development Zone, Historic Preservation Zone, Major Streets and Routes, Rio Nuevo District, Scenic Corridor Zone, WASH); Modification of Development Regulations through the Downtown Area Infill Incentive District or Rio Nuevo District; Downtown Heritage Incentive Zone; or, Design Review Board. Provide the following information on the plan.

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) & UDC SECTION 5.5 GATEWAY CORRIDOR ZONE (GCZ)."
2-06.4.7.A.8.a - Floor area for each building;

COMMENT: Provide the floor area for all buildings on this site. See DP12-0045.

COMMENT: The footprint shown for Building 1 on this plan does not match what is shown on DP12-0045, clarify.

2-06.4.7.A.8.c - Percentage of building, lot area, or vehicular use area expansion. If the building(s) or lot area have been previously expanded, those calculations shall be included; and,

COMMENT: Provide a building area expansion calculation on the plan. In this case it appears that this calc will be a reduction. See DP12-0045.

2-06.4.7.A.8.d - When the proposed site is part of a larger site, the calculations encompass the entire site, whether existing or proposed. If the project is being phased, calculations must show that, at each phase, requirements are being met.

COMMENT: See comments above.

2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions
The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided.

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: There is an existing "1' NO-ACCESS EASEMENT DOCKET 6678 PAGE 600" shown along the north property line. A portion of this easement will need to be abandoned for the new access lanes prior to approval of the development package.

2-06.4.9.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. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. The basis for this requirement is that some zoning requirements on a project are based on the zoning classification of adjacent property. Also, in some instances, each zone has to be taken into consideration on property that is split by two or more zoning classifications, as each may have different requirements.

COMMENT: Provide the zoning for the parcel directly west of this site.

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

COMMENT: Show the existing and future SVTs on the plan for the proposed entrance lanes off of Wetmore Road.

2-06.4.9.H.4 - Indicate if existing streets are public or private; provide street names, widths, curbs, sidewalks, and utility locations, all fully dimensioned.

COMMENT: Show the future right-of-way (ROW) for Wetmore Road. It appears that some of the proposed improvements may be located in the future ROW. Either design to meet the future ROW or provide a future site plan that shows how the site will meet all UDC requirements when the ROW is taken.

2-06.4.9.H.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC.

COMMENT: Provide a width dimension for the eastern most proposed entrance lane off of Wetmore Road.

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: Until building square footage has been verified the vehicle parking space calculation cannot be verified.

COMMENT: Within the vehicle parking space calculation provide a calculation that demonstrates that the requirements of a "SHOPPING CENTER" have been met, not more the 50% of the GFA is parked at 1space for every 100 sq. ft. of GFA.

COMMENT: There is a wall called out under Keynote 25 near the northwest corner of the building. Per UDC Section 7.4.6.D.2.b A motor vehicle off-street parking space must have a minimum width of ten feet when the side(s) of the parking space abuts a vertical barrier over six inches in height. Demonstrate on the plan that this UDC Section is met.

2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Show all loading zones, vehicle maneuverability fully dimensioned, and access route. Provide as a note the number of loading spaces required, the number provided, whether the loading space is a Type A or B as provided in UDC Section 7.5.4.

COMMENT: The loading space calculation is for the entire site. See DP12-0045.

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: The proposed use under General Note 3 shows "FOOD SERVICE" and under the bicycle parking calculation you show retail & food service, which use is correct. Until this comment is addressed the required long and short term bicycle parking cannot be verified.

COMMENT: Once the comment above is addressed long-term bicycle parking will most likely be required. Show the location on the plan and provide a detail that meets the requirements of UDC Sections 7.4.9.B & D.

COMMENT: Detail K does not correctly address the short-term bicycle parking layout requirements. Review UDC Sections 7.4.9.B & C and revise your detail.

2-06.4.9.J - If street dedication is not required or proposed and the project site is adjacent to a Major Street or Route, draw the Major Street right-of-way lines for those streets. (Add the MS&R future sidewalk, right-of-way lines, sight visibility triangles, etc.)

COMMENT: Show the required future ROW information on the plan.

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: Until the future curbs are shown the required street perimeter yard setbacks cannot be verified.

2-06.4.9.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).

COMMENT: Provide the required information for all buildings on site.

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: Provide a width dimension for the sidewalk that connects to the sidewalk in the ROW along Wetmore Road.

COMMENT: Provide a width dimensions for the sidewalk shown at the southwest corner of the proposed building.

COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.3.3.B Provide a continuous pedestrian circulation path between the proposed building and Building 1 to the south.

COMMENT: Per DP12-0045 there is a pedestrian circulation path shown running from the southwest corner of Building 2 to Building 1, show this on the plan.

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

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan.
09/04/2013 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Denied SHEET 2
1. Provide a large scale detail of the accessible ramp to the Wetmore Road right of way.
2. At note 29, change the reference to read "the 2012 IBC, Chapter 11 and the 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 405, Ramps".
3. Reference the accessible parking layout to the large scale detail 2/4.
SHEET 3
4. Reference the accessible ramp to Wetmore right of way to the large scale detail requested per comment 1 above.
SHEET 4
5. Provide detail numbers 2 and 3 to the two partial parking layout details.
6. At the Handicap Parking Detail 2:
a. Indicate grade slopes at a maximum of 2% in all directions.
b. Identify the accessible parking signage and reference to detail A/4.
c. Provide a ramp width dimension.
7. At detail "H", show how the handrail is to be mounted.
END OF REVIEW
09/09/2013 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) The provisions of LUC 3.7 (Landscape and Screening Regulations apply to:

A. All new development.
B. Expansion of existing development.
1. On sites where the gross floor area of the existing building(s) is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, expansion in square footage of land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area as follows.
a. If the expansion is less than twenty-five (25) percent, the requirements of this Division apply only to the proposed expansion. Existing development on the site is subject to the zoning regulations in effect at the time the existing development received zoning approval.
b. If the expansion is twenty-five (25) percent or greater or if expansions as of February 15, 1991, cumulatively result in a twenty-five (25) percent or greater expansion in land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area, the requirements of this Division apply to the entire site.
Provide calculations for expansions of gross floor area. Include the approved floor area as Feb. 15, 1991 and list subsequent expansions. If the expansion calculation exceeds 25% a landscape plan is required for the entire site and major site modifications may be required.

2) Submit the approved landscape plans. Revise the plans to show elements of the approved landscape that are to remain.

3) Revise the plans to provide one tree for every four parking spaces. Canopy trees must be evenly distributed throughout the vehicular use area. Every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk). Revise the landscape plan as necessary. LUC 3.7.2.3.A

4) All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those
shown on the base plan.

5) Revise the landscape and grading plans to show limits of disturbance. This is especially necessary where existing plants are proposed to be retained near new construction.

6) According to the approved plans for DP12-0045, there appears to be a record of a no access easement along Wetmore Rd. (Dkt. 6678, Page 633). Revise as necessary.

7) Submit a Native Plant Preservation plan or application for exception to the plan requirement. LUC 3.8
09/09/2013 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Denied See Landscape comments.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
10/11/2013 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed