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: DP13-0151
Parcel: 11714336A

Address:
695 S MAIN AV

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP13-0151
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
08/23/2013 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Denied Please indicate location of existing fire hydrant(s), with dimensions to property lines. Spacing and distance to structures must comply with Chapter 5 of the 2012 IFC.
08/23/2013 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied Clarify how this development plan complies with Section 701.3, IPC 2012.
08/27/2013 MICHAEL ST. PAUL ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Michael St Paul
Planning Technician

PROJECT: DP13-0151
695 South Main Avenue
Site for office and two single-family residences

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 5, 2013

DUE DATE: August 8, 2014

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code, The Administrative and Technical Manuals 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 August 8, 2014.

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:

2-06.2.1 Application Form
A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee;

2-06.2.2 Development Package
A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein;

2-06.2.3 Related Reviews
In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the;

2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews
The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and,

2-06.2.5 Fees
Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule.

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS


2-06.3.6 - Provide a blank three-inch by five-inch block in the lower right corner of the plan adjacent to the title block on the first sheet of the development package for use by Pima County Addressing.

COMMENT: Provide the Addressing space.

2-06.3.10 - A legend that shows and describes all symbols used on the drawing is to be provided, preferably on the first sheet.

COMMENT: Provide a legend on the first sheet.


2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

UDC 5.8 - This site is located in the HC-3 zone. Historic review is required.

UDC 6.4.5.C.2.b.1 (1) & (b) - The minimum setback for a garage to the front property line is eighteen (18) feet. A Board of Adjustment variance shall be required if you are providing a garage at the property line.

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: The subdivision case number is S13-015 and the rezoning case number is C9-74-20 (for historic rezoning). Provide both numbers on the plan.

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.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: The correct use for this site is Administrative and Professional Office (the use group is commercial) and either single-family residential.

2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide:


COMMENT: Lot coverage includes both the buildings and the vehicle use areas for each lot. Provide this information on the plan.



2-06.4.7.C.2 - List the following note on all development package documents: "No structure or vegetation shall be located or maintained so as to interfere with the sight visibility triangles in accordance with Section 10-01.5.0, Sight Visibility, of the Technical Standards Manual."

COMMENT: See comments by the landscaping reviewer.




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.

COMMENT: Provide all the information for the street and the area within fifty (50) feet.

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:

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: Depict the easement on Sheet 2 with dimension and use.

2-06.4.8.C - The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way 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 all of the above on both sheets.

2-06.4.8.D - The following information regarding existing utilities shall be provided: the location and size of water wells, water pumping plants, water reservoirs, water lines, fire hydrants, sanitary and storm sewers, including the pipe diameter and the invert and rim elevations of all manholes and cleanouts; the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number; locations of gas lines, electric and telephone lines, poles, and communications cables, on-ground junction boxes, and street lights. If water mains and sewers are not located on or adjacent to the tract, indicate the direction, distance to, and sizes of those nearest the property.
Identifying the locations of all utilities and service equipment immediately adjacent to the project is especially important in situations where pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation or landscaping can be in conflict. By knowing the location of the existing utilities, design of the project can take those elements into consideration and can help avoid expensive and time-consuming relocation of utilities, major redesign, or requests to vary regulations after commencement of construction.

COMMENT: Provide all this information on the site plan.

2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development
The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes.

COMMENT:

2-06.4.9.A - Draw in all proposed lot lines with approximate distances and measurements.

COMMENT: This information should also be provided on Sheet 2.


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 adjacent zoning information on the site plan.

2-06.4.9.G - If the project is to be phased, provide calculations, setbacks, etc., to indicate that each phase complies with all requirements as a separate entity. Show phase lines on the drawing. Show and label any temporary improvements that may be needed to make the site function for each phase as one entity. If such temporary improvements are off the site of the phase under consideration, a temporary easement or other legal documentation to assure legal use of the property is required. Note recording information.

COMMENT:

2-06.4.9.H - Proposed Traffic Circulation

COMMENT:

2-06.4.9.H.1 - Proposed traffic circulation will be designed in accordance with Section 10-01.0.0, Street Technical Standards, of the Technical Standards Manual, to include streets, intersections, street names, right-of-way widths, curve radii of centerlines and curb returns, and proposed improvements, such as pavement, curbs, access points (driveways), accessible ramps, and sidewalks. Street improvements, such as sidewalks, curbs, pavement, and accessible ramps, do not need to be drawn on the plan if such information is provided on typical street cross sections.
Please be aware that, if a new street is created (for other than for subdivisions) which divides the property into two or more lots, a subdivision plat is required (refer to the definition of subdivision in Section 11.4.20 of the UDC).

COMMENT: You are providing steps from the sidewalk to the proposed office in the public right-of-way. An approved right-of-way permit shall be required from Permits and Codes in Transportation.

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: Provide the SVTs on the site plan, landscape plan and grading plan.

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: Delineate and dimension the right-of-way as described above.



2-06.4.9.H.5.b - If any of the required parking is located off-site as permitted by the UDC, a drawing of that parking area is to be provided, together with the city's required parking agreement (include a copy of the lease agreement if applicable) must be provided. Please remember that in these situations, if the off-site parking location is a new parking area, it must comply with all parking area requirements and must be allowed as a principal use by the zoning classification of that property. If the off-site parking area location is an existing parking lot, the parking spaces utilized for the proposed land use must be non-required parking for the existing use for which the parking area was established.

COMMENT:


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: Bicycle parking and the maneuvering area must all be located on site. The maneuvering area is in the public ROW, and on Sheet part of the bicycle rack is also in the ROW. Five (5) feet is required for maneuvering area for the bicycle parking.

2-06.4.9.L - All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. The easements may have to be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval.

COMMENT: Delineate and dimension the easements on Sheet 2.

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 building and elevation heights on the site plan. Provide dimensioned elevation drawings of the office building and the two single-family residences (SFRs).

2-06.4.9.S - Show existing or proposed pedestrian circulation along abutting rights-of-way. Such sidewalks must comply with accessibility requirements for the physically disabled and the design criteria in Section 10-01.0.0, Street Technical Standards, of the Technical Standards Manual.

COMMENT:

2-06.4.9.V - For gang mailboxes indicate location to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping.

COMMENT: Provide the mailbox location as described above.
08/30/2013 JOHN BEALL COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Passed
09/05/2013 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Denied 1. Provide a large scale detail of the proposed ramp to the front entrance complying with all accessible requirements for ramps, landings, handrails and entrance door clearances. Reference the 2009 ICC A117.1, Sections 406, 404.2.3.2, 405.8 and 505.
a. Include all dimensions, slopes, runs, heights, grade elevations, handrails, landings, and door clearances.
b. Provide handrail elevations.
2. Insure a Department of Transportation review for all accessibility requirements within the public right of way.
END OF REVIEW
09/09/2013 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change AM 2-10.4.1 Identification and Descriptive Data

The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet: Indicate all relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site.

The applicable HPZ Advisory Board shall review and make a recommendation on the application. The recommendation is forwarded to the Tucson-Pima County Historical Commission. Obtain approval from HPZ board to continue review.

Landscaping; Plantings and other ornamental features shall reflect the historic period of the subject structure. Landscaping may be reviewed in the context of a required HPZ review; landscaping alone shall not be considered through an HPZ review.


Historic Preservation Zone (HPZ): The Planning and Development Services Department Director may grant a complete or partial exception to the landscape border standards for development within a HPZ. The exceptions may be granted if, after completion of the HPZ development review required by the HPZ, the PDSD Director determines that the standards are not compatible with the character and design elements of the HPZ.

Ensure that all zoning & engineering comments and concerns are addressed

Additional comments may apply
09/09/2013 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
09/10/2013 ELIZABETH EBERBACH ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied TO: Scott Neeley R.A., Jeff Hunt P.E. at Cypress Engineering
SUBJECT: DP13-0151 Grading Development Package 1st submittal Minor Subdivision (S13-015) Engineering Review
ADDRESS: 695 S MAIN AV, Ward 6
LOCATION: T14S R13E Section 13
FLOODPLAIN: FEMA zone X-unshaded, 2279L
REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E.

SUMMARY: Engineering has reviewed and provided grading comments to the Development Package sheets for 18th and Main subdivision. Engineering does not recommend approval at this time. Report states that site is not impacted by jurisdictional floodplain (100 cfs or more for 100-year event), however, future buildings are recommended per discussion with consultant to be elevated due to 99 cfs expected in 18th Street. Prior to resubmittal, address the following comments.
MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES/GRADING SHEET COMMENTS:
1) Tech Man Sec.2-01.10.5: Show swale along eastern side of new structure to accommodate flows that come from the east - the proposed partial swale only on north edge is insufficient and cause adverse impact to existing parcel to the east of project, to minimize potential for adverse impact to adjacent properties from offsite flows that will be obstructed by new building. Clarify swale by providing spot elevations in swale, material of swale (concrete or grouted decorative rock etc), and width of swale on planview and in details.
2) UDC 8.4.3.B.6, Admin Man Sec.4.9.N.4: The Drainage Report shows that flows in 18th Street are just under the 100-year 100-cfs jurisdictional limit. Address the following comments:
a) Admin Man Sec.4.9.N.1: Explain in drainage report how FFE's were determined - provide adjacent 100-year WSEL and corresponding finished floor elevation in report.
b) Recommend revising proposed FFE's to show standard freeboard - higher than adjacent WSEL.
c) Drainage note 3 on sheet 1 does not apply since the structures are all within 10 ft of boundary. Any proposed depressed areas must follow geotech/soils report recommendations if positive gradients are not provided away from structures per building codes, and if swales are not impervious.
3) Admin Man Sec.4.9.S, Tech Man Sec.2-01.4.F.b: See redlines. Return redlines with resubmittal. Address the following grading comments:
a) Add spot elevations and revise some of the proposed elevations to assure positive gradients around and away from structures.
b) Add spot elevations for sidewalk to show 2% max cross slope and less than 5% longitudinal slopes.
c) Provide spot elevations for sidewalk ramps for accessibility compliance.
d) Label existing and proposed benchmarks on planview.
e) Label spot elevations & grade at rear of property showing positive gradient and swale with labeled cover material.
f) Provide inverts for pipe system for central building. Be aware that the pipe will also be reviewed under building plan review.
g) Revise grading note 15 - see redlines.
h) Provide cross sections at all sides of project for swale and structures to show existing grade and proposed grades, swales, and FFE.
4) Admin Man Sec.4.9.O, Tech Man Sec.2-01.9: Regarding proposed vegetation on landscape detail 2 on sheet 1, provide soils/geotechnical report showing that vegetation meets soils report recommendations, or, provide positive gradient away from structures with setback for irrigation and proposed vegetation per building codes.
5) Tech Man Sec.10-01.5.1.A: Show SVT's on site plan. AASHTO 15 ft stem SVT's may be requested under 10-01.6.2.A.
6) Admin Man Secs.4.9.I, 2-06.4.8.C, 4.9.H.4: Label existing right-of-way and existing utilities on planview.
7) Admin Man Sec.4.9.P1.C: provide recordation information regarding sewer easement.

Submit revised sheets, any supporting documentation, and comprehensive response letter. Please call me to set up a meeting prior to resubmittal to expedite resubmittal review, or call for clarifications at 837-4934.

Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM
Civil Engineer
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
09/23/2013 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed