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: DP13-0156
Parcel: 14028019A

Address:
6220 S TUCSON BL

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP13-0156
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/19/2013 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed
08/27/2013 KEN BROUILLETTE FIRE REVIEW Approved
09/05/2013 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 09/13/2013,

SUBJECT: CAID Industries @ the NWC of Tucson Blvd and Ganley Road
DP13-00156, T15S, R14E, SECTION 8

RECEIVED: Development Package and Drainage Report on August 19, 2013

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

Drainage Report:

1. Provide an analysis for the 100-year runoff in Ganley Road to demonstrate that the runoff does not impact the subject development. Delineate Ganley Road 100-year floodplain limits on the drainage exhibit.
2. Provide design calculations to justify the size of the proposed curb openings. Clarify if there will be any ponding upstream of the curb openings. Show the limits and the depth of the 100-year ponding.
3. Provide the design calculations for all proposed drainage structures including sidewalk scuppers, erosion control structures, and all proposed drainage structures.
4. Provide a drainage exhibit that shows clearly and labels all existing and proposed drainage related information including scuppers, ground and water surface elevations, ponding elevations and limits, drainage structures, water harvesting areas, retention basins, slopes and slope protection, drainage arrows, dimensions, materials, etc.
5. Explain in the text the building roof drainage direction and explain if sidewalk scuppers will be required. Show the roof drainage direction and provide the scuppers design calculations if proposed.
6. Determine the minimum finished floor elevations for the proposed structure based on the onsite drainage. Rate the PAAL's to determine the 100-year runoff water surface elevations.
7. The proposed drainage scheme shall maintain the existing drainage patterns. Address this issue in the report in more details.
8. It appears that runoff detention is not provided. Address this issue and justify not using runoff detention.
9. It appears that the Geotechnical report does not include a percolation test for the largest retention basin which is proposed at the northwestern corner of the subject parcel. Show the locations of the performed percolation tests and verify that the largest basin has tested.
10. Determine, in the geotechnical report, the required building setback from the ponding water in the retention and water harvesting basins. Verify that the building is set back in accordance with the geotechnical report recommendations.
11. It is recommended, if possible, to provide the retention basins with bleed pipes to minimize ponding problems in the future.
12. Address water harvesting requirements in more details and demonstrate how roof and site drainage will be directed to maximize water harvesting.
13. The geotechnical report shall address slope treatment and stabilization requirements if applicable.
14. According to Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management In Tucson, Arizona", the proposed retention basin requires maintenance access ramp that shall be wide enough to accommodate vehicular access. The minimum width should be 15' and the ramp slope should not exceed 15 percent. Please be advised that maintenance ramps should be designed in such a way that does not allow inadvertent access to vehicles. Verify that the maintenance ramps will not reduce the required size of the basins. Smaller access ramps or the elimination of the ramp might be considered based on the size of the basin.
15. According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual the proposed basins floors shall be sloped to provide positive drainage. The section recommends a minimum of 0.5% floor slope and 0.2% low flow concrete channel slope. Please be advised that based on the City's experience with similar projects, 0.5% slope was difficult to construct and maintain which resulted in nuisance ponding in the basins. Show the provided positive drainage on the drainage exhibit.
16. Provide a CD for the contents of the drainage report and the development package.

Development Package:

1. The Development Package Case number is DP13-0156. Provide, on every sheet, the correct case number. Additionally, provide the project administrative address (A.M. 2-06.4.3).
2. Revise the name of the department from "DSD" to "PDSD" in all applicable General Notes on Sheet 2 of 13.
3. Paving and Grading Note # 1 is not applicable. The Development Standards have been replaced by the Administrative Manual and Technical Standards requirements. Revise the note as necessary.
4. Revise General Note #17 to read as follows:

"CALL FOR SWPPP INSPECTION AND PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS. FOR A PDSD ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS, CALL IVR (740-6970), OR SCHEDULE WITH A CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE AT THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT DSD ENGINEERING AT 791-5550 EXTENSION 2101, OR SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS ONLINE AT: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/inspections".

5. Add the following grading notes, which are intended to protect the owner/developer and the engineer of record:

a. The approved Grading Plan/Development Package is the only acceptable construction plan onsite. The Contractor may not use any other plans, such as the approved Tentative Plat and/or Development Plan, for construction purposes. The Contractor may ask the Planning and Development Services Inspector to consult with the other approved plans for additional information or details that might not be included on the approved grading plan but needed for completion of work.
b. The contractor shall remove the fine materials from the bottom of the detention/retention basin and scarify the basin bottom once the construction activities are completed in order to remove any fine material build up caused by construction and to restore soil percolation. Install BMP's at the basin inlet(s) to prevent the fines from entering the basin
c. Any proposed engineering work to be done below grade (i.e. toe-downs, cutoff walls, drainage pipes/structures, etc.) shall not be back filled until Development Services Inspector inspects the work and approves it.
d. The contractor is not permitted to make an autonomous decision to carry out construction field changes without prior written approval from the Engineer of Record and the City of Tucson Development Services Department.
e. The project will be in compliance with City of Tucson Technical Standard 2-01.0 (Excavating and Grading).
f. A copy of the approved Grading Plan, Grading Permit, and any Geotechnical Reports shall be kept at the site at all times, until final grading approval.
g. Any revision to the Grading Plan MAY require a re-submittal of a revised grading plan for review. Contact PDSD Engineering at 791-5550 to discuss changes in grading design.
h. See the associated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as a part of this grading permit.
i. Contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100 for any questions regarding any right-of-way permit requirements.
j. As-builts and letters of completion for basin and overall project are required.
k. The Engineer of Record shall submit a statement of conformance to as-built plan and the specifications.
l. The permitee shall notify the PDSD when the grading operation is ready for final grading inspection. Final grading approval shall not be given until all work, including installation of all drainage facilities and their permanent protective devices, and all erosion control measures have been completed in accordance with the approved grading plan and grading permit, and any required reports have been submitted.
m. Depress all landscaped areas a maximum of 6" for waterharvesting"

6. It does not appear the Keynote #27 is shown on Sheet 3 of 13. Revise.
7. It appears that Keynote #28, shown on Sheet 3 of 13, is not described. Provide the proper description in the Keynotes.
8. Provide the missing sequence number information in the Keynotes on Sheet 3 of 13.
9. Show, on the plan, the basis of bearing and the tie between the basis of bearing and one of the corners of the parcel. Provide the basis of bearing description in the general notes (A.M. 2-06.4.8.A).
10. Show and label as "Existing", if applicable, any existing onsite easements (A.M. 2-06.4.8.B).
11. Provide the missing width and recordation data information for Ganley Road and Tucson Boulevard (A.M. 2-06.4.8.C).
12. Show, if applicable. Any existing storm drainage facilities on or adjacent to the site (A.M. 2-06.4.8.F).
13. Depending on the results of the drainage report floodplain study, show, if applicable, the floodplain information, including the location of the 100-year flood limits for all flows of 100 cfs or more with 100-year water surface elevation (A.M. 2-06.4.8.I).
14. Provide the width of Tucson Boulevard driveway (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.1).
15. Provide all missing curbs radii (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H).
16. Include a general note that specifies the PAAL's and parking spaces dimensions are taken from the gutter line (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.).
17. It appears there is a conflict between the basin along the northern lot line and the 10' electrical easement. Revise the plan to show a separation between the two (A.M. 2-06.4.9.L).
18. Provide the proposed basins side slopes and dimensions. Provide all necessary construction details (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N).
19. Show retention and waterharvesting basins 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations. Show the water depth on Detail 5A/C-2.0 (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.1).
20. Show proposed buildings roof drains and sidewalk scuppers if the roof drains discharge onto sidewalks or walkways (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.2 & 3).
21. Show required retention and waterharvesting basins setback lines based on the geotechnical report recommendations. Ensure that all existing and proposed buildings are outside the ponding setback lines (A.M. 2-06.4.9.O).
22. Provide the location of the trash enclosure, and demonstrate how it will be accessed. Provide the trash enclosure detail (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.3) and (A.M. 2-06.4.9.T).

SWPPP:

1. Revise the "Pre-construction meeting" note on Page 10 in accordance with Development Package Comment #4 mentioned above.
2. Show drainage arrows on the SWPPP Exhibit.
3. The "Sequencing and Scheduling of Construction Activities and Disturbance Activities." section, shall include the following as the first two activities:

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

4. Provide a location map and identify the nearest receiving waters on the Location Map (Part III.C.4).
5. Include a copy of the completed (signed by the owner) NOI form that was submitted to ADEQ (Part III.D.3). Provide some blank forms for the unknown operators. (Part IV.F) Each operator is responsible for submitting a completed NOI to ADEQ and to the City of Tucson. Please note that the remaining signatures from the operators must be on the onsite copy of the SWPPP at or before commencement of construction.
6. Include a copy of the authorization certificate received from ADEQ (Part III.D.2).
7. Include a dated and signed certification form for each known operator (including the owner) in accordance with Part VII.K. (Part IV.J.1).
8. Identify any city or county which received a copy of the authorization certificate (Part III.D.4).
9. It is recommended to protect the inlets of the basins in order prevent fine sediments from entering the basins during construction.
10. Revise the SWPPP exhibits in accordance with the Site and Grading Plan comments.

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

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package and drainage report and a Geotechnical Report
09/11/2013 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Denied SHEET 3
1. At note 17 add "Accessible route slopes are to comply with ICC A117.1, section 403.3, 5% max running and 2% max cross slopes."
2. At note 20 add "Compliance with ICC A117.1, Sections 405 and 406 as applicable."
3. At detail 3:
a. Change the accessible parking space depth to 18' to 20' as per COT PDSD policy adoption pamplett.
b. Provide a detectable warning strip as per 2009 ICC A117.1, Sections 406.12, 13 and/or 14 as applicable.
3. At detail 2:
a. Provide a detectable warning strip as per 2009 ICC A117.1, Sections 406.12, 13 and/or 14 as applicable.
b. Add "Section 405 as applicable" to the ramp note.
4. Add a detectable warning strip in the corner of the building at the landing of the ramps and positioned in the direction of travel as per ICC A117.1, Section 406.12, 13 an/or 14 as applicable.
5. Extend the concrete landing at the ramp located at the most NE corner of the building and cover the landing with detectable warning strips as required by ICC A117.1, Sections 406.12, 13 and/or 14 as applicable.
6. Add detectable warning strips as required by ICC A117.1, Sections 406.12, 13 and/or 14 as applicable the the north side of the marked crossing to the Ganley Road right of way.
END OF REVIEW
09/12/2013 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: David Rivera
Principal Planner

PROJECT: Caid Industries - 6220 S. Tucson Blvd.
Development Package (1st Review)
DP13-0156

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 12, 2013

DUE DATE: September 15, 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 August 20, 2014.

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

2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet:

COMMENT: Revise the top line to read "A DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE FOR".

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: Provide the DP13-0156 case number and the administrative address adjacent to the title block.

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 the applicable UDC Sections for each overlay listed in General Note 5.

COMMENT: Zoning acknowledges the emails regarding the TIA AHD building height requirements. The elevations provided on sheet 1 under "SITE DATA" do not match the elevations provided within the emails and the elevation cert provided by Bruce Small, revise the elevations. Zoning acknowledges that there will not be an issue with building height.

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: Provide a typical detail for a standard vehicle parking space.

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: Demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.9.D Long-term bicycle parking are met.

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: Provide the sequence numbers for all proposed easements 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: Sheet 1 under "Site Date 2. Perimeter Yards" It appears that the ADT requirements listed for the north and east perimeter yards have been switched. The ADT requirement for the north perimeter yard should be >140 ADT < 1000, and the ADT requirement for the east perimeter yard should be < 1000.

COMMENT: Sheet 1 under "Site Date 2. Perimeter Yards, South" add PI to the zoning.

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: Per TSM Section 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. Sheet 3: That said there is a striped pedestrian area shown along the northern most east end of the proposed building that is required to be a sidewalk physically separated from the vehicle use are. The areas that appear to be overhead doors may be striped. Also keynote 28 points to this striped area, there is no keynote 28 on the plan.

COMMENT: Sheet 4 Keynote 13 calls out post barricades, these barricades appear to encroach into the required four (4) foot wide pedestrian circulation.

2-06.4.9.W - Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Indicate if there are any existing billboards on site. Compliance to the Sign Code, Chapter 3 of the Tucson Code, is required.

COMMENT: If applicable provide the required sign information on the plan.

GENERAL COMMENT: Clarify what General Note 4 is for.

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
09/16/2013 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied The minimum slope for a 3" to 6" building sewer is 1/8" per foot. An 8" building sewer can have a slope of 1/16" per foot (approximately 0.5%) but an 8" building sewer requires manholes instead of cleanouts. The first manhole shall be located within 200 feet of the junction of the building drain and the building sewer. Subsequent manholes shall be spaced not more than 400 feet apart and at each change in direction. Reference: Sections 704.1 and 708.3.2, IPC 2012.
09/17/2013 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied The irrigation technology chosen should be capable of preventing the irrigation system from running if sufficient soil moisture is present to support the vegetation. All systems shall include rain shut-off devices. TSM 4-01.3.4.2.A
09/17/2013 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
10/24/2013 FERNE RODRIGUEZ OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
10/24/2013 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed