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: DP13-0163
Parcel: 13014447A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP13-0163
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/28/2013 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed
08/30/2013 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
09/05/2013 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Denied SHEET 2
1. At Construction Key Note 4, clarify with a note that the concrete sidewalk and the asphaltic paving are flush.
2. At note 28 delete "ADA" and insert 2012 IBC, Chapter 11 and 2009 ICC A117.1.
3. At note 6 include the following: "All accessible route slopes are to comply with 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; maximum 5% running slope and maximum 2% cross slope.
4. Delete Std Dtl 207 at note 30 and insert "as per ICC A117.1, Section 405".
5. Provide an accessible route to the Juarez Street right of way.
6. The pedestrian curb ramp to the private street needs to have a complete marked crossing with markings, another curb ramp on the opposite side of the street and detectable warning strips at both curb ramps.
SHEET 5
7. At detail 5:
a. Provide a note at the Std Dtl 213 reference: The concrete walkway is flush with the asphaltic paving".
b. Indicate a maximum 2% grade slope in all directions.
END OF REVIEW
09/06/2013 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Progressive Insurance
DP13-0163
New Office Building

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 9, 2013

DUE DATE: September 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 27, 2014.

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: Clarify what the proposed use is. The plan show "AUTOMOTIVE-MINOR SERVICE" but it appears to be an office use. If it is "AUTOMOTIVE-MINOR SERVICE" add the Use Specific Standard "4.9.13.E" to General Note 4. If the proposed use is office list the proposed use as "ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SUBJECT TO USE SPECIFIC STANDARD 4.9.13.P".

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: General Note 5 needs to be revised to read as follows "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: Sheet 1 under "AREA CALCULATIONS" & "PARKING REQUIREMENTS" the building square footage is listed as 14,854 s.f., Sheet 2, within the building footprint the building square footage is listed as 14,527 s.f., clarify which is correct.

2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Percentage and area in square feet of building and accessory building coverage;

COMMENT: As Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is no longer applicable remove the FAR calc from the plan.

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: Clarify the easement for access along the west perimeter of this site.

COMMENT: Some type of easement or agreement is required for the proposed access roads shown on sheet 4. Provide the recordation information on the plan.

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 the dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks for Juarez Street.

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 to the east and south of Juarez Street on the plan.

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: Per UDC Section 7.4.6.H.1 Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. That said provide some type of barrier to prevent vehicles from access the unimproved site areas along the proposed access roads shown on sheet 4.

COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6.F.2.a.1 Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least one foot from an open structure, such as a carport or covered pedestrian access path as measured from the closest part of the structure or roof overhang That said show the required one (1) foot setback from the PAAL to the proposed covered parking shown along the east property line.

COMMENT: The proposed gates shown under keynote 29 appear that they may restrict access to required parking. Provide a note on the plan stating "GATES TO REMAIN OPEN DURNING BUSINESS HOURS".

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 parking space detail for standard parking spaces include a wheel stop location dimension, see UDC Section 7.4.6.H.1.3,

COMMENT: 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, other than a vertical support for a carport. That said demonstrate on the plan that the minimum ten (10) foot width is provided for the vehicle parking space shown directly west of the proposed dumpster enclosure.

COMMENT: Until the building gross floor area is clarified the required number of vehicle parking spaces cannot be verified. For your information the total required includes the required accessible vehicle parking spaces they are not additional required 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: The proposed short and long term bicycle parking details do not addressed UDC Section 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.

COMMENT: The short term bicycle parking does not appear to meet the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.9.C.2.a Location Short-term bicycle parking must be: Within 50 feet of each public entrance to a building as measured along the most direct pedestrian access route.

COMMENT: Detail 3 Short Term bicycle Parking show two (2) racks. Per UDC 7.4.9.B.2.d A single rack is designed and located to accommodate two bicycles. That said if two (2) racks are proposed then the number provided should be four (4). If two (2) racks are proposed a minimum of four (4) foot clear is required between racks.

COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.9.B.2.f show the required two (2) foot by six (6) foot area for the bicycles.


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: Sheet 1 under "AREA CALCULATIONS" & "PARKING REQUIREMENTS" the building square footage is listed as 14,854 s.f., Sheet 2, within the building footprint the building square footage is listed as 14,527 s.f., clarify which is correct.

COMMENT: Provide the height of the proposed building within the footprint on sheet 2.

COMMENT: There appears to be a canopy proposed on the south end of the building clearly indicate the canopy on the plan and provide the height.

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 width dimension for all proposed sidewalks on the plan.

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. That said a sidewalk is required along the north side of the proposed building.

COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.4.C A sidewalk is required adjacent to any parking space accessed by a PAAL where the space is located on the same side of the PAAL as any building and no other parking spaces or PAALs intervene. That said a sidewalk is required;
Along the north side of the building.
Along the east side of the building

COMMENT: TSM Section 7-01.3.3.B A sidewalk is required to connect from the building to the dumpster enclosure.

COMMENT: Provide an accessible pedestrian circulation, as detailed on the plan to the sidewalk on the parcel to the west.

Sheet 1 under "STREETS AND ROADS NOTES" note 1 remove the reference to "DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 3-01.0" as it is no longer applicable.

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
.
09/10/2013 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Denied BASED ON THE PROPOSED SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE AND NOT KNOWING THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION, A SECOND FIRE HYDRANT IS NECESSARY TO MEET FIRE FLOW/HYDRANT NEEDS. PLEASE INDICATE SECOND FIRE HYDRANT OR IF AN AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS INSTALLED ONLY ONE FIRE HYDRANT WILL BE NECESSARY.KB
09/11/2013 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
09/11/2013 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change AM 2-10.4.1

1. Identification and Descriptive Data

2. The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet:

3. Development Review Board (DRB) case; and/or, any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site.

4. Delineation of the 100-year floodplain on the landscape plan.

5. Within a vehicular use area, one (1) canopy tree is required for each 10 motor vehicle parking spaces and 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) per AM 7.6.4. It appears that additional trees are required within secured parking area

6. 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, other than a vertical support for a carport. Revise parking space next to refuse container enclosure as necessary on the site, grading and landscape plan. UDC 7.4.6.D.2.b.

7. The site, grading and landscape plans must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between plans. Ensure that all changes to the other documents are reflected on the landscape plan.

8. Additional comments may apply upon subsequent reviews.
09/11/2013 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied 1. Clarify the relationship between this development plan and the Evergreen Randolph Plaza subdivision plat.
2. A floodplain use permit will be required before the development package can be approved.
3. Naylor Wash is a WASH ordinance watercourse. Delineate the WASH study area on the site and grading plans. (TSM 4-02.2.1)
4. Show how the site uses storm water runoff to the maximum extent possible for landscape watering. As a practical effect, runoff must be directed to landscape areas first and only overflow should be directed to storm drains. (UDC 7.6.6.C.2)
5. Show how the riparian resources within the WASH study area will be protected. (TSM 4-02.2.6)
6. For the proposed access roads, provide barriers along the paved areas to prevent vehicles from leaving the paved roadway. (UDC 7.4.6.H)
7. The solid waste enclosure doesn't meet the requirements of the TSM 8-01.9 figure 3A. Provide an enclosure that meets the TS or request a TSMR. If a TSMR is requested, I recommend discussing the proposal with ES before submitting.
8. On sheet 2, the detail referenced in note 32 doesn't reference the correct detail. Check all callouts and notes to ensure they match
9. A complete stormwater pollution prevention plan in accordance with the most recent construction general permit is required. I recommend using the checklist provided by ADEQ on its web site to ensure completeness.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
09/17/2013 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed