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: DP13-0176
Parcel: 11811007B

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP13-0176
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/23/2013 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed
09/25/2013 MICHAEL ST. PAUL ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Michael St Paul
Planning Technician

PROJECT: DP13-0176
709 West Silverlake Road
Go Cart Track

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 25, 2013

DUE DATE: October 21, 2013

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 September 7, 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

2-06.3.1 - Each sheet shall measure 24 inches by 36 inches and include a minimum one inch margin on left side and one-half inch margin on all other sides to facilitate efficient record keeping. A larger sheet format may be used with the approval of the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD).

2-06.3.2 - All mapped data shall be drawn at an engineering scale having no more than 50 feet to the inch. This scale is the minimum accepted to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for record-keeping purposes. The same scale shall be used for all sheets within the set. Smaller scales (60:1 or greater) may be used for some or all of the sheets with the prior approval of PDSD when it is determined legibility and the ability to be digitized and/or reduced for archiving will not be affected.
2-06.3.3 - All lettering and text (upper or lower case), and numbering, shall be a minimum of three-thirty-seconds inches in height to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for archiving.


2-06.4.2.D - The page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx).

COMMENT:
Provide the sheet numbers in a continuous sequence. Do not number the sheets for landscaping or grading separately from the rest of the set.

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:
Be certain that all existing easements are identified, depicted dimensioned on the site plan.

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 dimensioned typical details for standard and accessible parking 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:
Provide bicycle parking on site. Depict the location and provided a fully dimensioned bicycle parking detail on the plan. Provide the required bicycle parking (minimum of 2 spaces for short-term) in the general notes on sheet C1.

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.

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:
Provide the locations and types of all proposed signage.

COMMENT:
Provide all proposed easements, with all the relevant information as described above.


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Michael St. Paul, (520) 791-4959.

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents

Provide a response letter, two copies of revised site plan and a copy of the last submitted set of plans.
09/27/2013 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
10/07/2013 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: October 16, 2013
SUBJECT: Burnout Raceway Development Plan Package- Engineering Review
TO: Raul Piña
LOCATION: 709 W Silverlake Rd; T14S R13E Sec23
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP13-0176


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Drainage Report (CPE Consultants, LLC, 10SEP13) and SWPPP (CPE Consultants, LLC, 05SEP13). 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.D: Revise the development plan document and the Title Block to include the page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., Sheet XX of XX). This is to include the Landscape Sheets.

2) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Plan Package case number (DP13-0176) 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.B.2: Revise General Note #24 to correctly reference the effective date of the Flood Insurance Rate Map associated with the property the effective date of the DFIRM L Panels is 16JUN11.

5) 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.

6) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.B: Provide written approval from all parties with vested interest in the existing easement as shown on the development plan document. Specifically the 50-foot water easement that conflicts with the corner of the shop building and the proposed race track layout.

7) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Revise the development plan document to dimension the existing width of curb and sidewalk for both roadways in plan view.

8) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.F: Revise the development plan document to label the existing drainage infrastructure located within the public right-of-way of both adjacent roadways, include the infrastructure improvement plan number in plan view.

9) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan document to label all existing driveway entrances that are to be closed off. All entrance must be clearly labeled and provide a Keynote to label the curbing and sidewalk dimensions along with a reference to the Standard Detail for Public Improvements to match existing.

10) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Provide written approval from TDOT Permits and Codes for the use of the existing asphalt path along Fiandaca Way. Since this project is full code complaint verify if TDOT wants a new public sidewalk with curbing along the street frontage.

11) 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. Also provide the near side SVT for the intersection of Fiandaca Way with Silverlake Road to ensure that the proposed shop building is not within the line of sight.

12) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.c: Revise the development plan document to clearly label the required separation of the proposed vehicular use area and all areas used for landscaping, detention/retention or any used areas of the site. Refer to UDC Sec.7.4.6.H.1; A barrier, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond project area, damaging adjacent landscaping, fencing, or unpaved areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site.

13) 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, SVTs, etc. Verify that required improvements are not constructed within this area.

14) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan document to provide the SEQ # for the proposed 10-foot temporary construction and slope easement. Provide the notarized written agreement form the adjacent property owner for the use of the adjacent property.

15) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan document to provide a Cross Section through the area along the west side of the property located along the area with the proposed temporary slope easement.

16) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan document to either provide a note or label in plan view the required temporary fencing that must be constructed adjacent to the undisturbed area of the site to prevent encroachment during construction operations or clearly state in Keynote #11 that the proposed 8-foot chain link fence (under separate permit) will be constructed first to prevent encroachment or storage of materials in this area during construction.

17) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Revise the development plan document to label and detail all proposed drainage infrastructure onsite. Specifically the pipe outlet and rock rip rap outlet for the retention basin. All improvements located within the right-of-way will need prior approval and a right-of-way use permit from TDOT before DP approval. Or revise the plan to place all improvements onsite.

18) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: All offsite drainage improvements will require prior approval from TDOT and a right-of-way use permit prior to construction. Specifically the proposed rock rip rap swale along the east property line. Or revise the plan to place all improvements onsite.

19) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan document to clearly label and dimension all existing and proposed sidewalks. Provide a Keynote for the PC/COT Standard Detail or provide a separate construction detail for all proposed sidewalks.

20) 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.

21) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan document to clearly label and Keynote the proposed handicap access ramps in the public right-of-way for construction purposes. Keynote the PC/COT Standard Detail for the required handicap access ramps.

22) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan document and provide 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 3a for the required double 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:

23) TSM Sec.4-04.2.3.1.2: Revise the Introduction Section within the Drainage Report to correctly state the effective date of the DFIRM L Panel series (16JUN11).

24) TSM Sec.4-04.2.3.1.2: Revise the Introduction Section within the Drainage Report to provide clarification on the stated 50-foot erosion hazard setback. Per Section 26-7.1 of the Tucson Code the 50-foot setback is only suitably for banks that are stabilized to the level of the base flood. The banks of the regulatory water course appear to be earthen in natural and do not provide an engineering stabilization. Per Sec.26-7.2 when banks are not stabilized the setback shall be calculated from the guidelines in the Standards Manual Chapter 7.

25) TSM Sec.4-03 and Chapter 25 of the Tucson Code: Revise the Drainage Report to show that the offsite flows into the right-of-way of Silverlake Road do not increase above the existing conditions. Per Figure 6 in the Drainage Report the existing Q100 is 15.3 cfs and the developed Q100 is 20.2. This also differs from Sheet C3 of the development plan document that shows a offsite Q100 of 4.3. Clarify the differences and verify that developed conditions do not increase flows into the public right-of-way.


SWPPP: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP according to these comments:

26) Revise the SWPPP Report and Exhibit to verify conformance with the City of Tucson Ordinance 10209 and the AZPDES 2013 CGP. The new 2013 permit for the state became effective June 23, 2013 and the SWPPP must comply with the new requirements. Refer to http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/cgp.html.

27) Part 6.3(4): Revise Sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 of the Report to provide site specific information. These sections appear to be for another project located on a different site. Review and revise all areas of report to ensure that it is site specific.

28) Part 6.3(5)c: Indicate the percentage of the site that is impervious before and after construction.

29) Part 6.4(1): Revise the SWPPP Report to include a copy of the CGP-2013 (AZG2013-001) permit.

30) Part 6.4(2): Revise the SWPPP Report to include the correct NOI certification under the CGP-2013 (AZG2013-001) permit.

31) Further comments may be forth coming once the SWPPP is revised to reflect the 2013 permit and the discussion within the report is updated to be site specific.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package, Drainage 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
10/11/2013 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Denied SHEET C3
1. Provide a 4'-0" wide concrete accessible route from the four accessible parking spaces to the concourse area.
2. Provide a large scale detail of the 4 accessible parking spaces, ailses and accessible route showing all accessible requirements such as dimensions, markings, slopes, signage, curbs and access to the accessible route.
a. Provide a large scale accessible parking sign detail including the "Van Accessible" sign.
3. Provide a large scale detail of the accessible route shown from the Silverbell Road right of way to the concourse area showing all accessible requirements such as dimensions, slopes, elevations, handrails/guardrails, handrail/guardrail elevations and landings.
4. Provide an accessible route to the bleachers and provide accessible seating as per the 2012 IBC, Section 1108 and 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 802.
5. Note on the drawings that all accessible routes comply with the 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% maxium running slope and 2% maximum cross slope.
END OF REVIEW
10/18/2013 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

Identification and Descriptive Data

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 (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan.

Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.

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

Development plan case number

Additional comments may apply
10/18/2013 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
10/18/2013 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. An approved development plan is not to be used for construction of on-site utilities (e.g. water service to the building, building sewer, site lighting, or electrical service to the building). The construction of the on-site utilities may be included with the permit for constructing the building or as a separate permit.
2. Revise the site drawing to include the location, invert, and rim elevations of all manholes and cleanouts; along with the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number.
3. Verify that the existing ¾" water meter will be adequate for the proposed buildings. Tucson Water limits a ¾" water meter to a maximum demand of 22.5 GPM. Note that a 1" schedule 40 PVC pipe is limited to 21.5 GPM to avoid exceeding a water velocity of 8.0 feet per second.
4. Revise the slope noted for the shop building sewer; the minimum slope for a 4" building sewer is 1/8" per foot (~1%), not 0.02%. Reference Section 704.1, IPC 2012.
5. Provide cleanouts in the building sewer for the restroom building and the concession building at intervals not exceeding 100 feet. Reference Section 708.3.2, IPC 2012.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
10/21/2013 SHANAE POWELL OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
10/21/2013 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed