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: DP13-0232
Parcel: 13014039A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP13-0232
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
11/25/2013 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed
11/26/2013 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Central Tucson Des Office
Development Package (1st Review)
DP13-0232

TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 26, 2013

DUE DATE: December 09, 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 November 23, 2014

2-06.3.9 - The plan drawing shall be oriented with north toward the top of the sheet. If it is not practical to orient north to the top of the sheet, the plan drawing shall be oriented with north to the left side of the sheet.

1. COMMENT: Sheet 15 has north oriented to the right, revise this sheet to have north either to the top or left.

2-06.3.12 - An index of sheets in the development package shall be provided on the first sheet.

2. COMMENT: Clarify what sheet 16 is for as there is no information provided on the sheet.


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.

3. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP13-0232, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

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.6.a - List additional applications and overlays, by case number (if applicable), in lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note provide the type of application processed or overlays applicable, a statement that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the additional application or overlay, the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any.

4. COMMENT: Provide the rezoning case number, C9-77-18, and lot split number, S13-044, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

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

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.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.

5. COMMENT: Provide the site boundary information, bearings and distance, on sheets 6 & 7.

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.

6. COMMENT: Lot Split S13-044 will need to be completed prior to approval of this development package.

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.

7. COMMENT: There dashed lines shown behind all the vehicle parking spaces on the plan. Based on the legend provided on sheet 6 it appears that these area easements. Clarify what these lines are.

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.

8. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.5.4.F A loading area must be striped in accordance with Section 7.4.6.G, Striping, Surfacing Requirements, to distinguish it from motor vehicle parking spaces and other uses on the site.
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.

9. COMMENT: Detail G sheet 11, short term bicycle parking, the distance shown between racks should be four (4) foot clear, see UDC Section 7.4.9.B.2.f and Figure 7.4.9-C.

10. COMMENT: Detail G sheet 11, short term bicycle parking, the distance shown from the end of the rack to the wall should be two (2) foot six (6) inches, see UDC Section 7.4.9.B.2.g and Figure 7.4.9-C.

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.

11. COMMENT: As this property does not front on a Major Street and Route and does not meet the definition of developing area the street perimeter yard requirements shown on sheet 1 are not correct. Per UDC Section 6.4.5.C.1 the street perimeter yard requirement is twenty (20) feet one-half the height of the proposed wall (H), measured from the street property line, whichever is greater.

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.

12. COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.4.2 Sidewalks associated with PAALs must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation (minimum six inches), barriers, railings, or other means, except at designated crosswalks. That said the striped area shown between the vehicle parking spaces shown along the west side of the building must be a sidewalk, physically separated from the parking spaces.

13. COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.4.3.A All sidewalks must be a minimum of four feet wide and installed to avoid any obstruction which decreases the minimum width to less than four feet. That said there are areas along the north and south side of the building where it appears that the proposed bollards may encroach into the four (4) minimum width. Detail L sheet 11 show the bollards at 4'-0" to the center of the bollard. Clearly indicate on the plan that the minimum four (4) foot clear will be maintained for all proposed sidewalks.

14. COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.3.3.B The areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings, all bicycle and vehicle parking areas, all recreation areas, all dumpster areas, and all other common use areas. That said provide a pedestrian circulation connection to the proposed trash enclosure.

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
.
12/03/2013 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 12/09/2013,

SUBJECT: Central Tucson DES Office
DP13-0232, T14S, R14E, SECTION 22

RECEIVED: Development Plan Package and Drainage Report on November 22, 2013

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

Drainage Report:

1. It appears that the discharge onto the vacant parcel to the west will increase significantly for post development conditions (i.e. Q100 at 2E = 7 cfs; Q100 at 2P.2 = 23.9 cfs. Q100 at 2E+3E = 18 cfs; Q100 at 2P.2+2P.5 = 29.9 cfs). Revise the design to decrease the discharges for post development conditions.
2. It appears that the discharge onto Juarez Street also increases for post development conditions. Verify that the increase does not adversely impact Juarez Street and the adjacent parcels or revise the design to reduce the discharge.
3. Provide, on the proposed Drainage Map, cross sections and details that clarify the required construction information such as dimensions, elevations, side slopes, depths, and any proposed associated drainage structure such as inlets, outlets, erosion control structures or pads, etc. of the proposed retention and waterharvesting basins. The cross sections should also show that the basins side slopes are set back at least two feet from the parcel lines.
4. The report does not address percolation rates for the proposed retention basins. Provide a geotechnical report, which verifies that the percolation rates are acceptable or clarify if bleed pipes are proposed to be used. Please be advised that the proposed retention basin(s) percolation rates shall be in compliance with the requirements of the City of Tucson Detention/Retention Manual.
5. Any runoff discharge from the site to offsite is proposed to be concentrated, ensure that the discharge point is setback at least 2 feet from the lot line to disperse the discharge energy and eliminate any erosion on the adjacent properties.
6. Provide, on the proposed Drainage Map the proposed building finished floor elevation.
7. The onsite PAAL's shall be rated to determine the runoff water surface elevations within them and determine the building finished floor accordingly.
8. The calculated weir lengths do not appear to match what is shown on the plan especially for CP 1P.2 and CP 2P.2. Check the numbers and revise as needed.
9. The Q's used to decide the wall openings at CP's OS1 and OS2 do not appear to match the Q's provided in the "Offsite Peak Flows" Table. Check the numbers and revise as needed.
10. The drainage report shall address erosion control requirements for this project. Provide design calculations for any proposed erosion control structures.
11. Address water harvesting requirements in more details and demonstrate how roof and site drainage will be directed to maximize water harvesting.
12. According to Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management In Tucson, Arizona", the proposed retention/detention basins require 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.
16. 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.
17. The retention/detention basin may require security barriers. Check Section 4.3 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual for additional information.

Development Package:

1. Provide, on every sheet, all relevant case numbers (A.M. 2-06.4.3).
2. Provide the parcel boundary information including bearings and dimensions (A.M. 2-06.4.8.A).
3. 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).
4. Show all existing onsite easements with their recordation information (A.M. 2-06.4.8.B). Additionally, the 5' Electric Easement release shall be processed and removed from the plan. Submit documentation to verify the release.
5. Provide the adjacent streets information (i.e. public or private, right of way widths, recordation data, curbs, curb cuts, sidewalks, etc.) as required by A.M. 2-06.4.8.C.
6. Show any existing storm drainage facilities on or adjacent to the site (A.M. 2-06.4.8.F).
7. Show the 100-year flood limits and water surface elevations for Naylor Wash adjacent to the subject site (A.M. 2-06.4.8.I).
8. Show how vehicular and pedestrian traffic will be connected to Alvernon Way (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H).
9. Show existing and future sight visibility triangles at Juarez Street and Alvernon Way entrances (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.2).
10. Provide the width of all access driveways and within the parcel (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.1).
11. Include a general note that specifies the PAAL's and parking spaces dimensions are taken from the curbs gutter line (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.).
12. Show, if applicable, all proposed easements with their dimensions and recordation information as required by A.M. 2-06.4.9.L.
13. Provide the proposed basins side slopes and bottom width and depth dimensions on Details Q/12, U/12 and V/12. Provide all necessary construction details (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N).
14. Provide, on the plan, the proposed basins dimensions to facilitate their construction (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N).
15. Show proposed buildings roof drainage direction (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.2 & 3).
16. 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).
17. Show and label grading limits. Include the grading limits symbol in the legend (A.M. 2-06.4.9.M).
18. Show retention basin bleed pipes if applicable (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.3).
19. Revise Grading Note #19 to reference "Technical Standard 2-01.0" instead of the "Development Standard 11-01.0".
20. According to T.S. 2-01.8.A, the minimum cut or fill setback shall be 2' from the parcel line. Verify compliance with this requirement especially for the proposed detention basin.
21. All proposed work in the public right of way will require a right of way excavation permit or a Private Improvement Agreement. Contact Richard Leigh of Transportation Department Permit and Codes at 791-5100 for additional information.
22. Revise the Development Plan Package according to the Drainage Report revisions.

Landscape Plan:

1. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not conflict with the basin inlets, outlets, and access ramps.
2. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not obstruct visibility within the sight visibility triangles.

Geotechnical Report:

1. Provide a Geotechnical Report that addresses soils percolation rates for the proposed retention basins.
2. The Geotechnical Report shall address the required building setbacks from ponding water within the retention and waterharvesting basins.

SWPPP:

Provide a SWPPP report that is based on ADEQ Guidelines. It should include, among other things, the following:

1. Identify the nearest receiving waters on the Location Map (Part III.C.4).
2. A copy of the authorization certificate received from ADEQ (Part III.D.2).
3. A dated and signed certification form for each known operator (including the owner) in accordance with Part VII.K. (Part IV.J.1). Provide blank certification copies for unknown operators.
4. It is recommended to protect the inlets of the basins in order prevent fine sediments from entering the basins during construction.
5. Revise the SWPPP exhibits in accordance with the Site and Grading Plan comments.
6. The sequence of major construction 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.

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

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package, SWPPP, Geotechnical Report and Drainage Report
12/05/2013 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Denied SHEET 1 of 28
1. Because the DES is a state agency, at note 14 provide the following accessibility requirement note: "All accessibility requirements shall be as per the 2010 ADASAD."
SHEET 6 OF 28
2. Add a new note 16 referencing the accessible parking spaces to the large scale detail L/11.
3. Revise the passenger loading zone to meet the the 2010 ADASAD, Section 503 requirements with an 8' wide vehicle pull up space and a 5' marked access aisle all outside of the required 24' wide PAAL.
4. Delete all detectable warning strips shown within the property boundaries.
5. At the most notherly end of the marked crossing to Juarez Street either show the flared sides of the curb ramp at a maximum slope of 1:10 as required by section 406 or provide return curbs at both sides of the curb ramp.
6. At note 14 change the accessible code reference to the 2010 ADASAD, Sections 405 and 406 as applicable.
7. Add a new note 17 referening to the 2010 ADASAD, Section 403.3 for all slopes of the accessible route to have a 5% maxium running slope and a 2% cross slope.
SHEETS 7, 8, 9 AND 10
8. All comments for sheet 6 of 8 are applicable.
9. Change note 10 to read "2010 ADASAD, Sections 405 and 406 as applicable".
END OF REVIEW
12/09/2013 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:

Rezoning case;

Subdivision case;

Board of Adjustment case;

Design Development Option case;

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

Additional comments may apply
12/09/2013 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
12/09/2013 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Clarify the size of the proposed building sewer - 8" or 6" - both sizes are called out.
2. 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.
12/10/2013 KEN BROUILLETTE FIRE REVIEW Approv-Cond ALL FIRE HYDRANTS AND WATER LINES ARE REQUIRED TO BE PUBLIC AND NOT PRIVATE PER THE ADOPTED FIRE CODE
12/10/2013 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied From Zelin Canchola TDOT 12/10/13

Subject Central Tucson DES Office
DP13-0232

Please address the following comments:


1. Call out 25 foot curb return radius fro driveway on Juarez Street.

2. Add note: A private improvement agreement (PIA) will be required for work in the right of way. call city Engineering Permits and Codes 791-4259 for additional information.

3. Paving notes # 6 (sheet 2 of 28) Add notes "Permits and Codes section" after Transportation Department" replace "Traffic Engineering" with "Permits and Codes"

4. Grading notes # 27 (sheet 2 of 28) replace "791-5100" with "791-4259"

5. Eliminate word/reference to ALLEY on north side of property line. 50 foot right of way is suffice.

6. Show existing anf future sight visibility trangles at the Alvernon Way driveway.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/17/2013 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed