Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: DP14-0003
Parcel: 140411130

Address:
3360 E ELVIRA RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP14-0003
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/06/2014 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed
01/07/2014 KEN BROUILLETTE FIRE REVIEW Approved
01/15/2014 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Thermo King
Development Package (1st Review)
DP14-0003

TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 15, 2014

DUE DATE: February 04, 2014

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 January 05, 2015

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.

1. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP14-0003, 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.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses.

2. COMMENT: The existing use shown under 'GENERAL NOTE 4" is called out as "AUTOMOTIVE SERVCE & REPAIR". Zoning was not able to find a certificate of occupancy for this use. It appears that we have a change of use and expansion of use area proposed.

3. COMMENT: Clarify what the "NEW 15,000 SF STORAGE AREA" is for. As this appears to be outdoor storage, commercial storage, on a separate lot per UDC Section 4.9.10.A.2 Outdoor storage, when permitted, shall not be located in the street perimeter yard. As there is no building proposed on this parcel and the definition of Perimeter Yard, a setback area to separate buildings from adjacent property or streets, outdoor storage is not allowed on this parcel.

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.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.

4. COMMENT: Provide a right-of-way width dimension for Elvira Road on the 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.

2-06.4.9.E - Proposed land splits or existing lot lines shall be drawn on the plan with dimensions and the identification number and approximate square footage of each lot. (Please be aware that, if land division occurs and the number of lots falls within the definition of subdivision, a subdivision plat is required.) Land splits require a separate permit and review.

5. COMMENT: If parcels 140-41-1140 & 140-41-1130 are to be used as a single use a lot combination will be required. If they are separate uses provide two separate development packages.

2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles (SVTs). On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section.

6. COMMENT: Show the required SVTs 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.

7. COMMENT: Show the required barriers along the basin located in the southwest corner of 3360 E. Elvira

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.

8. COMMENT: Based on the use shown under 'GENERAL NOTE 4", "AUTOMOTIVE SERVCE & REPAIR" the vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.4-1: MINIMUM NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLE SPACES REQUIRED, COMMERCIAL SERVICES USE GROUP, AUTOMOTIVE SERVCE & REPAIR, the required parking ratio would be 1 space per 300 sq. ft. GFA. 10,000 sq. ft./300 = 33 vehicle parking spaces required, 20 vehicle parking spaces provided. A Board of Adjustment for Variance is required to be approved prior to approval of this development package.
9. COMMENT: Based on the most current aerial photos there are several storage containers located on this site. If these containers are to remain on site the total square footage of these containers should be included in the vehicle parking spaces calculation.

10. COMMENT: The vehicle parking space depth dimension provide for the vehicle parking spaces shown along the south property line is not correct. Per UDC TABLE 7.4.6-1: MOTOR VEHICLE USE AREA DIMENSIONS the minimum space depth is eighteen (18) feet. A PARKING DESIGN MODIFICATION REQUEST (PDMR) is required to be app approved prior to approval of this development package.

11. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6.H.1 and the last approved site plan some type of barrier is required along the southern vehicle parking spaces to prevent vehicles from damaging the fence.

12. 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 some type of barrier is require around the proposed storage area.
13. COMMENT: Until comment 3 above is addressed the surfacing requirements for the storage area cannot be verified, additional comments maybe forth coming.

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.

14. COMMENT: Based on the use shown under 'GENERAL NOTE 4", "AUTOMOTIVE SERVCE & REPAIR" the loading space calculation is not correct. Per UDC Table: 7.5.5-A: REQUIRED LOADING AREAS, COMMERCIAL SERVICES USE GROUP, AUTOMOTIVE SERVCE & REPAIR, no loading spaces are required. Revise the calculation to reflect 0 required.

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.

15. COMMENT: Based on the use shown under 'GENERAL NOTE 4", "AUTOMOTIVE SERVCE & REPAIR" the bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. Per UDC Table: 7.4.8-1: Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, COMMERCIAL SERVICES USE GROUP, AUTOMOTIVE SERVCE & REPAIR, Short Term Required 2.

16. COMMENT: Based on the most current aerial photos there are several storage containers located on this site. If these containers are to remain on site the total square footage of these containers should be included in the vehicle parking spaces calculation. This may effect the number of required long term bicycle parking spaces.

17. COMMENT: Clearly show the location of the short & long term bicycle parking on the plan and provide details for the short term bicycle parking that meets UDC Sections 7.4.9.B & .C and long term bicycle parking that meets UDC Sections 7.4.9.B & .D.

18. COMMENT: There is "EXISTING 2-SPACE LONG-TERM BIKE RACK" called out near the northwest corner of the existing building. Based on the last approved site plan and the most current aerial photos this rack does not meet the minimum requirements of UDC Section 7.4.9.D for long term 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.

19. COMMENT: As new public sidewalk and ramp are proposed at the northeast corner of 3340 E. Elvira Road a pedestrian access easement will need to be recorded to allow access across this parcel.

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.

20. COMMENT: As this project area meets the definition of "Developing Area", An area where less than 50% of the linear street frontage of all property, excluding alleys and drainage ways, located on the same side of the street and within the same block as the proposed development is occupied by principal structures that conform to the minimum front street perimeter setback required for the applicable zoning classification or street frontage, the "20' STREET PERIMETER YARD SETBACK" shown on the plan is not correct. Per UDC Section TABLE 6.4.5.C-I, PERIMETER YARD BY STREET ADT, ADT of 1,000 or greater, the required perimeter yard setback is 21' measured from the back of curb.
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
.
01/22/2014 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: January 22, 2014
SUBJECT: Thermo King Development Plan Package- Engineering Review
TO: Metro TED; Attn: Lisa Bowers
LOCATION: 3340 & 3360 E Elvira Rd; T15S R14E Sec16
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP14-0003


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Statement (Cypress Civil Development, 26DEC13). 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.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Plan Package case number (DP14-0003) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets.

2) AM Sec.2-06.4.1: Revise the development plan package, Owner/Developer Section and General Note #1 to clarify the mailing address of the developer. General Note #1 should also provide the mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner and/or developer of the project.

3) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.A: Provide Zoning approval for the new lot combination. The proposed lot lines will require a lot combination application for review and approval prior to development plan package approval.

4) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Revise the development plan package to dimension the existing width of the public right-of-way in plan view. Provide right-of-way (ROW) width, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks.

5) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.D: Revise the development plan package to clarify Keynote #5 within the right-of-way that is pointing to the existing electrical transformer and the concrete pad to the east of the driveway location. The Keynote is to label existing sidewalks and does not apply to these areas, revise.

6) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.2: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the existing SVTs for the existing driveway entrance. Local Streets require a 20'x185' near side and a 20'x110' far side SVT.

7) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to clearly dimension the clear 20-foot PAAL width located at the existing fence location along the west side of the building. Verify that the fence when open provides for the minimum clear width and how the gate functions.

8) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the minimum 24-foot clear PAAL width for the existing vehicular use area along the north side of the building.

9) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package 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.

10) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package and the weir call out on Sheet 3 to clarify the length and width of the weir for construction purposes. Currently it states a 10.5 foot wide weir however it does not call out the length of the weir or the depth of the concrete. Provide a specific detail for the weir and concrete for construction purposes. Also revise the word weir to read "weir not wier."

11) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package to clarify the concrete pad that is shown in aerial view that is located in the proposed basin area. Per the City's GIS and Google Earth it appears there is a concrete pad or vault located along the southeast portion of Lot 113, verify.

12) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package and Sheet 3 to clearly show the required basin maintenance access ramp per TSM Sec.4-04.1.5.2. Verify that the required landscaping within the basin is not in conflict with the required ramp location.

13) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Verify with a new geotechnical evaluation or an addendum that infiltration rates for the new basin meet the maximum drain down time per TSM Sec.4-04.3.5.1.

14) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Per TSM Sec.4-04.14.3.2: Provide a note on the development plan package to state that, "(a) the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for all detention/retention basins, drainage infrastructure, drainage channels and water harvesting areas; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at lease once every 12-months, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; (c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage and retention/detention facilities to verify that scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner or owners agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with the maintaining of the detention/retention basins and drainage structures should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities."

15) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package and Detail A to clearly provide the manufactures specification for the proposed gorilla snot stabilizer. Specifically for the application and the maintenance specifications to ensure that the owner is properly maintaining the storage area for the life of the project.

16) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Revise the development plan package to either 1) provide a manhole or clean out at the angle point of the new 12-inch HDPE as shown on Sheet 2 and Keynote #19 or 2) verify that the angle as shown is equal to or less than 10 degrees. Per TSM Sec.4-04.10.9.1.8: "Manholes shall be located at such places as junctions, changes in pipe size, curves and angle points in excess of 10 degrees and points where an abrupt change in grade occurs." Verify that the design conforms to the requirements within this section.

17) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Revise the development plan package to provide scour/erosion protection at the outlet end of the proposed 12-inch HDPE basin outlet to prevent slope erosion.

18) 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.

19) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package and Keynote # 13 to dimension the minimum required 5-foot width for the new sidewalk within the public right-of-way. Per TSM Sec.10-01.4.1.A.1.a all projects which require a new sidewalk will provide a sidewalk with a minimum width of five feet along local streets, revise.

20) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package to clearly show the new portion of the sidewalk along the west side of the driveway completely within the existing pedestrian easement on Lot 112. Per the site location a portion of the sidewalk is proposed to be constructed on Lot 113 which does not have an onsite pedestrian easement for the required sidewalk that should be located within the public right-of-way.

21) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.X: Revise the development plan package and Keynote #15 to either provide the MAG Detail on the plan set as called out or call out a Pima County/City of Tucson Standard Detail for Public Improvement. Since the MAG Detail is a Maricopa County Detail it must be provided on the plan set for construction purposes.

22) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.X: Revise the development plan package and Landscape sheets to include landscaping within the proposed detention/retention basin per TSM Sec.4-03.4.3.2, verify the landscaping is not in conflict with the require basin maintenance access ramp.


DRAINAGE STATEMENT:

23) TSM Sec.4-04.3.5.1: Revise the Drainage Statement and the Detention/Retention Section to verify the maximum drain down time allowed for the size of the water shed. Per the referenced section the maximum drain down time is 12 hours not the stated 36 hours. Provide a geotechnical evaluation or addendum with infiltration rates to ensure the drain down times.

24) Revise the Drainage Statement to clearly show the required basin maintenance access ramp and provide a detailed inspection list and basin-performance criteria for subsequent reference by the Engineer responsible for annual and as-needed maintenance inspections of the basin per TSM Sec.4-04.1.5.2. Verify that the required landscaping within the basin is not in conflict with the required ramp location


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package and Drainage Statement that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Due to the numerous comments additional comments maybe forth coming once all of the above comments have been addressed and depending on the out come of the geotechnical evaluation.

For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929.



Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
01/23/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied Revise the site utility drawing to clarify the point of connection to the existing public sewer for the existing building. Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.13, IBC 2012.
01/28/2014 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Provide a marked crossing at the drive entrance between the two curb ramps.
2. At note 14 change the reference PC/COT STDB 207 to "as per the 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 406".
END OF REVIEW
02/04/2014 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change 1) UDC 7.6.2.A & B apply to the site. The Landscape and Screening regulations apply to the entire site. Revise as necessary.

A. All new development.
B. Expansion of existing development.
1. On sites where the gross floor area of the existing building(s) is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, expansion in square footage of land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area as follows.
a. If the expansion is less than twenty-five (25) percent, the requirements of this Division apply only to the proposed expansion. Existing development on the site is subject to the zoning regulations in effect at the time the existing development received zoning approval.
b. If the expansion is twenty-five (25) percent or greater or if expansions as of February 15, 1991, cumulatively result in a twenty-five (25) percent or greater expansion in land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area, the requirements of this Division apply to the entire site.

2) UDC 7.4.6.H The vehicular use area must be provided with post barricades or wheel stop curbing designed to prevent parked vehicles from extending beyond the
property lines; damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings and to
prevent vehicles from driving onto unimproved portions of the site.
per DS 3-05.2.3.C.
Revise the plans as necessary.

3) UDC 7.6.4.-1. The site is required to identify required screening. Revise as necessary.

4) AM 2-10.4.2.A.2 Revise the landscape plan to include the following calculations:
a. Square footage of the site.
b. Square footage of the vehicular use area; number of parking spaces, including the required and provided parking space calculations; and the calculation of the required number of canopy trees.
c. Minimum width and square footage measured from the inside edge of tree planters in vehicular use areas. (as applicable)
f. Length and width of landscape borders and number of canopy trees per length.
g. Square footage of the street landscape border and a calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage.

5) AM 2-10.4.2.A.1.g Call out DG/or other dust control treatment areas.

6) AM 2-10.4.2.C Submit an Irrigation Plan.
02/04/2014 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Reqs Change See Landscape comments.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
03/11/2014 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed