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: DP14-0029
Parcel: 13705168A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL

Permit Number - DP14-0029
Review Name: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
05/05/2014 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Cleanfreak $3 Carwash
Development Package (2nd Review)
DP14-0029

TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 2, 2014

DUE DATE: May 30, 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 February 19, 2015 .

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

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

1. COMMENT: As this development package has not yet been approved revisions are not applicable. That said remove all revision clouds from the plan.

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.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.

2. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide the recordation information, "PER BK 8. PG 47" on the plan. COMMENT: Sheet a1.0, there is an easement called out along the south property line, provide the recordation information and purpose of the easement on the plan.


Once the above comments have been addressed Zoning is will provide an over-the-counter review. Call or email to schedule and appointment for this review.

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.
05/07/2014 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: May 7, 2014
SUBJECT: CleanFreak $3 Carwash Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review
TO: CW Architecture; Cory Wiebers
LOCATION: 837 W Irvington Rd; T15S R13E Sec02
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP14-0029


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Geotechnical Engineering Report (RAMM, 07HAN14 addendum 07MAR14). 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) Completed.

2) Completed.

3) Completed.

4) Completed.

5) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.7.A.6: Revise the development plan package to provide a General Note with the code reference for the overlays applicable to the 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 and Sec.5.5, Gateway Corridor Zone (GCZ)." Per the comment letter this note was added as General Note #13 on Sheet C1 however the General Notes end at #12, revise. It is also acknowledged that the note was added to Sheet t1.0 so verify if the note needs to be added to the civil sheet as well.

6) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.7.C.2: Revise the development plan package and General Note #4 (Sheet c1.0) 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 Section 10-01.5.0, Sight Visibility, of the Technical Standards Manual." Revise the package to remove all references to the old Development Standards. All notes should reflect the new Technical Standard Manual with correct corresponding code reference. The note should be written as stated in Architectural General Note #18 on Sheet a0.1.

7) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.8.B: Revise the development plan package to provide the recordation information and purpose of all easements as shown on the plan set. It is acknowledged that the word "Public" was added however the Book and Page recordation information needs to be added also.

8) Completed.

9) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.8.I: Revise the development plan package and the Flood Zone Section on Sheet C1 to remove the reference to the extra FIRM Panel (2287L). There is only one panel that covers the subject property which is the other referenced 2286L as shown in the Flood Statement Section on the same page.

10) Completed.

11) Completed.

12) Completed.

13) Completed.

14) Completed.

15) Completed.

16) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Provide a note on the development plan package to state; "Approval from TDOT Permits and Codes for all improvements within the public right-of-way will be required. A right-of-way use permit application will be required prior to construction." Per the comment letter this note was added as General Note #14 on Sheet C1 however the General Notes end at #12, revise.

17) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package to provide a Grading Note specifying conformance with City of Tucson Technical Standards Manual Sec.2-01 (excavation and grading requirements). Per the comment letter this note was added as General Note #15 on Sheet C1 however the General Notes end at #12, revise. Revise the package to remove all references to the old Development Standards. All notes should reflect the new Technical Standard Manual with correct corresponding code reference.

18) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: It is acknowledged that the Geotechnical Report and addendum was provide however General Note #1 on Sheet C2 needs to be revised to reference to the Geotechnical Report and any addendums prepared for this project. Provide the date, job number, engineer who prepared the report, etc.

19) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package to provide a General Note to state; "Call for a Pre-construction meeting prior to start of earthwork. To schedule a PDSD Pre-construction meeting, SWPPP inspection or general Engineering Inspections, call IVR (740-6970), or schedule with a Customer Service Representative at the Planning Development Services Department, or contact PDSD Engineering at 791-5550 extension 2101, or schedule inspections online at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Online_Services/Online_Permits/online_permits.html". Per the comment letter this note was added as General Note #16 on Sheet C1 however the General Notes end at #12, revise.

20) Restated: 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." Per the comment letter this note was added as General Note #18 on Sheet C1 however the General Notes end at #12, revise.

21) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package and the Onsite Temporary Benchmark Section to clarify if indeed it is taken at the entrance drive from Gilbert Road. The Benchmark Section still provides a reference to Gilbert Road which is located on the NW side of Tucson at Ina and Old Father, clarify.

22) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package and Sections A and B on Sheet c5.0 to reflect the subject property. After review of the cross section it appears that they are not reflective of 837 W Irvington Road. Cross Sections still have not been revised.

23) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package to verify where Detail 1/c5.0 is located in plan view. It appears that this detail is for a curb opening along a street however it is not delineated in plan view. All proposed right-of-way improvements will require a right-of-way use permit. The curb opening into the existing basin should be referenced on Sheet 5 with a number, clarify which detail is used and which detail needs to be removed.

24) Completed.

25) Completed.

26) Completed.

27) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to clearly dimension all sidewalks widths onsite to ensure the minimum 4-foot width requirements per TSM Sec.7-01.4.3.A. Provide verification for the proposed handicap access ramp located on the west side of the driveway to ensure the minimum 4-foot width. It appears that the curb returns encroaches into the clear width.

28) Completed.

29) Completed.

30) Restated: 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.

31) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: The existing 4-foot sidewalk does not meet the minimum width requirement for MS&R Arterial Streets, it is acknowledged that TDOT provided an approval via email to allow the existing 4-foot sidewalk to remain however the modification in width for a full code complaint project will require a Technical Standard Modification Request application with fees for approval through all respective review sections. Provide a separate note to reference the TSMR #, date of approval and any conditions if applicable.

32) Completed.

33) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan package to provide for the associated details for the refuse enclosures to show that it meets TSM Sec.8-01. The detail must be provide on the civil sheets and must match TSM Sec.8-01, Figure 2 and Figure 3b for the 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. Just referencing the Standard does not apply.

34) Completed.


DRAINAGE STATEMENT:

35) Restated: Revise the written Drainage Statement on Sheet C1 with a discussion on pre and post imperviousness of the site. It is acknowledged that the proposed site is providing additional landscaping however the statement must reflect this. The drainage statement must also provide a discussion about the subject property being located with a balanced basin per the "Balanced and Critical Basin Map for Study Session of January 27, 1987. If the civil engineer wants to include the Drainage Statement on the plan sheets as shown under the Retention Statement that is acceptable for this project but it must clearly reflect the subject property and provide a discussion in regards to the balanced basin requirements.

36) Completed.


GEOTECHNICAL REPORT:

37) Completed.


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.

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

Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
05/15/2014 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.
05/20/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
05/21/2014 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change Maintain a 5' x 5' clear landing as per ICC A117.1, Section 405 at the 90 degree turn landing at the most north westerly ramp and marked crossing.
END OF REVIEW

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
05/23/2014 SHANAE POWELL OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
05/23/2014 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed