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: DP14-0093
Parcel: 117032620

Address:
722 N STONE AV

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP14-0093
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/05/2014 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed
06/09/2014 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: 722 N. Stone
Development Package (1st Review)
DP14-0093

TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 11, 2014

DUE DATE: July 2, 2014

This project should be submitted as two (2) separate development packages with two (2) separate DP numbers. On next submittal revise DP14-0093 to be for one set of the addresses, 722 & 728 or 748 & 750, obtain a separate DP number for the other address. The two (2) DPs will continue to be reviewed concurrently.

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments 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

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 June 3, 2015

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

2-06.1.0 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,

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

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.

1. COMMENT: Sheet C2 the drawing scale shows 1" = 30', the drawing is not drawn at 1" = 30', clarify what scale this plan is drawn at.

2-06.3.5 - A three-inch by five-inch space shall be reserved in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for an approval stamp.

2. COMMENT: Provide the PDSD Development Package approval stamp on all sheets. The required stamp can be found at http://pdsd.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/development-permits under Development Package.

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.

3. COMMENT: Revise sheet C2 & C3 so that the drawing is oriented with north up or to the left.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

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.

4. COMMENT: The address shown under "ADMINISTRATIVE STREET ADDRESS, 314 E. MAGEE RD" is not correct. Provide the correct address on all sheets adjacent to the title block.

5. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP14-0093, on all sheets adjacent to the title block.

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.

6. COMMENT: "SITE NOTE" 3 provide the Use Specific Standard 4.9.9.B.1 for the proposed retail uses.

7. COMMENT: Under the "SITE PLAN CALCULAITONS" you have listed "COMMERCIAL STORAGE" as a use but did not list this use or Use Specific Standard 4.9.10.A under "SITE NOTE" 3, clarify. Also all uses listed will need separate certificates of occupancy (C of O's).

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.

8. COMMENT:

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

2-06.4.7.A.8.c - Percentage of building, lot area, or vehicular use area expansion. If the building(s) or lot area have been previously expanded, those calculations shall be included; and,

9. COMMENT: Remove the "LOT COVERAGE" calculation from sheet C1 as it is not applicable.

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.

10. COMMENT: Provide the recordation information for the TEP easement shown on the plan.

11. COMMENT: Provide permit documentation for the two carports shown within the TEP easement.

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.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.

12. COMMENT: If applicable show the required SVT's 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.

13. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4.b The spur must be a minimum of three feet in depth and have a three foot radii and a wheel barrier to prevent encroachment onto any unsurfaced areas. Demonstrate on the plan how these requirements are met.

14. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4.c A minimum distance of three (feet must be provided between the back of spur and any wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches in height. That said show the required three (3) foot from the back of spur to the bollards shown at the north end of the proposed vehicle parking area.

15. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 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 required along the north end of the vehicle parking area, see green highlite on sheet C3

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.

16. COMMENT: Provide a typical parking space detail for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled.

17. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3 When required, wheel stop curbing must be a minimum of two and one-half feet from the front of the parking space. (See Figure 7.4.6-C.). Provide a dimension on the required details for the wheel stops shown on the plan.

18. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.E.2.b Minimum Width Requirement When Adjacent to Barrier. 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 provide a width dimension for the two vehicle parking spaces shown adjacent to the wall at the south end of the vehicle parking area.

19. COMMENT: The two (2) accessible parking signs shown on the plan appear to encroach into the required 2'-6" overhang. Demonstrate on the required detail that these signs do not reduce the overhang area.

20. Provide a separate vehicle parking space calculation for 722 & 728 N. Stone and a separate vehicle parking space calculation for 748 & 750 N. Stone. As it appears addresses 722 & 728 provides three (3) additional vehicle parking spaces over what is required. The three additional vehicle parking spaces may be used for 748 & 750 north Stone as long as an access/parking agreement is recorded. It appears that additional reductions maybe allowed based on the number of short and long term bicycle parking spaces proposed for 722 & 728 N. Stone site. If this is then intent show the reductions on the plan. These bicycle parking spaces shown at 722 & 728 N. Stone may not be counted toward the number required at 748 & 750 N. Stone.

21. COMMENT: Under the "SITE PLAN CALCULAITONS" you have listed "COMMERCIAL STORAGE" as a use but did not list this use or Use Specific Standard 4.9.10.A under "SITE NOTE" 3, clarify. Clarify the difference. If the storage is part of one of the other uses, retail, office, or food service, it may not be parked separately.

22. COMMENT: The total square footage shown under "SITE PLAN CALCULAITONS 4..PARKING CALCULAITONS:" Retail/Office 6,098 + Commercial Storage 5,000 + Food Service 2,521 = 13619 does not match what is shown under "SITE PLAN CALCULAITONS 1" 11,178, clarify the difference.

23. COMMENT: It appears that a Board of Adjustment (B of O) for Variance will be required for vehicle parking but until comment 22 above has been addressed finalized B of A comments cannot be provided.

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.

24. COMMENT: Provide a separate bicycle parking space calculation for 722 & 728 N. Stone and a separate vehicle parking space calculation for 748 & 750 N. Stone. As zero (0) short term bicycle parking is proposed at 748 & 750 N. Stone a Board of Adjustment (B of O) for Variance may be required.

25. COMMENT: It appears that 722 & 728 N. Stone provides additional short and long term bicycle parking that may allow for a reduction in required vehicle parking spaces. If this is the intent show the reduction in the vehicle parking space calculation.

26. COMMENT: Provide a short term bicycle parking detail that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1.e, .g, 7.4.9.B.2.a, .f, .g, .h, 7.4.9.C.2.a, and .c are met.

27. COMMENT: Provide a long term bicycle parking detail that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.D are met.

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).

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
.
06/19/2014 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
06/23/2014 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change SHEET C3
1. At the Grading and Paving Plan:
a. Provide the grade elevations of the upper and lower landings of the ramp and the finished floor elevation of the building.
b. Relocate the accessible parking signs to a position just inside the concrete walk.
2. At detail 2:
a. The entrance door from the ramp to the building is not compliant with ICC A117.1, Sections 404.2.3.2 (a and b) for door clearances.
b. Push the ramp location about 6" to the south and eliminate the handrail extension 90 degree turn. This is also corrective action for details B and C.
SHEET C4
3. Refderence comment 1a above.
4. Indicate a maximum grade slope of 2% in all directions.
END OF REVIEW
06/24/2014 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Remove notes that are not applicable to this project.
Show where existing drain inlet leads.
Provide estimated cut and fill quantities for the grading and paving plan.
Provide an estimate of the traffic volume on Echols Avenue. If the average daily trips exceed 140, show the sight visibility triangles for the driveway into the parking lot.
06/30/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change Revise the site drawing to include the location, invert and rim elevation of the upstream manhole, along with the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number. If the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole is higher than the first floor elevation or is less than 12" below the first floor elevation, provide a note on the plans requiring the installation of a backwater valve when future plumbing activities take place. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.
07/02/2014 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) Submit a Landscape Plan. A.M. 2-06.4.9.X

2) Clarify if an MDR is requested. Review the standards for DOWNTOWN AREA INFILL INCENTIVE DISTRICT (IID) development and revise the plans as necessary. UDC.5.12
07/02/2014 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Passed exception

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
07/16/2014 FERNE RODRIGUEZ OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed