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: DP14-0129
Parcel: 12419027A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP14-0129
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
07/25/2014 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed
07/25/2014 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
07/28/2014 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: August 1, 2014
SUBJECT: Bestway Electric Development Plan Package- Engineering Review
TO: Phil Veneziano, RA
LOCATION: 278 S Campbell Avenue; T14S R14E Sec18
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP14-0129


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Statement (Cypress Civil Development, 22JUL14). 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 (DP14-0129) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets.

2) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: Revise the development plan package to remove the address from the Title Block and provide it adjacent to the Title Block on each sheet.

3) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Revise the development plan package to dimension the existing width of curbs, curb cuts, curb to property line, sidewalks and existing bike lanes (revise the site plan to correct the typographical error) within the public right-of-way. Label the dimensioned existing right-of-way.

4) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.F: Revise the development plan package to include the location of the drainage infrastructure and the infrastructure improvement plan number in plan view for existing drainage infrastructure located within the public right-of-way.

5) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.I.1: Revise the development plan package to label the existing 100-year floodplain limits adjacent to the site. The plan drawing is to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50-feet of the site which is to include the regulatory watercourse. Provide the water surface elevation per the FEMA FIRM Panel and FIS study.

6) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.A: Revise the development plan package to provide a lot combination approval through Zoning to eliminate the lot lines that run through the parcel. The parcel functions as 1 site and should be one parcel without the additional lot lines.

7) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the minimum 10-foot handicap parking space width for the new parking stall located adjacent to the proposed bollards on the northeast side of the building per UDC Article 7.4.6.D.2.b.

8) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan document to label the minimum dimensions for the proposed back-up spur at the end of the PAAL per UDC Sec.7.4.6.F.4. Specifically the 3-foot radii (revise Keynote #11 to correct the typographical error). Verify that the site plan and grading plan sheet match. Specifically for the area located at the northwest corner of the lot. The site plan sheet shows a back up spur however the grading plan sheet shows a rock rip rapped slope, clarify.

9) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label or Keynote all proposed/existing curbing around the vehicular use area. For the grading plan sheet revise Keynote #11 to provide for the PC/COT Standard Detail # for the proposed Type 2 vertical curbing.

10) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to provide a vehicular separation along all areas of the site between the vehicular sue area and the property boundary, landscape area or pedestrian access path. 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.

11) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package, specifically the grading plan sheet and Keynote #15 to provide the referenced MAG detail or revise the Keynote to call out the PC/COT Standard Detail for Public Improvement for construction purposes.

12) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.O: Revise the development plan package to include the erosion hazard setback line for the regulatory watercourse adjacent to the site. Refer to the Drainage Statement for setback dimensions.

13) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to clarify the primary accessibility access into the building. Per Keynote #1 on the grading plan sheet the primary accessibility route onsite connects to the alley which does not have a sidewalk. If the pedestrian access is the primary access point then a sidewalk will be required along the alley and must meet the minimum dimensions.

14) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to correctly label and dimension the required 4-foot wide pedestrian access path located for all onsite sidewalks. All sidewalks and pedestrian access paths located onsite must meet the minimum 4-foot width requirements per TSM Sec.7-01.4.3.A.

15) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to verify that all sidewalks and pedestrian refuge areas associated with PAALs are physically separated from the travel lane by means of curbing, 6-inch grade separation, barriers, railings or other per TSM Sec.7-01.4.2.A.

16) 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.

17) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package to provide a 5-foot sidewalk along the frontage of the parcel in the adjacent right-of-way per TSM Sec.10-01.4.1.A.1.a.

18) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan package to provide the 2-foot setback from the refuse enclosure to the property line. Per TSM Sec.2-01.9.3. The site plan and grading plan sheet differ in the exact location of the refuse enclosure. Verify that all areas of construction and grading are located entirely onsite and provide for the required setback.


DRAINAGE STATEMENT:

19) Revise the Drainage Statement to provide calculations and a discussion on the required erosion hazard setback from the regulatory watercourse adjacent to the site. Per the City of Tucson Drainage Manual Chapter 7 all buildings constructed near a natural watercourse shall be setback a sufficient distance as specified by the criteria presented within Chapter 7 of the referenced manual. Verify that the setback dimension is correctly shown on the development plan package.

20) It is recommended that the civil engineer verify the revised floodplain limits and water surface elevations per the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) that will become effective in September 2014. The LOMR Case # 13-09-3317 (effective 09/29/2014) does have a revised floodplain limits and the water surface elevations have changed from the current FIRM Panel. It is recommended that the building be designed to meet the future limits and elevations to ensure that the finished floor elevation will meet the future height requirements for insurance rates and premiums along with regulatory compliance.


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
08/07/2014 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change SHEET 1
1. Do not stripe the concrete accessible route.
2. Reference the large scale parking detail from the accessible parking layout shown on the site plan.
3. Provide a large scale detail of the one accessible parking space located at the east side of the existing building.
a. Show all accessible code requirements.
b. The ramp does not work with a sidewalk abutting the slope side of the ramp.
4. Going to need a DSMR for the 3'-0" side walk (accessible route) to 18th Street.
5. At detail 1, show the 2% slope maximum in all directions.
SHEET 5
6. Provide a note for all accessible routes:
"The slopes of all accessible routes are to comply with the 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% maximum running slopes and 2% maximum cross slopes.
END OF REVIEW
08/15/2014 MICHAEL ST. PAUL ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Michael St Paul
Planning Technician

PROJECT: DP14-0129
728 South Campbell Avenue
Manufacturing

TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 15, 2014


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 .

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

2-06.1.0 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).

1) COMMENT: Provide the minimum one inch margin on the left side of each sheet.

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.2.B - A brief legal description and a statement as to whether the project is a resubdivision are to be provided. On resubdivisions, provide the recording information of the existing subdivision plat;

2) COMMENT: Be certain that the brief legal description reflect the required lot combination.

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: The above information, including the address, should be 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.

4) COMMENT: Identify both the existing and proposed use under General Notes. Provide the UDC code references (UDC Section 4.27.29) and the Use Specific Standards (UDC Sections 4.9.2.C.2, .6, .7, & .8 and 4.9.13.Q) for the proposed use.


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

2-06.4.7.A.8.a - Floor area for each building;

5) COMMENT: What are the "exposed" and "enclosed" areas listed in the General Notes, and what are uses for these areas? Be aware that any manufacturing activity must conform to the Use Specific Standards for the I-1 zone.

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.

6) COMMENT: Provide the above site conditions on the site plan. (See comment numbers 8, 10, and 11.)

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/are provided.

7) COMMENT: Identify, dimension and delineate all existing easement on the site.

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.

8) COMMENT: Provide all the above information for the public streets and alleys. Any street or alley must be paved. Such improvements must be in place for commercial or industrial access (UDC Section 7.8.1). Access is provided along Campbell Avenue. Proper vehicle and pedestrian access are not provided from Martin Avenue. Both the alley and Martin Avenue are not improved. Martin Avenue and the alley must be paved and meet the minimum standards (TSM Section 10-01 for street technical standards and TSM Section 7-01 for pedestrian access). Alley access must be a minimum of twenty (20) feet wide and properly surfaced (UDC Section 7.4.6.K.2).

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.

9) COMMENT: A lot combination for parcels 124-0-19-0810, 082A, 027A and 0480 shall be required.

2-06.4.9.H - Proposed Traffic Circulation

2-06.4.9.H.1 - Proposed traffic circulation will be designed in accordance with Section 10-01.0.0, Street Technical Standards, of the Technical Standards Manual, to include streets, intersections, street names, right-of-way widths, curve radii of centerlines and curb returns, and proposed improvements, such as pavement, curbs, access points (driveways), accessible ramps, and sidewalks. Street improvements, such as sidewalks, curbs, pavement, and accessible ramps, do not need to be drawn on the plan if such information is provided on typical street cross sections.
Please be aware that, if a new street is created (for other than for subdivisions) which divides the property into two or more lots, a subdivision plat is required (refer to the definition of subdivision in Section 11.4.20 of the UDC).

10) COMMENT: Any proposed street improvement (Martin Avenue) must comply with the above and acquire a right-of-way permit. Any improvement to the alley shall also require a right-of-way permit.

2-06.4.9.H.4 - Indicate if existing streets are public or private; provide street names, widths, curbs, sidewalks, and utility locations, all fully dimensioned.

11) COMMENT: Provide all the paving and curb location for 18th street and any improvements for Martin Avenue. See comment

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.

12) COMMENT: Revise the backup spurs to three (3) radii and a three foot setback area (UDC Section 7.4.6.F.4). The vehicle overhang behind the backup spur on the south side of the proposed building encroaches on to the sidewalk and pedestrian refuge. This sidewalk is depicted and dimensioned as only three (3) feet.

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.

13) COMMENT: The long-term bicycle parking appears to be designed as a short-term bicycle parking outside and without lockers. See UDC Section 7.4.9.D for long-term bicycle parking requirements.

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.

14) COMMENT: Identify, delineate and dimension any proposed easements on the site plan.

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.

15) COMMENT: The pedestrian access to the south of the proposed building if required to be four (4) feet in width (TSM Section 7-01.4.3.A).

2-06.4.9.X - Show compliance with landscaping and screening requirements by locations, material descriptions, and dimensions. Specific plant or hardscape material shall be detailed on a landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan is required. In accordance with Section 2-11.0.0, Landscape Plan Requirements.

16) COMMENT: See comments by the Landscaping section.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Michael St. Paul, (520) 837-4959.

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents.
08/19/2014 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE

ARTICLE 7: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING

To enhance the visual appearance of the streetscape, a street landscape border is required in accordance with Table 7.6.4-1 along the street frontage of a site as follows:

Minimum Width
Street landscape borders must be a minimum of ten feet wide as measured from the street property line running the full length of the street property line bounding the site except for points of ingress-egress. Portion of site does not provide adequate landscape buffer.

Fifty percent or more of the area of the street landscape border must be covered with shrubs or vegetative ground cover.

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

Additional comments may apply

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.

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.
08/20/2014 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
08/20/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 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. Remove any notes relating to how the site utilities are to be constructed.
2. Revise the site plan to show the point of connection to the public sewer. If the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole is less than 12" below the first floor elevation, note that a backwater valve will be required when plumbing work is to be done. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
08/26/2014 AROMERO4 APPROVAL SHELF Completed
08/26/2014 AROMERO4 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
08/26/2014 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed