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: DP14-0145
Parcel: 115045090

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP14-0145
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/28/2014 SPOWELL1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
08/28/2014 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
08/28/2014 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Relocate the bicycle racks from in front of the accessible parking aisle access to the accessible route.
2. Provide a minimum of 4'-0" wide accessible route from the accessible parking spaces to the lobby entrance door.
a. The stairs need to be relocated.
b. Maybe a misprint. Appears as though a stray stair well layer is turned on. Please reconcile.
3. The accessible 5'-0" wide aisle show in detail 2/A100 is not the same accessible aisle shown in the floor plan. Please reconcile.
4. Please confirm that the accessible parking aisles are flush with the accessible route to the entrance lobby door. This is questionable because of the present of a ramp at the North (?) end of the accessible parking row. Please reconcile.
4. Please provide a north arrow on all plans and partial plans.
5. Redesign the accessible parking so that the columns do not encroach into the required 8'-0" x 19'-0" accessible parking area.
END OF REVIEW
09/02/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change Revise the site utility plan to include the first floor elevation for the building. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.
09/02/2014 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: The HUB at Tucson Phase II
Development Package (1st Review)
DP14-0145

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 2, 2014

DUE DATE: September 05, 2014

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 August 27, 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

2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) - ADDITIONAL 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

2-06.3.8 - The north arrow, contour interval, and scale as applicable to each sheet should be placed together in the upper right corner of each sheet.

1. COMMENT: Provide a north arrow and scale on sheets A100 and A1-1.

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.

1. COMMENT: Provide the administrative street address adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

2. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP14-0145, 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.3 - If the plan/plat has been prepared in conjunction with a rezoning application, add the following note next to the existing zoning note: "Proposed zoning is ____." List the applicable rezoning file number and conditions of approval. Also place the C9-__-__ (if applicable) and the plan/plat file numbers in the lower right corner of each sheet.

2. COMMENT: PERMITTING NOTE 1, the proposed zoning should be listed as UC-1 not UR-3.

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.

3. COMMENT: PERMITTING NOTE 3 proposed use is not correct. As it does not appear that mixed use is proposed the propose use should be listed as GROUP HOME.

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: PERMITTING NOTE 6 remove the "-" from between "C-9-12-01"

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.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.

5. COMMENT: There are a couple of easements shown to be abandoned. These easements will need to be abandoned prior to approval of the development package.

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.A - Draw in all proposed lot lines with approximate distances and measurements.

6. COMMENT: As this site is comprised of two (2) parcel a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request form with your next submittal.

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: Provide a width dimension for the parking garage entrance off of Tyndall.

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: Sheet A100 there appears to be numerous building columns that appear to encroach into vehicle parking spaces. Demonstrate on the plan or a detail that the requirements of Main Gate Overlay section C-5.c.9 are met.

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.

9. COMMENT: Fully dimension the loading space shown on the plan. Also clearly show vehicles will access this loading space.

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.

10. COMMENT: The required number of long and short term bicycle parking spaces is not correct. 93 x 0.3 = 27.9 or 28.

11. COMMENT: Provide a detail for the proposed short term bicycle parking shown on sheet A100.

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.

12. COMMENT: Sheet A001 west side of the building, there are setbacks shown from the 5th & 6th floor. Both setbacks show 9'-0" from the P.L. but there appears to be a difference, clarify.

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).

13. COMMENT: There appears to be some type of awning shown near the north end of the east side of the proposed structure, provide the height of this structure on the plan. It also appears that this awning encroaches into the right-of-way along Tyndall Avenue, a temporary revolable easement is required. Contact COT Real Estate Office.

2-06.4.9.T - Show refuse collection areas, including locations of dumpsters, screening location and materials, and vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned, and access route. If dumpster service is not proposed, indicate type of service. For specific information on refuse collection, refer to Section 8-01.0.0, Solid Waste and Recycle Disposal, Collection, and Storage, of the Technical Standards Manual. Refuse collection on all projects shall be designed based on that section, even if collection is to be contracted to a private firm.

14. COMMENT: Show the refuse collection area on the plan.

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, approved Pima County Combo request form.
.
09/02/2014 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.

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.


Landscape elements proposed in right-of-way or MS&R areas must be approved by the City Engineer or designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect for specific requirements. LUC 3.7.2.3

Provide calculations and a shade study to document the proposal to provide shade for 70% of pedestrian areas per MGD Design Standard.
09/03/2014 KBROUIL1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Reqs Change 1. Sheet C1.0 Indicates that the width of Tyndall is less then the minimum required width of 26 feet for aerial apparatus per 2012 IFC Appendix D 105.2.

2. Please indicate on the site plan the distance from the corner of the buildings located in the alley to the nearest public street (1st and Speedway)

3. Section 503 of the 2012 IFC requires that the minimum fire apparratus width be 20 feet. The current width is 15 feet and if the building is not constructed to the high rise requirements in Section 403 of the IBC, then the road width will need to be increased to 20 feet with no parking allowed.

4. Section 1029 of the 2012 IFC requires that emergency escape and rescue windows are provided and that fire has the ability to ladder the building (from the ground). We are unable to meet this requirement. If the building was constructed to the high rise requirements in Section 403 of the 2012 IBC, then the rescue openings would not be required.

5. Please indicate if the stairways that are exiting/entering from the alley are part of the overall emergency egress for the building. We are concerned about exiting directly only roadway without any sidewalk for discharge.
09/04/2014 FDILLON1 DESIGN EXAMINER REVIEW Reqs Change 9-4-14 - HUB II Development Package has one inconsistent item with the PDSD and Main Gate DRC approved final Design Package 8-26-14.

1. Sheet 2/11 (axonometric diagram) notes aluminum railings with a glass divider. Call-outs on the approved design plans specify aluminum railings with perforated metal screens (note #18, pgs. 5,7,9,11.
09/04/2014 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal:

1. Per TSM 8-01.6.2.C, a minimum vertical clearance of 25 ft. is required above the collection areas and a minimum of 15 ft. vertical clearance is required within the alley. The loading dock area where the containers are to be rolled to and serviced from must either have the 25 ft. vertical clearance, or the containers will need to be rolled out into the alley by onsite facility staff when the service truck arrives. If the 25ft. clearance within the loading dock cannot be provided, revise General Note 17 on the cover sheet to state facility personnel shall be responsible for positioning the solid waste and recycle containers at the edge of the alley within the loading dock area on the days of solid waste and recycling service collection, and that facility personnel shall roll the containers out clearly into the alley for servicing when the service vehicle arrives and roll them back into the loading area after servicing. If the containers are rolled out into the alley, the alley in this location will need to have 25 ft. unobstructed vertical clearance.

2. If the containers are to be serviced from within the loading dock, provide access per Figure 4 of TSM Section 8.

3. The location within the loading dock area where the containers are to be staged for collection service must be at the same elevation as the alley and not at raised loading dock level.

4. A concrete service apron shall be provided in front of the container service area, even if this is in the alley. The apron shall per constructed per the figures in TSM Section 8 and extend a minimum 13 ft. length and 10 ft. width.

5. The 15 ft. public alley will need to be one-way, with the direction being from north to south. If the alley is to be two way, the minimum width shall be 20 ft. per TSM Section 8-01.6.2.B. The alley shall be marked for no parking.

If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net





Ken Perry, PE, LEED AP

Principal

505 W. Wetmore Road

Tucson, Arizona 85705

Office 520.620.9870, ext. 1

Cell 520.820.4355

kperry@perryengineering.net

www.perryengineering.net

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-mail and any attachments are private and are intended only for the use of the addressee, and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that the use, distribution, or copying of this E-mail and/or the attachments is strictly prohibited."
09/04/2014 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change Provide the DP case number on each sheet.
Provide the street address adjacent to the title block on each sheet.
Consider directing more of the stormwater discharge toward the Tyndall Avenue side of the structure. The alley drainage system is not adequate to the existing discharge and the overall discharge could be more ably managed within the Tyndall Avenue right-of-way.
Paving in the alley and the condition of the storm drain grate in the alley will require improvement and repair. Address the storm grate and alley drainage in the final drainage statement. (This may be in association with the grading plan and building plans.)
09/04/2014 GARY WITTWER COT NON-DSD TDOT Approv-Cond Yes.

>>> Patricia Gehlen 9/4/2014 3:09 PM >>>
So deny it because it does not have a PIA. Is everything else okay?

>>> Gary Wittwer 9/4/2014 3:01 PM >>>

Patricia
Yes, I was looking at all the cross references to the PIA. We do not have an approve PIA at this time. That is my comment.
Gary
09/04/2014 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied From TDOT
Zelin Canchola
DP14-0145 The HUB at Tucson Phase II

The plan requires change prior to approval.
1. The Alley may not be less than 20 feet in width if there is to be any access including Transformer Room, Electric/Switch Gear room, Pumps/Mechanical, and the Loading Doc. If there is no access the alley can remain 15 feet with other agency's agreements such as fire and Sanitation. The alley does need to be designed in accordance with the street design requirements as they pertain to pavement and base materials, and thickness.
2. A one way option can be accomplished through a public process. Refer to the City of Tucon's Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP). A 60% petition is required in favor of the change, agency approvals such as fire (TFD), Sanitation, and Police. A Mayor and council vote is required anytime a street is converted to one way. The NTMP process can take up to 6 weeks, then be place on a M/C agenda. The areas where the loading and maintenance will need a width of 20 feet.
3. Due to increased traffic loading that will be generated during construction, and after development, the existing catch basin (Key note 21) should be replaced. In addition, the replacement inlet should be documented in the Drainage report and sized accordingly.
4. Due to increased traffic loading, the existing alley pavement section, fronting this Phase (Phae II), should be replaced to the existing vertical profile and cross section (Inverted crown section) in order to maintain positive drainage to the existing catch basin (see comment 1 above).
5. The recent pavement section installed in the alley under Phase I should be modified to also match the vertical profile, prior to paving, in order to provide positive drainage to the existing catch basin (Key note 21 catch basin).
6. Permitting Notes: Number 18 PageG1 - Change phone number for Richard Leigh to791-4259.
09/05/2014 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) 4 rolled sets of the plans
2) A disk containing all items submitted
3) All items requested by review staff
4) All items needed to approve these plans.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
09/15/2014 AROMERO4 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed