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: DP14-0155
Parcel: 13425195B

Address:
7065 E 21ST ST

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL

Permit Number - DP14-0155
Review Name: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/09/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: 7065 E. 21st Street - New Warehouse
Development Package (2nd Review)
DP14-0155

TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 9, 2015

DUE DATE: January 15, 2015

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

COMMENTS: Remove all revision deltas and clouds as this is not an approved plan.

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 September 09, 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,

2-06.2.5 Fees
Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

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.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.

1. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: As a Design Development Options (DDO) will be required for perimeter yard setbacks, once approved provide the DDO case number adjacent to the title block. Also provide a note stating the DDO case number, date of approval, what was approved and if applicable conditions of approval.

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.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.

2. COMMENT: Per UDC Table 7.4.6-1: MOTOR VEHICLE USE AREA DIMENSIONS a 24' PAAL is required when access 90 degree parking. It appears that the PAAL that provides access to vehicle parking Space 1 does not meet the 24' requirement. A Technical Standard Modification request (TSMR) will need to submitted and approved prior to approval of this plan.

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.

3. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 6.4.5.C.1.a Within established areas, the minimum required front street perimeter yard is 20 feet or one and one-half the height of the proposed wall (H), measured from the street property line, whichever is greater, up to a maximum of 90 feet. That said based on exterior wall height of 18' the required street perimeter yard setback is 27'-0", proposed street perimeter yard setback is6'-3". A Design Development Option (DDO) will need to be processed and approved prior to approval of the development package.

4. COMMENT: Per UDC TABLE 6.3-4.A: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE C-1, C-2, C-3, OCR-1, & OCR-2 ZONES, Nonres Use to Res Zone the required perimeter yard setback to the north property line is 1 ½ time the height of the building exterior wall. Based on a wall height of 18'-0" the required perimeter yard to the north property line is 27'-0", proposed perimeter yard is 17'-0". A Design Development Option (DDO) will need to be processed and approved prior to approval of the development package.

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.

5. COMMENT: Provide width dimensions for the sidewalk shown along the south side of the proposed building and the sidewalk extending into the right-of-way.

6. COMMENT: Keynote 10 calls out a "NEW 3'-0" PAAL". This area appears to be the required pedestrian refuge area. This refuge area is required to be 4'-0" wide.

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
.
01/15/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
01/15/2015 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE

ARTICLE 7: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING


Minimum Width
Street landscape borders must be a minimum of ten feet wide as measured from the street property line.
Street landscape borders must be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee, up to five feet of the required ten foot width may be placed within the adjacent right-of-way area or within the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) right-of-way area on MS&R streets. Obtain permission for use of right of way.

Submit a separate Irrigation Plan containing the following informatiom:

Type of water conserving irrigation systems proposed and differentiation between systems for the different water use zones on the site;

Source of irrigation water;

Indicate potable or reclaimed water use. Reclaimed water system specifications, if used;

System specifications and system design and layout (Section 4-01.4.2, Irrigation Standards, of the Technical Standards Manual);

The extent to which systems are proposed within the public right-of-way.


CITY OF TUCSON CODE
ARTICLE VIII. RAINWATER COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS.

Sec. 6-182. Rainwater harvesting plan.
A. All commercial development and site plans submitted after June 1, 2010, shall
include a rainwater harvesting plan. The rainwater harvesting plan shall include a
landscape water budget and an implementation plan.
1. The landscape water budget shall calculate the estimated volume of
water required yearly for all site landscaping detailed in the development
and/or landscape plan.
2. The implementation plan shall show how any combination of capture,
conveyance, storage, and distribution will be utilized on-site to harvest
rainwater. Implementation plans shall comply with applicable development
standards for water harvesting applications.
3. The implementation plan shall also provide for water metering of all onsite
landscape water through either:

(a) A separate water meter connected to the main water supply; or,
(b) An irrigation sub-meter.
B. The rainwater harvesting plan shall be submitted concurrently with the site
plan and landscape plan.

Submittal requirements can be found @

TECHNICAL STANDARDS MANUAL

SECTION 4-01.0.0: COMMERCIA RAINWATER HARVESTING.

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

Additional comments may apply
01/15/2015 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Approved
01/15/2015 ELIZABETH LEIBOLD ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change TO: Larry Wilson R.A.
SUBJECT: Commercial Lot Warehouse Development Package Engineering Resub Review
ADDRESS: 7065 E 21st Street, Miramonte Terrace Lot A-6
FLOODPLAIN STATUS: X-unshaded zone, 040076-2304L, Rose Hill Wash (UL)
REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, PE
CASE NUMBER: DP14-0155
DATE: January 15, 2015

SUMMARY: The revised development package was submitted for first review of the proposed improvements. PDSD Engineering Division does not recommend approval until the remaining comments are addressed for next submittal.

MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES:
No comment.

BASE LAYER SHEET COMMENTS:
No comment.

SITE PLAN SHEET COMMENTS:
1) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Clarify where keynote 10 is used on planview.
2) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Show vehicle maneuverability with turning radii delineations on planview for loading zone per Tech Man Sec.8-01.5.3.C.

DRAINAGE COMMENTS:
No comment.

LANDSCAPE COMMENTS:
No comment.

GRADING, PAVING, DETAIL SHEET COMMENTS:
3) Tech Man Sec.8-01.5.2.D: Provide documentation from Environmental Services or any alternative to the requirements. Otherwise address remaining comments for refuse enclosure location and any associated details:
a) Label dimensions between bollards (minimum 10-ft between interior lateral bollards and between gate and interior rear bollards.
b) Add note that gates shall be opaque (no see-through gates allowed).
c) Show maneuverability on planview, including 40-ft back-up area.
d) Label minimum 2% slope away within trash enclosure pad on planview. Include spot elevation information showing 2% positive gradient away from enclosure for solid waste pad area. Assure solid waste pick-up area is elevated so as not to become a flowline for general local flows across the project site.

UTILITIES / EASEMENTS COMMENTS:
No comment.

STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN COMMENTS:
No SWPPP comments for this project.

SOILS/GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS:
No comment.

For resubmittal, provide 2 copies of Environmental Services documentation (from Ken Perry), revised Development Package sheets, and response letter. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934

Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM
Civil Engineer
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
City of Tucson
12/17/2014 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
01/20/2015 SHANAE POWELL OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
01/20/2015 SHANAE POWELL REJECT SHELF Completed