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: DP14-0175
Parcel: 12201027B

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP14-0175
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/29/2014 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed
09/30/2014 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Denied Please indicate location of existing and/or proposed fire hydrants. Refer to section 507.5 of the 2012 International Fire Code for spacing requirements.
Please add note to plans indicating the fire sprinkler underground relocation will be permitted separately.
10/06/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change Revise the site drawing to include the invert and rim elevations of the manholes and cleanouts upstream and downstream of the point of connection to the public sewer along with the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number. Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012
10/13/2014 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Tucson Botanical Gardens Phase II Expansion
Development Package (1st Review)
DP14-0175

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 20, 2014

DUE DATE: October 27, 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 Development Package Standards listed in section 2-01 of the City of Tucson Development Standards. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Land Use Code (LUC).

The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Development Standard 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://pdsd.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/codes/Development_Stds.pdf

This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The LUC requirements can be found at the following link:

http://pdsd.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/codes-ordinances/Complete_LUC_Sept2012.pdf

DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE
2-01.1.0 GENERAL
2-01.2.0 FORMAT
2-01.3.0 CONTENT

2-01.1.1 - 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.

2-01.1.2 Definitions. Other than as provided below, definitions used in this Standard are found in the Development Standards Glossary or Sec. 6.2.0 of the LUC.

A. Development package documents. Development package documents as referred to in this standard are graphic representations of proposed development submitted in support of an application for a building permit, subdivision plat, or to demonstrate compliance with rezoning or other conditions.

2-01.1.3 Applicability. A development package may be submitted in lieu of an otherwise required site plan, tentative plat, or development plan.

2-01.3.0 CONTENT.
2-01.3.3 - Relevant case numbers (development package document, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

1. COMMENT: Provide the following case numbers adjacent to the title block on all sheets, DP14-0175 & DP12-0081.

2-01.3.8 - Existing Site Conditions. The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within fifty (50) feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of fifty (50) feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided.

2-01.3.8.A -Provide site boundary/subdivision perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system.

2. COMMENT: As this site is made up of two parcels, 122-01-027B & 122-08-0560, a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request form with your next submittal.

2-01.3.9 - Information on Proposed Development. The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes.

2-01.3.9.A - Draw in all proposed lot lines with approximate distances and measurements.

3. COMMENT: Provide the parcel dimension for the southeast line.

2-01.3.9.H.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Sec. 3.3.0 of the LUC and Development Standard 3-05.0.

4. COMMENT: Provide a dimension from the back of the back-up spur, shown at the east end of the proposed vehicle parking area, to the fence, see LUC Section 3.3.6.D.3.

2-01.3.9.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 Development Standard 3-05.0.

5. COMMENT: The total square footage shown in the required vehicle parking space calculation does not appear to be correct. Based on the totals shown under General Note 6, 13,894 + 2,852 = 16,746 not 16744.
2-01.3.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Development Standard 2-09.0. Provide, as a note, calculations for Short Term and Long Term bicycle spaces required and provided.

6. COMMENT: It appears that the provided number of short term bicycle parking spaces in not correct. Per LUC Section 3.3.9.2.B.4 A single rack is designed and located to accommodate two bicycles. That said based on five (5) racks shown the number provided should be 10.

7. COMMENT: Show the required 2' x 6' space for each short term bicycle space on the detail, see LUC Section 3.3.9.2.B.6.

8. COMMENT: Based on the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.9.2.B.6 the minimum distance between racks is 4'-0", see LUC Section 3.3.9.5.B.

9. COMMENT: As use of the LUC was elected, see signed "LAND USE CODE ELECTION FORM", remove the references to the UDC from the short term bicycle detail.

10. COMMENT: Provide a detail for the long term bicycle that demonstrates how the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.9.4 are met.

2-01.3.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown.

11. COMMENT: Based on a Zoning Administration determination, any project that boarders on a street designated on the COT MS&R map will use development area setback requirements. That said the street perimeter yard setback listed for Alvernon Way is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.2.6.5.B the minimum street perimeter yard setback should be listed as 21' or the height (H) of the proposed exterior building wall, which ever is greatest, measured from the back of existing curb of future curb.

12. COMMENT: Based on a Zoning Administration determination, any project that boarders on a street designated on the COT MS&R map will use development area setback requirements. That said the street perimeter yard setback listed for Sycamore is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.2.6.5.B the minimum street perimeter yard setback should be listed as 21' or the height (H) of the proposed exterior building wall, which ever is greatest, measured from the nearest adjacent travel lane.

2-01.3.9.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: Provide the heights, within the footprint, for all buildings, existing and proposed, on the plan.

2-01.3.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation as required by the LUC utilizing location and the design criteria in Development Standard 2-08.0.

14. COMMENT: Provide width dimensions for all proposed sidewalks on the plan.

2-01.3.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning.

15. COMMENT: Special Exception condition 8, provide a copy of the plan that approved the chain link fence w/slats.

16. COMMENT: Special Exception condition 8, show the pedestrian friendly landscaping with path and bench, etc. Also provide a copy of the plan that approved this area.

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
10/22/2014 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change Revise the drainage report and development package to address the City of Tucson Flood Hazard Area as mapped by JE Fuller and accepted by the City of Tucson. These floodplain areas need to be shown on the plans.
All development within the Flood Hazard Areas must be shown to cause no adverse impact. This includes the walls or fences facing Sycamore Avenue.
Indicate that all new structures or significantly improved existing structures within the Flood Hazard Area will be constructed or improved in compliance with the floodplain regulations.
10/23/2014 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change SHEET 1
1. General Notes: Accessibility, Change the 2003 reference to 2009. Add a sentence: "All new accessibe route slopes are to comply with the 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 403.3, which requires a maximum of 5% running slope and a maximum cross slope of 2%".
SHEET 2
2. At note 15, change all references to DTL 207 to be used only for any work required in the right of way.
a. Add another note: "All new accessibe route slopes are to comply with the 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 403.3, which requires a maximum of 5% running slope and a maximum cross slope of 2%".
SHEET 4
3. At note 9: change 2003 to 2009.
END OF REVIEW
10/27/2014 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Approv-Cond The development package has been reviewed by the Landscape / NPPO Section there are no specific landscape issues, but cannot provide approval signature until all Zoning & Engineering, comments, concerns, and appropriate revisions have been addressed.
10/27/2014 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
10/28/2014 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed