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: DP14-0243
Parcel: 11304112B

Address:
3448 N 1ST AV

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL

Permit Number - DP14-0243
Review Name: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
02/13/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Academy of Math and Science Office Addition
Development Package (2nd Review)
DP14-0243

TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 13, 2015

DUE DATE: March 02, 2015

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a detailed 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 December 12, 2014.

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.

2-06.4.9 - 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 (SVT's). On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section.

1. COMMENT: It doesn't appear that the SVT's are shown correctly, see Engineering comments.

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. Zoning acknowledges that a PDMR has been applied for. Until the PDMR is approved Zoning cannot approved this development package. If approved provide the PDMR case number adjacent to the title block on all sheets and provided a general note stating the PDMR case number, date of approval, what was varied and any applicable conditions of approval. COMMENT: Per UDC TABLE 7.4.6-1: MOTOR VEHICLE USE AREA DIMENSIONS 90 degree vehicle parking the minimum PAAL width is 24'. That said the 21' shown on the plan does not meet this requirement.

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.

3. Zoning acknowledges that a TSMR has been applied for. Until the TSMR is approved Zoning cannot approved this development package. If approved provide the TSMR case number adjacent to the title block on all sheets and provided a general note stating the TSMR case number, date of approval, what was varied and any applicable conditions of approval. COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.4.3.A Width. All sidewalks must be a minimum of four feet wide and installed to avoid any obstruction which decreases the minimum width to less than four feet. That said it appears that the proposed sidewalk width is reduced to less than 4'-0" at the gas meter. A technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) will need to be processed and approved prior to approval of this plan. If approved as a general note provide the TSMR Case number, date approved what was modified and if applicable any conditions of approval.

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.

4. COMMENT: Show the location for storage of the 90 gal APC 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, last approved site plan & recorded access agreement.
.
02/26/2015 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Approved
02/26/2015 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: February 26, 2015
DUE DATE: March 02, 2015
SUBJECT: Academy of Math & Science Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review
TO: Carhuff & Cueva Architects; Attn: Paul De La Torre
LOCATION: 3448 N 1st Ave
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP14-0243

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. 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) Complied.
2) Complied.
3) Complied.
4) Complied.
5) Complied.
6) Complied.

7) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Revise the development plan package to dimension the existing width of curbs and curb cuts within the public right-of-ways. Provide a Keynote call out for the existing driveways within the public right-of-way that are no longer in use as "closed off." Clearly label the curbing and sidewalk dimensions along with a reference to the Standard Detail for Public Improvements to match existing for construction purposes. Existing curb cuts that are no longer used must be closed off per Tucson Code Chapter 25 Sec.25-43

8) Complied.
9) Complied.

10) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.2: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the existing and future SVTs for the driveway entrances, refer to TSM Sec.10-01.5.3 for line of sight matrix. On a designated MS&R street, the SVTs are based on the MS&R cross-section. The SVTs as shown are not drawn in the correct location, they must be dimensioned from curb line of the roadway to curb line of the driveway, revise.

11) Complied.

12) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Provide a General Note on the Development Plan Package referencing the TSMR Case #DS15-04, date of approval and any conditions (if applicable).

13) Complied.
14) Complied.
15) Complied.
16) Complied.
17) Acknowledged.

18) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to relocate the onsite handicap access ramp adjacent to the southwest corner of the building to be outside of the vehicular use area. The ramp cannot extend out into the PAAL. It is acknowledged that the area has been revised and is no longer a VUA; however provide approval from Ron Brown for the use of the existing asphalt ramp or provide a new ramp that meets ANSI requirements.

19) Complied.

20) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Provide a General Note on the Development Plan Package referencing the TSMR Case #DS15-04, date of approval and any conditions (if applicable).

21) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan package to label the existing refuse container onsite. It is acknowledged that per the waste stream calculation submitted the project is proposing to keep the existing 90-gallon APC curb side pickup; however written approval from ES is required to utilize the existing pick up method. Per UDC Article 7 Sec.7.15 all expansions of existing development must comply with the applicable standards of Section 8-01. Per 8-01.5.3.G off street service is not permitted from Arterial or Collector Streets.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package 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
02/27/2015 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior to landscape approval.
02/27/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (2350.76') is less than 12" below the first floor elevation (2351.0'). 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.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
03/04/2015 SHANAE POWELL OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
03/04/2015 SHANAE POWELL REJECT SHELF Completed