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: DP15-0033
Parcel: 12405049A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP15-0033
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
03/03/2015 PGEHLEN1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
03/04/2015 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
03/04/2015 FDILLON1 DESIGN EXAMINER REVIEW Denied PROJECT REQUIRES DESIGN REVIEW. FD
03/11/2015 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change e documentation for use of the right-of-way/Board of Regents property for the planters and patio areas.
2. Clearly show drainage patterns for the site. Show how the changes to the site will not cause adv
03/16/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. The finished floor elevation of the basement (2412.77') is lower than the rim elevation of the next upstream manhole (2417.76') but the finished floor elevation of the first floor (2421.77') is higher than the rim elevation of the next upstream manhole. Where the finish floor elevation is below or less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer or private sewer collection system, a backwater valve (not a backflow preventer) shall be installed in the building drain or branch of the building drain serving that floor. Floors discharging from above that reference point shall not discharge through the backwater valve. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.
2. Verify that a reduced pressure zone backflow preventer will be provided for the water service to the building. Reduced pressure backflow prevention assemblies are required at the water meter for buildings that have food service facilities or that have three or more stories or are greater than 34-feet in height as measured from the service level. Reference: Chapter XXVII, Article V, Section 27-72, the Tucson Code, http://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/water/docs/backflow-ordinance.pdf
03/16/2015 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change GENERAL COMMENT
1. Please provide all the necessary architectural drawings and details to fully explain what is going on here and why. This is a very complicated pedestrian access system that can not be explained by civil drawings alone.
SHEET 3
2. The sidewalk landing at the top of the accessible parking aisle has a slope arrow shown when it should have only a drainage slope of 2% maximum.
a. Sheet 5 shows a 1:12 slope on the same landing. Please reconcile.
3. Is the UP arrow on the steps in front of the main building going in the wrong direction?
a. Please insure compliance with the 2012 IBC, Section 1012.9: Intermediate Handrails.
4. Provide a large scale detail of all the handrails and guard rails required by code.
5. Provide an accessible route to the public right of way.
6. With a 5'-0" wide ramp, it is very difficult ro have a 5' x 5' clear landing. The handrail alone eats of 6" of the 5' width.
7. Is there a joint use agreement for the 3'-0" wide opening at the top landing of the ramp system?
8. Please provide large scale details of the following showing all accessible requirements:
a. All new different types of stairs
b. All new different types of ramps, curb and/or sidewalk
c. Accessible parking layout including van accessible
d. Accessible parking signage.
END OF REVIEW
03/16/2015 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change Subject: DP15-0033/Illegal Pete's
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 Section 8-01.5.3.B, a minimum safe access and operational area of fourteen (14) feet by forty (40) feet, with a minimum vertical clearance of twenty five (25) feet shall be provided in front of each enclosure. Show this clear area for each enclosure on the plans. It appears the clear area extends beyond the 20 ft alley.
2. The enclosures should be angled at 30 degrees per TSM Section 8 Figure 4 for enclosures off alleys when placed within close proximity to the alley. Revise the plans to show the enclosures placed at 30 degrees so the clear areas stay within the 20 ft. alley width.
3. Show the path of the service vehicle on the plans as it approaches the enclosures using the turning templates in TSM Section 8. Per TSM 8-01.5.3.H, the service vehicle must approach in-line with the enclosure.
4. The proposed grading for the enclosures and the alley, though there are a few spot elevations that seem in error such as the 16.88FS grades in the alley, appears to work for collection service of the enclosures although the configuration of the enclosures needs revised as stated in comment 1.
5. The enclosures as shown are modified from the standard details in TSM Section 8 and will require a Technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) submittal.
If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net
03/17/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Illegal Pete's
Development Package (1st Review)
DP15-0033

TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 17, 2015

DUE DATE: March 17, 2015

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with 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 March 01, 2016.

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.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet:

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 development package case number, DP15-0033, 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.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.

2. COMMENT: Per Main Gate section B-2.d.1 design review by the Main Gate District Design Review Committee (DRC) is required for buildings of three (3) stories or greater.

3. COMMENT: Historic review is required for this project

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.

4. COMMENT: As vehicular access is provided across this parcel the parcel to the west provide a copy of the recorded cross access document with your next submittal.

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).

5. COMMENT: Provide the height of the proposed "MULTI-STORY DECK SPACE" within the footprint.

Additional Comments

6. COMMENT: It appears that patio area and planters are proposed on the adjacent ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS parcel 124-01-001G. Provide documents approving this encroachment on to this parcel from the ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS with you next submittal.

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
.
03/17/2015 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.

Note: Historic review is required for this project

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

Additional comments may apply.
03/17/2015 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
03/18/2015 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) Two 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 the plans