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: DP15-0036
Parcel: 11619226D

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - DP15-0036
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
04/21/2015 AROMERO4 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
04/22/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Manning House
Development Package (2nd Review)
DP15-0036

TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 27, 2015

DUE DATE: May 05, 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).

Based on a building expansion of greater than 25% this plan is reviewed for full code compliance to UDC Sections 7.4, 7.5 & TSM Section 7.

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 05, 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

2-06.4.9 - 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.

1. COMMENT: There is a PAAL width dimension shown just south of the City owned parcel # 116-19-228E, This dimension should be from the wheel stop to the vehicle parking space not to the property line.

2. This comment was not fully addressed. The one (1) foot setback is not shown for the north and south existing covered parking structures. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6.F.a(1) Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least one foot from: An open structure, such as a carport or covered pedestrian access path as measured from the closest part of the structure or roof overhang. That said show that the existing covered parking structures meet this setback requirement.

3. This comment was not addressed correctly. The wheel stops shown around the north, south and east side of the City owned parcel # 116-19-228E need to be shown on the Manning House property. The wheel stops shown along the east edge of the emergency access lane need to be at the edge of pavement. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6.H.1 Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. See green highlight for areas that require barriers.

4. This comment was not addressed correctly. It appears that a vehicle parking in the proposed loading space will encroach into the require back-up spur. COMMENT: Provide fully dimensioned back-up spurs near the west end of the proposed building, see UDC Section 7.4.6.F.4.

2-06.4.9.L - All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. The easements may have to be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval.

5. Once all other comments have been addressed correctly Zoning will consider putting a hold on the building certificate of occupancy to provide an approval of the development package. COMMENT: There are several proposed easements shown on sheet 4 that require recordation information. These easements must be recorded prior to approval of this development package.

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
04/22/2015 JENNIFER STEPHENS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Approved Conditional approvals reveiwed and approved by Patricia
04/23/2015 KBROUIL1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
04/23/2015 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: April 22, 2015
DUE DATE: May 05, 2015
SUBJECT: Manning House Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review
TO: Metro TED; Attn: Lisa Bowers
LOCATION: 440 W Paseo Redondo; T14S R13E Sec11
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP15-0036

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation (Ground Support Engineering LLC, 22DEC14). 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) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan document to label the minimum dimensions for the proposed back-up spur at the end of the north PAAL per UDC Sec.7.4.6.F.4. Specifically the 3-foot depth. The backup spur does not provide the minimum 3-foot dimension due to the conflict with the proposed loading zone. If there is a truck in the loading space the vehicle cannot back up.

7) Complied.

8) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the required 1-foot setback from the PAAL to the existing canopies throughout the site per UDC Sec.7.4.6.F.2.a.(1). There are still areas that do not label the minimum 1-foot setback from the PAALs (even if the PAAL is greater than 24-feet it still needs the 1-foot setback).

9) Complied.

10) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to provide a vehicular separation along all areas of the site between the vehicular use area and the landscape area and emergency access lane. Refer to UDC Sec.7.4.6.H.1; A barrier, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond project area, damaging adjacent landscaping, fencing, or unpaved areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. The wheel stops proposed must be located at the edge of the pavement and cannot be offset to prevent encroachment onto the unimproved portion of the site.

11) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: Revise the development plan package to provide the recordation information for all proposed easements as shown on Sheet 4. It has been determined that a hold can be placed on the building plan application (T15CM01732) until the recordation information is provided; however there is still a 15-foot x 15-foot public utility easement that has a reference to a SEQ# blank, revise or provide the recordation information.

12) Complied.
13) Complied.
14) Complied.
15) Complied.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package and a copy of the Drainage Statement that was submitted under the 1st review 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
05/04/2015 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services Dept. and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal:
1.The new enclosure to replace the existing one will need to be rotated or relocated so as to provide the 14 ft. x 40 ft. clear area in front of the enclosure per TSM 8.01.5.3.B and the 3 ft. clearance between the parking spaces and the service vehicle maneuvering per TSM 8.01.5.3.E and Section 8 Figure 5. It appears there will be new parking spaces added adjacent to the enclosure where there currently exist a striped loading space.
If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net
05/04/2015 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.

Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.
05/05/2015 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change At detail A/5 please refer the handrails on the steps to a new elevation of the handrail for the stairs on sheet A7.
05/05/2015 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved The requested coordination between the developer and TDOT regarding the El Paso & Southwestern Greenway has occurred. Tucson Parks and Recreation has no further comments and recommends approval of this development plan.

Howard B. Dutt, RLA
Landscape Architect
Tucson Parks & Recreation
(520) 837-8040
Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov
05/06/2015 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 approved these plans

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
05/15/2015 AROMERO4 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed