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: DP15-0144
Parcel: 11808002L

Address:
600 W 25TH ST

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP15-0144
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/24/2015 KEN BROUILLETTE FIRE REVIEW Reqs Change PLEASE INDICATE THE LOCATION OF EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTS WITHIN 300 FEET OF PROPERTY LINES
09/29/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change Revise the site drawing to include the following information:
a. The location of sanitary and storm sewers, including the pipe diameter and the invert and rim elevations of all manholes and cleanouts; along with the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number.
b. The points of connection to existing public sewers.
c. The locations of gas lines, electric and telephone lines, poles, and communications cables, on-ground junction boxes, and street lights.
d. Any existing or proposed utility easements
e. The first floor elevation for the building
f. If an on-site sewage disposal system is or is to be located on site, show the location of all individual components for the disposal system, including any reserve areas and indicate the required separation distances.
Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual No. 2-06.0.0, Section 4.8 and Section 107.2.13, IBC 2012.
10/12/2015 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change Clearly show drainage patterns for the whole site. Especially show how roof drainage to the north of the proposed building will be channeled away from the building. Note also that concentrated flows must be discharged under sidewalks that the flows may cross. AM 2-06.4.9.N, TSM 7-01.4.1.E
Provide sufficient existing and proposed grades to demonstrate the drainage patterns as shown on the plan. Show drainage patterns on the adjacent site as well. AM 2-06.4.8 F &H, AM 2-06.4.9.N
Provide for solid waste and recycling container enclosures in accordance with TSM 8-01.5.1.
Clearly indicate that all new landscape areas will be depressed for water harvesting. UDC 7.6.6.C
10/15/2015 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Reqs Change 1) UDC 7.6.4.C.2 To enhance the visual appearance of the streetscape, a street landscape border is required in accordance with Table 7.6.4-1 along the street frontage of the site.

Street landscape borders must be located entirely on site, unless the requirement is modified by a DDO or variance.

2) UDC 7.6.5.C.2 Screens along a street frontage must be located on the development side of the street landscape border so that they do not obstruct the view of the street landscape border from the street.

3) UDC 7.6.6.E.3 An irrigation plan must be submitted together with the landscape plan required in Section 7.6.9.B, Review Procedures, and must comply with the System Specifications.
10/15/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Foundation Building Materials
Development Package (1st Review)
DP15-0144

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 15, 2015

DUE DATE: October 15, 2015

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans 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 September 15, 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.

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.3.5 - A three-inch by five-inch space shall be reserved in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for an approval stamp.

1. COMMENT: Provide the PDSD Development Package approval stamp in the lower right quadrant of all sheets. The required stamp can be found at http://pdsd.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/development-permits under Development Package.

2-06.3.12 - An index of sheets in the development package shall be provided on the first sheet.

2. COMMENT: The sheet index should include all sheets, i.e. landscape.

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.

3. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP15-0144, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

4. COMMENT: Remove the address from the title block and provide adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

2-06.4.4 - The project-location map to be located on the first sheet of the development package in the upper right corner, shall cover approximately one square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of three inch equals one mile, and provide the following information.

2-06.4.2.A - Show the subject property approximately centered within the one square mile area;

5. COMMENT: Show the subject property approximately centered within the one square mile area on the location map.

2-06.4.2.C - Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled.

6. COMMENT: The southern most section corners labels are not correct on the location map.

2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide:

2-06.4.7.A.8.a - Floor area for each building;

7. COMMENT: Based on the most current aerial photos it appears that outdoor storage is used on this site. If this is the case clearly show the area on the plan that will be used for outdoor storage and provide the square footage.

2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions
The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided.

2-06.4.8.C - The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks.

8. COMMENT: Provide a width dimension and location dimension for the sidewalk shown along 25th Street.

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.

9. COMMENT: Provide a width dimension for the entrance access lane off of 25th Street.

2-06.4.9.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 Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC.

10. COMMENT: Until comment 7 is addressed the required number of vehicle parking spaces cannot be verified.

2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Show all loading zones, vehicle maneuverability fully dimensioned, and access route. Provide as a note the number of loading spaces required, the number provided, whether the loading space is a Type A or B as provided in UDC Section 7.5.4.

11. COMMENT: Until comment 7 is addressed the required number of loading zones cannot be verified.

2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided.

12. COMMENT: Until comment 7 is addressed the required number of long term bicycle parking spaces cannot be verified.

13. COMMENT: The bicycle parking calculation should show the required and provided number of short and long bicycle parking spaces.

14. COMMENT: Based on detail 2 sheet 2 the provided number of short term bicycle parking spaces should be 4, see UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.d.

15. COMMENT: The dimension shown between racks on detail 2 sheet 2 is not correct, see UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.f and figure 7.4.9-C.

16. COMMENT: Demonstrate on detail 2 sheet 2 how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1.e & 7.4.9.B.2.a, .f are met.

17. COMMENT: It does not appear that the proposed location of the short term bicycle parking meets the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.C.2.a.

18. COMMENT: Show the location of the long term bicycle parking on the plan.

19. COMMENT: Provide a detail for the long term bicycle parking that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1 & 7.4.9.D are met.

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.

20. COMMENT: Under "UDC REQUIREMENTS FOR I1 ZONE" the perimeter yard setbacks shown for the "SOUTH" & "WEST" are not correct. This setback should be shown as 21' or the height (H).

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.

21. COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.C A sidewalk is required adjacent to any parking space accessed by a PAAL where the space is located on the same side of the PAAL as any building and no other parking spaces or PAALs intervene. That said the area shown as "4' WIDE PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION PATH" show between the vehicle parking spaces and building 1 is required to be a sidewalk meeting the requirements of TSM 7-01.4.3.

22. COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.B A sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located. That said the striped area shown around the southeast corner of the building is required to be a sidewalk.

23. Per TSM Section 7-01.3.3.B.2 Portions of certain Land Use Classes which by their nature will not be used for public pedestrian access, such as industrial uses, commercial storage uses, wholesale uses, contractor yards, or similar uses, are not required to have sidewalks constructed in conformance with this standard, provided adequate pedestrian refuge areas are provided. That said show the required pedestrian refuge to the proposed building.


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
10/15/2015 SSHIELD1 H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Foundation Building Materials
Accessibility Review - On Site Only
Development Package (1st Review)
DP15-0144

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 15, 2015

DUE DATE: October 15, 2015

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

1. Provide a note to that effect, that all accessible route slopes are to comply with ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% maximum running slopes and 2% maximum cross slopes.

2. Provide a large scale detail of the accessible parking space showing all accessible requirements such as dimensions, markings, grade slopes, accessible parking aisle, signage, van accessible space and access to the accessible route.

3. Provide a large scale sign detail including a van accessible sign.

4. Provide running slope directional arrows, running slope percentages, cross slope directional arrows and cross slope percentages for all surfaces along the required accessible route from the proposed building entrance to the sidewalk located in the right-of-way and from the building entrance to the accessible vehicle parking space per ICC A117.1-2009 403.3 and IBC 107.2.1
10/15/2015 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change See comments in NPPO folder.
10/15/2015 SSHIELD1 ADA REVIEW Passed

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
11/03/2015 KROBLES1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed