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: DP15-0152
Parcel: 10602269B

Address:
302 W PRINCE RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP15-0152
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/16/2015 PAUL BAUGHMAN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: September 16, 2015
DUE DATE: October 5, 2015
SUBJECT: Parking Area Expansion
TO: Jeff Hunt, PE
LOCATION: 302 West Prince Road
REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP15-0152
SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. The following items need to be addressed:
1) There is a concern where the finished surface (FS) spot grades for new pavement, near an existing building entrance are elevated .46 to 0.6 feet above the existing adjacent top of curb (TC) spot grades. These TC grades are adjacent to an existing sidewalk that separates this proposed parking lot from an existing building. Sheet 4 of the Development package shows this portion of the parking lot draining towards the existing sidewalk/building. The proposed conditions watershed map shows this area draining to an area that is described, on page 4 of the drainage report, as a proposed 9" deep water harvesting basin at the northwest corner of the proposed improvements. Per UDC 7.14 and the Tucson Drainage Standards Manual section 2.2.2 and TSM 2-01.4.1C3 please update spot grades or add additional detail to show this area of new pavement complies with the drainage report layout.
2) Per AM 4.8F, please label and show a top and bottom elevation for the 9" water harvesting area in the northwest corner of the proposed development on sheet 4 of the development plan.
3) Page 2 of the Soils report, Subsurface Conditions, indicates that in their explorations, they encountered 3 to 4.5 feet of firm to hard clay at the surface. Per Section 3.5.1, item 3a and Section 3.5.5 of the Detention/Retention Manual please consider the use of engineered basin floors or an alternative design to ensure storm water infiltrates within 12 hours. Please note that under this hard clay the boring logs show gravely sand that is sometime loosely compacted.
4) Per section 1.4 of the Detention/Retention Manual and October 24, 1997 letter from G. Dewayne Tripp, City Engineer, the location of this facility in a critical basin requires a 15% reduction in the 2-, 10-, and 100-year onsite peak flows/volumes from existing conditions. Please update drainage report and the development package to show how this is achieved.
5) The narrative in the drainage report is silent on the design or purpose of the 6" deep basin at the southwest corner of the site or the need for a type 1 scupper or a 3' wide curb opening. Please provide additional detail as to its function and benefit. Please note that the 3' wide curb opening for this basin as called out on sheet 3, by keynote 26 of the development package is shown at a proposed conditions watershed boundary. Per TSM 2-01.4.1C4 please show proposed invert elevation for the type 1 scupper with existing/proposed grades shown at the inlet/outlets to show conveyance. There is concern about the ability of this scupper to outlet properly.
6) Per UDC 7.6.2B1b, UDC 7.15 and TSM 8-01.8.0A a metal trash container should be required. Preliminary calculations show 205 gallons of trash per week would be generated based on a 15,225 square foot building. Per AM 4.9T please show location of the trash container.
7) Per TSM 7-01.4.3E the drainage that is being directed under the existing sidewalks should be placed within a scupper with a 10 year design storm capacity. Please note the existing roof drains and the sidewalk north of Prince Road where the drainage is currently crossing over the pedestrian circulation path. Please show per AM 4.9N all required scuppers.
8) The basin volumes assumed in the drainage reports storm water harvesting spreadsheet are 334 cubic feet, 465 cubic feet and 949 cubic feet for basins 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Sheet 4 of the development plan shows 175 cubic feet for basin 1, no volume for basin 2, 750 cubic feet for basin 3 and a 200 cubic feet volume for an unaccounted for basin at the southeast corner of the site. Per UDC 7.14, AM 4.9N and the Tucson Drainage Standards Manual section 2.2.2 and TSM 2-01.4.1C4 please show how the development package and the drainage report support each other. Please also label the basins on the development plan package.
9) Per the Tucson Stormwater Management Study there is an upstream and a downstream flow value determined for Prince Road of 227 cfs and 437 cfs respectively. There is a 36" RCP storm drain pipe and the street section to convey this flow before it overtops onto adjacent properties. Since there is a 0.4% street slope, it is unlikely the street and pipe will convey even half of this flow. Per Chapter 26-8(b)(4) and AM 4.8I please show regulatory flow limits from drainage in Prince Road and per Chapter 26-11(b) apply for a floodplain use permit for those improvements located in the regulatory 100 year floodplain limits as delineated in the subsequent submittal of this drainage statement.
10) General note 18 conflicts with callouts for 9" water harvesting basins and assumptions within the drainage report. Please update per the Tucson Drainage Standards Manual section 2.2.2.
11) Per UDC 5.4.5F please show how, through a site plan, how the property owner, successor, or assignee will remove and replace improvements (ie water harvesting area where mitigation for increased onsite flow is needed) such that compliance with the UDC is achieved at no cost to the City Of Tucson. Such site plan shall be an exhibit to an executed covenant for recordation stating the responsibility of the property owner, successor, or assignee as to the removal of improvements.
12) Per Figure 7 of TSM 10.01.9.0 and TSM 10-01.3.2 the curb radius between the PAAL and the Arterial Street should be 25 feet. Please update plan.
13) Per AM 2-06.43 please add the DP number DP15-0152.
09/17/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: 302 W. Prince Road Parking
Development Package (1st Review)
DP15-0152

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 18, 2015

DUE DATE: October 05, 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 , 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

2-06.4.3 - 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, DP15-0152, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

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

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

2. COMMENT: The square footage show on this plan matches what is shown on DP15-0050 but the building expansion is not shown on the plan.

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

3. COMMENT:

2-06.4.9.E - Proposed land splits or existing lot lines shall be drawn on the plan with dimensions and the identification number and approximate square footage of each lot. (Please be aware that, if land division occurs and the number of lots falls within the definition of subdivision, a subdivision plat is required.) Land splits require a separate permit and review.

4. COMMENT: It appears that a lot combination is proposed, provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request form with you next submittal. This combination is required as parking is not an allowed use in the O-3 zone, see UDC TABLE 4.8-3: PERMITTED USES - OFFICE ZONES.

2-06.4.9.F - All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. The basis for this requirement is that some zoning requirements on a project are based on the zoning classification of adjacent property. Also, in some instances, each zone has to be taken into consideration on property that is split by two or more zoning classifications, as each may have different requirements.

5. COMMENT: Provide the zoning for the parcels south of Prince Road.

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.

6. COMMENT: Provide a future vehicle parking space calculation that shows the number of spaces that will remain after the widening. Zoning acknowledges that it appears that there will be sufficient vehicle parking after the widening but it appears that a required accessible vehicle parking space will be removed.

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.

7. COMMENT: Show the existing short and long term bicycle parking on the site plan.

2-06.4.9.J - If street dedication is not required or proposed and the project site is adjacent to a Major Street or Route, draw the Major Street right-of-way lines for those streets. (Add the MS&R future sidewalk, right-of-way lines, sight visibility triangles, etc.)

8. COMMENT: The future right-of-way detail should show how the vehicle parking area will look.

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
09/18/2015 SSHIELD1 ADA REVIEW Passed
09/18/2015 SSHIELD1 H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: 302 W. Prince Road Parking
Accessibility Review - On Site Only
Development Package (1st Review)
DP15-0152

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 18, 2015

DUE DATE: October 05, 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. Clearly show the accessible route from the proposed accessible vehicle parking space located in the new parking area to the accessible entrance of the existing building. Provide running slope directional arrows, running slope percentages, cross slope directional arrows and cross slope percentages for all surfaces along the required accessible route. See ICC A117.1-2009 403.3 and IBC 107.2.1

2. Provide a dimension from the "VAN ACCESSIBLE" sign to grade. This dimension should be 7'-0".

3. 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.
09/24/2015 KEN BROUILLETTE FIRE REVIEW Approved
10/05/2015 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
10/05/2015 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

A detailed landscape plan is required. In accordance with Section 2-11.0.0, 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.

7.6.2. APPLICABILITY
The provisions of this section apply to the following:
A. All new development; and,
B. Expansion of existing development, as provided below:
1. Buildings Greater Than 10,000 Square Feet
On sites where the gross floor area of the existing building(s) is more than 10,000 square feet, expansion in square footage of land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area as follows:
a. If the expansion is less than 25%, the standards of this section apply only to the proposed expansion. Existing development on the site is subject to the zoning standards in effect at the time the existing development received zoning approval.
b.If the expansion is 25% or greater or if expansions as of February 15, 1991, cumulatively result in a 25% or greater expansion in land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area, the standards of this section apply to the entire site.

If necessary provide expansion calculations.

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

Additional comments may apply
10/06/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/23/2015 EGALLET1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed