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: DP15-0164
Parcel: 14026038B

Address:
5735 S TUCSON BL

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP15-0164
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/29/2015 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
10/02/2015 PAUL BAUGHMAN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: October 7, 2015
DUE DATE: October 15, 2015
SUBJECT: Tucson Airport Commerce Center
TO: Bruce Paton
LOCATION: 5735 S. Tucson Blvd
REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP15-0164
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) Section 3.1 of the SWPPP refers to a geotechnical report. Per TSM 2-01.4.1D provide a copy of this geotechnical report with your next submittal of the Development Package for review.
2) A property line callout is being made by the dumpsters using keynote 2. Please verify that this is not supposed to be keynote 10 for Trash Enclosure per UDC.
3) There is an inconsistency between the 4' x4' rip rap apron and the keynote 18 which has a 6' x 3' rip rap apron and 3' curb opening on sheet 6. There is a problem with the drainage that passes through the 3' wide curb opening flowing north across the sidewalk. Per TSM 7-01.4.3E please make appropriate changes so the 10 year drainage does not cross the pedestrian way.
4) Per AM 2-06.4.8E1 please provide spot elevations at the entryway of the eastern driveway off of Drexel Road on sheet 6 to show how the 20 cfs flow is routed from the detention basin into the proposed basin along the south side of Drexel Road instead of into Drexel Road or further into the south side of the property. Please note that sheet 14 of 51 of the 4th submittal of the Walmart Neighborhood Market #3390-00 (ie. Detailed Grading Plan North) shows an over 3% longitudinal grade, along the eastern entryway, to the south for drainage to pass onto the site from the direction of East Drexel Road. Sheet 6 should show existing spot grades as they will be after completion of entryway construction started on September 11, 2015 (ie. From sheet 14 of 51 of the Walmart plans) and the proposed spot grades per the drainage plan currently under review by this department.
5) Per AM 2-06.4.8E1 Please provide spot grades and drainage slopes for Detention Basin 2 per the Detention/Retention Basin Summary Table on page 9 of the drainage report.
6) Per AM 2-06.4.8B please show the sequence number for the 15 foot wide waterline easement shown on sheet 4. There appears to be a gas line easement that should include width and recording information as well. Please update accordingly.
7) Keynote 14 does not appear to be used. Please eliminate this keynote on sheet 4 if it is not used.
8) Sheets 5 and 6 seem to be trying to call out finished floor elevations instead of pad areas when they use the nomenclature "PAD AREA = 74.8, PAD AREA = 75.8, PAD AREA = 75.3 and PAD AREA = 76.8." Please correct the nomenclature as appropriate (ie. FFE = 74.8, FFE = 75.8, FFE = 75.3 and FFE = 76.8).
9) Per TSM 7-01.3.3B the sidewalk must connect to the dumpster areas. Please update the plan accordingly.
10) Per TSM 8-01.5.1D Please add the following general note, "A single property owner or property management company will be responsible for the management and maintenance of the solid waste collection services and storage area(s) for all development/business occupants.
11) Per TSM 2-01.10.4 drainage should not drain over the thickened pavement edge onto adjacent soil on sheet 5. Per AM 2-06.4.8E1 please provide additional spot grades at the thickened edge and the adjacent flow line within the PAAL to show drainage is conveyed within the asphalt pavement area until it is discharged at the 13 foot wide curb opening with benefit of the 16' x 8' rip rap apron. Please note that keynote 19 is not showing any curb adjacent to where the 13 foot curb opening is called out. Please show detail of how this curb opening will be built. The Local Drainage Map, Figure 7, from the drainage report also shows the watershed boundaries such that the drainage does not drain over the paved surface onto the unpaved future pad area.
12) Sheet 6 has a call out for 2 - 24" SD per DP14-0189. A search of these plans (ie. DP14-0189) does not show storm drains at this location. Per AM 2-06.4.9N3 please account for these in the drainage report and show inverts and material used on the plans. If these are accounted for on another set of plans and justified in a separate drainage report, please include this information as an appendix in the next submittal of the drainage report.
13) Page 7 of the SWPPP refers to a Figure 4-1 in the second paragraph of section 3.1. Page 21 of the SWPPP refers to a Figure 4-1 in the 2nd paragraph of section 4.3.2. Page 24 of the SWPPP refers to a Figure 4-1 in the 2nd paragraph of Section 5.0. There does not appear to be a drainage map labeled as figure 4-1 in the SWPPP. The only figure related to drainage in the SWPPP is labeled in the title block as "SWPPP Development Package Tucson Airport Commerce Center Lots 1-10 DP15-00## Sheet 14 of 24." Please update the figure to use the label referenced in sections 3.1, 4.3.2, 5.0 and add the DP15-0064 number to the SWPPP figure per AM 2-06.4.3.
14) The first sentence on page 25 of the SWPPP has a section that should be more descriptive where is says "Site access points should also be inspected to determine if sediment is being tracked onto Street Name(S)." Please fill in the site specific information.
15) The drainage map in the SWPPP shows a limits of disturbance that stops short of the right-of-way limits south of Drexel Road. Roadway and site plans provided with the 4th submittal of the DP14-0189 development package do not show grading of the channel south of Drexel and north of PAD AREA = 74.8 and PAD AREA = 75.3 as shown on sheets 5 and 6 of DP15-0164. Per TSM 2-01.4.1C3 please provide additional information as to under what plan this channel grading will be completed if not under this SWPPP.
16) Per page 18 of the SWPPP "All culverts shall additionally be protected at the inlets and outlets by grouted rip rap for a minimum of 5' around the culverts on the slope to prevent erosion and penetration around the pipes." Per the Tucson Code Chapter 26-42(b) please update details Q and Y on sheet 8 to reflect this grouting as required by the SWPPP.
17) Please update sheet 6 where keynote 18 calls out a 3 foot wide curb opening instead of a 6 foot wide curb opening as required by section 5.2 of the drainage report.
18) Per TSM Section 7-01.4.3E drainage should not be crossing a pedestrian way during a 10 year runoff event. Please update section 5.2 of the drainage report to eliminate the curb opening calculation for concentration point 1.7P. This is dealt with in Section 5.1 under scuppers. The curb opening calculations in appendix C should also be updated to reflect that this concentration point requires a Scupper instead of a curb opening.
19) Per figure 6 from the drainage report there should be a 24' wide weir for the discharge point from basin 2. Please show this weir width as part of detail Y on sheet 8 and as a call out on sheet 5. A detail similar to section 1-1 of detail Q on sheet 8 would be consistent.
20) General note 10 has been duplicated. Please remove the extra one.
21) There may be a conflict between grading note 28 and page 20 (section 4.2) of the SWPPP that says "When accumulated sediment at the bottom of the basin reach(s) 50% of the basin's capacity, the sediment should be removed by the contractor and be disposed as construction debris as outlined in sub-section 4.3.1 of this SWPPP." Grading note 20 does not require removal of sediment until the construction activities are completed. Please be consistent.
22) Per UDC 7.4.6H1 barrier such as wheel stops are required to prevent vehicles from damaging adjacent landscaping. Please note that sheet 16 shows velvet mesquites being planted in the 34 sq ft landscape planters being called out by keynote 14 on sheets 5 and 6. Per UDC 7.4.6D1 and Figure 7.4.6-A the minimum standard parking space size is 8.5 feet by 18 feet. Please show how this minimum required length is being met where the parking spaces front a landscape planter. There are also a number of netleaf hackberry trees that pose a risk to cars and landscaping if the civil engineer does not verify that that are being placed outside of the 2.5 foot overhang. The intent of the 2.5 foot overhang is to eliminate any obstruction over 6" in height and this is usually accomplished by ensuring this area is paved with either asphalt or concrete. Per UDC 7.4.6H3 please review design and show compliance with the 3 foot overhang as required by TSM Section 5-01.3.3B. This may require adjustments to layout of 34 sq ft landscape planter areas in parking lot.
23) Per AM 2-06.4.3 please call our the relevant case number DP15-0164 in the title block area.
If you have any comments questions or wish to discuss new information, please call or email me at 520-837-5007 or paul.baughman@tucsonaz.gov.
10/13/2015 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
10/13/2015 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: David Rivera
Principal Planner

PROJECT: DP15-0164
Address: 5735 S Tucson Boulevard
Development Package: Multi-tenant Development

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 13, 2015

DUE DATE: October 15, 2015

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed.

This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Development Package Standards listed in section 2-06 of the City of Tucson Administrative Manual. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC).

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 requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above

1. 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 October 15, 2015.


2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS


2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

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

01. COMMENT: Darken the text in the title blocks of sheets one (1) and four (4). ******************************************************************************************

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.

02. COMMENT: List the lot split case number S15-006 as a reference case number in the lower right corner of all plan sheets.
******************************************************************************************

2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section.

03. COMMENT: Draw and label the future SVTs along Drexel Road and Tucson Boulevard based on the future curb locations. See engineering comments as well.
******************************************************************************************

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.

04. COMMENT: Per the 2012 IBC table 1106.1, when providing between 151 and 200 parking spaces six accessible parking spaces are to be provided. Per the Calculations table on the cover sheet, a note has been added that the additional accessible parking spaces will be added upon future development of the site. The accessible parking spaces must be provided on this development and may be relocated upon the development of the future phase. Revise the plan to show six (6) accessible parking spaces will be provided.
******************************************************************************************

2-06.4.9.I - Show all right-of-way dedications on or abutting the site and label. If the development package documents have been prepared in conjunction with a subdivision plat or is required as a condition of approval of a review process, such as a rezoning, street dedications in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan may be required by these processes.
Projects bounded by streets having only a portion of the right-of-way width dedicated will be required to dedicate right-of-way, up to one-half, to complete the street width.
Should there be any proposed street or alley vacation, provide this information. If vacation has occurred, include the recording information.

05. COMMENT: One of the conditions of rezoning requires that Additional right of way for Drexel Road and Country Club road be dedicated. Clarify if the right requirements for both roads have been dedicated.
******************************************************************************************

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.)

06. COMMENT: Clarify if the existing curb and sidewalks along both Drexel Road and Country Club Road are depicted per the future roadway requirements. If not draw, dimension, and label the future curb and sidewalk locations for both streets.
******************************************************************************************

2-06.4.9.M - Grading Plan

2-06.4.9.M.1 - A conceptual grading plan is required on projects with significant topographic conditions. The PDSD Engineering Administrator or designee will determine the need for such a plan.

2-06.4.9.M.2 - Concurrent Review. For all projects, grading plans may be included in the development package and will be reviewed concurrently.

07. COMMENT: The grading is being reviewed concurrently with the DP site plan. Once the DP site plan is approved the Grading plan is also approved by Zoning as it relates to the zoning review criteria.
******************************************************************************************

2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning.

08. COMMENT: If applicable to this development indicate how any of the rezoning conditions have been met as it relates to this specific development.
******************************************************************************************

2-06.4.9.V - For gang mailboxes indicate location to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping.

09. COMMENT: Add a general note that states where the mail will be delivered, each tenant space or gang mailboxes.
******************************************************************************************

2-06.4.9.W - Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Indicate if there are any existing billboards on site. Compliance to the Sign Code, Chapter 3 of the Tucson Code, is required.

10. COMMENT: On keynote 17 on sheet 4 add to the note that the sign permits will be under separate permit application.
******************************************************************************************

2-06.4.9.X - Show compliance with landscaping and screening requirements by locations, material descriptions, and dimensions. Specific plant or hardscape material shall be detailed on a landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan is required. In accordance with Section 2-11.0.0, Landscape Plan Requirements.

11. COMMENT: Review the Landscape review comments related to landscape buffers and screening requirements.
******************************************************************************************

12. COMMENT: Additional comment may be forthcoming based on the revisions to plans or responses to the zoning comments.


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608.

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents.
10/15/2015 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Approved Per DP14-0189
10/15/2015 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change 1) UDC 7.6.6.C Basin #1 is required to be landscaped.

2) The basin landscaping is required to comply with the Technical Requirments and Guidelines of TSM 4-03.4.3
10/15/2015 DRIVERA1 ADA REVIEW Approved
10/16/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
10/27/2015 AROMERO4 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed