Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP15-0166
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/19/2016 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: January 21, 2016 DUE DATE: February 8, 2016 SUBJECT: Lester Industrial Warehouse TO: Richard Steve Murillo, PE LOCATION: 516 W Lester REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM ACTIVITY: DP15-0166 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. There is also a need to show how drainage is conveyed under the pedestrian way by use of a keynote or callout near the building. The following items need to be addressed: 1) Per previous comment 5 please sign and date the engineering seal on Figure 4, Onsite Developed Conditions, from the drainage report. 2) Per previous comment 11 and AM 2.06.4.9N3 and 4 please show all proposed ground elevations at inverts where roof drainage is conveyed under the pedestrian way. It is noted that scuppers where added as part of conveying this flow under the sidewalk near the street. However, there are no callouts or keynotes to indicate what the line work along the pedestrian way near the building is referring too. It appears to be referring to scuppers that could satisfy this comment if called out as such. An example of an appropriate call out could be, "Sidewalk scupper per City of Tucson/Pima County Standard detail 204. Please ensure the building's finished floor elevation, the adjacent elevation of the pedestrian way and asphalt parking lot grading plan will accommodate this or another appropriate detail. 3) Per previous comment 12 and Sections 2.3.1.3A4 and B of the Tucson Drainage Standards Manual please update figure 3 of the drainage report to reflect current drainage patterns based on vertical geometry of adjacent roadways. Please note there is a crest vertical curve on Lester as shown on sheet 13 of Plan number I-77-33 (Pascua, El Rio and Miscellaneous Street Paving Project) that prevents the 49 cfs drainage flow from passing to the west along Lester Street. It is noted that sheet 4 and figures 2 and 4 were updated as requested in comment 12. 4) Per previous comment 23 and UDC 7.10.3 and TSM 10-01.4.5 please show minimum cross slope of 2% and maximum cross slope of 3% as part of detail 3 on sheet 6. Please also add spot grades on both the north and south side of the alley to demonstrate the correct cross slope. 5) This may be able to receive engineering approval through a review at the front counter. Please feel free to email me a pdf copy of the plans if you are unsure. 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. |
| 01/26/2016 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Lester Industrial - 516 W. Lester Street Development Package (2nd Review) DP15-0166 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 27, 2016 DUE DATE: February 08, 2016 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 22, 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. Addressed. 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. Addressed. COMMENT: The drawing index should include the landscape plans & the landscape plans should be incorporated into this package. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.1 - The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided on the right half of the cover sheet. The applicable registration or license number shall be provided if prepared by or with the assistance of a registered professional, such as a surveyor, architect, landscape architect, or engineer. All sealing shall be consistent with Arizona Board of Technical Registration guidelines. 3. Addressed. COMMENT: Provide the above information for the landscape architect on sheet 1 cover sheet. 2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet: 2-06.4.2.D - The page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx). 4. Addressed. COMMENT: The total number of sheets should include the landscape sheets. 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. 5. Addressed. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP15-0166, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 6. Addressed. COMMENT: Provide the administrative street address, 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. 7. Addressed. COMMENT: Remover the subdivision references from the location map. 2-06.4.2.A - Show the subject property approximately centered within the one square mile area; 8. Addressed. COMMENT: Show the subject property approximately centered within the one square mile area. 2-06.4.2.B - Identify major streets and regional watercourses within the square mile area and all streets that abut the subject property; and, 9. Addressed. COMMENT: Identify the major streets on the location map. 2-06.4.2.C - Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled. 10. Addressed. COMMENT: Provide a north arrow on for the location map. 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.2 - List the gross area of the site/subdivision by square footage and acreage. 11. Addressed. COMMENT: Revise General Note 1 to include the square footage of the site. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses. 12. This comment was not addressed correctly. It appears that the proposed use should be listed as "COMMERCIAL STORAGE SUBJECT TO USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS 4.9.10.A and 4.9.13.Q". COMMENT: Permitting Note 2 lists "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL" as the use. Light Industrial is a use group not a use. Provide the propose use and any applicable use specific standards in Permitting Note 2. Also remove the reference to "TUCSON LAND USE CODE" from Permitting Note 2 as you have not elected to use the LUC. All zoning code references should be based on the Unified Development Code (UDC). 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Percentage and area in square feet of building and accessory building coverage; 13. Addressed. COMMENT: Sheet 1 remove the reference to FAR as it is no longer applicable. 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. 14. Addressed. COMMENT: Provide width/location dimensions for the paving, curbs and sidewalks along Lester Street and 13th Avenue. 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.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. 15. Zoning acknowledges that a lot line reconfiguration as been started. Provide the lot line configuration cased number,S16-007, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. COMMENT: Sheet 3 shows "New property line" along the west property line. It appears that some type of lot split/lot reconfiguration is proposed. It does not appear that the lot split/lot reconfiguration has been processed through the COT PDSD. This process will need to be approved prior to approval of the development package. If this parcel is to be part of this proposed development a lot combination is required. 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. 16. Addressed. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.b Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches. That said provide dimensions from the proposed low wall called out under keynote 14 to the PAALs and access lanes on the plan. 17. Addressed. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 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. That said there are a couple of areas that require some type of barrier Barrier required around the landscape area adjacent to the western most vehicle parking space of the north vehicle parking spaces. Barrier required around the landscape area located near the southeast corner of the building. The site plan does not match the landscape plan in these areas. 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. 18. COMMENT: Based on the proposed use provided, warehouse, which equates to commercial storage, see UDC Article 11.3.10.A, the vehicle parking should be based on STORAGE USE GROUP, Commercial Storage 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft. GFA, plus 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft. of outdoor storage area for the first 20,000 sq. ft. of outdoor storage area, plus 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft. of outdoor storage area over 20,000 sq. ft. of outdoor storage area. Based on 17,186/5,000 = 3 required vehicle parking spaces. 19. Addressed. COMMENT: Detail 1 Sheet 6 shows the standard vehicle parking space as 9' x 20'. Based on the vehicle parking space dimensions shown on sheet 3 you are proposed 8.5' wide and 18' deep vehicle parking spaces. The detail should match what is shown on the plan. 20. Addressed. COMMENT: Detail 1 Sheet 6 shows the accessible vehicle parking space as 8' x 20'. It appears that the accessible vehicle parking space shown on the plan is 18'. The detail should match what is shown on the plan. Per IBC Section 1106.5 the accessible vehicle parking space is required to van accessible. That said the 13' total width, vehicle parking space & access isle, does not meet the requirement of ICC A117.1 502.2. 21. Addressed. COMMENT: Detail 1 Sheet 6 provide running slope directional arrows, running slope percentages, cross slope directional arrows and cross slope percentages. 22. Addressed. COMMENT: The wheel stop location dimension shown on Detail 1 Sheet 6 is not correct, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3 and Figure 7.4.6-C. 23. Addressed. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.D.2.b Minimum Width Requirement When Adjacent to Barrier. A motor vehicle off-street parking space must have a minimum width of ten feet when the side(s) of the parking space abuts a vertical barrier over six inches in height. That said demonstrate on the plan that the vehicle parking spaces located adjacent to the proposed low wall, called out under keynote 14, meet this requirement. 24. Addressed. COMMENT: The proposed accessible parking space sign shown on the plan appears to encroach into the vehicle over-hang area. Clearly shown that the 2'-6" vehicle over-hang is maintained. See UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3 and Figure 7.4.6-C. Also the sign location on the plan does not match what is shown on Detail 1 Sheet 6 25. Addressed. COMMENT: Detail 7 Sheet 6 the height dimension is not correct. The distance from the bottom of the van accessible sign to finish grade should be 7'-0". 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. COMMENT: Based on the proposed use provided, warehouse, which equates to commercial storage, see UDC Article 11.3.10.A The short and long term bicycle parking space calculation is based on UDC Table 7.4.8-1: Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, STORAGE USE GROUP, Commercial Storage & Hazardous Material Storage, Short Term Bicycle Parking Required - none, Long Term Bicycle Parking Required - 1 space per 40,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. That said the long term bicycle parking calculation should show long term required 2, and if you are not going to provide 2 a board of adjustment is required to eliminate the long term bicycle parking requirement. If you provide the long term bicycle parking show the location on the plan provide a detail that demonstrates how the requirement of UDC Article 7.4.9.2.b & .d are met. The short term provided number is not correct based on a double rack as shown on detail 4 sheet 6 the provided number should be 4, see UDC Article 7.4.9.b.2.d 26. Addressed. COMMENT: Remove all reference to "CLASS II" bicycle parking from the plan as it is not longer applicable. 27. This comment was not addressed See redline sheet 6. COMMENT: Detail 4 & 5 do not meet the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B & C. If you are going to provide short term bicycle parking provide a detail that show how all applicable requirements are met. 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. 28. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide a copy of the recorded agreement and provide the recordation information on the plan. COMMENT: The proposed "PARTY WALL AGREEMENT" will need to recorded prior to approval of the development package. Provide a note on the plan stating "PARTY WALL AGREEMENT RECORED UNDER SEQ #____". 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. 29. COMMENT: Based on developing area, the required street perimeter yard should be based on UDC TABLE 6.4.5.C-I. That said the street perimeter yards shown under Keynote 18 are not shown correctly. Provide street perimeter yard dimensions as measured pet TABLE 6.4.5.C-I. 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). 30. This comment was not addressed correctly. When you add up the total gross square footage listed within the footprint of the six (6) proposed suites, the total is 17,465 SF not 17,186 as shown on sheet 1 under "PARKING REQUIRED". Clarify the difference. COMMENT: Provide the square footage and the height of the proposed building within the footprint on the plan. 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. 31. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Cleary shown all proposed sidewalks on plan and provide width dimensions. 32. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Clearly show the accessible route from the accessible entrances of the building to the accessible vehicle parking space and to the accessible route within the right-of-way. Provide running slope directional arrows, running slope percentages, cross slope directional arrows and cross slope percentages for all surfaces along the required accessible route. ICC A117.1-2009 403.3 and IBC 107.2.1 2-06.4.9.T - Show refuse collection areas, including locations of dumpsters, screening location and materials, and vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned, and access route. If dumpster service is not proposed, indicate type of service. For specific information on refuse collection, refer to Section 8-01.0.0, Solid Waste and Recycle Disposal, Collection, and Storage, of the Technical Standards Manual. Refuse collection on all projects shall be designed based on that section, even if collection is to be contracted to a private firm. 33. This comment was not addressed. Zoning acknowledges that keynote 21 was added but there is not keynote on the plan. COMMENT: Show the refuse collection area on the plan. 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. 34. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs on the plan. Also provide a note stating "ALL SIGNS REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMITS." Additional comments; 1. COMMENT: There appears to be a ramp shown direction north of the proposed accessible vehicle parking space. Provide the slopes and cross slopes of this ramp. 2. COMMENT: The finished grade, FG 63.83, shown at the north end of the accessible access aisle is higher than the finished grade shown at the door just to the northeast, FG 63.66, will this not create a water issue? 3. COMMENT: What appears to be a sidewalk shown at the south end of Warehouse 1 that connects to the sidewalk in the street that appears to be a ramp. Demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of A117.1, Sections 405 & 505 are met. 4. COMMENT: There appears to be a ramp shown along the east side of Warehouse 1, clarify what is happening in this area. Also there appears to be a bollard that encroaches into the landing at the south end of the ramp. 5. COMMENT: Clarify what the hatched rectangle is that is shown near the corner of Warehouse 1 & 2. 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 |
| 01/27/2016 | SSHIELD1 | ADA | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See Zoning Review comments |
| 01/28/2016 | 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. Additional comments may apply |
| 01/28/2016 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | Be advised, any storage above 12' high will require the installation of fire sprinklers. |