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: DP15-0200
Parcel: 11917013G

Address:
3520 S 6TH AV

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP15-0200
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
11/24/2015 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Reqs Change Please indicate location of existing and/or proposed fire hydrants, with dimensions to property lines.
12/03/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
12/09/2015 PAUL BAUGHMAN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: December 10, 2015
DUE DATE: December 17, 2015
SUBJECT: New Retail Pad Building
TO: Gene Goldstein, RE
LOCATION: 3520 S 6th Avenue
REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP15-0200
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) Per UDC 7.14.3 and Section 2.1 of the Pima County Detention/Retention Manual Storm water detention/retention is required for all new development proposed within both balanced and critical basins. Please provide for retention and detention per standards of the Pima County Detention/Retention Manual. Please note that the findings of the drainage statement regarding no adverse impact are not accepted.
2) Per UDC 7.14.4 and Section 2.1.1 of the City of Tucson Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management a drainage report is required for any site subject to detention requirements. Please submit a full drainage report, instead of a drainage statement, with the next submittal. This report should show no adverse impact to adjacent residents to the west. As a reference, it should include drainage discharge information from the parcel to the north and show sufficient drainage capacity within the alley to the west to convey existing and proposed 100 year discharges past the residential properties without adverse impact.
3) Please add the missing digits for the assessor's parcel number in Development package note 2 on sheet 1.
4) The grading notes are out of sequence as the numbering jumps from 14 to 31. Please correct.
5) Per TSM 10-1.3.2C and Figure 6 a curb return with a 25' radius is required fronting south sixth Avenue.
6) The scale on the location map is overwritten on top of the words Ajo Way. Please correct.
7) Per Plan Number U-2009-039, page 5, detail Pavement Structural Number 1 the pavement section along 6th avenue near Veterans is 5" AC on 8" ABC. Please call out new pavement to tie into the existing pavement section up to the limits of the required new curb returns.
8) Per TSM 10-01.3.2F and TSM 10-01.3.3E please provide wheel chair ramps to tie into new required curb returns and existing sidewalk.
9) Per AM 2-06.4.8C please dimension and show linework for existing sidewalk as called out by Development plan keynote 3 on sheet 2.
10) Per TSM 10-01.4.1A1b please increase the width of adjacent sidewalk to five feet if it is not already at least five feet in width.
11) Per TSM 7-01.4.3A the sidewalk must be a minimum 4' wide.
12) Stormwater flow arrows are showing flow going in different directions as shown on sheet 3 and sheet 7. Spot grades on sheet 3 conflict with flow arrows on both sheets 3 and 7. Please update.
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.
12/10/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: New Retail Building @ 3520 S. 6th Avenue
Development Package (1st Review)
DP15-0200

TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 11, 2015

DUE DATE: December 17, 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 November 16, 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, DP15-0200, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

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.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses.

2. COMMENT: The proposed use listed under "Zoning and Land Use Notes" is not a use listed in the UDC, mercantile is an IBC occupancy. The proposed use should be listed as General Merchandise Sales, excluding Large Retail Establishment, subject to use specific standard 4.9.9.B.1.

2-06.4.7.A.6 - If a plan or plat is prepared in conjunction with other applications or overlays or the parcel being developed is subject to conditions of an application processed previously, additional information must be added to the plan. Such applications and overlays include, but are not limited to: annexations; rezonings; special exceptions; Board of Adjustment variances; Design Development Options; Technical Standard Modification Request; overlays (Airport Environs Zone, Environmental Resource Zone, Gateway Corridor Zone, Hillside Development Zone, Historic Preservation Zone, Major Streets and Routes, Rio Nuevo District, Scenic Corridor Zone, WASH); Modification of Development Regulations through the Downtown Area Infill Incentive District or Rio Nuevo District; Downtown Heritage Incentive Zone; or, Design Review Board. Provide the following information on the plan.

2-06.4.7.A.6.a - List additional applications and overlays, by case number (if applicable), in lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note provide the type of application processed or overlays applicable, a statement that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the additional application or overlay, the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any.

3. COMMENT: Provide a general note on the cover sheet stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA, UDC ARTICLE 5.4 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R)."

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

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.

4. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4.c A minimum distance of three (feet must be provided between the back of spur and any wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches in height. That said provide a dimension between the backup spur and the trash enclosure.

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.

5. COMMENT: Provide a detail for both a standard and accessible vehicle parking space on the plan.

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.

6. COMMENT: Detail 1 sheet 1 short term bicycle parking, show the property line to the south and demonstrate that there is a minimum 2'-6" from the rack to the property line as a wall could be erected along the property line, see UDC 7.4.9.B.2.g.

7. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.D.4 are met for the long term bicycle parking.

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.

8. COMMENT: The proposed 3'-0" sidewalks shown along the north and west side of the building do not meet the requirement of TSM 7.1.4.3.A. A Technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) will need to be applied for and approved. Provide the TSMR number adjacent to the title block and provide a general note stating the TSMR number, date approved, what was approved and any conditions of approval.

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.

9. COMMENT: As the proposed sign is shown within the future right-of-way provide a statement on the plan "APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDTIONS: ALL IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED WITHIN THE MS & R AREA (FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY) MUST BE REMOVED AT THE TIME OF STREET WIDENING AT NO EXPENSE TO THE CITY".

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
12/11/2015 SSHIELD1 ADA REVIEW Passed
12/11/2015 SSHIELD1 H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: New Retail Building @ 3520 S. 6th Avenue
Accessibility Review - On Site Only
Development Package (1st Review)
DP15-0200

TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 11, 2015

DUE DATE: December 17, 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 general note on the plan stating, 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 slope directional arrows and slope percentages on the ramp of the new accessible parking and at detail A/5.

5. Remove the detectable warnings from the on-site ramps and access isles as they are only required at passenger transit platforms and curb ramps in the public right-of-way per IBC Section 1109.10.

6. 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 per ICC A117.1-2009 403.3 and IBC 107.2.1

7. Provide a detail for the proposed accessible ramp, so that the requirements of IBC Chapter 11 and ICC A117.1-2009 can be verified.

.
12/17/2015 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 improvements 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:

Any relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site

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

Additional comments may apply
12/17/2015 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
01/04/2016 CPIERCE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed