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: DP15-0212
Parcel: 107031750

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP15-0212
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/05/2016 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Remote Solutions
Development Package (1st Review)
DP15-0212

TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 5, 2016

DUE DATE: January 14, 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 December 03, 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

2-06.3.9 - The plan drawing shall be oriented with north toward the top of the sheet. If it is not practical to orient north to the top of the sheet, the plan drawing shall be oriented with north to the left side of the sheet.

1. COMMENT: Sheets 3 & 4 do not meet this standard; north is shown to the right.

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.

2. COMMENT: Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request form with your next submittal.

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.

3. 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. Show the required 3'-0" from the proposed gates to the vehicle parking space located to the southwest.

4. 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 near the north west corner of the building there appears to be an area that will allow vehicles to access an unimproved are of the site and/or damage the fence, provide some type of barrier.

5. COMMENT: Per UDC Table 7.4.6-1 the minimum width of a PAAL when accessing 90 degree vehicle parking is 24'. That said once comment 7 is addressed it does not appear that the 24' width can be 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.

6. COMMENT: Sheet one under "SETBACKS, LANDSCAPE BOARDERS AND SCREENING" note 1 you call out a building height of "(12' AT ROOF LINE)" and on sheet 4 within the building footprint you call out a height of 32'. Perimeter yard setbacks are based on UDC Article 6.4.5.B.1 The width of the perimeter yard is the distance measured horizontally from a specified point to the face of each exterior building wall at the wall's highest point. The specified point is the property line when it is an interior property line. Along a street property line, the specified point is described in Section 6.4.5.C, Street Perimeter Yard. (See Figure 6.4.5-B & -C.) That said perimeter yard setbacks are base on wall height not roof line. Until the wall height, at its highest point measured to grade, along Jackrabbit Ave. is verified the required street perimeter yard cannot be verified.

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.

7. 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 provide a sidewalk that meets the requirements of TSM Section 7-01.4.2 & 7-01.4.3 along the northwest side of the proposed building, see blue highlight. Zoning acknowledges that there are roll-up doors proposed in this area therefore at a minimum adequate pedestrian refuge must be provided.

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.

8. COMMENT: Provide a general note on the plan stating "ALL SIGNS REQUIRE A SEPARATE PERMIT".

2-06.5.3.G.2 - Provide two copies of the protective covenants or common use agreements for any shared areas being established by easements over individually-owned property.

Additional comments

9. COMMENT: A separate demolition permit is required.

Accessibility Comments;

10. COMMENT: Provide a sign mounting dimension for the accessible sign detail on sheet 2. This dimension should be 7'-0" from the bottom of the van accessible sign to finish grade.

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
01/05/2016 SSHIELD1 ADA REVIEW Passed
01/05/2016 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change P&DS TRANSMITTAL


FROM: Steve Shields,
Lead Planner

PROJECT:
DP15-0212
New General Manufacturing Building

TRANSMITTAL: February 2, 2016

COMMENTS: the following comments are relative to an application for a Design Development Option (DDO) (UDC 3.11.1).

This site is located in the I-1 zone (UDC 4.7.29). General Manufacturing
is a permitted use in this zone (Table 4.8-5). See Use Specific Standards 4.9.5.C.2, .6, .7, & .8 and 4.9.13.Q

The minimum setback to the front street perimeter property line is the greater of twenty (20) feet, or one and one-half (1 ½) the height of the proposed wall (UDC 6.4.5.C.1.a).

Based on a wall height of 16'-6" the required front street perimeter yard setback is 14'-9", proposed street setback is 20;'-0"
01/05/2016 SSHIELD1 H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change See Zoning comments.
01/11/2016 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Approved
01/11/2016 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Approved
01/13/2016 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (2299.6') is less than 12" below the first floor elevation (2299.9'). Provide a note stating that a backwater valve will be required per Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.
01/15/2016 ELIZABETH LEIBOLD ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: January 14, 2015
SUBJECT: Development Package Engineering Review
REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E. CPM, CFM
LOCATION: 2475 N Jackrabbit Av, T13S R13E Section 34
ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP15-0212, T15OT01511

SUMMARY: The Drainage Report, with Development Package was submitted for review. The overall general encroachment proposal appears feasible although there are other onsite drainage requirements that must be met for permit approval or issuance. See comments under T15OT01511. The next submittal shall assure that proposed improvements do not cause encroachment, adverse impact, nor increased flood hazard to nearby property owners.

GRADING & DRAINAGE COMMENTS:
1) Tech Man Sec.4-04.2.3.1.4.F, Tucson Code Sec.26-5.2(5): A large portion of the proposed development is situated in the FEMA high-risk floodplain. Per Tucson Code, development in floodway fringe area may not increase the base flood elevation more than 1/10th of a foot for any adjacent offsite parcels. If existing building or other obstructions to floodplain were constructed without permits, the increase of 10th of foot shall be based on approved / permitted conditions. (Buildings to be demolished will not be considered as pre-developed condition.) Provide further discussion in section 1.4 of report, and add exhibits to report appendix, regarding current building and wall/fence construction compliance (previous construction permits, reports).
2) Tucson Code Sec.26-5.2(13), Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.7.B.2.b: Address the following Drainage Note comments:
a) Update Drainage Note #3 on cover sheet "A finished floor elevation certificate is required."
b) Clarify general notes regarding any proposed walls, any type of fences, or other permanent obstacles within the floodplain will require Floodplain Use permit review and design that allows the 100-year event below the wall/fence.
3) Tech Man Secs.4-04.2.3.1.3.A.6, 4-04.2.3.1.2.E.1: Assure following data is provided:
a) Add DP15-0212 to cover page of report.
b) Add to report that an elevation certificate for the new building will be required and that all service equipment shall be elevated to a regulatory flood elevation. Show any elevated utilities on planview grading sheets.
c) Assure concentration point discharge for that enters the site is accommodated for and labeled on grading plan and drainage exhibit in drainage report.
d) Add statement to drainage report regarding vertical datums for drainage information, grading plan, and topography used.
e) Tech Man Sec.4-03.V.2.4: Add statement regarding detention basin requirement, including change of imperviousness and location within a high-risk flood zone and how an on-line basin in this location would not be accepted by the review agency. Also add discussion regarding availability to apply for waiver under Detention-Retention Manual Criterion 2, since the adjacent wash is considered a Primary Channel, and the project directly outlets to either a Primary or Secondary Channel that connects to a Major Channel (such as the Santa Cruz River). Add watershed status: project is located in the Silvercroft Wash Watershed, a Balanced Basin Management Area (TSMS DL). Also, due to proximity of adjacent bank protection structure, waiver for any retention requirement would also be considered by the City.
f) Tucson Code Sec.26-5.2(7): Add discussion in report any change in erosion and sedimentation characteristics for proposed floodplain. Per Tucson Code Sec.26-11.2(b)(1), methods to control erosion and sedimentation must be demonstrated prior to the granting of a floodplain use permit for any work in any floodplain - waterharvesting area in particular would need to have some form of sediment control - vegetation could increase n-value and velocity in this area shows erosive velocities of over 8 fps.
g) Explain in report and show on grading plan any design for protection to scour depth plus freeboard.
h) A building site may encroach into a floodplain under circumstances where the site would be completely surrounded by floodwaters during a regulatory flood provided that (1) the general requirements of the floodplain ordinance are met; (2) the fill slopes for the building pad are protected from erosion; and (3) all-weather access is provided to the building site. Explain compliance in report for items 2 & 3.
4) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.9.M: For detail on sheets 2 & note on sheet 4, remove statement regarding infiltration design shall be provided by others. Either not provide basin see comments above or provide design with infiltration testing results, setback 15-ft from structure, and provide erosion protection while assure drain down time.
5) Tucson Code 26-8(d): Explain and show how proposed building site is not subject to flood-related erosion or to flooding by the base flood. Show and label horizontal and vertical extents of fill on grading plan for the proposed project.
6) Tech Man Sec.4-04.12.2.1.4, 10-02.12.3.2: Flow depths shall not exceed 1-foot during the 100-year event. Provide additional clarification on grading sheets for compliance with 1-foot restriction for all weather access.
7) Tucson Code Sec.26-5.2: Explain in report how this project will not be placing fences or fill where it diverts, retards or obstructs the flow of water to such an extent that it creates a danger or hazard to life or property in the area. Clarify existing and proposed walls and fencing dimensions and how it will not obstruct floating debris during 100-year event. Flow through for 100- year event may require opening at base of walls/fences that may not meet security needs. Show design for floodprone walls/fences.
8) Tech Man Sec.4-04.2-03.2.3.J.3, 2-01.3.8.I: Clarify the following additional floodplain related items in drainage report or on the Grading planview sheets:
a) Clarify and show erosion protection on grading plan for all areas not armored.
b) Show, and label Existing Condition 100-year Floodplain Limits and Developed Condition 100-year Floodplain Limits on the planview. Where building pads encroach floodplain, revised floodplain limits must be shown on grading and site planview sheets.
c) Tucson Code Sec.26-8(d)(2): Regarding fill design for building pad, show spot elevations to assure all adjacent proposed grade elevations are above BFE.
d) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.9.O: Label 15-ft basin setback. Redesign basin location to meet geotechnical setback between basin and building.
e) Tech Man Sec.4-01.2.1: Label minimum FFE and proposed FFE for building.
9) Tucson Code Sec.26-9(a)(3): Address the following easement comments on a grading plan:
a) All public and private utilities shall be located and constructed so as to minimize or eliminate flood damage. A grading plan will need to address/show elevated utility pedestals and new utility lines may need scour depth design and protection.
b) 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; show any private drainage maintenance easement areas.
c) Label dimensions for existing public right-of-way including: curb, and any existing sidewalk.
10) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.8.E: Indicate benchmark location on a grading plan sheet or location map; label local benchmark that can be shown on a plan view.

The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit revised Development Package with revised sheets, geological engineering evaluation report, revised Drainage Report, and response letter. Prior to resubmittal, you may schedule a meeting with me to go over your comments. If you have any questions, please call me at 837-4934.

Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM
Civil Engineer
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
12/17/2015 KEN BROUILLETTE FIRE REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
02/05/2016 KROBLES1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed