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: DP15-0214
Parcel: 13817029D

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP15-0214
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/05/2016 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change Show the pipe diameter of the sanitary sewer to which the building sewer is connected, the invert and rim elevations of the upstream and downstream manholes, and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference numbers. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.
01/06/2016 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change Ensure the font used is legible and will be legible when scanned for records. (TSM 2-06.3.3)
Show drainage patterns including roof drainage for the site.
Show that roof drainage will not be discharged onto sidewalks.
Show how site drainage will be directed to landscaped areas to the maximum extent possible.
Since this is a major expansion provide solid waste enclosures per the TSM 8.
Provide a plan that clearly shows the proposed conditions. The first sheet shows existing features that are not clearly shown on sheet 2. Clarify which features are to be removed and which are to remain.
Show access easement for access across adjacent parcel. AM2-06.4.8.B.
12/16/2015 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
12/29/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: El Mesquite - Building Addition
Development Package (1st Review)
DP15-0214

TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 29, 2015

DUE DATE: January 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 December 08, 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

2-06.3.3 - All lettering and text (upper or lower case), and numbering, shall be a minimum of three-thirty-seconds inches in height to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for archiving.

1. COMMENT: Lettering on this plan is difficult to read and will not scan and be readable for archiving.

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.

2. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP15-0214, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

3. COMMENT: Provide the street address 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.

4. COMMENT: Site Plan note 2 talks about "SECTION 2.5.4.2.A.12" of the UDC. There is no such section on the UDC.

5. COMMENT: Provide the applicable use specific standards for food service in a C-2 zone per UDC Table 4.8-4.

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.

6. COMMENT: Site Plan note 13, provide the applicable UDC code section for the Major Streets and Routes overlay.

7. COMMENT: Provide a general note on the cover sheet stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA, UDC ARTICLE 5.6 AIRPORT ENVIRONS ZONES (AEZ)."

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;

8. COMMENT: Remove Site Plan note 6 as lot coverage and floor area ratio are not applicable for a commercial site in the C-2 zone, see UDC Table 6.3-4.A.

2-06.4.7.A.8.c - Percentage of building, lot area, or vehicular use area expansion. If the building(s) or lot area have been previously expanded, those calculations shall be included; and,

9. COMMENT: As the proposed additions constitutes a greater than 25% expansion of floor area, cumulative, this development package is required to meet the requirements of UDC Sections 7.4 & 7.5 and TSM Section 7.

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.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.

10. COMMENT: Provide the zoning classifications for the properties north of Corona Road and east of Nogales Highway on sheet 2.

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.

11. COMMENT: Per 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 a several areas that require some type of barrier, see pink highlight.

12. COMMENT: Clarify what the lines, highlighted in blue, are.

13. COMMENT: Based on current aerial photos there have been vehicle gates installed at the Corona Rd & Nogales Hwy. entrances. It does not appear that these gates have been permitted. Show the gates on the plan. The gates will need to be approved by the COT Transportation Department.

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.

14. COMMENT: The vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Per UDC Article 7.4.3.G Fractional Amounts, When the calculation of required motor vehicle and bicycle parking spaces results in a fractional number, a fraction of one-half or more is adjusted to the next higher whole number, and a fraction of less than one-half is adjusted to the next lower whole number. That said the required number of vehicle parking spaces should be 83.

2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Show all loading zones, vehicle maneuverability fully dimensioned, and access route. Provide as a note the number of loading spaces required, the number provided, whether the loading space is a Type A or B as provided in UDC Section 7.5.4.

15. COMMENT: Under Site Plan note 6, "LOADING ZONE REQUIRED" the reference to "1,500 TO 10,000 SF OF GFA" is not correct. Review UDC Table 7.5.5-A and revise the note accordly.

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.

16. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.8.B.1.a.(2) Bicycle Parking In-Lieu Fee. The required number of bicycle parking spaces may be satisfied partially or completely by paying the City bicycle parking in-lieu fee in an amount established by separate ordinance to be used by the City to install bicycle parking and associated improvements in the right-of-way. The in-lieu fee may not be used if there are vehicular use areas, plazas, exterior courtyards, or other open areas on the site, other than required landscaping, large enough, separately or in combination, to accommodate all or a portion of the required bicycle parking. That said as this site has sufficient area to provide both the short and long term bicycle parking In-Lieu fees may not be used.

17. COMMENT: Show the location of the required short & long term bicycle parking on the development package.

18. COMMENT: Provide a detail for the short term bicycle parking that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1 & .2, and 7.4.9.C are met.

19. COMMENT: Provide a detail for the short term bicycle parking that demonstrates how the applicable requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B & .C are met.

20. COMMENT: Provide a detail for the long term bicycle parking that demonstrates how the applicable requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B & .D 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.

21. COMMENT: As access is proposed across the parcel to the south an access easement or agreement is required. Provide a copy of the recorded document and provide the recordation information 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.

22. COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.A At least one sidewalk is required to a project from each street on which the project has frontage, unless there is no vehicular access from a street because of a physical barrier, such as a drainageway or an unbroken security barrier (e.g., a wall or fence). The sidewalk should be located to minimize any conflict with vehicular access to the project. That said provide a sidewalk meeting the requirements of TSM Sections 7-01.4.2 A& 4.3 to both Nogales Hwy. and Corona Rd. Zoning acknowledges that there are no sidewalks located within the right-of-ways therefore the required sidewalks are required to go out to the street property lines.

23. 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 meeting the requirements of TSM Sections 7-01.4.2 A& 4.3 between the proposed addition and the PAAL to the south.

24. COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.C A sidewalk is required adjacent to any parking space accessed by a PAAL where the space is located on the same side of the PAAL as any building and no other parking spaces or PAALs intervene. That said it is not clear if sidewalks are provided along entire north and west side of the building, see green highlight.

Additional comments

25. COMMENT: Sheet 2 along the south side of the building remove the parking spaces and wheel stops that are to be removed from the plan.

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
12/30/2015 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
12/30/2015 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.

Additional comments may apply
12/30/2015 SSHIELD1 H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: El Mesquite - Building Addition
Accessibility Review - On Site Only
Development Package (1st Review)
DP15-0214

TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 29, 2015

DUE DATE: January 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.

1. Provide a note to that effect, 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 an accessible route from the building to one of the property lines along the right-of-ways.

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. The detail should match what is shown on the plan.

4. Revise the large scale sign detail to include a van accessible sign. Also show a dimension from the bottom of the sign to grade. This dimension should be 7'-0" from the bottom of the standard and or van accessible sign to grade.

5. It appears that there are detectable warnings shown on the plan near the entrance. Remove the detectable warnings from the on-site ramps 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 right-of-way property line per ICC A117.1-2009 403.3 and IBC 107.2.1

7. An access aisle is require between the two (2) southern most accessible vehicle parking spaces, see ICC A117.1-2009 502.4

8. There are appears to be accessible signage shown on the plan. It also appears that these proposed signs may encroach into the vehicle over-hang and/or the sidewalk width. Demonstrate on the detail that the signs don't encroach into the 2'-6" vehicle over-hang and that a minimum sidewalk width of 4' is maintained.
12/30/2015 SSHIELD1 ADA REVIEW Passed

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
01/08/2016 AROMERO4 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed