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: DP16-0015
Parcel: 14043013B

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP16-0015
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
02/01/2016 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. An approved development plan is not to be used for construction of on-site utilities (e.g. water service to the building, building sewer, site lighting, or electrical service to the building). The construction of the on-site utilities may be included with the permit for constructing the building or as a separate permit.
2. A separate permit is required for the installation of a private sewer collection system that includes manholes. Reference: Title 18, R18-9-E302, 4.02 General Permit, Arizona Administrative Code.
3. The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (2587.36') is less than 12" below the first floor elevation (2587.25'). Provide a note on the plans requiring the installation of a backwater valve for the new building. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.
02/03/2016 PAUL BAUGHMAN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: February 3, 2016
DUE DATE: February 22, 2016
SUBJECT: Raytheon Modular Data Center 917
TO: Christopher G. Langham, PE
LOCATION: 1151 E. Hermans Road
REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP16-0015
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) The 404 compliance statement found on page 7 of the drainage report has the wrong section and range list. Please list as Section 19, Township 15 south, Range 14 East.
2) Page 11 of the drainage report has a typo (1 mile feet southwest) as it describes the location of the project site relative to the Hughes Wash. It appears the Hughes Wash, with TSMS node (Q = 1,034 cfs) is approximately 650 feet southeast of the site. The project site is also about 800 feet north of the Hughes Wash after the wash turns to the west.
3) Per UDC 7.14.4 please check capacity of the storm drain against the requirements of chapter 10 of the Drainage Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management as it now conveys 7.6 cfs under developed conditions instead of 2.9 cfs under existing conditions at CP OS2. Please include the input and output data from the Storm CAD run mentioned in item 8 within the appendix of the report. Please summarize the results in the text of the report.
4) Per UDC 7.4.6F3 and AM2-06.4.9H2please show sight visibility triangles at the intersection of the existing access drives and verify that no obstructions are present.
5) Per UDC 7.4.6F4 and UDC 7.4.6H1 please dimension a 3' back up spur, show a wheel barrier at the boundary of the back up spur, and then show 3 feet between this wheel barrier and the closest obstruction over six inches in height (ie the building). There is a concern that a vehicle may back into the building if no wheel barrier exists between the parking area and the building.
6) Per TSM 7.01.4.2A sidewalks associated with PAALs must be separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation (minimum six inches), barriers, railings, or other means, except at designated crosswalks. Please show sidewalk next to the building is either raised or otherwise physically separated from the paved parking area on page 3 of the development package.
7) Per AM 2-06.4.3 please add the DP16-015 number to the title block area.
8) Per AM 2-06.4.7C2 please add the following note, "No structure or vegetation shall be located or maintained so as to interfere with the site visibility triangles in accordance with Section 10-01.5.0, Sight Visibility, of the Technical Standards Manual."
9) Per AM 2-06.4.8C please provide dimensions for and between sidewalks, curbs, curb opening and existing access drives.
10) Per AM 2-06.4.9H1 please show accessible ramp for the area adjacent to the handicap parking space if the placement of a barrier between the sidewalk and the paved section of the parking lot create such a need.
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.
02/09/2016 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Reqs Change UDC 7.7.4.C The Native Plant Preservation Plan must be submitted prior to or concurrently with any plan(s) required for development approval, including a grubbing/grading plan, landscape plan, site plan, or tentative plat. No permits may be issued prior to submittal and approval of the Native Plant Preservation Plan.
02/09/2016 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change Submit a landscape plan if necessary due to Native Plant Preservation requirements. AM 2-11.4.4.B.2
02/10/2016 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
02/12/2016 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Raytheon Data Center
Development Package (1st Review)
DP16-0015

TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 19, 2016

DUE DATE: February 22, 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).

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 January 21, 2017.

1. AM 2-06.4.3 Provide the development package case number, DP16-0015, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

2. AM 2-06.4.3 The address listed in the title block along the bottom of the sheet should show the "E" direction.

3. AM 2-06.4.4 The provided location map does not meet the minimum scale of 3" equals one mile.

4. AM 2-06.4.7.A.4 The proposed use listed under "ZONING AND LAND USE NOTE 4" is not a use listed in the Unified Development Code (UDC). In the past this type of use has been considered Commercial Storage but you mention that this is part of the "PRINCIPAL USE", see "PARKING REQUIREMENTS". If you are going to reference a principal use list the principal use and any applicable use specific standards in "ZONING AND LAND USE NOTE 4".
5.
AM 2-06.4.7.A.8.b Remove the reference to FAR from the plan as FAR is no longer applicable.

6. AM 2-06.4.7.A.8.c As the proposed building is an expansion of a larger use, site, provide a building area expansion calculation on the plan.

7. AM 2-06.4.7.A.8.d As stated on the plan "CAPACITY OF PRINCIPLA USE IS NOT BEING INCREASE". That said all calculations, vehicle & bicycle parking, expansion, loading, etc. should include the entire site.

8. AM 2-06.4.9.H.5 Per UDC Section 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 some type of barrier is required along the west side of the proposed parking area.

9. AM 2-06.4.9.H.5 Per UDC Section 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 it is not clear that some type of barrier, curb, is provided south of the proposed vehicle parking. Sheet 3 has a keynote 21 that calls out to remove the curb.

10. AM 2-06.4.9.H.5 Per UDC Section 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 provide some type of barriers along both sides of the access lane shown along the north side of this project.

11. AM 2-06.4.9.H.5 Provide a width dimension for the access lane shown along the north side of this project.

12. AM 2-06.4.9.H.5.a Provide a vehicle parking space calculation that provides the number required and provided. The vehicle parking calculation should address the entire site. Until the use is clarified the parking requirements cannot be verified see comments 4 & 7 above.

13. AM 2-06.4.9.H.5.a Sheet 8 detail 4 the wheel stop location dimension does not meet the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3 & Figure 7.4.6-C.

14. AM 2-06.4.9.H.5.a Sheet 8 detail 2 per IBC Chapter 11 Section 1106.5 the proposed accessible vehicle parking space is required to be van accessible.

15. AM 2-06.4.9.H.5.a Sheet 8 detail 2 there is a note that states "SHALL MEET 2010 ADASAD REQUIREMENTS", this note should state "SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMETNS OF THE IBC Chapter 11 AND THE ICC A117.1-2009".

16. AM 2-06.4.9.H.5.a Sheet 8 detail 5 the 7'-0" dimension should be to the bottom of the "VAN ACCESSIBLE" sign.

17. AM 2-06.4.9.H.5.c Provide a loading space calculation that provides the number required and provided. The loading space calculation should address the entire site. Until the use is clarified the loading space requirements cannot be verified see comments 4 & 7 above.

18. AM 2-06.4.9.H.5.d Provide a short and long term bicycle parking space calculation that provides the number required and provided. The bicycle parking space calculation should address the entire site. Until the use is clarified the bicycle parking space requirements cannot be verified see comments 4 & 7 above.

19. AM 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the square footage and the height of the proposed building within the footprint of the building on the plan.

20. AM 2-06.4.9.R Provide width dimensions for all proposed sidewalks on the plan.

21. AM 2-06.4.9.R Sheet 8 Detail 2 it appears that the proposed accessible vehicle parking space sign encroaches into the minimum four (4) width required for a sidewalk. Demonstrate on the detail or plan that then minimum sidewalk width is maintained.

22. AM 2-06.4.9.R For the sidewalk shown along the south side of the building the proposed slope, 10.7% exceeds the allow 1:12 per ICC A117.1-2009 section 405.2 for a ramp.

23. AM 2-06.4.9.R Per TSM Section 7-01.4.2 the proposed sidewalk along the south side of the building must be physically separated from the vehicle use area. Clearly demonstrate on the plan that this requirement is met.

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
02/19/2016 SSHIELD1 ADA REVIEW Reqs Change SEE ZONING COMMENTS

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
03/04/2016 EGALLET1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed