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: DP16-0071
Parcel: 12407190E

Address:
801 E 12TH ST

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP16-0071
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
04/29/2016 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Reqs Change Please indicate location of existing and/or proposed fire hydrants, with dimensions to property lines. Refer to 2012 IFC, section 507 for reference.
05/11/2016 PAUL BAUGHMAN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: May 12, 2016
DUE DATE: May 23, 2016
SUBJECT: Site/Grading/SWPPP
TO: Richard Macias, PE
LOCATION: 801 E 12th Street
REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP16-0071
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 AM 2-06.4.3 please add the case number (DP16-0071).
2) Per AM 2-06.4.8I and AM 2-06.4.9N6 please show the 100 year floodplain limits for the Arroyo Chico Wash. Please note that this comment may be disregarded if the property if removed from the floodplain as is expected June 13, 2016.
3) Per Tucson Code Section 26-11(a) a floodplain use permit will be required for placement of improvements. Per Tucson Code Section 26-5.2(5) please verify that the improvements do not raise the water surface elevation more than a 1/10 of a foot. Please provide a complete floodplain use permit application with the next submittal. If the property has been removed from the floodplain as is expected on June 13, 2016 then this comment may be disregarded.
4) Per Tucson Code Section 26-5.2 (9) please show the minimum finished floor elevations are one foot above the upstream water surface elevation unless the property has been removed from the floodplain on June 13, 2016 before this plan is approved.
5) Per AM 2-06.4.9H3 show fire circulation, including accessibility and vehicle maneuverability.
6) Per AM 2-06.4.9T show vehicle maneuverability for refuse collection. Per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 and section 6.4 of the geotechnical report a 6" concrete slab over 4" of ABC should be called out on sheet 6 with appropriate shading reflecting concrete shown on pertinent sheets.
7) Per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 please show the required concrete pavement over 4 inches of aggregate base course as part of Header Note 10 on sheet 4 and detail 12 on sheet 8 to reflect the dimension of the 4" of required ABC. Use of 7 inches of concrete pavement instead of 6 inches is allowed.
8) Per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 please show the rigid pavements as utilizing 4,000 psi concrete per section 6.4 of the geotechnical report. General Note 17 on sheet 2 where 3,000 psi concrete is called out and concrete note 4 on sheet 8 where 3,500 psi concrete is called out should be updated to reflect the recommendations of the geotechnical report. General Paving note 3 under paving on sheet 2 should also be updated from 3,000 psi.
9) Per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 please add the narrative from section 7.4 of the geotechnical report as a general note on sheet 2. "Fills may be found at the site that remain from prior grading and backfilling work. Fills that remain from prior site development should be removed and the resulting excavations backfilled with structural fill.
10) Per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 please update plan to provide callout or details to show compliance with section 8.0 of the geotechnical report such that "where sidewalks or pavement do not immediately adjoin the building, the ground surface should slope away from the building at a minimum 5% slope for at least 10 feet away from the building. Section 14 on sheet 8 could include a callout. Another cross section could be added to address the unpaved area west of the building.
11) Per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 please update the plan to increase the slope ratio shown in basin slopes 13 and 14 on sheet 8 to 4:1 in accordance with section 9.0 of the geotechnical report. Updating General Grading note 8 on sheet 2 may be a good idea to reduce confusion. Please also update keynote 10 on sheet 5 to reflect 4:1 side slopes.
12) Per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 please clarify on the plan where the bus traffic pavement section will be used and where the automobile traffic pavement section will be used. Currently each area is calling out the same detail which reflects both pavement sections.
13) General Note 2 on sheet 2 calls out the date of the Geotechnical report as April 21, 2016. The Geotechnical report is dated April 21, 2017. Please update accordingly.
14) General note 24 is missing the word "Tucson" between the words City of Planning and Development Services… Please correct.
15) The Greyhound Bus Terminal Relocation - Access Study indicates that the developer of the site has considered providing an eastbound left turn lane on Twelfth Street at the entrance driveway to separate entering buses and eastbound through traffic. Please show what this or any other potential turn lanes or widening would look like, even if it is shown as an optional part of the plan. Impacts to storm water and landscaping could then be considered under these scenarios.
16) Sheet 5 calls out a rip rap swale, per detail 8, with inverts that are below the basin bottom that discharges to this swale. Please ensure that all water harvesting basins capture and retain the 6" water depth, per keynote 10 on sheet 5, before discharging to the street.
17) Concrete note 16 on sheet 8 requires all joints to meet ODOT requirements. Please update as applicable.
18) The placement of the fiber roll on sheet 11 seems to be somewhat limited in scope. Per General Note 27 on sheet 2 BMPs may be installed at the basin inlets. Please update as appropriate.
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.
05/18/2016 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (MH 4767-02, 2403.61') is higher than the first floor elevation (2402.50'). Provide a note on the plans requiring the installation of a backwater valve when future plumbing activities take place. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.
05/18/2016 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: David Rivera for Steve Shields
PDSD Zoning Review

PROJECT: Tucson Greyhound Terminal Relocation
Development Package (1st Review)
DP16-0071

TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 18, 2016

DUE DATE: May 23, 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 , 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

2-06.4.1 - 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.

1. COMMENT: List on the cover sheet, the contact and email address information for the Owner / Developer.

2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet:

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, DP16-0071, 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.

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,

3. COMMENT: Label the on the location map, 6th Street and 6th Avenue.

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.

4. COMMENT: This parcel is made up of two separate parcels. Confirm that the two Tax Parcel ID's 124-07-190D and 124-07-190E have been combined or a Pima County Tax Parcel combo will be required prior to approval of the DP.

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.

5. COMMENT: Revise the use note on sheet one to state the use and specific use standards as listed in the UDC.
The use is "Transportation Services Land Carrier" subject to UDC section 4.9.13.Q.

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.

6. COMMENT: This site is not within the IID overlay area. The proposed development site is within the Central Business District and the MDR cannot be used for a reduction or approval as noted in notes 16 and 17. Non-compliance building setbacks will have to be approved via a Board of Adjustment Variance process.

Euclid Avenue is an Arterial Street listed on the Adopted MS&R map. The future right of way width is labeled as 120 feet total, typically 60-foot half right of way. According to the current R of W information labeled on the site plan sheet, an additional 26 feet will be required for the overall 120 foot future right of way width. In addition the site is within close proximity to the Broadway / Euclid intersection and may be impacted by additional right of way for the right turn bay, to be determined by TDOT. As of this review the design of the proposed development does not appear to meet the future building setback. Note 16 must be revised according to the approval of a B of A variance. (Additional comments may be forthcoming based on the response to this comment.)

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.

7. COMMENT: This comment has been left in case there is an option for an overlay review.

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

2-06.4.7.A.8.a - Floor area for each building;

8. COMMENT: List the building height as a general or zoning note on sheet one.

2-06.4.7.C.3 - Provided the following notes as 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.A - Provide site boundary/subdivision perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system.

9. COMMENT: As noted in comment three, there are two parcels listed by the Pima County Assessor's. The distance and bearings shall be revised to reflect the current conditions unless the Assessor's Parcel Tax Id's are combined. Contact the Pima County Assessor's for parcel combo information.


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.

10. COMMENT: Clarify if there is a recorded cross access easement over the private drives (access lanes) or PAALs. If so list the recordation information on sheet four.

2-06.4.9.H - Proposed Traffic Circulation

2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section.

11. COMMENT: Due to possible widening of Euclid Avenue the future sight visibility triangles must be drawn dimensioned and labeled.

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.

12. COMMENT: Provide on the sections and details sheet a fully dimensioned detail drawing of the long term bicycle parking facilities.

2-06.4.9.I - Show all right-of-way dedications on or abutting the site and label. If the development package documents have been prepared in conjunction with a subdivision plat or is required as a condition of approval of a review process, such as a rezoning, street dedications in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan may be required by these processes.
Projects bounded by streets having only a portion of the right-of-way width dedicated will be required to dedicate right-of-way, up to one-half, to complete the street width.
Should there be any proposed street or alley vacation, provide this information. If vacation has occurred, include the recording information.

13. COMMENT: This comment has been made as a caveat to the standard as noted above. While it is not clear whether or not dedication of half the right of way will be required by TDOT, it is worth noting that the possibility of the future dedication may be required.

2-06.4.9.J - If street dedication is not required or proposed and the project site is adjacent to a Major Street or Route, draw the Major Street right-of-way lines for those streets. (Add the MS&R future sidewalk, right-of-way lines, sight visibility triangles, etc.)

14. COMMENT: Include the information as noted by the standard above.

2-06.4.9.M - Grading Plan

2-06.4.9.M.1 - A conceptual grading plan is required on projects with significant topographic conditions. The PDSD Engineering Administrator or designee will determine the need for such a plan.
2-06.4.9.M.2 - Concurrent Review. For all projects, grading plans may be included in the development package and will be reviewed concurrently.

2-06.4.9.N - In conjunction with a drainage report or statement, as applicable, prepared in accordance with the City Engineer's instructions and procedures, the following information will be indicated on the development package documents. For additional information regarding drainage standards, see the City of Tucson Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management.

15. COMMENT: The grading plan is being reviewed as it applies to the zoning review purview. Once the DP site plan is approved by zoning the grading plan is also approved unless design changes are made that do not match the DP site plan. Ensure that any changes that are made to the site plan are also made to the grading plan sheet and other site related sheets.

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.

16. COMMENT: The building setbacks from Euclid Avenue based on the future back of curb location shall be drawn and labeled on the site plan sheet.

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.

17. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the site plan how pedestrian access to 12th Street will be provided. Demonstrate on the site plan how the existing and new pedestrian sidewalks and access ramps meet accessibility requirements. Label cross and horizontal slopes. Slopes must meet ADA requirements listed in chapter four of the ICC.

2-06.4.9.S - Show existing or proposed pedestrian circulation along abutting rights-of-way. Such sidewalks must comply with accessibility requirements for the physically disabled and the design criteria in Section 10-01.0.0, Street Technical Standards, of the Technical Standards Manual.

18. COMMENT: Provide the information as noted by the standard above, specifically for the drive entrance and curb access ramps.

19. COMMENT: Please contact Carolyn Laurie if there are any questions related to the IID applicability for this location and process.

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
05/18/2016 DAVID RIVERA H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change See zoning review comments.
05/19/2016 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Reqs Change May 19, 2016
ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP16-0071
PROJECT NAME: Tucson Greyhound Terminal
PROJECT ADDRESS: 801 E. 12th Street
PROJECT REVIEWER: Zelin Canchola TDOT

Resubmittal Required TDOT does not recommend approval of the Site Plan; therefore a revised Plan is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the plan. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed.

1. 12th Street new driveway - Replace the western portion of the 25 foot curb return radius with a 40 foot curb return radius for egress.

2. A right of way permit will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-4259 for permit information.


If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520 837 6659 or zelin.canchola@tucsonaz.gov
05/20/2016 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Approv-Cond Revise as requested by other agencies.
05/20/2016 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
05/24/2016 ARUIZ1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed