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
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP16-0150
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/22/2016 | KROBLES1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/30/2016 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/02/2016 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: September 6, 2016 DUE DATE: September 21, 2016 SUBJECT: New Animal Welfare Bldg. TO: Jeff Hunt, PE LOCATION: 635 W Roger Road REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM ACTIVITY: DP16-0150 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 (DP16-0150). 2) Please consider placing all notes not required by City code in a separate section for notes to the contractor/engineer. This will make it easier for the City inspector to only focus on enforcing City requirements during inspections. 3) Many of the keynotes on sheets 3 and 4 reference the wrong sheet for details. Please update references contained in keynotes to include the correct detail sheet number. It looks like a page was deleted without updating the keynote descriptions. 4) Keynote 30 is called out on sheet 3 where 26.8 cfs enters from the adjacent development to the west. Please include this keynote 30 in the list of keynotes on this page with an appropriate description. It appears that keynote 21 which is shown in the list of keynotes on sheets 3 and 4 but not in the plan view may be the appropriate descriptor for this location. 5) There are several references to the use of grouted rip rap where drainage enters or leaves a basin or water harvesting area. A weir detail with possible calculations contained in the drainage report would be helpful. Please see AM 2-06.4.9N3. 6) Sheet 4 should show where flow enters the property from the east. Please see AM 2-06.4.9N2 and AM2-06.4.9N7. 7) Sheets 5 and 6 should show basin bottom and water harvesting area bottom elevations where they are missing. See AM 2-06.4.9N4. 8) Roof drainage is called out by keynote 41 on sheet 3 and sidewalk scuppers should be called out on plan sheets at these locations to show flow conveyed under the pedestrian way. See AM 2-06.4.9N3 and TSM 7-01.4.3E. 9) Keynote 37 on sheets 3 and 4 calls out a splash pad detail that does not show offsite drainage being conveyed under the pedestrian way. Please update to show drainage from the 10-year storm being conveyed beneath the pedestrian way. Per Steve Shields this is not a required pedestrian way. Please call or email if more discussion is needed. See AM 2-06.4.9N3 and TSM 7-01.4.3E. 10) Sheet 3 shows an 18' radius for the curb returns at the entrance off of Roger Road. Roger Road is classified as a collector at this location and the curb radius should be 25' per TSM 10-01.3.2C & figure 6. 11) Sheet 3 shows a curb return without a wheelchair ramp as required by TSM 10-01.3.2F and TSM 10-01.2.8A. Please update plan accordingly. 12) Per TSM 10-01.3.2B2a please call out vertical curb using keynote 12 with appropriate transitions along south side of Roger Road. 13) Per TSM 10-01.3.3B please provide sidewalks along south side of Roger Road. Please feel free to consult TDOT if an exception under TSM 10-01.3.3C7 is desired since there are areas with curb along Roger Road in this area. 14) Per Section 4.2.6 of the geotechnical report a trench plug using CLSM, extending at least two feet from the face of the building is required per TSM 2-01.4.1C6. See redlined areas on sheets 7 and 8 where concrete sidewalk does not adjoin the buildings and utilities are stubbed out. 15) Per Section 4.7.1 of the geotechnical report a minimum 6" thick layer of rigid concrete is required where trash trucks park while loading and unloading dumpsters. Per TSM 8-01.5.3B the area between the trash enclosure gates and 40' back from these gates is the safe operational area (ie. Loading area). This is where the 6" thick concrete is required with 4" of ABC underneath it. Per Section 4.7.2 this concrete needs to be called out as having 4,000 psi compressive strength. Please update plans accordingly including potentially updating details F and I on sheet 9 and showing the concrete style shading on appropriate sheets in plan view. 16) Please consider updating general paving and grading note 24 to use compost or mulch. Decomposed Granite tends to clog soil pores and reduce infiltration in water harvesting and retention areas. This may reduce future costs to the owner of the facility if reworking the basins is otherwise required. 17) Per UDC 7.4.6E1a the curb radius on all PAAL intersections must be 5' minimum. Please update 3' Radius on all vertical curb for landscape islands at PAAL intersections/90 degree turns on sheets 3 and 4 respectively. 18) Keynote 16 references detail E that shows a 0 to 6" raised edge that may be required to act as wheel stop curbing or barrier to prevent vehicles from extending beyond property lines and damaging adjacent landscaping, walls or buildings per UDC 7.4.6H1. Please provide additional spot grades on sheet 5 on south side of entrance to show a sufficient vertical difference between the pavement and the concrete sidewalk where parking areas are adjacent to landscape areas. 19) Keynote 24 calls out a gate (ie. Stop control connection limit) on sheet 3. Please provide dimension to show this gate is at least 60 feet off of the traveled way from Prince Road per Section 5.11 of the Tucson Access Management Guidelines. 20) Keynote 42 is called out on sheet 4 without a description provided in the keynote listing. This is close to the area where keynote 33 would be expected to have a callout. Please update as appropriate. 21) Please clarify keynote 36 to indicate that it is referring to the "Wall Opening" detail. 22) Per AM 2-06.4.8B please provide any easement information including recording information for the gas and electric lines within 50 feet of the eastern boundary. 23) It is not apparent where keynote 32 on sheet 4 or detail K on sheet 9 are being called out. Please clarify. These may be removed if they are not needed. 24) Sheet 11 refers the reader to page 20 of the SWPPP for the construction entrance. Please also refer to page 16 where stone size and depth are provided or provide this information on the plan sheet. 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. |
| 09/06/2016 | SSHIELD1 | HC SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See Zoning comments |
| 09/06/2016 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Principal Planner PROJECT: HSSA Animal Welfare Center Development Package (1st Review) DP16-0150 TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 6, 2016 DUE DATE: September 20, 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 August 21, 2016. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, DP16-0150, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2-06.4.7 - General Notes The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. 2. 2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes 3. 2-06.4.7.A.6 - 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)." 2-06.4.8 - 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. 4. 2-06.4.8.C - Provide the width of paving for Roger Road on the plan. 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. 5. 2-06.4.9.F - Provide the zoning for the parcels north of Roger Road. 6. 2-06.4.9.H.2 - As Roger Road is designated as a Collector on the MS&R map show the required future sight visibility triangles (SVTs) on the plan. 7. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Sheet 4 there is a vehicle use area shown near the northeast corner of the sheet. Provide the 3'-0" required from the fence to the back-up spur, see UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4.c. 8. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Sheet 4 just west of the 1,420 sf building there appears to be a vehicle use area that accesses an area under the building overhang. It appears that this area would allow vehicles to access landscape areas, see pink high lighter. Demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1 are met. 9. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Sheet 3 northeast vehicle parking area show the 2'-6" vehicle overhang between the parking space and the proposed wall/fence see blue high lighter. 10. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Sheet 3 western most vehicle parking area show the 2'-6" vehicle overhang between the parking space and the proposed DG path see blue high lighter. 11. 2-06.4.9.O - Sheet 1 General Note 17, "BUILDING SETBACKS" the required distance "20.67" is not correct. As Roger Road designated as a Collector on the MS&R map the required street perimeter yard setback would be based on UDC Table 6.4.5.C-1 ADT of 1,000 or greater 21 feet or height of the proposed exterior building wall, whichever is greatest, measured from the back of future curb. Based on a building height of 21.17' the required street perimeter yard should be 21.17'. 12. 2-06.4.9.Q - Sheet 4 there appears to be three (3) enclosures, see green high lighter, clarify what these areas are for. 13. 2-06.4.9.R - Sheet 4 just west of the 1,420 sf building there appears to be a vehicle use area that accesses an area under the building overhang, if this is vehicle use area a sidewalk, physically separated from the vehicle use area, is required along the west side of the building. Demonstrate how this requirement is met. 14. 2-06.4.9.R - Sheet 3 it is not clear that the sidewalk shown along the west side of the entrance access lane is physically separated from the vehicle use are. 15. 2-06.4.9.R - Sheet 3 northwest corner of the site there is a new fence/wall that appears to encroach into the required sidewalk. Clarify what is happening in this area. 16. 2-06.4.9.R - Sheet 4 there is a curb access ramp called out near the south end of the loading zone. It is not clear that this ramp meets the requirements of ICC A117.1-2009 Section 405. Additional comments 17. Sheets 3 & 4 there are numerous detail call outs in the keynotes that do not match the sheet the detail is provided on. 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. |
| 09/16/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. An approved development plan is not to be used for construction or modification of on-site utilities (e.g. water service to buildings, building sewers, site lighting, electrical service to buildings, etc.). The construction of the on-site utilities may be included with the permit for constructing the building or as a separate permit. Remove any notes relating to how the site utilities are to be constructed. 2. A separate permit is required for the installation of a private sewer collection system. Reference Title 18, R18-9-E302, 4.02 General Permit, Arizona Administrative Code. 3. Where the finish floor elevation is less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer or private sewer collection system, a backwater valve shall be installed in the building drain or branch of the building drain serving that floor. Identify the building that will require the installation of a backwater valve. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 09/20/2016 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/20/2016 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL 2-10.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS The landscape plan shall include the following: 4.1 Identification and Descriptive Data A. All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way 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. B. The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet: 1. Legal description and address of site; 2. Cross-reference to: a. Rezoning case; b. Subdivision case; c. Board of Adjustment case; d. Design Development Option case; e. Development Review Board (DRB) case; and/or, f. Any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site. Ensure that all Zoning & Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply |
| 09/21/2016 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | This project not required PCRWRD review. Regards AL. |
| 09/21/2016 | AHINES2 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items: 1) Two rolled sets of the plans 2) A disk containing all items submitted 3) All items requested by review staff 4) All items needed to approve these plans |