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 - DP16-0156
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/02/2016 | ARUIZ1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/09/2016 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: September 12, 2016 DUE DATE: September 28, 2016 SUBJECT: UHAUL Facility #828073 TO: Mike Andrews, PE LOCATION: 1265 E Benson Hwy REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM ACTIVITY: DP16-0156 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 (DP16-0156). 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) Per page 9 of the drainage report a weighted runoff coefficient of 0.57 has been assumed for existing conditions. Per table 3.4 of the Pima County/City of Tucson Detention/Retention Manual (UDC 7.14.3) a runoff coefficient of about 0.36 should be selected. Please provide weighted runoff coefficient calculation based on undeveloped conditions with mostly B soils and some D soils. Please also update SWPPP note 1.6 on sheet 10. 4) SWPPP note 1.5 on sheet 10 indicates the entire site is 100 % soils class B. If this is the case the runoff coefficient should for existing conditions should be 0.31 for existing conditions and the required retention will be greater. Please update as appropriate. 5) The Table of Poposed Water Harvesting Basins needs to be updated to reflect the required 5 year threshold retention requirements form Section 2.2 of the Pima County/City of Tucson Detention/Retention Manual (UDC 7.14.3). Please use equation 3.3 from this manual to provide a calculation. With existing conditions assumed at .36, proposed conditions at .86, 5 year precipitation at 1.5 and site area at 3.68 acres a preliminary value of just over 10,000 cubic feet of retention will be required. Please update calculations per the standards manuals and update layout accordingly. 6) The introduction on page 3 of the drainage report indicates there are no washes onsite or adjacent to the site. Map Tucson Shows a TSMS node with a flow of 355 cfs related to the Julian wash at the SW corner of the site. Per AM 2-06.4.8I please show the FP limits and any applicable water surface elevations that may apply. This may require an update to drainage note 2 on sheet 1. 7) Figure 4 was not provided as a fold out map or on the disk. It is being reviewed via a pdf that was emailed during the review. Please provide a hard copy and include in in the updated drainage report as part of the 2nd submittal documents. 8) Page 10 of the drainage report indicates that there are no offsite watersheds that impact this site. There appears to be a concrete valley gutter east of this site that discharges to this site. Please evaluate and update report as appropriate. 9) The geotechnical report is marked as preliminary. Per TSM 2-01.4.1D the geotechnical report needs to provide design criteria. Please update the report to provide for design criteria instead of being preliminary. This will include providing infiltration values for the basins if they are deeper than 6" in type D soils or deeper than 12" in type B soils. See Drainage Standards Manual Section 14.2, item 6 (UDC 7.14.4) for infiltration test requirement. Per the floodplain code Section 26-2 (Retention System) infiltration rate shall include a safety factor of 2. 10) Per TSM 8-01.8.0A please provide a waste stream calculation and show appropriate details based on this calculation. 11) Per TSM 10-02.7A please show handicap ramps on sidewalk at curb returns along East Benson Highway. See also TSM 10-03.3E. 12) Per TSM 10-01.4.1A1a please show sidewalk modification to increase the sidewalk width to 6 feet if the existing sidewalk along East Ajo Way is less than 4 feet wide. 13) Per Section 3.5.1, item 10 of the Detention/Retention Manual (UDC 7.14.3) the finished floor elevation for building B should be elevated at least one foot above the 100-year water surface elevation shown on Water harvesting area 3. This is 2487.2 per Figure 4 of the drainage report. Sheet 2 shows the FFE of Building B at 2487.7. Please make appropriate adjustments. See also Section 14.2, item 4 of the Drainage Standards Manual (UDC 7.14.4). 14) Per Section 14.2, item 6 of the Drainage Standards Manual (UDC 7.14.4) please update the geotechnical report to provide a recommended minimum setback from buildings and other structures from the water harvesting basins. 15) There is a typo in the drainage report on page 15 where "routing" should be "routine". Please correct. 16) Construction note 1 on sheet 4 refers to detail 1 on sheet 6. This detail does not show thicknesses. Please update accordingly. 17) Please use keynote 3 as a callout as applicable for the sidewalk. It can be listed as for reference only if it is going to be shown on a separate plan as part of a right-of-way permit. 18) Keynote 5 should call out a detail on the details sheet or reference a standard detail by detail number as applicable. 19) Keynote 6 is calling out water harvesting on top of pavement as shown on sheet 4. Please update as appropriate. 20) Keynote 9 on sheet 4 is calling for a weir with rip rap protection and cites a detail 6 on sheet 6 that shows a security lift gate detail. Keynote 9 is being called out at a location where a security lift gate detail would be expected. Please update narrative for this detail accordingly and add any other required keynote descriptions to describe weirs as appropriate. 21) Keynote 10 on sheet 4 calls for reference to a rip rap slope protection detail 5 on sheet 6. Detail 5 of sheet 6 does not show rip rap slope protection. Please update accordingly. This keynote with its accompanying detail is not called out on the plan. Please call it out as appropriate. This appears to be happening per keynote 12 on sheet 5. 22) Keynote 6 is calling for 6" depressed water harvesting area on sheet 5 where the drainage report calls for 9" deep water on figure 4 as part of WH3. Please update accordingly. 23) Per AM 2-06.4.8C please show the location of the existing curb cut on East Ajo Way. 24) Per Tucson Code Section 25-43 please show replacement of the curb where the existing curb cut will no longer be used on East Ajo Way. 25) SWPPP note 3.1.1 on sheet 11 should indicate intent to comply with City of Tucson Solid Waste Standards. 26) Per Tucson Code Section 25-39 the maximum driveway width is 30 feet wide. Please update sheet 2 accordingly where a 40' wide driveway is shown. 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. |
| 09/09/2016 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Reqs Change | September 08, 2016 To: Linda Thompson Cypress Civil Development, Inc ____________________________________ From: Hussein Al Zubaidi, RWRD (520) 724-6404 Subject: U-HAUL FACILITY #828073 P16WS00077 (DP16-0156) DP- 1st Submittal The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer design for the above-referenced project. The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department has found the following deficiencies in the above referenced submittal of the Preliminary Sewer Layout (PSL), based upon PCRWRD Engineering Design Standards (EDS) 2016. 1. Sheet #8: Call out structural information for the proposed and existing public sewer line. 2. Sheet #8: Call out structural information for the proposed and existing public sewer manholes. 3. Per PCRWRD E.D.S. 2016 Section 5.3.2, 4" HCS/BCS cannot connect directly to public sewer manhole, connection must be at least 5' from the manhole. Connections to Public Sewer Service Laterals shall connect to the Public Sewer by method of a direct connection to the sewer line or in some cases, to a manhole. The following describes the criteria for determining the required method of connection. HCS connections, 4 inches in diameter, shall connect to Public Sewer lines, less than or equal to 12 inches in diameter, by a direct connection per S.D. RWRD-401. 4. Per PCRWRD E.D.S. 2016 Section 5.3.1, alignment of the HCS/BCS is not acceptable. Alignment of Service Laterals The horizontal alignment of Service Laterals shall not violate the frontage of adjacent properties while traversing to the point-of-connection to the Public Sewer. The overall length of Service Laterals within Right-of-Way shall be minimized as required by the local agency having jurisdiction. The horizontal alignment of Service Laterals should be horizontally perpendicular to the sewer line where possible. Service Laterals located within Right-of-Way shall be horizontally straight without curves or bends This office will require a revised set of plans, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. All comments cited in this letter are based upon PCRWRD Engineering Design Standards 2016 and PCRWRD Standard Specifications and Details for Construction 2016. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the Preliminary Sewer Layout. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per Sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50.00 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at your convenience. Cc. Lorenzo Hernandez, P.E., RWRD Tom Porter, P.E., RWRD Francisco Galindo, P.E., RWRD |
| 09/16/2016 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Please locate existing fire hydrant(s), with dimensions to property lines. Refer to 2012 International Fire Code, section 507.5.1 for distance limitations. Please indicate on plans security gate will comply with sections 503.5 and 503.6 of the IFC. |
| 09/21/2016 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera for Steve Shields - Principal Planner PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: U-Haul Facility - 1265 E Benson Hwy. Zoning C-2 Development Package (1st Review) DP16-0156 TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 7, 2016 DUE DATE: December 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. 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 30, 2017. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) Section 1. Follow Up To Previous Comment 14: The location or detail drawing of the long term bicycle facility could not be verified on the DP site plan sheet 2 or detail drawing on sheet 6. Draw and label the location of the long term facility within the building footprint. Review section 7.4.9.D demonstrate how compliance with the 7.4.9.D will be accomplished. 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. PREVIOUS COMMENT 14: The Retail use is Vehicle Rental and Sales and has a bicycle parking requirement as follows, 2 Short Term spaces and 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area or minimum of 2 spaces. Revise the bicycle parking calculation accordingly and include fully dimensioned detail drawings of the short and long term bicycle facilities. The locations of the short and long term facilities must be drawn and labeled on the site plan sheet. Short term facilities must be within 50 feet of the main entrance. 2. Follow up To Previous Comment 19: The cross and horizontal slopes for the sidewalks, crosswalk and accessible parking access aisle have not been labeled. Label the slopes on the Site plan sheet 2 or on the grading plan sheet 4 or both. 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. PREVIOUS COMMENT 19: A sidewalk 4 feet in width is required the building and the parking spaces along the east side of the D& R Bays building. A 4 foot wide sidewalk connection to the street sidewalk is required from the main office building. All sidewalks must be physically separated from the vehicular use areas by constructing a raised sidewalk or by permanent barriers. Indicate if the sidewalks drawn on the plan are flush with the pavement or physically raised. Label the longitudinal and cross slopes for the sidewalks. 3. Comment: Zoning is willing to review the DP over the counter once the changes requested have been made to the DP. Unfortunately I am in the office only two days a week but I am available to review the DP plans over the counter due to the minor changes needed. If the applicant wishes to have zoning review the plans over the counter call in advance for an appointment for either Tuesday or Wednesday between the hours of 8:00 and 4:00 either day. My number is 837-4957 or you can email me at David.Rivera@tucsonaz.gov. 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 |
| 09/22/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Revise the site drawing to include the rim elevation of the next manhole to which the building sewer will be connecting. Determine if a backwater valve will be needed per Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. |
| 09/22/2016 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | see zoning comments |
| 09/22/2016 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1) Revise the plans to provide screening per UDC Table 7.6.4-I. A six foot high screen is required for RV Storage, Outdoor Storage, and Billboards. 2) Provide canopy trees per UDC 7.6.4.B.1.a.(1). One tree per every four spaces and each space within 40 feet of a tree. |
| 09/23/2016 | 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 |