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: DP16-0190
Parcel: 10712170F

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP16-0190
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
11/29/2016 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
11/29/2016 SSHIELD1 ADA REVIEW Passed
11/29/2016 PAUL BAUGHMAN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: November 21, 2016
DUE DATE: December 5, 2016
SUBJECT: New Apartments
TO: Vance Goodman
LOCATION: 375 W Blacklidge
REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP16-0190
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 (DP16-0190).
2) Per AM 2-06.4.8C please dimension the existing sidewalk and if it is less than 4 feet wide please make it a 6' wide sidewalk per TSM10-01.4.1A1b.
3) Sheet D2 should be relabeled to say sheet 2 of 16 instead of 1 of 16.
4) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 2.3.1.1 Please add the DP16-0190 number to the drainage report cover sheet.
5) Per UDC 7.14.4, Sections 2.3.1.4E and 2.3.1.6A4a please show the results of the hydraulic calculations, as contained in the drainage report as part of an exhibit to be included in the drainage report and then call them out on the development plan per AM 2-06.4.9N. This would include all inlet and outlet weirs and discharge channels. Include the results of the hydraulic calculations in a summary table in the drainage report narrative.
6) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 2.3.1.5B please include a HY-8 or equivalent hydraulic calculation that describes the tie-in point between the channels that convey discharge from the detention basins and the conveyance under the sidewalk within the right of way such that compliance with TSM 7-01.4.3E is demonstrated.
7) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 2.3.1.6A4c please show the boundaries of the private drainage easement such that the improvements are contained within the limits of the easements for all offsite improvements per AM 2-06.4.9N5.
8) Per UDC 7.4.6E1a the curb radii at the southwest corner should be a minimum of 18 feet.
9) There are a couple of locations on sheet C2.0 where keynote 2 is being called out along the south PAAL and parking spaces where keynote 3 should be used instead. Please update accordingly.
10) Keynote 8 (depressed landscape area) on sheet C2.0 (4 of 16) is being called out within a parking area on the south of the site without a leader line that refers to a landscape area. Please update accordingly. Keynote 8 is also being called out with a leader line on the west side of the development where the leader line is extending to proposed parking spaces instead of landscape area. Please update accordingly.
11) Per UDC 7.6.6C the hardscape surfaces should be routed to the depressed water harvesting areas. Please provide appropriate curb cuts and appropriate slopes to route stormwater off of hardscape surfaces and into the proposed water harvesting areas.
12) Please show the extents of the keynote 9 callout on sheet C2.0. This type of erosion protection is most effective when it extends out horizontally about 5 feet from the limits of the drainage opening.
13) Please extend the leader line for keynote 14 on sheet C2.0 (sheet 4 of 16) to call out the striping where the cross walk is located. This is at the southeast corner of the site.
14) Keynote 17 calls out a detail 11 on sheet C/3. There is no detail 11 on sheet C/3. Please update accordingly.
15) Keynotes 15 and 20 are calling out 2 different channel sections via details on sheet C/3 without clarifying where the transition is located. Please verify that the intended channel sections are called out where they are intended. This is located between buildings 3 and 4.
16) Keynote 24 is calling out drain blocks at the bottom of the detention/retention basin at the northeast corner of the site. This will not provide the required retention if there is discharge without allowing infiltration of the first 0.8 feet based on the location of the weir and the discussion contained in section 2.2.2 of the drainage report.
17) If the CMU block wall is intended to detain flow to a depth of 1.8 feet it should be reinforced/designed for this hydrostatic load. Please update plans accordingly.
18) Keynote 26 on sheet C2.0 (sheet 4 of 16) calls out detail 11 on sheet C/3. There is no detail 11 on sheet C/3. Please update accordingly.
19) The sharp crested weir design contained in the hydraulic calculations for the outlet from the Southwest basin does not match the detail 8 on sheet C/3 as called out by keynote 28 on sheet c/2 (sheet 4 of 16).
20) Please either update the configuration of detail 8 on sheet C/3 (sheet 5 of 16) or the hydraulic calculations to support the use of this weir structure.
21) Please provide a reference industry or regulatory standard indicating that ABC is an acceptable form of a stabilized entrance. Usually 2 to 3" rock is used at the entryways for this exit point.
22) There are 3 potential conflicts between existing sewer manholes shown on sheet C7.0 (sheet 9 of 16) and the proposed vertical and wedge curb locations shown on this and other sheets. Please make appropriate adjustments or provide additional details to show how this existing and proposed infrastructure will coexist without diverting drainage or routing drainage other than as shown on this plan. It is noted that these are noted to be abandoned.
23) There are 3 potential conflicts with proposed manholes and curb shown on sheet C8.0 (sheet 10 of 16). Please provide coordinating details/adjustments as appropriate.
24) Please call out a minimum 18' curb radii at entrances per TSM 10, Figure 6.
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.
11/29/2016 SSHIELD1 H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change See Zoning comments
11/29/2016 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Principal Planner

PROJECT: La Frontera Arizona Miracle Point Apartments
Development Package (1st Review)
DP16-0190

TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 23, 2016

DUE DATE: December 05, 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 November 02, 2017.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

1. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, DP16-0 190, adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

2. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Accessible vehicle parking spaces shown near the northwest corner of the site, show how access is provided to the ramp on the east side of the PAAL. This access may not run behind the vehicle parking spaces, see TSM 7-01.4.1.F.

3. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Per 2012 IBC Chapter 11, section 1107.6.2 two (2) accessible units are required, one 1 bedroom and one 2 bedroom. Clearly shown the required accessible units on the plan and demonstrate on the plan that the carport provides the accessible parking for each unit.

4. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - The short term bicycle parking space calculation shows 8 spaces provided. The plan and detail only shown 6, 3 racks. See comment "" below.

5. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Detail 9 sheet 2 the spacing between racks is not correct, see UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.f and Figure 7.4.9-C.

6. 2-06.4.9.R - For any proposed accessible ramps that do not match PC/COT STD DTL 207 provide a detail that demonstrates that the requirements of the ICC A117.1-2009 are met.

7. 2-06.4.9.R - There are three (3) keynote 2's that are pointing to landscape areas or sidewalk. Clarify what is happening.

8. Sheet 2 is very difficult to read due to the pixilated details.

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
12/05/2016 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Approved n/a
12/05/2016 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change Provide screening per UDC Table 7.6.4-I for the portions of the site where vehicular use areas are within 100 feet of "Office" zones.
12/05/2016 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed 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 requires a separate permit.
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.
12/06/2016 AHINES2 PIMA COUNTY - ADDRESSING PIMA COUNTY - ADDRESSING Reqs Change Needs review. Email an electronic submittal to Pima County Addressing to Robin Freiman at <Robin.Freiman@pima.gov> prior to second submittal with COT PDSD. She will provide comments for the applicant to address in the second submittal. Please provide an electronic copy on a CD for the second submittal.
12/06/2016 AHINES2 ZONING-DECISION LETTER WRITE DECISION LETTER Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) Two rolled sets of the plans
2) All approved documents submitted previously
3) A disk containing all items submitted
4) All items requested by review staff
5) All items needed to approve these plans

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/19/2016 ARUIZ1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed