Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: DP16-0204
Parcel: 120093130

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP16-0204
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
11/30/2016 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Reqs Change Distance from existing fire hydrant to back of proposed building appears to exceed limits specified by section 507.5.1 of the 2012 International Fire Code.
Please review section 503.2.5 of the IFC. Turn around required.
12/06/2016 PAUL BAUGHMAN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: December 6, 2016
DUE DATE: December 14, 2016
SUBJECT: Site
TO: Jeff Stewart
LOCATION: 265 E Missouri Street
REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP16-0204
SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. The main concern is that compliance with retention/detention and solid waste requirements has not been demonstrated. The following items need to be addressed:
1) Per AM 2-06.4.3 please add the case number (DP16-0204).
2) Per TSM 4-01.2.1A10 please consider using organic mulch as an aid in increase infiltration rates in required water harvesting/retention areas. The request for a retention waiver will not be granted. This site is over an acre and 5-year threshold retention is required per UDC 7.14.4, section 14.2, item 1. Per the November 1, 2016 preapplication meeting the retention basin will need to infiltrate the 5-year threshold retention storm water volume into the subsurface per UDC 7.14.3, Sections 1.3 and 1.4. Please provide a calculation per UDC 7.14.3, Section 3.2.1, Equation 3.3 that shows the volume of the required retention. Please provide dimensions for the basin(s) that provide this retention volume. Per AM 2-06.4.9N please update the development plan to show how all required retention/detention is being provided based on the requirements for an updated drainage report.
3) A waiver for retention/detention is not granted. FEMA Floodplain is not contained within the channel both upstream and downstream of South 6th Ave and as such the flow capacity of this critical channel reach is insufficient (See UDC 7.14.3, Section 2.3 Criteria 2A). Please see UDC 7.14.3, Section 1.4 and update the plan accordingly.
4) The waiver for Detention/Retention contained in UDC 7.14.3, Section 2.3 (Criteria 1) regarding discharging to a channel with a 100 square mile drainage area has not been met.
5) Per UDC 7.14.3, Section 2.3, Detention may not be waived for sites designated as a critical basin.
6) Per UDC 7.14.3, Section 2.3, Threshold Retention requirements still apply after any detention requirements are considered.
7) Per UDC 7.14.3, Section 1.4 and UDC 7.14.4, October 24, 1997 Letter from G Dewayne Tripp, P.E., City Engineer, those watershed designated as Critical Basins, a 15% reduction in the 2-, 10-, and 100-year flow event will be required as a fair and equitable apportioning increment. Please show how this detention requirement is being met for the development site in question.
8) Section IIIB of the drainage report describes the use of an 18-inch diameter storm drain system to convey runoff from the roof directly to the wash. Per UDC 7.6.6C the roof and parking lot runoff needs to be conveyed to a water harvesting area before overtopping and being conveyed into the wash.
9) Per TSM 8-01.4.0D a metal trash container sized to contain at least 589.7 gallons is required since the waste stream calculation showed this volume of generated trash. Per AM 2-06.4.9T please update plans to show refuse collection area, including locations of dumpsters, screening locations and materials, and vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned, and access route. Per AM 2-06.4.9T refuse collection on all projects shall be designed per TSM 8-01 even if the collection is to be contracted to a private firm.
10) Per TSM 8-01.5.2A, B and C please show enclosure walls to be constructed per Figures 2, 3A and 3B of TSM 8-01.9.0.
11) General note 6 contains a wording from what is already contained in general note 8. Please delete the duplicate wording.
12) Keynote 7 is being called out with a leader line extending from the existing 10' screen wall instead of the symbol for a fire hydrant on sheet 2. Please update accordingly.
13) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 14.2, item 2 please provide a master stormwater detention scheme for the entire development since this development has been phased.
14) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 14.2, item 4 please show the finished floor elevation to be elevation at least a foot above the 100 year water surface elevation of the proposed retention/detention basin(s).
15) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 14.2, item 6 please provide a geotechnical report that provides an infiltration test. A safety factor of 2 is required to be applied to the raw infiltration result. After this safety factor is applied the basin must be shown to drain in 12 hours or less.
16) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 14.2, item 6 please provide a geotechnical report that provides recommendations for how far the detention/retention basin should be setback from the proposed greenhouse.
17) Per AM 2-06.4.9N and Section VA of the drainage report, please update keynote 26 on sheet 2 and applicable line work to show a 52 foot building setback. Please make any other adjustments in building layout if setback encroaches into proposed greenhouse location. Please note that keynote 9 on sheet 3 shows the 52 foot erosion hazard setback. Please be consistent.
18) The symbols used for electric and gas meters are blurred and not reflective of what is shown in the legend. Please update accordingly per AM 2-06.3.10.
19) Keynote 33 seems to be a duplicate of keynote 14 on sheet 2. Please eliminate this duplicate keynote. It does not seem to be called out on the plan.
20) Per the preapplication meeting, keynote 34 is being called out at the southeast corner of the site. Please provide additional line work to accompany this keynote callout of the required handicap access ramp.
21) Per TSM 10-01.4.1D1a keynote 36 should be called out across the west driveway in addition to the east driveway location to show the maximum 2% cross slope. Per TSM 10.01.3.3E a curb ramp is required at the southwest corner of the site, just west of the western most driveway entrance. Per TSM 10-01.3.3B sidewalks should be provided at the back of this western most curb ramp.
22) Keynote 1 on sheet 3 is describing catch basins but is referring to detail 4/4 which is for a curb access ramp. Please update accordingly.
23) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 10.9.1, item 5 Channel bank protection is required where storm drain is proposed to outlet into the earthen channel.
24) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 10.3, Item 9 the Stormdrain segment that is contained in the publicly owned channel needs to be Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP). Please note that keynot 8 on sheet 3 calls for 18" RCP. This needs to be reflected on the plan and in detail 2 on sheet 3.
25) Per AM 2-06.4.9M1 a conceptual grading plan is required to show drainage and incorporate the retention/detention basins in close proximity to the publicly owned wash. Per TSM 2-01.5.1 fees are assessed in accordance with cut and fill quantities. Please update the plan to provide these quantities.
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.
12/09/2016 SSHIELD1 ADA REVIEW Passed
12/09/2016 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Principal Planner

PROJECT: Med Mar Greenhouse Expansion
Development Package (1st Review)
DP16-0204

TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 9, 2016

DUE DATE: December 14, 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 , 2017.

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

1. 2-06.3.3 - Sheet 1 the text is difficult to read. Revise the font so that all text on sheet 1 is readable.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2. 2-06.4.3 - Remove the address from the title block and provide it adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

3. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, DP16-0204, 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.

2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes

4. 2-06.4.7.A.1 - Remove the "(R)" from general note 1 as it is not applicable.

5. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - General note 3 remove the reference to "+ 3" from the plan as 4.9.9.E.3 is not applicable.

6. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Provide all applicable Use Specific Standards, 4.9.9.E.2.b, .e, .i, .j and .k on the plan.

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

7. 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Remove all references to "LOT COVERAGE" from the plan as it is not applicable.

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.

8. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Provide a PAAL width dimension between the vehicle parking spaces shown along the south of the building.

9. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Provide an access lane width dimension from the bollard shown at the southeast corner of the loading dock to the vehicle parking space shown to the southeast.

10. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - The vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.4-1, RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP, Medical Marijuana Dispensary Off-Site Cultivation Location, the vehicle parking is based on 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. of storage area for the first 20,000 sq. ft. of storage area plus 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft. of storage area for over 20,000 sq. ft. of storage area, with a minimum of 2 spaces.

11. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - The wheel stop location dimension shown on Detail 2 sheet 2 is not correct, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3.

12. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - The van accessible vehicle parking space and access aisle width shown on Detail 2 sheet 2 is not correct, see ICC A117.1-2009 Section 502.2. The total width of vehicle parking space and access aisle should be 16'.

13. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Provide a detail for a van accessible parking space sign.

14. 2-06.4.9.O - The "PERMITTED" street perimeter yard setback shown on sheet 1 under "ZONING DATA TABLE" is not correct. Per UDC Article 6.4.5.C.1 Established Areas, Within established areas, the minimum required front street perimeter yard is 20 feet or one and one-half the height of the proposed wall (H), measured from the street property line, whichever is greater.

15. 2-06.4.9.O - The "PERMITTED" rear perimeter yard setback shown on sheet 1 under "ZONING DATA TABLE" is not correct. Per UDC Table 6.3-5.A Nonres Use Nonres Zone the permitted setback should be shown as 0.

16. 2-06.4.9.R - Per TSM 7-01.3.3.B.2 a pedestrian refuge is required to connect the two buildings on site. Show the 4'-0" wide pedestrian refuge on the plan.

17. 2-06.4.9.S - Provide sufficient grades on sheet 3 to demonstrate that there is an accessible route from the street to the building and between the two buildings.


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
12/09/2016 SSHIELD1 H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change See Zoning comments
12/13/2016 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Approv-Cond Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior to landscape approval signature.
12/13/2016 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
12/14/2016 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Reprint the Development - Utility Plan so that the public sewer and manholes are visible.
2. Show the approximate point of connection of the building sewer to the public sewer.
3. Verify the finished floor elevation of the existing and proposed buildings; they appear to be 200-feet above the surrounding area.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
02/01/2017 PIBARRA1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed