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: Requires Resubmit
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE REVIEW v.3
Permit Number - DP22-0147
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE REVIEW v.3
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/07/2023 | CDRC Post Review | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 04/27/2023 | NPPO | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Review Coordinator FROM: Anne Warner, RLA PDSD Landscape/Native Plant Preservation Section PROJECT: Mueller Inc. ACTIVITY NO: DP22-0147 v2 Address: 4711 E Valencia Rd Zoning: PAD-21 Existing Use: undisturbed Sonoran desert Proposed Use: Retail & Warehouse TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 27, 2023 DUE DATE: 23 days from above date COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Landscape Review Section comments were addressed. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with applicable development criteria in the City of Tucson Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-11 and Technical Manual (TM) Section for landscape, native plants and water harvesting. General Note - UDC 2-10.4.1 Identification and Descriptive Data - 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. 1. This comment was not addressed, d.g. still shown on plans. It is not clear what purpose the open areas with d.g. serve. It would be cost effective to leave vegetation in these areas until needed as the salvage and mitigation effort as well as the d.g. is costly. 2. This comment was not adequately addressed – Screening walls and their height should be on landscape plans. A 5’ wall and 10’ landscape border is required adjacent to all residential uses. A low screen wall and a 10’ landscape border is required along Valencia Rd. Please label and dimension on landscape plans. 3. There are only five trees in the parking area, not seven, please revise. 4. This comment was not addressed There is not 50% vegetative coverage in the street landscape borders, please revise. Groundcover is missing in the plant legend. 5. Tree planting detail in d.g. on sheet L-301 doesn’t reflect water harvesting. 6. Please provide all landscape calculations on the landscape plan, including street landscape borders, Admin. Manual 2-10-4.2.A.2.c and landscape borders, UDC Technical Standards 2-10.4.2.f & 7. This comment was not adequately addressed - Please label the existing and future rights of way for all public streets, UDC 7.6.4.C.2.a. 8. This comment was not addressed - The basin floor requires something other than bare dirt or fine d.g., Hydroseed or rock larger than 4” is acceptable. 9. Comment not addressed - This comment should be on the NPPO plans - The monitor is responsible for an assessment of the condition of the site’s plants one year after the final inspection has been performed on the site. The monitor shall visit the site and prepare a report on plant status, including general plant condition, the identification of plants under stress and the appropriate method to relieve the stress, and recommendations for replacement of plants that are dead or dying. Dead or dying plants must be replaced with the same size plant at a one-to-one ratio of like genus and species. Copies of the report must be submitted to the site owner/developer and to PDSD. The owner must respond to the plant needs as outlined in the status report within six months of report submittal or within a shorter period if required to improve the health of stressed plants and prevent plant loss. 10. Comment not addressed - Please identify the project monitor prior to any grading activities, UDC 7.7.5. On-monitoring of all aspects of site clearing, grading, plant protection, preservation, salvage, and mitigation must be provided during project construction at the expense of the developer for all residential development that is over five acres and for all commercial and industrial development that is over one acre. The monitoring must be performed by an individual who is qualified in arid lands native plant resource identification and protection as specified in UDC Section 7.7.4.D, Professional Expertise. The monitor must provide periodic progress reports to the developer outlining the status of work accomplished and any problems encountered. A copy of these reports must be submitted to the PDSD for the project file. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package YOUR NEXT STEPS: Submit documents to the Tucson Development Center https://tdc-online.tucsonaz.gov/#/home 1) Comment Response Letter (your response to the reviewer's “Requires Changes” comments) 2) Plan Set (or individual sheets) 3) Naming Conventions 2nd resubmittal & subsequent reviews (3,4, etc.) should be labeled as: 2_Plan Set 2_Comment Response Narrative 2_Structural Calcs 3) Any other items requested by review staff If you have any questions, please contact me at anne.warner@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 05/15/2023 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Tucson codes and ordinances can be found online at https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/tucson/latest/overview The Stormwater Detention-Retention Manual can be found online at https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/updated-retention-detention-manual/updated-retention-detention-manual.pdf DP22-0147 1. The tables in the drainage report do not have units labeled. Label the units of the flow rates and volumes. 2. Please narratively explain Table 3 in the drainage report and explain how it relates to the reduced flow rates in Table 4. 3. Clarify whether Table 8 in the drainage report shows required detention volumes or the proposed detention volumes of the basins. 4. Provide a waste stream calculation meeting the requirements of TSM 8-01.8. The comment response narrative says that this was provided on page C-208 of the submitted plans, but it was not. The waste stream calculation could not be found on other pages either. 5. Comment 5 of the last review was not adequately addressed. Provide a detail of the waste enclosure that meets dimensional standards outlined in TSM8-01.5.2 (for example, the enclosure shall have a minimum 10-foot by 10-foot unobstructed interior space, bollards are required one foot inside the enclosure wall to prevent damage, etc.) 6. An unprotected striped pedestrian access route separating the Parking And Access Lane (PAAL) and the building is inadequate. Per TSM 7-01.4.2 A, sidewalks associated with PAALs must be separated from the travel lane by vertical separation either through curbs or barriers. Bollards at regular intervals protecting the pedestrian access route would also be acceptable. Lianne Evans lianne.evans@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 05/03/2023 | Site Landscape | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | See comments on NPPO 4/27/23 | ||
| 05/09/2023 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Mueller, Inc – Tucson Development Development Package (3rd Review) DP22-0147 TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 9, 2023 DUE DATE: May 19, 2023 COMMENTS: Resubmit revised drawings and 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 May 29, 2023. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. This comment was not addressed correctly. The total number of pages shown is 52 but there were 55 sheets submitted. Also, sheets 41 – 55 do not have the page number and total number of pages. COMMENT: 2-06.4.2.D – Provide the page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx) within the title block on all sheets 2. This comment was not addressed. Sheets 41 – 55 do not have the case number. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, DP22-0147, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 3. This comment was not addressed correctly. Per UDC Table Table 7.4.8-1: Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, STORAGE USE GROUP, Commercial Storage requirement is 1 space per 40,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. The calculation should state “2 required and it appears you are providing 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Until comment 12 is addressed bicycle parking requirements cannot be verified. 4. This comment was not addressed. The proposed “U-SHAPE BIKE RACK” does not meet the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.D. Specify demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.D.2, .3 & .5 are met. The two (2) shown appear to short-term not long-term bicycle parking. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Once comment 12 is addressed and if bicycle parking is required clearly shown the location on the plan and provide detail(s) the demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9 are met. 5. This comment was not addressed. In your comment response references “UDC Section 3.3.C.1 but there is no UDC Section 3.3.C.1 in the UDC. Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.A COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.A states At least one sidewalk is required to a project from each street on which the project has frontage, unless there is no vehicular access from a street because of a physical barrier, such as a drainageway or an unbroken security barrier (e.g., a wall or fence). Zoning acknowledges that you reference a drainageway but as you are providing vehicle access to Benson Hwy. a sidewalk is required. At least one sidewalk is required to a project from each street on which the project has frontage. Show the required sidewalks from the proposed building out to Benson Hwy and Valencia Rd. 6. This comment was not addressed, there was no “Attachment X” provided. COMMENT: Per PAD-21 Section III.N provide design review written approve with your next submittal. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Nicholas Martell at Nicholas.Martell@tucsonaz.gov. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
||
| 04/20/2023 | CDRC Application Completeness | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 06/07/2023 | Fire New Construction | REVIEW COMPLETED |