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.1
Permit Number - DP22-0147
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE REVIEW v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/21/2022 | Commercial Plumbing | APPROVED | |||
| 12/21/2022 | CDRC Post Review | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 12/06/2022 | Fire New Construction | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Comments: Fire hydrant not shown on the sheet provided. Building shall have fire sprinklers installed, since fire flow requirements of the IFC 2018, Appendix C cannot be met. Questions: Jennifer Peel-Davis Tucson Fire Department Fire Plans Examiner Fire Inspector I, II and Fire Alarm Plans Examiner Jennifer.Peel-Davis@Tucsonaz.gov Desk: 520-837-7033 |
||
| 12/08/2022 | NPPO | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | A Native Plant Preservation plan is required. The landscape/irrigation plan will not be reviewed until the NPPO is submitted and integrated into the plans. | ||
| 12/06/2022 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. A separate drainage report is required for this project (PAD 21 III E5 and Drainage manual 2.1.1) Please submit a report following the guidelines listed in chapter 2.3 of the drainage manual. Ensure first flush calculations similar to table 2.2 and 2.3 of the updated detention/retention manual are shown 2. The 100-yr detention flowrates on sheet 19 do not match those shown on sheet 18. If this is due to showing "pre-detention" and "post-detention" quantities, please label as such. Moreover, the subbasin labels shown on sheets 17 and 18 are not consistent with the related diagrams 3. As stated in the updated COT Detention/Retention Manual, Critical basin detention requires post developed 2-, 10-, and 100-year peak discharges to be reduced to 85% of pre-developed rates. The proposed 15% increase in retention volume does not meet this requirement, as the flowrate table on sheet 19 shows a change from 104.2 to 102.15 cfs (typ), which is only a 2% reduction (98% of predevelopment) 4 .Please provide a waste stream calculation meeting the requirements of TSM 8-01.8 5. Please provide a detail of the waste enclosure meeting the requirements of TSM 8-01.5.2 6. Per ADA requirements, there must be at least one accessible pedestrian route to one of the frontage streets. To eliminate the Tucson TSM requirement for both pedestrian routes, a TSMR must be filed for. 7. Add a keynote for the proposed pipe bollards 8. Show how roof drainage up to the 10-yr storm will be directed under sidewalks through the use of gutters/scuppers (TSM 7-01.4E) 9. Ensure all arrows are labelled (driveway width on sheet 5, sidewalk on sheet 4, etc) 10. Show points of entry/exit to building |
||
| 12/08/2022 | Site Landscape | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department, Plans Coordination 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: December 8, 2022 DUE DATE: December 7, 2022 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. General Note - Ensure that Zoning and Engineering comments are addressed prior to landscape section approval. 1. 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. 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. The grading plan and water harvesting plan do not meet the requirements of maximizing water harvesting. First flush volumes should be directed towards landscape areas. a. The catchment areas must provide water to the infiltration areas. Revise the grading to direct runoff to the landscape infiltration areas to the maximum extent possible. b. Catchment areas in the water harvesting table can only count the areas that are directed to the landscape infiltration areas. c. Clearly show the areas in each catchment area and the areas of effective infiltration and water harvesting. All landscape areas should be included within infiltration areas. e. Provide a planting inventory or some other mechanism so we can confirm the canopy areas for each water harvesting infiltration area. Ensure all on-site landscape areas are accounted for in the canopy area. f. Show rooftop drainage patterns and show how they are incorporated into the water harvesting calculations. g. The landscape, water harvesting, and grading plans must match. 9. Engineer & LA comment - Identify curb inlets/splash pads to landscape areas on water harvesting, landscape, and grading plans. This comment was not adequately addressed - Provide a maintenance schedule for the landscape and irrigation for this project. UDC 2-10-4.2.A.4., please be specific. Remove “turf”, “sod” from existing notes, revise per the section above and spell check. Topping trees is not allowed. 10. This comment was not addressed - The basin floor requires something other than bare dirt or fine d.g. 11. Hydroseed or rock larger than 4” is acceptable. 12. NPPO not submitted - Native Plant Preservation Plan, Section 7.7.4, is required to be submitted and approved or a request for an exception from the Native Plant Preservation requirements approved in accordance with Sections 7.7.3.D.3 & .4 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) and Admin. Manual Section 2-11.0.0 prior to Grading Plan approval. Please note that Mesquite hybrids will be considered native trees, and should be included in NPP inventory. UDC 7.7.6 13. Please distinguish between the mitigation/salvage plants and the other required plants on the legend, symbol, or any other method that would communicate the information. Please note that mitigation trees are in addition to other required trees. 14. Please provide a summary of quantities of mitigation and TOS plants in a manner that makes it simple to cross-check between landscape and NPP plans. 15. 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. 16. 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 If you have any questions, please contact me at anne.warner@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 12/07/2022 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Mueller, Inc – Tucson Development Development Package (2nd Review) DP22-0147 TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 07, 2022 DUE DATE: December 07, 2022 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 This comment was not addressed, the total number of pages was not provided. 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 This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, DP22-0147, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. This comment was not addressed correctly. The northeast section corner should be labeled “11”, the northwest “10”, southeast “14” and southwest as “15”. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4.C - Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled. 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. 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. This comment was not addressed, no attachment X provided. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.A – As this site is made up of two (2) parcels a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Assessor’s Combination Request form with your next submittal. This comment was not addressed correctly. Parcel 140-33-032B is zoned CR-1, 140-33-001E is CR-3, 140-33-001D is CR-3, 140-33-001C is CR-3, 140-33-001B is CR-3, 140-33-001A is CR-3, not CR-2 as listed under Adjacent Property Information. Provide the correct zoning for all adjacent properties including south of Valencia Rd. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.F - All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. This comment was not addressed correctly. The SVTs shown on sheet C-105 are not shown correctly. Review TSM Section 10-01.5.0 and show the SVTs correctly. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show the sight visibility triangles (SVTs) for the entrance off of Benson Hwy. This comment was not addressed. The only thing on sheet C-103 that addresses anything to do with curbing is in the legend and it doesn’t state what type of curbing, vertical, extruded, etc. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Cleary demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1 are met for the entire site. A 3” rolling curb does not provide the required separation. This comment was not fully addressed. Per UDC Article 7.4.3.G the number of required vehicle parking spaces should be 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The vehicle parking space calculation shall provide the number required and provided for both the standard and accessible parking spaces. The accessible space calculation shall also include the number of van accessible required and provided. This comment was not fully addressed. The “ADA PARKING” calculation does not provide the number provide and it doesn’t provide the number of required/provided van accessible spaces. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The required accessible vehicle parking space requirements should be based on the 2018 IBC Table 1106.1 not a percentage. The required van accessible vehicle parking space requirements should be based on the 2018 IBC Section 1106.5. This comment was not addressed. The parking requirement is for the entire PAD not just this parcel. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Per PAD-21 Section III.C.1 provide a comprehensive parking calculation table for all commercial/industrial projects within Development area “D”. This comment was not addressed correctly. Sheet C-103 does not show a loading space or provide a calculation. Provide a loading space calculation the includes the number required and provided and the type, see UDC Article 7.5.5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Until comment 12 is addressed loading space requirements cannot be verified. This comment was not addressed correctly. Sheet C-103 does not show any bicycle parking or provide a calculation the provides the number required & provided. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Until comment 12 is addressed bicycle parking requirements cannot be verified. This comment was not addressed. The proposed “U-SHAPE BIKE RACK” does not meet the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.D. The deail provided does not address UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1.e & .g, 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. Zoning acknowledges that Keynote “V” has been provided on sheet C-104 but there is no keynote shown on the plan showing the location of the proposed bollards. Also, there is nothing on the plans that address the spacing requirements of TSM Section 7-01.4.2.B. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Per TSM Section 7-01.4.B A sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located. That said a 4’-0” sidewalk, physically separate from the vehicle use area, is required along the south side of the proposed office building. Clearly show how accessible access is provide to the building. This comment was not fully addressed. Keynote S calls out a “PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE” but there is nothing on the plan that addresses the width. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – As TSM Section 7-01.3.3.B.2 & 7-01.4.H sidewalks are not required between access lanes and PAALs as long as a four- foot wide pedestrian refuge area must be maintained. Show the required pedestrian refuge around the remainder of the entire building. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.A 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. 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 |