Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE REVIEW v.1
Permit Number - TD-DEV-0323-00162
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE REVIEW v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/10/2023 | NPPO | APPROVED | |||
| 04/18/2023 | ROW Engineering Review | APPROVED | No Comments Not IN CITY ROW David Stiffey David.Stiffey@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 04/18/2023 | CDRC Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 04/18/2023 | Commercial Plumbing | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | An approved 2-way cleanout fitting is allowed to be used at the junction of a building drain and a building sewer; otherwise, cleanouts shall open to allow cleaning only in the direction of flow. Reference: Section 708.1.8, IPC 2018. | ||
| 04/10/2023 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. Provide contact information on the cover sheet for the geotechnical engineer/firm 2. Drainage Report: Provide a table similar to tables 2.2 and 2.3 in the COT retention/detention manual, showing how First Flush retention is achieved (report calls out calculation in Appendix G but calculation seems to be missing) 3. On the note for the proposed detention basin, provide Top and Bottom elevation (provided), Q100 in and out discharges, 100-yr WSEL, side slope (provided), side protection (provided), and basin volume (shown but struck through) 4. Drainage report plans HDPE west of building as 18", but plan set calls out 12", please clarify 5. (The following comments 5-8 follow standards set in the PC/COT drainage manual and retention/detention manual) Where basin is 2:1 slope, hand placed rip rap is allowed with filter fabric. Where basin slope is 1:1, rip-rap must be grouted. Please provide/update callouts and keynotes showing compliance with these requirements, including the type of filter fabric used 6. Show setback of basin from proposed structure. If less than 15', provide engineer's recommendation from your geotechnical engineer approving a lower setback 7. Pending comment 3, ensure 6" freeboard (12" with embankment) from 100-yr WSEL to top of basin. 8. According to both grading plan and detail 17/C502, the basin bottom and a basin outlet pipe are at the same elevation, which would not allow for the proposed 9" retention depth. Please clarify, and note bleed pipes are not allowed except capped and for maintenance purposes 9. Trash Enclosure callout 7 refers to incorrect standard, should refer to TSM 8-01 Figure 3 10. From recent clarification from Environmental Services, per TSM section 8, although recycling service isn’t required the site needs to provide at minimum the enclosure space for both solid waste and recycling. So a single enclosure won’t be sufficient and a double enclosure or an additional single enclosure will be needed to meet this requirement. It is also important to point out per TSM section 8-01.4.I - required parking may be reduced for existing development when solid waste and recycle enclosures are provided. 11. Provide a completed pedestrian circulation path from the building out to the trash enclosure and to the new sidewalk on Metric Pl per comment 14 (TSM 7-01) 12. A sidewalk or other vertically separated pedestrian refuge area is required between the building and parking spaces on the SE parking area (TSM 7-01) 13. The parking spaces abutting the CMU wall and bike locker must be at least 10ft wide (UDC 7.4.6 D2b) 14. A sidewalk will be required along the entire street frontage of the property (UDC 10-01.3.3) 15. A pedestrian refuge (does not need to be vertically separated) is required between the building and PAAL on the SW side of the building, except at loading zones (TSM 7-01) 16. Show grade breaks (LP) on Western lot 17. Add "Provide minimum 1' cover" to grading keynote 1 per geotechnical report 18. Show that the pavement between the building and trench drain slopes towards the trench drain 19. Drainage report calls out a curb cut to provide for overflow during the 100-year storm at the HDPE entrance. Please ensure this is reflected in the plans and show where the water will be directed 20. Grading plan calls out Southern (offsite) end of CMP's to be capped, please clarify Scott Haseman scott.haseman@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 04/17/2023 | Site Landscape | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PROJECT: CITIZEN’S WAREHOUSE ACTIVITY NO. TD-DEV-0323-00162 ADDRESS/PARCEL: 1501 E METRIC PL/132-13-0260 ZONING: I-1 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. COMMENTS: 1. Ensure all Zoning and Engineering comments are addressed prior to the Landscape/NPPO comments. 2. Include Case# (TD-DEV-0323-00162) on all sheets in the plan set. 3. A separate irrigation water meter is requires. Please label the new irrigation meter as “irrigation only”. UDC Technical Standards 4-01.-.2. A.1. 4. Label sight visibility triangles and ROWs (existing and future) to all landscape plans. 5. Show all roof arrows on the Commercial Rainwater Harvesting Plan. 6. Show all curb cuts/downspouts/splashpads on the landscape and the commercial rainwater harvesting plan. 7. Include a construction detail showing root barriers for plants located near sidewalks and parking lots. (see Detail 402 located here: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/tdot/landscape-architects) If you have any questions about these comments, I can be reached at Matthew.Carlton@tucsonaz.gov or 520-837-4988 |
||
| 04/07/2023 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Citizens Transfer & Storage Development Package (1st Review) TD-DEV-0323-00162 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 7, 2023 DUE DATE: April 13, 2023 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings 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 March 08, 2024. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.1 – Provide the email address for all contacts shown on sheet 1. 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0323-00162, 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 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – Review UDC TABLE 4.8-5: PERMITTED USES - INDUSTRIAL ZONES, Storage Land Use Group With Land Use Class/Type: Commercial Storage and provide the associated Use Specific Standards. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - As I-10 is designated as an Interstate Route on the COT MS&R Map provide a general note on the cover sheet stating “THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA, UDC ARTICLE 5.4 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R). 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b – Remove the reference to Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as it is not applicable to this site, see UDC Table 6.3-5.A. 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. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.B – Provide the recordation information for all existing easements shown on the plan. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.C – Provide the following information for Wall St & Metric Pl., right-of-way width, and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, and curb cuts. 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. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Clearly demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1 are met for: a. The western most vehicle use area along the west and south sides. b. Northwest end of the trailer parking area called out under Keynote 20. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Provide written approval from the COT City Engineer for the proposed 6” ABC Trailer parking surface with the next submittal. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. As the primary use of this site is Commercial Storage the entire GFA should be parked at 1 space per 5,000 GFA. 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The accessible vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Per 2018 IBC Chapter 11 Table 1106.1 when 16 spaces are provided,” 1 to 25” on the table 1 accessible space is required, not “ONE PLUS ONE PER EVERY 50 SPACES” as shown on the plan. Also per per 2018 IBC Chapter 11 Section 1106.5 the required accessible space is required to be van accessible. Document that requirement within the calculation. 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Clearly demonstrate that the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.D.2.b are met for the vehicle parking space shown southwest of the wall called out under Keynote 9 and the space shown northeast of the proposed long-term bicycle park locker. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Clearly demonstrate that access into and out of the 2 southern most vehicle parking spaces located in the eastern vehicle use area and the 2 southern spaces in the central vehicle use area do not required the use of the private right-of-way, UDC Article 7.4.6.K. 14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Provide a dimension from the pipe railing, called out under Keynote 32 to the 3 vehicle parking spaces to the south. This dimension shall meet the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3. 15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.c – Provide a loading zone calculation that provided the number required, provided and the type. 16. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Provide a detail for the proposed long-term that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1.d, .e & 7.4.9.D are met. 17. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – As this site borders on I-10 and I-10 is designated as an Interstate Route on the COT MS&R Map and the definition of Established Area Setback, see UDC Article 11.4.6 , this site is considered Developing Area when determining street perimeter yard setbacks. As street perimeter yard setbacks in Developing Areas are based on Average Daily Traffic (ADT) per discussions with John Van Winkle, COT DTM, the ADT for Wall St is 800 and for Metric Pl is 115. Review UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2 & Table 6.4.5.C-1 and provide street perimeter yard setback dimensions from the proposed building to the street as required per the table. 18. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.A show the required sidewalk out to Metric Pl. 19. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.C show the required sidewalk along the southeast end of the building. 20. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.T – The proposed dumpster wall location is with a 10’-0” utility easement. Provide written approval from all utilities, that have rights to the easement, stating that they have no issues with the wall within the easement. 21. COMMENT: - Provide written approval from the Owners Association that allows the fence and gates within the private right-or-way. 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 |
||
| 03/07/2023 | CDRC Application Completeness Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 03/21/2023 | CDRC Review Coordinator Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | Added external reviewers, sent emails and sent FYI emails per SOP. | ||
| 04/07/2023 | External Reviewers - Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) | REVIEW COMPLETED | Good Afternoon, ADOT has no comments on this DP. Thank you for the opportunity to review. |
||
| 03/23/2023 | External Reviewers - COT Parks & Recreation | REVIEW COMPLETED | Hello CDRC team, On behalf of the City of Tucson Parks and Recreation Department, I have no comments on the above development plan. Tom Fisher Project Manager City of Tucson Parks and Recreation Department 900 S. Randolph Way Tucson, Arizona 85716 (520) 837-8037 |
||
| 04/07/2023 | External Reviewers - Pima Association of Governments | REVIEW COMPLETED | SENT FYI EMAIL PER SOP. | ||
| 04/07/2023 | External Reviewers - Southwest Gas | REVIEW COMPLETED | SENT FYI EMAIL PER SOP. | ||
| 04/07/2023 | External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) | REVIEW COMPLETED | SENT FYI EMAIL PER SOP. | ||
| 04/07/2023 | External Reviewers - United States Postal Service (USPS) | REVIEW COMPLETED | SENT FYI EMAIL PER SOP. | ||
| 04/12/2023 | Fire New Construction | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 03/10/2023 | OK to Submit - Engineering Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 03/07/2023 | OK to Submit - Landscape Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 03/09/2023 | OK to Submit - Zoning Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 04/18/2023 | Traffic Engineering Review | REVIEW COMPLETED | No Comments Not IN CITY ROW David Stiffey David.Stiffey@tucsonaz.gov |