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: TD-DEV-0924-00269
Parcel: 14106009J

Address:
6251 S KOLB RD

Review Status: Requires Resubmit

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1

Permit Number - TD-DEV-0924-00269
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
11/14/2024 CDRC Post Review PENDING ASSIGNMENT
11/12/2024 Commercial Plumbing REQUIRES RESUBMIT The water supply to the site is shown as a dead-end service. Contact Richard Sarti (richard.sarti@tucsonaz.gov) to determine the design requirements for the water service.
11/13/2024 Fire New Construction REQUIRES RESUBMIT Provide hydrant locations 2018 IFC, 507.5
11/14/2024 NPPO REQUIRES RESUBMIT See Site Landscape Comments for NPPO requirements.

Thank you.
Chad Keller, RLA
chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov
11/14/2024 ROW Engineering Review REQUIRES RESUBMIT TD-DEV-0924-00269 • 6251 S KOLB RD

1. Call out all applicable PAG Standard Details for improvements in the ROW.

2. A right-of-way floodplain use permit from DTM will be required for the storm drain connections into the Kinnison Wash.

3. Provide complete details of the proposed drainage improvements within the public rights-of-way.

4. Per Sec. 10-01.3.3, the minimum width for sidewalk along Valencia Rd is 6ft.

5. A public access easement will be required for where the proposed sidewalk along Kolb Rd encroaches onto private property.

6. Include the following notes:

All construction and test methods shall be in conformance with Pima Association of Governments (PAG) Standard Specifications and Standard Details for public improvements, 2015 editions.

An excavation permit shall be obtained from the city of Tucson Transportation Department and Mobility (DTM), prior to any work within the public right-of-way.

If you have any questions, please contact Richard Leigh at 520-403-0970 or email richard.leigh@tucsonaz.gov.
11/13/2024 Site Engineering REQUIRES RESUBMIT 1. Show how at least one ADA parking space is van-capable at each building per ADA Accessibility Standards 502.2.
2. Provide waste stream calculations per TSM 8 to justify the number of waste enclosures.
3. Pedestrian circulation is required to the waste enclosures per TSM 7-01.3.3.
4. A Right-Of-Way Floodplain Use Permit is required for the drainage outlet work within the wash where Q100>100cfs.
5. The following comments apply to the drainage report:
a) Column 7 of the table on page 46 should read "WC2.5d" not "WC3d".
b) Pages 53 of 86 and 54 of 86 say "add onsite" but it is not clear what onsite Q is being added. Please explain.

Mike Ortiz
michael.ortiz@tucsonaz.gov
11/14/2024 Site Landscape REQUIRES RESUBMIT CDRC TRANSMITTAL
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
REVIEWER: CHAD KELLER, RLA
PDSD SITE LANDSCAPE/NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SECTION

PROJECT: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (SITE ONLY) FOR KOLB/VALENCIA PROPERTY
ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-0924-00269
ADDRESS: 6251 S KOLB RD
ZONING: PAD-26

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.

Please resubmit revised drawings along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Landscape/NPPO Review Section comments are addressed.

SITE LANDSCAPE/NPPO SECTION COMMENTS:

1. Per PAD-26 document, South Kolb Road Specific Plan Amendment page 3, number 12, letter F: A riparian mitigation plan shall be required for development in designated riparian areas. Provide a general note that demonstrates compliance with, or exception from the PAD-26 document riparian habitat standards. Or provide a mitigation plan for the site.

2. Add an additional multi-trunk tree planting detail with no staking and a note to remove the nursery stake.

3. Tree staking notes are included in the tree planting detail. Should a time period advisement for removal of tree stakes be added for contractor/owner clarity? This is something I’ve been noticing out on finished project sites. The staking cinch-ties have been constricting and damaging newly planted trees.

4. Add Saguaro and Barrel Cacti planting detail(s).

5. The Salvia cleavlandii symbol and quantity are missing from the legend. Update the legend if the Sage isn’t going to be used.

6. There are 16 Desert Museum Palo Verde shown from nursery. The NPPO mitigation quantity calls out 23 required Foothill Palo Verde. Can the required mitigation trees be added to the planting plan?

7. The Native Plant Summary on the NPPO and the Planting Plan have different numbers for mitigation quantities. Coordinate and update.

8. There are 29 Fishhook Barrel Cacti listed as transplants on the Native Plant Summary. These Barrel Cacti are not shown on the planting legend. These Barrel are also not accounted for on the inventory map or the inventory charts. Coordinate and update.

9. It appears that a few Lantanas and other plant material are located in the ROW. Adjust the placement to be within the property boundary or contact David Marhefka with DTM for review and approval. david.marhefka@tucsonaz.gov

10. Adjust the ¾” Class 200 PVC lateral and rainbug to be within the tree planter island in the parking area west of building 3.

11. Add the PVC sleeves for laterals and mainline crossing all impervious areas on the irrigation plans. There are a few sleeves needed for this project. Would you consider doing an irrigation sleeving plan? Or possibly using red linework for the sleeves on the irrigation plan for redundant clarity for the contractor?

12. A rainwater harvesting basin schematic detail is not a requirement but adding one to the CRWHP would be a nice addition for construction clarity.

13. Add a general note to the CRWHP that directs the contractor to refer the civil grading plan for construction of the WHIA basins.

14. The north entry drive off Valencia impervious area and some of the central drive isle impervious area have not been included in any of the subwatershed areas. Where is the runoff from these areas going? Update the subwatershed areas to be included.

15. Ensure that Zoning and Engineering comments are addressed prior to landscape section approval.

16. Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0924-00269, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2-06.4.3

If you have any questions about these comments, I can be reached at chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov or at 520.837.4923
11/14/2024 Site Zoning REQUIRES RESUBMIT PDSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: PDSD Zoning Review

PROJECT: Kolb/Valencia Property
Development Package (1st Review)
TD-DEV-0924-00269

TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 14, 2024

DUE DATE: November 03, 2024

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 October 3, 2025.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.1 - The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided on the right half of the cover sheet. Provide the required information on the cover sheet for the Landscape Architect.

2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0924-00269, adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Remove the reference to “S20-004” from the plan as this land split is not part of this site.

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. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – The “RETAIL/COMMERCIAL” use listed under General Note 5 is not a use but a use group. Provide the proposed use as classified in the UDC.

5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a – Revise General Note 8 to include “UDC ARTICLE 5.4 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R) & UDC ARTICLE 5.6 AIRPORT ENVIIRONS ZONE (AEZ)”

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.

6. 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.

7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Fully dimension the back-up spur shown in the southeast corner of the site.

8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Clearly demonstrate that the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.a.(2) are met for all proposed drive-thrus shown on the plan.

9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The “RETAIL/COMMERCIAL” uses listed under the vehicle parking calculation is a Use Group not a Use. Provide a proposed use in the calculation. Until a use is provided the vehicle parking requirements cannot be verified.

10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a -The vehicle parking space calculation shall include the number of required accessible parking spaces and van accessible spaces and the number of provided accessible spaces and van accessible spaces.

11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Clearly demonstrate that the proposed accessible parking sign shown on the Handicap Parking stall detail does not encroach into the 2’-6” vehicle overhang area.

12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Provide a van accessible parking space detail on the plan. The provided handicapped detail does not meet the requirements of ICC A117.1-2009 Section 502.2 for a van accessible space.

13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.c – Until the proposed uses are clarified loading space requirements cannot be determined.

14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - The “RETAIL/COMMERCIAL” uses listed under the bicycle parking calculation is a Use Group not a Use. Provide a proposed use in the calculation. Until a use is provided the bicycle parking requirements cannot be verified.

15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Remove the reference to “(CLASS 2)” bicycle parking from the detail as Class 2 is no longer applicable.

16. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Clarify what the reference to “(PER C.O.T. SEC. 7.4.a.B.2.a.)” is for as there is no UDC Article 7.4.a.B.2.a in the code.

17. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Remove the reference to “CLASS 1” bicycle parking from the detail as Class 1 is no longer applicable.

18. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Remove the reference to “D.S. 2-09” from the detail as D.S. 2-09 has not be appliable for several years.

19. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Provide a detail for the proposed Long-term bicycle parking that clear demonstrates that the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.D are met.

20. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – The uses listed within the footprint of the buildings are not specific use as designed within the UDC.

21. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – As parking vehicles are allowed to overhang proposed sidewalks at many locations throughout the site clearly demonstrate that the sidewalk is a minimum 6’-6” wide, UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3 and TSM Section 7-01.4.3.A, 2’-6” + 4’-0” = 6’-6”.

22. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Clearly demonstrate that the requirements of TSM Section 7-01.4.1.A is met out to Valencia Rd.

23. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Clearly demonstrate that the requirements of TSM Section 7-01.3.3.B is met between buildings 1, 2 and 3 and demonstrate the connection from buildings 1, 2 and 3 south to buildings 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

24. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Clearly demonstrate that the requirements of TSM Section 7-01.4.1.B are met along the north end of BLDG #5 and the south end of BLDG #8.

25. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Clearly demonstrate that the requirements of TSM Section 7-01.4.1.B are met to all proposed dumpster locations.

26. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.W - Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Also provide a note stating all signage requires separate permits

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Nicholas Martell at Nicholas.Martell@tucsonaz.gov.

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: A revised development package as well as a comment response letter. To resubmit, visit the Tucson Development Center Online at https://tdc-online.tucsonaz.gov/#/home. The instructions for resubmittal can be found at https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/pdsd/documents/tdc-faq/new-pdfs/revisions-and-resubmittals.pdf.
09/27/2024 CDRC Application Completeness REVIEW COMPLETED
10/04/2024 CDRC Review Coordinator REVIEW COMPLETED External Reviewers not required. No further action is required from the customer at this time.
11/12/2024 CDRC Review Coordinator REVIEW COMPLETED External Reviewers not required. No further action is required from the customer at this time.
10/04/2024 OK to Submit - Engineering REVIEW COMPLETED
10/03/2024 OK to Submit - Zoning REVIEW COMPLETED