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 NEW v.2
Permit Number - TD-DEV-0924-00269
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/16/2025 | ROW Engineering Review | APPROVED | |||
| 03/07/2025 | CDRC Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 02/06/2025 | Commercial Plumbing | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Where the finish floor elevation is less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer or private sewer collection system, a backwater valve shall be installed in the building drain or branch of the building drain serving that floor. Floors discharging from above that reference point shall not discharge through the backwater valve. Show which buildings will require the installation of a backwater valve. Reference: Section 714.1, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson. | ||
| 02/21/2025 | NPPO | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Please see site landscape review comments for NPPO requirements. Thank you. Chad Keller, RLA chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 02/10/2025 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. Show wheel stops on the site plan in all parking spaces facing sidewalk unless separated by at least 2.5 feet of space. 2. There appears to be no pedestrian circulation to the waste enclosure between buildings 3 and 7. Please revise. Mike Ortiz michael.ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 02/21/2025 | 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 REVIEW #2 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. Label all landscape rock as “screened” rock. Plans that indicate “crushed” or “minus” have been misinterpreted by contractors and suppliers. Recent projects have ended up with rock material in the landscape that is not appropriate for the intention of this inorganic groundcover due to the abundance of fines being present. Can your intended rock color be spec’d in the notes as well as a note that any substitution shall be approved by the landscape architect or owner? 2. PREVIOUS COMMENT NEEDS MORE INFORMATION/COORDINATION: 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. THIS COMMENT HAS NOT BEEN FULLY ADDRESSED. AN IN-LIEU FEE FOR RIPARIAN AREA DISTURBANCE IS NOT A VALID OPTION PER THE PAD-26 DOCUMENT OR WITHIN THE CITY OF TUCSON UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. A MITIGATION PLAN IS REQUIRED. IF AN IN-LIEU FEE IS STATED IN THE PAD DOCUMENT OR WITH CITY CODE AND I MISSED IT, THEN PLEASE ADD REFERENCE TO THE SECTION(S) OF THE PAD AND/OR THE CITY CODE THAT STATES THAT AN IN-LIEU FEE IS ACCEPTABLE. ADD THIS REFERENCE ON THE RIPARIAN AREA MITIGATION IN-LIEU FEE PLAN. Please contact me if you would like to discuss this in more detail prior to the next submittal. 3. Add the Riparian Mitigation Plan to the overall landscape plan set. 4. COMMENT NOT FULLY ADDRESSED: There are 29 Fishhook Barrel Cacti listed as transplants on the Native Plant Summary. These Barrel Cacti are not shown on the planting plan or legend. These Barrel are also not accounted for on the inventory map or the inventory charts on the NPPO Plans. Add a unique symbol for the Ferocactus wizlenii and indicate on the planting plan the placement on site of the 29 transplants. Thank you. Chad Keller, RLA Landscape Architect chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov 520.837.4923 |
||
| 02/10/2025 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Kolb/Valencia Property Development Package (2nd Review) TD-DEV-0924-00269 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 10, 2025 DUE DATE: February 10, 2025 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. 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. 1. This comment was not fully addressed. No setback dimensions were provided along the east side of BLDG #3. 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. 2. This comment was not addressed. 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. 3. This comment was not addressed. There is nothing to prevent parking vehicles from overhanging sidewalks at most locations on the plan. 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”. 4. This comment was not fully addressed. The vehicle use area south of BLDG #8 by definition is an access lane and a sidewalk is required. 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. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Zone1.desk@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. |
||
| 01/23/2025 | Fire New Construction | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 03/07/2025 | Traffic Engineering Review Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | DTM Traffic Engineering accepted the findings and recommendations of the traffic memorandum in February 2023, including the addition of a right-in/right-out access point on Kolb Rd about 340 feet south of Valencia Rd, which was included in the approved PIA plan set. In the 2023 traffic document, there were 6 buildings. The DP in TD-DEv-0924-00269 shows 8 buildings, but the square footage total in unchanged and land uses described are the same as prior, so I do not have concerns regarding the development. Thanks! |