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-0924-00272
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/01/2024 | NPPO | APPROVED | |||
| 11/13/2024 | CDRC Post Review | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 10/21/2024 | Commercial Plumbing | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. Section G-83-016 of the existing public sewer is constructed from 15” PVC. Verify how RWRD will allow the sewer to be tapped. 2. A cleanout is required for a building sewer at a change of direction that exceeds 45 degrees. Reference: Section 708.1.4, IPC 2018. 3. Existing manhole, 4139-06, is the next downstream manhole. The development plan, D08-0004, for 7333 E Rosewood Street shows the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole, 4319-07 at 2550.42. With a FFE of 2550.02, Building 3 will require the installation of a backwater valve. Verify the rim elevation of manhole 4139-07 to determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 714.1, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
||
| 10/17/2024 | Fire New Construction | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Provide Knox access at gates. IFC 24, 503.6, 506.1,clearly note this. Dead ends in excess of 150’ require turn-around. IFC 24, D103.4. A gate with signage & restricted access was previously discussed as a solution for this property. Questions: patricia.shelton@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 10/18/2024 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. Show locations of roof downspouts and ensure runoff does not flow over sidewalks per TSM7-01.4.3E. 2. The slope of the waste enclosure slab is not acceptable. The minimum slope of the slab and apron is 1% and 2%, respectively, per TSM 8. Please show the slope of both the slab and apron on the grading sheet. 3. The scale is not correct on some of the sheets. For example, the scale on sheet C3.0 is correct, but the following two pages do not have a correct scale. Please use a correct scale on all sheets. Mike Ortiz michael.ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 11/01/2024 | Site Landscape | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | CDRC TRANSMITTAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT REVIEWER: CHAD KELLER, RLA PDSD SITE LANDSCAPE/NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SECTION PROJECT: EXPANSION TO EXISTING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-0924-00272 ADDRESS: 7333 E ROSEWOOD ST ZONING: PAD-3 LAND USE: COMMERCIAL 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. Ensure that Zoning and Engineering comments are addressed prior to landscape section approval. 2. On the CRWHP, the dashed line called out as number 2 (WHIA) is supposed to be the subwatershed and the blue hatched areas are the Water Harvest Infiltration Areas (WHIA) per SECTION 4-01.0.0: COMMERCIAL RAINWATER HARVESTING. Are all of the WHIA’s going to be rainfall only infiltration areas? Or will some of the new impervious areas be directed towards the WHIA’s? If portions of impervious areas are going to direct water to WHIA’s thru curb cuts, then please identify those subwatershed areas on the plan. The subwatershed areas should include the impervious area and the WHIA area for a combined total area square footage. If more than one impervious area will be graded toward WHIA’s, then the number of WHIA’s will increase on the Site Water Budget Spreadsheet. Make these adjustments to the plan and update the Site Water Budget Spreadsheet. 3. It is difficult to define where the 26,445 square feet came from for the “Actual total catchment (subwatershed) area designed for this WHIA including the WHIA area itself in (square feet) line 14 on the spreadsheet? This comment is related to the previous comment number 2 above. The Cover Sheet calls the area of disturbance 59,439 square feet. If the WHIA’s are Rainfall only, then the WHIA Area and the “Actual total catchment (subwatershed) area designed for this WHIA including the WHIA area itself in (square feet) line 14 on the spreadsheet should be the same area in square feet. Please reach out to discuss if needed for CRWHP clarification. 4. Coordinate WHIA basins on the CRWHP to the civil grading plan. Currently there are no WHIA basins shown on the grading plan. The plans should match, including flow direction arrows from the new roof top, downspouts, splashpads, scuppers and curb cuts. 5. Possibly add shrub locations within the basin on detail 11 on sheet L201 for clarity during construction. 6. The salvage saguaro and barrels are difficult to locate on the plan. Can a letter “S” or “T” be added to the plant symbol for simple locating on the plan for review and for field inspection? 7. Add emitter drip tubing @ shrub detail to compliment the tree emitter detail on sheet L202. 8. Tree staking notes are included in the tree planting detail. Should a time period advisement for removal of tree stakes be added to the General Landscape Notes 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. 9. Comment for conversation about best practices: Is staking healthy trees (whether single truck or multi trunk) a necessity in your opinion? Let me know what you and your team think about tree staking. 10. Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0924-00272, 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 |
||
| 10/17/2024 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Loran Shamis PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: Passport Center Development Package (1st Review) TD-DEV-0924-00272 (7333 E Rosewood St) TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 17, 2024 DUE DATE: October 18, 2024 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. 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 9, 2025. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) 1. COMMENT: Include a note stating the proposed uses are Commercial - Administrative and Professional Office and Storage – Commercial Storage. The UDC does not identify “Warehouse” as a use but would be identified as “Commercial Storage”. 2. COMMENT: 2-06.3.12 – Include Sheets 11-17 in the index of sheets. The plan set contains 17 sheets but only 10 sheets are accounted for in the index – please update to include all the sheets of the plan set. 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.2.B – Include a brief legal description in the title block in the lower right hand corner of each sheet. Pima County Assessor’s legal description is “GATEWAY CENTER BLK 2 LOT 2 AND ELY PTN LOT 5 BLK 3” 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0924-00272, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.6 – Please include the entire Planned Area Development Zone on the cover sheet by reducing the scale of the map on the cover sheet. Zoning acknowledges the map on the cover sheet however, the map should include the entire PAD’s boundaries. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.a – Clarify the difference in square footage stated in the building footprint for the proposed Building 2 “New Warehouse Addition” and the square footage stated in the parking calculation for “New Warehouse”. The building footprint states 3,888 sq ft and the parking calculation states 4,069 sq ft. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b – Provide a calculation to demonstrate compliance with the PAD-3 document (page IX-39), Development Area 2 has a maximum building coverage 90% at ground level; 60% above ground level. 8. COMMENT: Provide a calculation to demonstrate compliance with the PAD-3 document (page IX-39), Development Area 2 has a maximum floor area ratio of 1.0. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.c – Include a note stating the percentage of expansion since the last approved site plan. The last approved site plans, DP20-0144 and D08-0004, was for 75,244 square feet. If the expansion is greater than 25%, all standards in UDC Sections 7.4, Motor Vehicle And Bicycle Parking, and 7.5, Off-Street Loading, are required for the entire site for Zoning. If it is less than 25%, compliance is required for the proposed expansion. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.B - There is a 13.5’ wide existing easement at the property line along E Rosewood St, on both sides of the street, per M&P BK 39, Pg 36 labeled as Easement A, include the easement on the site plan and label. 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.B – Include a note stating there is an existing Cross Access Agreement between Lot 2, Block 2 and Lot 5, Block 3 and provide the recordation information - DKT 10849, PG 578-579. 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.4 – Label E. Rosewood St as “Private” and provide the following recordation information “(M&P, BK 39, PG 36)”. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Per UDC 7.4.6.F.b, access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall, screen, other obstruction over six inches. The additional area is necessary to provide clearance for fire, sanitation, and delivery vehicles. Dimension the distance between the proposed Building 2 wall and the PAAL – the minimum required setback is two feet (2’). 14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Ensure there is a barrier, such as 6” vertical curbing, to accomplish the 2’ setback from the PAAL and to protect the building wall (UDC 7.4.6.H.1). 15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – It appears the expansion is less than 25%, please verify by providing an expansion calculation. Per UDC 7.4.3.E, if the expansion is 25% or greater or if a series of expansions cumulatively results in 25% or greater expansion in floor area, the requirements of UDC 7.4 apply to the entire site. If the expansion is less than 25% in floor area, the requirements of this section apply only to the proposed expansion. The last approved site plans, DP20-0144 and D08-0004, was for 75,244 square feet. According to the floor area provided in the parking calculation, the proposed building area is 18,671 square feet, which is a 24.8% expansion. Verify the square footage is correct and provide the percent expansion on the plans. 16. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – In the parking calculation for ADA parking, provide the number of ADA van accessible spaces and label on the site plan the ADA van accessible spaces. For every six or fraction of six accessible spaces, at least one shall be van-accessible parking. 17. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a -The minimum requirement for Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) for Administrative and Professional Office use is 5% of required parking (49 spaces) is to be EV Ready (2 spaces) and 15% (7 spaces) is to be EV Capable. Refer to UDC 7.4.12 for Design Criteria. There is no minimum EVSE requirement for the Storage – Commercial Storage use. Provide the EVSE parking calculations and indicate on the site plan where the EVSE parking spaces are located. 18. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Per UDC 7.4.11.B.2 four percent (4%) but no less than one electric vehicle charging space must be accessible compliant. These spaces are separate from the required ADA accessible parking spaces. 1 (one) space of the 9 required EVSE parking spaces shall be accessible. Label the accessible EVSE parking space and demonstrate accessibility requirements. 19. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Correct the bicycle parking calculation as there should be 2 additional long-term bicycle parking spaces required. The minimum bicycle parking requirement for Commercial Storage is none (0) short-term spaces, and 1 long-term space per 40,000 sq ft gross floor area with a minimum of 2 spaces required (UDC, Table 7.4.8-1). 20. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Dimension the sidewalk proposed around Building 3 – New Training Center. Per Technical Standards Manual (TSM) 7-01.4.3.A the minimum required width of the sidewalk is 4’. 21. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Connect the pedestrian circulation path to the trash enclosure per TSM 7-01.4.3.A. 22. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.S – Dimension the sidewalk in the right of way (TSM 10-01.2.7). ***For additional information on the any standard presented in this memo, please refer to the City of Tucson “Unified Development Code” – Administrative Manual Section 2-06 or Technical Standards noted in the comments. https://www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/all-codes-plans-determinations or the Gateway Center Specific Plan If you have any questions about this transmittal, Contact Loran Shamis by email Loran.Shamis@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package and comment response letter. To resubmit visit Tucson Development Center at https://tdc-online.tucsonaz.gov/#/home. Instructions for resubmittal - https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/website/Resubmittals.pdf. |
||
| 10/09/2024 | CDRC Application Completeness | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 10/15/2024 | CDRC Review Coordinator | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC added TEP PAG, USPS, SWG to the workflow. Review request email sent to TEP. FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. | ||
| 10/15/2024 | External Reviewers - Pima Association of Governments | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 10/15/2024 | External Reviewers - Southwest Gas | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 11/13/2024 | External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) | REVIEW COMPLETED | November 13, 2024 WO#T131001 City of Tucson Planning and Development Services Attn: CDRC Admin Team Dear CDRC Admin Team Subject: Tucson Passport Center TD-DEV-0924-00272 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted 10/15/2024. There are existing facilities within the development which are depicted upon the plan; there are existing primary ducts which must remain a minimum of 3’ deep and feeder which must remain 4’ deep. If grading changes this customer will be responsible for relocation and costs associated. Further, recorded instrument for existing facilities has been attached, please see Docket 10115 Page 17. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer. To apply for electric service, please call the New Construction department at (520) 918- 8300. Please submit a final set of plans including approved site, electric load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans. If available, include a PDF version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Should you have any easement questions, please contact our Land Resources Department, LandReviews@tep.com. Should you have any technical questions, please contact the area designer, Cassie Pettitt (520) 330-2430 cpettitt@tep.com Sincerely, Design Admins Design Admins Tucson Electric Power |
||
| 10/15/2024 | External Reviewers - United States Postal Service (USPS) | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 10/15/2024 | OK to Submit - Engineering | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 10/16/2024 | ROW Engineering Review | REVIEW COMPLETED | DTM has no comments. |