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: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP16-0184
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/26/2016 | KROBLES1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/26/2016 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Passed | Sent to agency for notification purposes only. Agency does not need to respond. |
| 10/26/2016 | AHINES2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Passed | Sent to agency for notification purposes only. Agency does not need to respond. |
| 10/26/2016 | AHINES2 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Passed | Sent to agency for notification purposes only. Agency does not need to respond. |
| 10/26/2016 | AHINES2 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | Sent to agency for notification purposes only. Agency does not need to respond. |
| 10/27/2016 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | Zoning Condition I.B. will not apply to this parcel since it does not have any frontage on Rodeo Wash. No existing or proposed Tucson Parks and Recreation facilities are affected by this development. Howard B. Dutt, RLA Landscape Architect Tucson Parks & Recreation (520) 837-8040 Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov |
| 10/28/2016 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 11/03/2016 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera for Steve Shields - Principal Planner PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: Dock Hi Industrial - 2850 E Drexel Road - P-I / I-1 Zoning Development Package (1st Review) DP16-0184 Commercial Storage Use TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 3, 2016 DUE DATE: November 22, 2016 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 21, 2017. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) Section 1. COMMENT: Zoning is requesting that Parcel Tax Code numbers be combined through the Pima County Assessor's office prior to final approval of the DP. 2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 2. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP16-0184, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 2-06.4.7.A.7 - If the property is part of a subdivision plat that is being reviewed or has been recorded, provide the case number in the lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note, indicate whether the project is part of a Flexible Lot Development (FLD), condominium, or another similar type project. 3. COMMENT: List as reference the subdivision case number S98-021 in the lower right corner of all DP plan sheets. 2-06.4.7.C.2 - List the following note on all development package documents: "No structure or vegetation shall be located or maintained so as to interfere with the sight visibility triangles in accordance with Section 10-01.5.0, Sight Visibility, of the Technical Standards Manual." 4. COMMENT: Revise the SVT section number in general note 10 "Section 10-10.5.0". 2-06.4.9.E - Proposed land splits or existing lot lines shall be drawn on the plan with dimensions and the identification number and approximate square footage of each lot. (Please be aware that, if land division occurs and the number of lots falls within the definition of subdivision, a subdivision plat is required.) Land splits require a separate permit and review. 5. COMMENT: Provide or include as reference any documents that were prepared and approved by PDSD for the lot split that was recorded in 2011. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided. 6. COMMENT: Clarify if the long term bicycle parking facilities will be in a locked room, or an area enclosed by a fence? 2-06.4.9.M - Grading Plan 2-06.4.9.M.1 - A conceptual grading plan is required on projects with significant topographic conditions. The PDSD Engineering Administrator or designee will determine the need for such a plan. 2-06.4.9.M.2 - Concurrent Review. For all projects, grading plans may be included in the development package and will be reviewed concurrently. 7. COMMENT: Once the DP site plan is approved the Grading plan is also approved by zoning as it relates to the zoning review purview. Assure that any changes that are made to the DP site plan are also made to the all other site sheets, landscape grading etc. 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 8. COMMENT: If applicable demonstrate compliance with the rezoning conditions that impact this development by submitting a separate response memo to the rezoning conditions. 2-06.4.9.X - Show compliance with landscaping and screening requirements by locations, material descriptions, and dimensions. Specific plant or hardscape material shall be detailed on a landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan is required. In accordance with Section 2-11.0.0, Landscape Plan Requirements. 9. COMMENT: See the Landscape reviewer comments. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 11/04/2016 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/04/2016 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: November 7, 2016 DUE DATE: November 22, 2016 SUBJECT: Dock-Hi Industrial TO: Rick Engineeering LOCATION: 2850 East Drexel Road REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM ACTIVITY: DP16-0184 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. The following items need to be addressed: 1) Per AM 2-06.4.3 please add the case number (DP16-0184). 2) Section 3.2 of the Drainage Report describes an 18" Bleeder Pipe (with a 6-inch orifice plate at the upstream end of the Pipe). Per UDC 7.14.3, Sections 3.2.2 and 2.2 the 5-year threshold retention must occur via infiltration without any of this volume being released through the bleed pipe. Please update the narrative of section 3.2 of the drainage report to reflect this requirement and update the invert elevations as required to ensure infiltration of the 5-year threshold retention volume. Please also provide calculations to show that the volume being provided below the bleed pipe inverts match the volumes called out as retention volumes. 3) Per UDC 7.14.3, Section 3.5.1, item 3a and 5 the soils report needs to include infiltration testing to show that the retention basin drains in less than 12 hours. Per Tucson Code Chapter 26-2 (retention system) the drainage report needs to apply a safety factor of 2 to the raw infiltration value required in the Soils report for purposes of showing 12 hour infiltration. See also UDC 7.14.4, Section 14.5, item 9 for safety factor requirement. Section 1.0 of the Soils report indicates that it is not known whether detention/retention is required. Please perform an infiltration test and update this section accordingly. 4) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 2.3.1.4 please refer to appendix F within the narrative of section 4.3 of the drainage report for ease and clarity of reference. 5) Please update Section 4.4 of the drainage report to reflect the requirements of Tucson Code Section 26-7.2 regarding minimum setback requirements between the stabilized banks and the structure. The standard setback for access and maintenance is 20 feet. Please also show the minimum setback on figure 4 and sheets 4, 9 of the development package. Please also update cross section N/18 in the development package. 6) Per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 and Section 3.9 (page 14) of the Soils report, concrete pavement should have at least 4,000 psi compressive strength and 600 psi flexural strength. Please update grading note 9 on sheet 2 and details C and J on sheet 17 accordingly. 7) General Note 26 on sheet 2 requires compliance with Soils Report recommendations for basin bottoms. The Soils Report should be updated to provide such recommendations. 8) Development Plan General Note 4 has a typo in it on sheet 1. Please correct accordingly. 9) Keynote 1 is listed on sheet 4 without being called out in plan view on this sheet. Please update accordingly. 10) A Keynote 3 is being called out over the 6' sidewalk area on sheets 4 and 7. This keynote is listed as being a valley gutter. Please update accordingly. Keynote 6 on sheet 11 refers to this as SD 208. 11) Please call out the 6' sidewalk along Drexel Road as either existing or proposed. If it is proposed, please provide a standard Detail reference on sheet 4. 12) Sheet 6 has shading (without triangles) in the legend that does not match a shading pattern (with triangles) where it appears concrete paving is intended. Please clarify per AM 2-06.3.10. 13) Keynote 8 on sheets 4, 5, and 6 refers to detail H/17 where a 5' wide ramp is called out. The space shown on sheets 4, 5 and 6 and detail K/17 does not appear to allow for a 5' width when compared with the 6.5' wide dimension for the combined vertical curb and sidewalk area. Please review and make appropriate adjustments. 14) The Canada Wash is an ERZ Wash. Per TSM 4-02.1.1 please provide an Environmental Resource Report that will document those areas to be preserved. See Sheet 19 mark ups for area of concern. Sheets 47 to 53 should be amended to reflect the impacts to this wash north of Drexel. 15) Per AM 2-06.4.8I and AM 2-06.4.9N6 please provide callouts for existing and proposed conditions floodplain limits on sheet 8. 16) Keynote 12 on sheets 8 to 16 refers to detail X/18 instead of W/18. Per UDC 7.6.6C hardscape surfaces need to be sloped towards water harvesting areas. Please update accordingly. Please note that keynote 13 is called out being routed into one of these water harvesting areas as shown on sheet 10. There may need to be a keynote 14 callout at this location on sheet 10. 17) Keynotes 19 to 21 and 23 on sheets 8 to 16 refer to detail T/18. This detail does not show a curb opening as described in the keynote description. Please update accordingly. 18) Concentration points 1PB.2 to 1PB.4 show curb openings of 3 to 5 feet width required per Figure 7 of the drainage report. Sheet 8 only shows a single 3 foot wide curb opening shown via keynote 18 where these are designed to be. Please update accordingly. 19) Concentration points 1PB.5 to 1 PB.7 show curb openings of of 3 to 5 feet wdith required per figure 7 of the drainage report. Sheet 8 only shows a single 7 foot wide curb opening shown via keynote 21 where these are designed to be. Please update accordingly. 20) Basin 2, on sheet 8, shows the same 0.16 CF of retained flow as also being detained flow. How are these two volumes the same when we have a bleed pipe. Please clarify in drainage report narrative. Please note that a waiver to do detention instead of retention has not been granted. 21) Detail W/18 is called out between basins 1 and 2 on sheet 8. This should be where detail U/18 is called out. 22) There is concern that the four 48" SRPs planned for the Canada Wash Crossing from Drexel may sediment in. Per UDC 7.14.4 please evaluate this per equation 11.9 of the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual or other appropriate industry methodology. 23) Figure 7 does not provide information related to the sizing of the 10' wide curb opening called out by keynote 22 on sheet 9. Please update accordingly per UDC 7.14.4, Section 2.3.1.5 requirements. 24) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 11.3.1, Step 4f the engineer should show how the procedures contained in the Hydraulic Design of Highway Culverts (HDS-5) are being complied with for the bends in the culverts shown in detail X/18 as called out on sheet 8. Sedimentation is a concern. 25) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 8.5.4 a minimum key-in of 18" is required where minor side drainage is being routed into the channel on sheet 8 (about 20' west of the main entry road at a finished grade of 78.2). Please provide a transition detail from the 12" key-in provided at other locations along this channel. 26) There is a missing opening for a curb opening on sheet 12 at the south side of basin 3. Concentration Point 2PC.4 on requires a 5 foot wide curb opening at this location. Please update using keynote 20 per AM 2-06.4.9N3. 27) Keynote 10 on sheets 8 to 16 refers to detail R/18 for the retaining wall detail. This should refer to detail Q/18. 28) Keynote 15 is being called out on sheet 11 with a top of wall grade of 84.2, a finished grade (1) of 80.56 and a finished grade (2) of 84.2. This should be called out by keynote 10. 29) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 8.5.4 please evaluate the side drainage entering the channel, as called out by detail L/18 on sheets 11, 13 and 15, from the east for an increase in key-in depth from 12" to 18". 30) Detail W/18 is called out on sheet 12 as outlet detail for basin 5. This is where detail V/18 should be called out with an invert elevation such that threshold retention requirements are met through full infiltration. Provide a calculation within the drainage report with invert elevations summarized in figure 7, or equivalent figure, and a table within the narrative. 31) Keynote 21 should be called out instead of keynote 20 at the southern entry point of basin 4 (ie. CP 2PC.6) on sheet 12 of the plans based on figure 7 requirements for a 7' wide curb opening in the drainage report. 32) Keynote 21 only provides a 7' wide curb opening at Concentration Point 2PC.7 where figure 8 requires an 8' wide curb opening. Please update accordingly. 33) Cross Section R/18 is overlaid on top of basin 5 on sheet 12. This detail is labeled Basin 7 and outlet weir on sheet 18. Please update accordingly. 34) Sheet 12 shows an outlet weir elevation of 80.50 for a 50 foot wide weir that outlets from basin 5. Detail R/18 also shows a weir elevation of 80.5 for this location. The retention basin summary on page 8 of the drainage report shows an outlet weir elevation of 2579.5 for basin 5. The Appendix E - Flow and Flood Routing Models do not show in input value for the Weir elevation for basin 5. Please clarify by adding input values in appendix E and being consistent with those input values throughout the drainage report and plans. 35) Please call out an 8' wide curb opening on sheet 14 for the inlet point into basin 5 from the parking lot area. 36) There is a top of curb callout that is missing a corresponding spot grade on sheet 14 near the south side of the plan sheet. Please update accordingly. 37) Figure 7 has a spot grade of 2574 for the upstream invert of the two 36" culverts out letting from basin 7. There is no corresponding inlet/invert elevation for these pipes on sheet 15. Please show that retention is being fully accomplished by infiltration and call out the upstream invert elevations for the two 36" culverts on sheet 15 accordingly. 38) Keynote 18 on sheets 15 and 16 is calling for the construction of detail V/18. This is a bleed pipe detail instead of outlet protection as described in keynote 18. Please update the detail callout in keynote 18 accordingly. 39) Keynote 15 is called out over the outlet protection that conveys flow to basin 6 on sheet 15. While there is line work for a proposed security fence here, there is also outlet protection that would normally be called out by keynote. The Flow Line spot grade of 77.40 is show off to the side of where the outlet protection is. Please revisit configuration and make sure the security fence works with the outlet protection and the flow line spot grade is called out at the appropriate location. 40) Keynote 22 is called out at the inlet location to basin 6 where figure 7 shows a 38' curb opening is required for concentration point 2PA.1. Keynote 22 is called out but only calls for a 10 foot wide opening. Please update the keynote callout and ensure it refers to the correct detail . Keynote 23 erroneously refers to detail T/18. 41) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 10.3, item 9 the storm drain shown on sheet 19 is required to be RCP in the right-of-way. The 12' radius called out for these culverts/storm drains appears to be in error. Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 10.9.1, item 18, the minimum radius of curvature for bends shall be 100 feet. A straight storm drain is required if possible. 42) Sheets 16 and 24 shows what appears to be a physical conflict between the sewer junction/manhole and the 48" diameter storm drain system. Please see UDC 7.14.4, Section 10.9.1, item 20 for details of 2' separation regulations for sewer pipe and storm drains that should be addressed. 43) Keynote 15 on sheet 26 calls for underground electric. The line type that this keynote refers to does not match the legend on this sheet. E vs UGE. Please be consistent. 44) The stabilized construction entrance on sheet 27 refers to note 2 which references appendix K which references a reinforced concrete wash rack for ditches intended to carry wash water. Since this construction entrance is intended to cross into a wash and note 2 references appendix K with this detail it would be helpful if the dimensions of the concrete wash rack were included in the callout on sheet 27 or it use or lack of use clarified beyond a reference to appendix K as contained in note 2. Referring to 1" to 3" coarse aggregate and the concrete wash rack or just the coarse aggregate on sheet 27 would be helpful to understand the intent of the engineer. 45) Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the geotechnical report lists the requirement that the entire site be either supported completely on very dense undisturbed native soil, or alternatively, entirely on engineered fill. At least 18" of engineered fill is required beneath the bottom of all footings and 12" of engineered fill beneath the building slab. Please review the requirements in these sections of the geotechnical report and provide appropriate general notes to address both the currently proposed structure based on its FFE called out on the plans and the future structure that does not show a FFE on these plans. If you have any comments questions or wish to discuss new information, please call or email me at 520-837-5007 or paul.baughman@tucsonaz.gov. |
| 11/14/2016 | AHINES2 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Approv-Cond | November 8, 2016 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on DP16-0184, Dock-Hi Industrial; 1st Submittal, a development package application for an approximately 21.76 acre site, located to the southwest of the intersection of East Drexel Road and South Country Club Road. The proposed land use is commercial. This site is within the Tucson International Airport avigation easement requirements and public disclosure area, City of Tucson Airport Environs Zone (UDC 5.6), City of Tucson Airport Environs Zone Airport Hazard District (UDC 5.6.11), FAA traffic pattern airspace, and FAA Part 77 airspace. The applicant shall file Form 7460 with the FAA at least 45 days before construction begins. Any cranes used for the project must also be identified with Form 7460. Please file Form 7460 at https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp. The Tucson Airport Authority conditionally approves the subject request contingent upon the following condition of approval, as noted below. This condition should be identified in the general notes of the approved development plan. Condition of approval: "That prior to the City's approval of any construction permit for a permanent building, the property owner shall record the Avigation Easement prior to the subdivision process which discloses the existence, and operational characteristics of the Tucson International Airport to future owners or tenants of the property and further conveys the right to the public to lawfully use the airspace above the property. The content of such documents shall be according to the form and instructions provided." "That development shall not cause or potentially affect aviation in the vicinity of the site, including but not limited to, physical obstructions to aircraft operations, interference with operations by way of electrical static, visual obstructions through emissions or glare, and/or the open storage of petroleum products, explosive materials, or materials which attract or lead to the concentration of wildlife." The current property owner or person authorized to sign on behalf of the current property owner shall complete, sign, and record the Avigation Easement. Once the Avigation Easement is recorded please send a copy of the recorded easement to Tucson Airport Authority by either email (send to srobidoux@flytucson.com) or to the mailing address provided below. Scott Robidoux Airport Planner Tucson Airport Authority 7250 South Tucson Boulevard Suite 300 Tucson, AZ 85756 Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding this comment letter. I can be reached by email at srobidoux@flytucson.com or by telephone at 520-573-4811. Respectfully, Scott Robidoux, Airport Planner cc MS file |
| 11/17/2016 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Reqs Change | November 17, 2016 ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP16-0184 PROJECT NAME: Doc-Hi Industrial PROJECT ADDRESS: 2850 E Drexel Rd PROJECT REVIEWER: Zelin Canchola TDOT Resubmittal Required. A revised Plan is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the plan. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 1. The proposed improvements in right of way, as outlined in the Traffic impact analysis, are acceptable. However a left turn lane to the driveways will be required according to the rezoning conditions. "Owner/Developer to install interim left turn lane widening at any proposed access points to Drexel road". 2. At time of construction a private improvement agreement (PIA) will be required. Existing striping may need to be refinished to accommodate new driveways. 3. Driveways/curb cuts maximum width according to City Code Sec 25-39 is 35 feet. Max cut at property line is 30 feet. Adjust eastern driveway to meet this requirement. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520 837 6659 or zelin.canchola@tucsonaz.gov |
| 11/18/2016 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1) FLOODWAY FRINGE DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS: Not unnecessarily alter riparian habitats of watercourse and adjacent bank areas. This project impacts on and off-site habitat. 2) EXTENT OF RIPARIAN HABITAT: Combinations of overstory and understory vegetation that together constitute valuable habitat, and tobasa swales. TSM 4-02.2.3.A.4 3) DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS: the first consideration in approaching alternative drainage design concepts shall be to maintain the natural configuration to reduce exposure to flood and erosion hazards as well as promote groundwater recharge. Where natural washes cannot be maintained, a mitigation plan shall be established with emphasis being placed on earthen or naturally appearing channels with landscaping and texture/color added to bank protection materials. The design of earthen channels will be encouraged in order to allow for a more permeable surface which permits reintroduction of the water into the groundwater system, allowing for the reintroduction of native plant species which promotes a natural, partially soil-stabilized system. TCC SEC 26-8(A)3 The project does not attempt a natural configuration. 4) RIPARIAN MITIGATION: Revegetation should recreate the lost functions and values of the riparian habitat through the planting of native trees, shrubs, understory plants and seed mix native to the site which will result in comparable habitat that is equal to the predisturbance habitat in area, plant density, diversity, and volume on the net site. Revegetation should be conducted over a sufficient area to accomplish the following mitigation ratios while accomplishing the specified plant density, diversity and volume of the impacted area. TSM 4-02.2.5.B.3.a.1 5) BASIN DESIGN: Stormwater Runoff: Storm water detention/retention basins not integrated with paved vehicular use areas must be designed in accordance with the Storm Water Detention Retention Manual. UDC 7.6.6.C.1 6) BASIN SLOPES: Slopes for basins 3 feet deep and greater are required to be no steeper than 4:1. SRDM P. 86 7) Security Barriers: Barriers are required for slopes steeper than 4:1 where water depths exceed two feet. Vegetative barriers are recommended and also serve to meet the landscape requirements below. SRDM P. 90 8) Basin landscape TREES: Provide a minimum of twenty trees per acre. SRDM P. 99 SHRUBS: A minimum of 2 shrubs for each tree is recommended. SRDM P.100 |
| 11/21/2016 | AHINES2 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | I have no issues with this review, at this time. CSO Cindy Dunn #39119 Commnity Resource CSO Tucson Police Dept/ODS 4410 S. Park Ave Tucson, AZ 85714 520-837-2860 Cynthia.Dunn@tucsonaz.gov |
| 11/22/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | The current plumbing code is the International Plumbing Code (see Private Water and Backflow Assembly Notes, sheet 3 of 53). |
| 11/23/2016 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items: 1) Two rolled sets of the plans 2) All items requested by review staff 3) All items needed to approve this plan |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/06/2017 | ARUIZ1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |