Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - DP20-0159
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/25/2021 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/15/2021 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Optimum Inc Development Package (2nd Review) DP20-0159 TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 15, 2021 DUE DATE: June 17, 2021 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. 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). The review comments include the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above 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 August 08, 2021. 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 1. This comment was not addressed correctly, Construction Services is not part of the Industrial Use Group. Please clarify what the primary use is. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - The use called out under GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN NOTE 3 is not correct. The UDC does not have a use of "COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION" but it appears that the proposed use should be Construction Services. Also include the applicable Use Specific Standard, 4.9.13.Q. Remove the reference to "INDUSTRIAL GROUP" as construction services is part of the Commercial Use Group. Also clarify what the proposed use is as GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN NOTE 3 calls out a different use than what is called out under the parking calculation. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 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. 2. The vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Per UDC TABLE 7.4.4-1: MINIMUM NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLE SPACES REQUIRED, COMMERCIAL SERVICES USE GROUP, Construction Services the required parking for all building is based on 1 space per 300 sq. ft. GFA. Construction Services is not part of the Industrial Use Group. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Based on a construction services use the vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Construction services is parked at 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. This includes all buildings on site including storage containers. Until the proposed use is clarified the required number of vehicle parking spaces cannot be verified. 3. This comment was not addressed. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Detail 4 sheet 1 does not match what is proposed on site. The site only shows 2 racks, provide a detail that matches what is shown on the plan. The distance shown between racks is not correct and should be 4' clear, see UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.f. Detail 4 should also address UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1.e, 7.4.9.B.2.d, .f & .h. 4. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - The plan now shows the bicycle parking north of Building #1 as Long-term but it appears that this is the short-term bicycle parking as shows two (2) racks. Clarify which bicycle parking is shown north of Building #1, short- or long-term and then show the other short- or long-term on the plan. 5. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - If the bicycle parking shown north of Building #1 is the short-term and there are two (2) racks than the provide number of short-term bicycle parking space shown within the calculation should be four (4) provided, see UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.d. 6. This comment was not fully addressed, provided the square footage of the storage container shown on the plan. 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the height for building #1 within the footprint and provide the height and square footage for all storage containers. 7. 2-06.4.9.Q - The "BUILDING HEIGHT: ALLOWED (25'-0") is not correct. Per UDC Table 6.3-5.A: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE P-I, I-2, & I-2 ZONES, I-2 zone the maximum allowed height is 140'. 2-06.4.7.A.6.a – Zoning acknowledges that this comment should have been made on the first review but as other comments still need to be addressed revise General Notes 6 & 7 to reflect the correct UDC Articles not the LUC as you have shown. 8. Remove all clouds and deltas from the plans as this plan has not been approved. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Elisa Hamblin at ElisaHamblin@tucsonaz.gov. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 06/21/2021 | AWARNER1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department, Plans Coordination FROM: Anne Warner, PLA PDSD Landscape/Native Plant Preservation Section PROJECT: Optimum Inc. ACTIVITY NO: DP20-0159 Address: 8500 E Old Vail Rd Parcel: 141-11-030B Zoning: I-1 Existing Use: Construction Services Proposed Use: Construction Services Expansion TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 21.2021 DUE DATE: June 17, 2021 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Landscape Review Section comments were addressed. 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. 1. Clouds and deltas are not allowed on Development Packages, please remove. 2. UDC 2-10.4.1 Identification and Descriptive Data A. All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan. The development package will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet: Any relevant case numbers for reviews or modifications that affect the site. Provide Case # on each sheet. Ensure that Zoning and Engineering comments are addressed prior to landscape section approval. 3. Provide construction details or reference sheet and detail numbers on civil drawings that show bike racks, walkways, water harvesting areas, retaining and screening walls. 4. Provide a maintenance schedule for the landscape and irrigation for this project. UDC 2-10-4.2.A.4. 5. A Commercial Water Harvesting Plan is required in conformance to UDC Technical Standards Manual – Section 4-01.0.0. Commercial Rainwater Harvesting and Section 5-01.0.0 Landscaping and Screening 6. Clearly show curb inlets on both grading and landscape plans to allow runoff to drain into the landscape areas. 7. The existing landscape along Old Vail Road is over 30 years old and has declined. If it is the intent to use the existing vegetation to count towards the required landscape street border, the plants must be cleaned up, pruned, and irrigated. 8. The landscape has been cleared at the northwest area of the site, and additional plant material is required to comply with UDC 7.4.. Provide calculations and show landscape that complies with the 50% vegetative coverage. 9. Raked earth is not permitted, either cover landscape areas with decomposed granite or hydroseed. 10. Trees are required within the parking areas at the rate of 1 canopy tree/4 spaces, 6 trees are required. Existing trees can be counted, as long as they are within 40’ of parking spaces. 11. New landscape areas shall be depressed 6-9” to allow runoff to drain into water harvesting areas. 12. Please clean up the graphic conflicts so plans are readable. 13. General Note No. 1 and 2 are not clear. 14. Provide an as-built irrigation plan if irrigation is existing. 15. Provide a seed list if hydroseeding. 16. UDC info in the upper right corner is not necessary except for the percentage of expansion calculation. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package If you have any questions, please contact me at anne.warner@tucsonaz.gov |
| 06/25/2021 | SBLOOD1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. See previous comment 9 - Show existing sidewalk on Old Vail Rd. Show cross slopes and running slope to show compliance. - I don't see where that was addressed on C-3 2. See previous comment 11 - Per TSM section 10-01.3.2.C. At the intersections of streets with other streets or collector or arterial streets with PAALs/Driveways, the curb lines will be connected with a curve having the minimum radius shown in Figure 6, measured at the face of the curb. Show the radius of the new driveways apron connecting to Old Vail Rd. - The updated plans show an 18' radius but the minimum radius shown in figure 6 is 25'. Please revise. 3. See previous comment 12 - Sheet C-4 - update general note 8 to be in compliance with TSM section 10-01.5.1.A.1 - Doesn't look like this note changed, the datum for the 30" and 6' should be measured from the gutter line and not the finished grade. 4. See previous comment 13 - Sheet C-2 - Show that there is sufficient vehicular maneuvering area to preclude a vehicle from having to back out onto Vail Rd. For all access gates show that there is sufficient vehicle turn around area. - East entrance looks good but west entrance still needs addressed. Historical aerial photos show that the gate was installed sometime between the 2000 and 2005 from the aerials, but we don't have record of any approved plans that show the gate proposed. Just because it was intalled doesn't mean it ever got approved. The two solutions discussed were either providing approved plans that show the gate or showing the gate removed on the current plans in review. 5. See previous comments 17 and 18 - Provide spot grades in all depressed water harvesting areas. Spot grades to take in account the depth of ground cover proposed. Provide construction details of existing/expanded water harvesting basin and detention/retention basins on site. - Either provide a detail/diagram showing the construction of the basins or provide enough information on the site plan that clearly shows elements such as but not limited to side slopes, top and bottom of slopes all along the bottom of basin to ensure the entire basin will hold the 6" proposed. 6. See previous comment 27 - All sheets please clean up text overlapping, dimension lines and label pointing to nothing. - Doesn't seem like this was addressed. Both Sheets C-2 and C-3 have several text blocks that are hard to read due to bold spot elevation label overlapping or linework overlapping with several labels still pointing to nothing. Still very hard to read some text. Stephen Blood (520) 837-4958 Stephen.blood@tucsonaz.gov |
| 06/28/2021 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Email from: COTDSDPermits To: George Lance Mon 6/28/2021 10:38 AM Returned for Corrections Notice PERMIT/ACTIVITY: DP20-0159 DESCRIPTION: SITE/GRADING - Optima Inc, new building and driveway. 8500 E OLD VAIL RD FEE BALANCE: $0 (zero) Thank you for the payment. INCLUDE IN YOUR RESUBMITTAL 1) Comment Response Letter (your response to the reviewer's Requires Change comments) 2) Plan Set (all pages, full set, even if no changes were made) 3) Any other documents requested by review staff Please title your 3rd submittal documents according to this example: 3_Comment Response Letter, 01.01.21 FILEDROP https://docs.tucsonaz.gov/Forms/tucsonpermitapp (Select "Existing Application", then enter the permit number) SEE REVIEW COMMENTS and documents on PRO: www.tucsonaz.gov/pro (If information is not available, check back later after data transfers to PRO.) - Home page, Activity Search, enter the Activity/Permit Number - Permits - click on blue tab and you will see different sections - Reviews section - click on REVIEW DETAILS - Documents section - click on VIEW Sharon Beasley, Permit Specialist City of Tucson, Planning and Development Services Email for Development Pkgs: COTDSDpermits@TucsonAz.gov (disregard the email response that will be sent automatically) Email for Building Permits: PDSDinquiries@TucsonAz.gov |