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 - DP21-0042
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/26/2021 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/26/2021 | SBEASLE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Passed | |
| 02/26/2021 | SBEASLE1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Passed | |
| 02/26/2021 | SBEASLE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 03/03/2021 | SBEASLE1 | COT NON-DSD | REVIEW | Approved | 03/03/21 The Transit Services Division and Sun Tran have no comments. Thank you, Christopher Blue Transit Services Coordinator | Transit Services Division Department of Transportation & Mobility C: 520.260.9558 |
| 03/16/2021 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL 4.1 dentification and Descriptive Data 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 may be needed and should contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet: Any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site. Add case number DP21-042 on each sheet. Ensure that Zoning, Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior to landscape section approval. Additional comments may apply |
| 03/16/2021 | SBEASLE1 | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Reqs Change | (The ATTACHED PDF mentioned below can be viewed online: www.TucsonAz.gov/Pro. See the Documents section.) 03/15/21 Vault at Houghton Road, DP21-0042 - 1st submittal is being Returned for Corrections by Pima County Addressing. The attached pdf contains Addressing’s comments. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Robin Freiman, Addressing Official Pima County Development Services Department 201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 724-7570 |
| 03/16/2021 | JPEELDA1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Reqs Change | All portions of each new building regardless of size shall be within 400' of a hydrant as the hose lays and or fire sprinklers shall be installed. Questions Jennifer Peel-Davis Jennifer.Peel-Davis@tucsonaz.gov 520-837-7033 |
| 03/16/2021 | SBEASLE1 | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | 03/16/21 No existing or proposed Tucson Parks and Recreation facilities are affected by this development. Howard B. Dutt, RLA Landscape Architect Tucson Parks and Recreation (520) 837-8040 |
| 03/17/2021 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: Development Services Department Zoning Review PROJECT: South Houghton Road/Retail/Self Storage Facility Development Package (1st Review) DP21-0042 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 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). 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 February 21, 2022. 2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIRMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.2.4 - he development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently. That said remove sheets A002 – A405 & E002 – E006 from the development package as they are not site related and require separate submittal and review.2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2. COMMENT: 2-06.3.5 – Remove the “DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE PDSD APPROVAL” stamp from all sheets and provide a three-inch by five-inch space in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for an electronic approval stamp. 3. COMMENT: 2-06.3.7 – Provide a small, project-location map shall be provided in the upper right corner of the cover sheet that meets the requirements of AM Section 2-06.4.4 below. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.3.8 - The north arrow, contour interval, and scale as applicable to each sheet should be placed together in the upper right corner of each sheet. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.1 – Provide the email address for all contacts listed under the Project Directory. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.2.B – Provide a brief legal description within the title block on all sheets. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.2.D – Provide the page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx) on all sheets of the development package. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, DP21-0042, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4 - The project-location map to be located on the first sheet of the development package in the upper right corner, shall cover approximately one square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of three-inch equals one mile, and provide the following information. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4.A – Show the subject property approximately centered within the one square mile area; 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4.B - Identify major streets and regional watercourses within the square mile area and all streets that abut the subject property. 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4.C - Identify major streets and regional watercourses within the square mile area and all streets that abut the subject property. 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 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.3 – As a General Note list the applicable rezoning file number and conditions of approval. Also place the C9-20-10 adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – Based on the drive-through shown on the plan it appears that food service is a proposed use. Add food service to you list of uses and provide all USE SPECFICE STANDARDS listed in TABLE 4.8-4: PERMITTED USES - COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE ZONES to the required General Note. 15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - Provide a general note on the cover sheet stating “THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA, UDC ARTICLE 5.3 SCENIC CORRIDOR ZONE (SCZ) & UDC ARTICLE 5.4 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R).” 2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided. 16. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.A - Provide site boundary perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot on sheet A002. 17. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.B – Show all existing easements along with the recordation information on sheet A002. 18. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.B – It appears that you are proposing a “8’ SCREEN WALL” within the 20’ water and electric easement shown on the ALTA/NSPS SURVEY”. Provide documentation from the applicable utility that they will allow you to construct the proposed wall within the easement. 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. 19. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.F – Provide the zoning for the parcels west of Houghton Road. 20. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Per UDC Table 7.4.6-2: MOTOR VEHICLE USE AREA DIMENSIONS CONTINUED within a Storage Use, access lanes shall be either 30’-0” wide for two-way of 20’-0” wide for one-way. It is not clear on sheet A002. If one-way access lanes are proposed clearly indicate which are one-way and how the will be controlled, i.e. signage, pavement markings, etc. 21. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Fully dimension the back-up spur shown at the north end to the parking area shown just west of “BUILDING B”, see UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4. 22. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.a.(1) PAALs or access lanes are required to be setback 1’-0” from the PAAL or access lane unless the minimum height clearance along access lanes and PAALs is 15 feet. Provide the height within the footprint of all proposed covered parking structures, see COMMENT #36 below. 23. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.a.(2) a drive-through lane must be setback 1’-0” from the building. That said show the required setback from the building shown on “PAD A” to the drive-through. 24. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The vehicle parking space calculation needs to be clarified. You show “RETAIL, (7441 SF) but only account for 6,174 SF of retail space. Clarify if the remainder 1,267 SF is the “STORAGE OFFICE” if so remove the storage office from the “RETAIL” part of the calculation and provide the 2 spaces under the personal storage portion of the calculation. You also show the “MANAGER APT” as 1,267 clarify. If the “MANAGER APT” is a dwelling unit than per UDC TABLE 7.4.4-1: MINIMUM NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLE SPACES REQUIRED, RESIDENTIAL USE GROUP, Single-Family and Mobile Home Dwellings, requires 2 spaces over and above the storage office. 25. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Provide the number of required and provided van accessible vehicle parking spaces within the vehicle parking calculation. 26. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The short-term bicycle parking calculation does not appear to be correct. Food Service parks at 1 space per 2,000 SF or 2 required, Retail parks at 1 space per 5,000 SF or 2 required, Personal Storage is 2 required & single-family dwelling is None for a total of 6 required. Revise the calculation. 27. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The long-term bicycle parking calculation does not appear to be correct. Food Service and retail park at 1 space per 12,000 SF or 2 required, Personal Storage & single-family dwelling is None for a total of 2 required. Revise the calculation. 28. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Demonstrate on detail 10 sheet A003 how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1.d, .e, 7.4.9.B.2.c, .f, & 7.4.9.C.2.d are met. 29. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Provide a detail for the required long-term bicycle parking that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1 & 2, 7.4.9.D are met. 30. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – As the required long-term is not for the storage use relocate the long-term so that it is available for the uses that require long-term bicycle parking. 31. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.I – As right-of-way dedications will most likely be required per this rezoning clearly show the existing and proposed street property lines on the plan. If required this dedication will need to be completed prior to approval of the development package. right-of-way dedications 32. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.L – As vehicle access is proposed via the property to the north some type of agreement or easement will need to be recorded prior to approval of this DP. Provided recorded documentation for agreement/easement with your next submittal and provide the recordation information on the plan. 33. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – Per UDC Article 6.6.2.I The maximum height of a wall or fence within a perimeter yard shall be six feet. Per UDC Article 6.6.2.D An accessory structure that exceeds the allowable height of a wall within a perimeter yard and is detached from a principal structure shall comply with the perimeter yard width standards of the principal structure. That said as County Zoning CR-1 is considered a residential zone, per UDC Table 6.3-4.A: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE C-1, C-2, C-3, OCR-1, & OCR-2 ZONES, Nonresidential use to a Residential zone the required perimeter yard setback from the proposed “8’ SCREEN WALL” is 12’-0”. It does not appear that the proposed wall meets the required perimeter yard setbacks along the east and south property lines. There is also a “8’ SCREEN WALL” shown just south and west of “BUILDING I” that does not appear to meet the required perimeter yard setback. Either relocated the walls or a Design Development Options (DDO) will be required for wall height. DDO application and requirements can be found at: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/forms/DDO_for_Setback_and_Height_UDC_8.11.20.pdf. If you elect to use the DDO process the DDO will need to be approved prior to approval of this DP and the DDO case number will need to be provided next to the title block on all sheets along with a general note stating the DDO case number, date of approval, what was approved and if applicable any conditions of approval. 34. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – As heights, see comment #36 below, were not provide for the “COVERED RV CANOPIES” Zoning cannot verify perimeter yard setback requirements along the east and south property lines. 35. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – Provide a perimeter yard setback dimension from “BUILIDNG A” to the property line to the south. 36. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – Provide the heights for all structures on site within footprint of the structure. 37. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – Provide the square footage within the footprint for all “COVERED RV CANOPIES” shown on plan. 38. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Provide width dimensions for all sidewalks shown on the plan. 39. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Per TSM Section 7-01.3.3 a pedestrian circulation path is required between all buildings on the site. Show the required circulation path between “BUILDING A” and “PAD A”. 40. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Clarify how the required pedestrian circulation from the sidewalk along Houghton to “BUILDING A” works. It appears that a pedestrian is required to use either the vehicle access lane or vehicle parking spaces along the planter area, this area either along the planter area or through the planter area is required to be a sidewalk physically separated from the vehicle use area. 41. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – As you are proposing to allow parking vehicles to overhang sidewalks clearly demonstrate that where this occurs the sidewalks are a minimum 6’-6” wide. 42. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.U – Until the rezoning conditions are provided the requirements of this section cannot be verified, additional comments maybe forth coming. 43. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.V - 44. 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. Provide a general note on the plan stating “ALL SIGNAGE REQUIRES SEPARATE PERMITS.”. SCENIC CORRIDOR ZONE: 45. COMMENT: Clearly demonstrate on the plan that the requirements of UDC Article 5.3.6 are met. 46. COMMENT: Provide a general note on the plan stating “Building or structure surfaces, that are visible from the Scenic Route , shall have colors that are predominant within the surrounding landscape, such as desert and earth tones. 47. COMMENT: Provide a general note on the plan stating “Fencing and freestanding walls facing the Scenic Route shall meet the material restrictions in Section 7.6.5, Screening Standards. 48. COMMENT: Provide a general note on the plan stating “Signs are required to comply with the following: 1. Section 3-32, Scenic Route District, of Chapter 3, Advertising and Outdoor Signs, of the Tucson Code; 2. Signs shall use colors that are predominant within the surrounding landscape, such as desert and earth tones; 3. No commercial advertising sign, except a sign pertaining to a use conducted on the premises or a sign advertising the sale or lease of the property upon which the sign is located, and no billboard shall be erected within 400 feet of the right-of-way line on any Scenic Route ; and, 4. When the standards of this section and Section 3-32 conflict, the more restrictive of the two prevails. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Elisa Hamblin, Elisa.Hamblin@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 03/17/2021 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. An approved development plan is not to be used for construction or modification of on-site utilities (e.g. water service to buildings, building sewers, site lighting, electrical service to buildings, etc.). The construction of the on-site utilities may be included with the permit for constructing the building or as a separate permit. 2. Revise the site drawing to include the following existing utility information: a. The location, invert and rim elevations of all manholes and cleanouts; along with the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number for public manholes. b. The first-floor elevation for the buildings Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.1, IBC 2018. |
| 04/01/2021 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. This site is currently in the process for a change of zoning. Approval of this development package will require completion of the rezoning process and compliance with approved conditions. 2. The Drainage Report must be sealed by a Registered Professional Engineer. The name of the person preparing the plan must be on the cover or on a title page within the report. 3. As stated in the rezoning presubmittal, delineate the floodplain and riparian resources. Under the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations regulatory flows of 100 cfs must be delineated as floodplain. 4. In the narrative of the drainage report include the quantities of offsite and onsite discharges. 5. The drainage plan for the adjacent property indicates a discharge of 74.9 cfs. Provide a clear discussion for the difference in result shown in this report. 6. Clarify the total discharge at CP-1. Based on the Hydrological Data Sheets, the total discharge is greater than 100 cfs, the riparian protection standard of Technical Standard 4-02. 7. Provide a complete Environmental Resource Report in accordance with TS 4-02.2.5.B.1. The ERR and plans must demonstrate protection of riparian resources. 8. The drainage report must clearly discuss the retention and detention requirements and provide details for how the requirements are met. 9. Show how water harvesting is maximized. 10. Provide the notes required by Administrative Manual 2-06 as applicable. 11. The grading plan notes indicate all earthwork will comply with MAG standards. Since this project is not in Maricopa County and we don't routinely use the MAG standards, provide copies of the relevant standards within the plans. Otherwise, provide references to Pima Association of Governments Standards or provide engineering specification provided and sealed by the design engineer. 12. Provide infiltration data to demonstrate the basin will infiltrate within 24 hours. 13. Check all code and standard references for correctness. 14. Various sheets in the plan set have notes conflicting with notes on other sheets. Provide consistency throughout the plans. 15. Provide a complete SWPPP for review. 16. Show accessible route from Pad A to Houghton Road. 17. Provide cross-sections for drainage swales, basins and other features as required for clear description of the plans. 18. Since these plans are presented as preliminary, additional comments will be provided when construction plans are submitted. Loren Makus, EIT loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov |
| 04/12/2021 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Reqs Change | Provide preliminary rezoning conditions document and general notes on plan set. Showcase compliance with conditions on plan. C9-20-10 rezoning ordinance approval required prior to development package approval and permit issuance. Also, if rezoning opted for direct ordinance (one Mayor and Council meeting), then a CDRC letter will be written and sent to John Beall and applicant once the development package has reached conditional-approval. Alexandra Hines alexandra.hines@tucsonaz.gov |
| 04/15/2021 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | From: COTDSDPermits Thu 4/15/2021 10:01 AM Returned for Corrections PERMIT/ACTIVITY: DP21-0042 DESCRIPTION: Site/Grading - Vault at Houghton Road. New development. Storage, covered parking, retail. 2885 S HOUGHTON RD FEES DUE: $ 6,522.22 Please pay the total fees (or at a minimum, the REVIEW Fees). A payment is required before your next submittal. ONLINE PAYMENT https://www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/fees If amount isn't correct, check back in a few hours after data is updated. 1- Click on: Pay Planning & Permit Fees 2- Enter your Permit Nbr, example: dp20-0000 (not case-sensitive but a hyphen-dash- is needed) 3- Business/Individual Name: Leave blank 4- Click Continue 5- Under the Pay column, check the boxes 6- Click Continue RESUBMITTAL Submit the following documents to: https://docs.tucsonaz.gov/Forms/tucsonpermitapp (Select "Existing Application", then the permit number) 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 Title your 2nd submittal documents according to this example: 2_Comment Response Letter, 01.01.21 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 - Reviews - click on Review Details - Documents - click on View to the right of each document Thank you. Sharon Beasley Permit Specialist City of Tucson, Planning and Development Services email: COTDSDPermits@TucsonAz.gov (Disregard the automatic reply you will receive: "This email account...") |
| 04/15/2021 | SBEASLE1 | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Needs Review | |
| 09/29/2021 | SBEASLE1 | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | See in "Documents" section of PRO: "TEP Approval letter, 09.23.21", and "TEP facilities map, 09.23.21". |