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 - DP21-0192
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/04/2021 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/04/2021 | SBEASLE1 | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Passed | |
| 08/04/2021 | SBEASLE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Passed | |
| 08/04/2021 | SBEASLE1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Passed | |
| 08/04/2021 | SBEASLE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 08/09/2021 | SBLOOD1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Development Package Comments: Sheet 1 1. The record number for this project is DP21-0192. Please add to all sheets. 2. Please add project title at center of the sheet with type of plan per AM 2-06.40 3. Please specify existing use 4. Please provide floodplain information Sheet 2 5. Please show existing lot lines and lot numbers with dimensions APN 141-06-009H, 141-06-0022A & 141-06-0230 (typical on all plan sheets) 6. Please ensure all linework plots black. Some linework is plotting cyan Sheet 5 7. Architectural sheet A0.5 shows minimum of 15' wide landscape buffer yard but plans call out 10'. Please revise. 8. Please add speed bump and pavement markings to legend symbol 9. Add a note saying A separate right-of-way permit is required for work within the public right-of-way. Sheet 17 10. Please show arrows for direction and destination of flow. Identify on/offsite discharge acceptance points (typical all grading sheets) 11. Please specify recommended slope treatment for 1:1 to 2:1 (typical all sheets) Sheet 22 12. Please dimension distance from Bollard to curb near basin Sheet 37 13. Please provide 3"x5" space in lower right corner of each sheet per AM 2-06.3.0 Sheet 53 14. Please identify locations and registration numbers of onsite drywells and drywells on adjacent properties 15. Please identify the existing type of cover on the SWPPP 16. Please identify the temporary and permanent stormwater control measures on the SWPPP Drainage Report Comments: Page 7 1. Section 3.1 - Text indicates smallest Water Harvesting Basins provides 115 cfs of retention volume. Should it read 115 cf? Please revise as necessary. Page 9 2. Section 4.1 - Text indicates project is in "Clear" Zone X but this is not a typical FEMA term. Please define or revise as necessary. 3. Section 4.1 - Text and table indicate 54 cfs from 2E breakout into Kolb Road Channel. Where is the 54 cfs accounted for in the cross section analysis? Please provide discussion as necessary. Page 14 4. Section 5.2 - Provide more detailed discussion about channels, including parameters used and types of channel material (earthen, concrete, riprap, etc). 5. Section 5.3 - Provide more detailed discussion about proposed culverts, including parameters used and culvert material. Page 15 6. Section 5.5 - Concentration Point descriptions do not match Figure 6. Please revise as necessary. Page 16 7. Section 5.8 - Proved a more detailed description of the encroachment area and parameters used for calculation. Indicate which Figure has pertinent information. Appendices 8. Appdx B - Figures 4-6 do not have labels for streets, washes, buildings, etc. Please review and revise as necessary. 9. Appdx B - Figure 6 does not have labels for stormdrain pipe or structures and nothing in the table to associate with figure. Please revise as necessary. 10. Appdx C - Curb Opening Calculation sheets. Equation shown on sheet uses a coefficient of 2.6 but Eq. 10.14 in the SMDDFM shows a coefficient of 2.3. Please review and revise as necessary. 11. Appdx C - Did not see calculation sheets for grate inlet sizing corresponding with Section 5.5. Please revise as necessary. 12. Appdx D - Please include HEC-RAS Model digital files with next submittal. Review and Comments provided by third party engineer reviewers under contract with the City of Tucson. For Questions or Concerns contact: Stephen Blood (520) 837-4958 Stephen.blood@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/25/2021 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Valencia Distribution Center Development Package (1st Review) DP21-0192 TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 25, 2021 DUE DATE: August 30, 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 July 27, 2022. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, DP21-0192, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.6 – As this project is located within the boundaries of a Planned Area Development (PAD) zone, include a reduced-scale map of the PAD on the first sheet, indicating the location of the portion being developed. 2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a – Based on current up to date maps it does not appear that this site boarders on an MS&R that is designated as a scenic corridor zone, remove all “SCZ” references from the plan as it is not applicable. 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. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.A – As this site is made up of several parcels, 141-06-0230, 141-06-022A & 141-06-009H, a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Assessor’s Office Combo Request form with your next submittal. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The wheel stop location dimension shown on Detail “H” sheet 36 is not correct, review UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3 and provide the correct dimension. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Disabled parking sign detail sheet 36 the mounting height for the accessible parking space sign needs to show 84” to the bottom of the van accessible sign. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The required number of short-term bicycle parking spaces for the office use is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1 Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, COMMERCIAL USE GROUP, Administrative and Professional Office, the Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Under the long-term bicycle parking space calculation there is a reference to “* LONG TERM BICYCLE PARKING SHALL BE PROVIED INSIDE THE BUILDING” but you show long-term lockers along the north side of the building under Keynote 13. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.A At least one sidewalk is required to a project from each street on which the project has frontage, show the required sidewalks out to Valencia Rd & Valencia Road Ramps. 10. 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. Also provide a general note stating that all signage requires separate permits. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Elisa Hamblin at Elisa.Hamblin@tucsonaz.gov. To resubmit your plans for additional review, please visit: https://docs.tucsonaz.gov/Forms/tucsonpermitapp RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 08/30/2021 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 08/31/2021 | SBEASLE1 | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | Email from: Howard Dutt To: CDRC Mon 8/30/2021 1:40 PM 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) 631-2030 |
| 09/09/2021 | SBEASLE1 | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Reqs Change | Email from: David.Stiffey@TucsonAz.gov To: CDRC Tue 9/7/2021 9:27 AM 1. Sheet 7- The drainageway along the east side of Kolb Rd. cannot be diverted onto private property, but must remain within the right of way. 2. Sheet 14- At the westerly most entrance off of E. Valencia Rd. Ramp S, please show on the plan the curb return radius’. Curb radii needs to be 25 Ft. minimum. 3. Please provide more detail concerning the S/E most entrance off of Valencia Rd. Sheets 15 & 31 (and all subsequent sheet which show this entrance: 2, 1, 35,47 and 54,) depict both an opening in the median of Valencia and also through-curb with the existing median remaining. Is the existing median remaining? Or is an opening in the median on Valencia part of the plan? If the intent is to have an opening in the median, then very specific criteria will need to be detailed on the plan according to the COT Access Management Guidelines- AMG Section 4.3, Table 4-2. David Stiffey City of Tucson ------------------------------------------------ ADDITIONAL REVIEW COMMENTS Email from: John.VanWinkle@TucsonAz.gov To: Sharon Beasley Cc: Gregory Orsini, David Stiffey Tue 9/14/2021 2:11 PM Comments on Executive Summary/Conclusion Sections: E Valencia Rd & Site Driveway 1 - According to Table 5 on page 24, an exclusive right turn lane is not warranted here. Why is one recommended? - Location of driveway appears to be acceptable distance from existing signal to west and proposed access point to southeast (Driveway 2) E Valencia Rd & Site Driveway 2 - Exclusive turn lane warrants are met - Location of driveway appears to be acceptable distance from proposed access point to northwest (Driveway 1) and existing Valencia/SE Ramp intersection. This location appears to meet requirements to be a full access median opening - It does not appear that MUTCD warrants are met for a traffic signal at this location. The City does not install unwarranted traffic signals. The developer could put in a traffic signal at this location in the future if warranted at a later date SE Ramp and Site Driveway 3 - According to Table 5 on page 24, there are 2 right turning vehicles (is this per day? per peak hour?) and an exclusive right turn lane is not warranted here. Why is one recommended? S Kolb Rd and Old Vail Rd/Site Driveway 4 - Existing full access median opening - According to Table 5 on page 24, an exclusive right turn lane is not warranted here. Why is one recommended? - Based on the distance from this intersection to the main Valencia/Kolb signalized intersection, COT Access Management Guidelines Section 4.1 states that the actual or proposed traffic levels shall meet 1.5 times the volume requirements published in the latest edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for traffic signal warrants. According to page 24 of the TIA, the base (without 1.5x multiplier) MUTCD warrants are not met for a traffic signal at this location. The City does not install unwarranted traffic signals. The developer could put in a traffic signal at this location in the future if warranted at a later date SE Ramp and Site Driveway 5 (page ii section header incorrectly refers to this as "S Kolb Rd and Old Vail Rd/Site Driveway 5") - Existing full access median opening - No comments on recommendation here More Comments Existing Traffic Data, page 5 - Not many schools were in session in June 2021 when the traffic counts were collected. Most school districts in southern AZ, as well as the University of Arizona, complete the school year before the end of May. Trip Generation Data, page 6 - The user-specific data provided for trip generation estimation is acceptable for use in the TIA - Page 11 figure: Site Driveway 1 is previously described as being where employees park, however, this graphic shows no volume here at all - Page 24: there is reference to the Pima County Roadway Design Manual. Note that this project is located within City of Tucson limits - Page 25: if an exclusive right turn lane were to be constructed at Site Driveway 1, the minimum storage length required for a roadway posted at 45 mph is 150 feet, as per the PC/COT Signing & Pavement Marking Manual - Page 25: the number of trips generated in the PM peak hour is described differently in the Conclusion as compared to the Executive Summary (page i) For reference, please note that the “Unnamed Road” in the TIA is being referred to as the SE Ramp Signal warrant analyses are not contained in the Appendix,. It is not clear how close or not Driveways 2 and 4 were to meeting MUTCD signal warrants. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 09/10/2021 | 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: Valencia Distribution Center ACTIVITY NO: DP21-0192 Address: 6251 South Kolb Road Parcel: 141-06-009H, 141-06-022A & 141-06-0230 Zoning: PAD-26 Existing Use: undisturbed Sonoran Desert Proposed Use: Commercial Storage TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 10, 2021 DUE DATE: August 30, 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. 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. Ensure that Zoning and Engineering comments are addressed prior to landscape section approval. 2. PAD-26 page 85 designates both Kolb and Valencia Roads as Scenic Routes, and have requirements specifically for the landscape borders along both streets. The landscape buffers are required to be 15’ wide not 10’ and require a 60” decorative masonry wall (Appendix, Block 3). 3. There are numerous references to the LUC, please update all General Notes to reflect the current Unified Development Code. 4. Detail B references a backflow enclosure per legend, but there is no legend. Please add enclosure details. 5. Required weather sensor is not provided, UDC Technical Standards 4-01.4.2. 6. The landscape/NPPP grading limits are different than the civil drawings within the 100-year floodplain, please revise to match. If no grading will occur there, existing plants should be left in place. 7. Please identify WHIA dashed lines on landscape plans. 8. Please label the existing and future rights of way for Valencia and Kolb Rd, UDC 7.6.4.C.2.a. 9. Per Admin. Manual 2-10-4.2.D, provide reference to civil drawings/details that show bike racks, walkways, and screening/retaining walls on landscape plans. 10. Provide a maintenance schedule for the landscape and irrigation for this project. UDC 2-10-4.2.A.4. 11. Include parking area calculations for required trees, 2-10-4.2.A.2.c. Ensure that trees in vehicular use areas are planted within and adjacent to parking so that they afford the greatest amount of shade in paved areas, UDC Technical Standards Manual 5-01-.3.2 and UDC 7.6.4.B.1.a. 12. Provide required calculations for all landscape borders. UDC Technical Standards 2-10.4.2.f & g. 13. Show on-site location of temporary plant nursery holding area if plants will not be immediately planted at their final location, Administrative Manual 2-11.4.5. Please include method and schedule for plant irrigation in holding area. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package YOUR NEXT STEPS: Submit documents to the Filedrop https://docs.tucsonaz.gov/Forms/tucsonpermitapp Select "Existing Application" 1) Comment Response Letter (your response to the reviewer's Requires changes comments) 2) Plan Set (or individual sheets) 3) Any other items requested by review staff If you have any questions, please contact me at anne.warner@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/13/2021 | JPEELDA1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Reqs Change | A minimum of 8 hydrants shall be placed around the building at a distance of 300' apart. IFC 2018 Apprndix C. Questions: Jennifer Peel-Davis Jennifer.Peel-Davis@Tucsonaz.gov 520-837-7033 |
| 09/14/2021 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Email from: COTDSDPermits To: Tri Miller Tue 9/14/2021 4:16 PM Returned for Corrections: DP21-0192 DESCRIPTION: Site/Grading/Swppp/Floodplain - Valencia Distribution Center. 220,000 sq ft building. 6251 S KOLB RD FEES DUE: $ 17,037.56 (see image at end of this email, ignore the blue highlight) Note: "Building Plan Review" is for Grading review "Building Permit Fees" is for Grading and SWPPP review Please pay at a minimum, the REVIEW category fees. A payment is required before your next submittal. ONLINE PAYMENT If amount doesn't match "Fees Due", check back in a few hours https://www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/fees 1- Click on: Pay Planning & Permit Fees 2- Enter Permit Nbr, example: dp20-0000 (not case-sensitive but a hyphen-dash- is needed) 3- Business/Individual Name: Leave this field blank 4- "Continue" 5- In the Pay column - check the boxes 6- "Continue" 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 INCLUDE IN 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 2nd submittal documents according to this example: 2_Comment Response Letter, 09.01.21 FILEDROP for Resubmittal https://docs.tucsonaz.gov/Forms/tucsonpermitapp - Select "Existing Application" - In the "Permit Number" field, enter the number and, if applicable, any notes for our staff Thank you. 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) |
| 09/14/2021 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Needs Review |