Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP21-0229
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/03/2022 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Email from: COTDSDPermits To: Rene Flores Mon 1/3/2022 10:51 AM REVIEW NOTICE Returned for Corrections: DP21-0229 DESCRIPTION: Site/Grading - New Office Construction. 1001 E SILVERLAKE RD Fee Balance: $0 (zero) Thank you for the payment. YOUR NEXT STEPS 1. 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 to see different sections - Reviews section - click on REVIEW DETAILS - Documents section - click on VIEW 2. UPLOAD A RESUBMITTAL and include: 1) Comment Response Letter (your response to 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 SECOND submittal documents according to this example: 2_Comment Response Letter FILEDROP for your 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, Building Permit Specialist City of Tucson, Planning and Development Services Email: COTDSDpermits@TucsonAz.gov (disregard the email response that will be sent automatically) |
| 01/03/2022 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Needs Review | |
| 01/25/2022 | SBEASLE1 | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | See the "Documents" section in PRO for: TEP FACILITIES MAP, TEP APPROVAL LETTER, and TEP REDLINE PAGE. |
| 10/06/2021 | SBEASLE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Passed | |
| 10/06/2021 | SBEASLE1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Passed | |
| 10/06/2021 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/06/2021 | SBEASLE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 10/28/2021 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: New Office Construction – 1001, 1015 & 1019 E Silverlake Rd Development Package (1st Review) DP21-0229 TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 28, 2021 DUE DATE: November 03, 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 September 30, 2022. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.1 – Provide the email and phone number for the owner listed on sheet 1. 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 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a – Second Site Note 17 provide the applicable UDC Article that applies to the MS&R. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b – Remove all references to “Lot Coverage as it is not applicable to this project, review UDC TABLE 6.3-4.A: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE C-1, C-2, C-3, OCR-1, & OCR-2 ZONES. 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. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.C - The following information regarding right-of-way adjacent to the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. 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. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.F – Provide the existing zoning for the parcels west of Park and south of Silverlake. Also, clearly define the C-1/C-2 boundary on the plan. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.2 – As future curbs have not been shown for both Park & Silverlake show future curb, see comment 19 below and provide future sight visibility triangles on the plan. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Alley access or egress is not allowed, see UDC Article 7.4.6.K, a Board of Adjustment for Variance will be required to use the alley to egress the vehicle parking area. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.b Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches. That said, show the 2’ setback along the west side of the proposed parking area access lane to the proposed wall. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Until comment 10 below is addressed Zoning cannot verify if the proposed PAAL width is correct. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Provide a “A” Parking Angle for the proposed angled vehicle parking along with the correct “C” Space Depth and “E” Curb Length as per UDC Table 7.4.6-A for the proposed angled parking. 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Provide a location dimension for the proposed wheel stop curbing shown on the plan & details. 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Clearly demonstrate that the proposed accessible parking sign does not encroach into the require 2’-6” vehicle over hang, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Per 2018 IBC Chapter 11 Section 1106.5 the accessible parking space is required to be a van accessible space. Demonstrate on the plan/detail that the requirements of ICC A117.1, Section 502.2 are met. 14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Clearly demonstrate that the requirements of ICC A117.1, Section 502.5 are met for the accessible parking space and access aisle. 15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Per ICC A117.1, Section 502.4.3 the access aisle shall extend the full length of the parking space that it serves. Based on requirements of ICC A117.1, Section 502.5 the accessible ramp may not be part of the accessible access aisle as you show it on the plan/detail. 16. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Keynote 15 talks about “PARALLEL SPACES” but there are not parallel spaces shown on the plan. 17. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Demonstrate on Detail 5 sheet C2 how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1.d & .e, 7.4.9.B.2.f, .g & .h are met. 18. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – For your information per UDC Article 7.4.8.B.1.a.(1) No long-term bicycle parking is required on a site where there is less than 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. 19. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.J - If street dedication is not required or proposed and the project site is adjacent to a Major Street or Route, draw the Major Street right-of-way lines for those streets. (Add the MS&R future sidewalk, right-of-way lines, sight visibility triangles, etc.) 20. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – The setback listed under Site Note 15 is not correct. Per UDC Article 11.4.6 definition of Established Area Setback streets that are designated a Major route by the COT MS&R plan do not qualify for established are setbacks. That said the street perimeter yard setbacks for this project are based on UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2 & TABLE 6.4.5.C-I, ADT of 1,000 or greater and shall be 21’ or the height of the proposed exterior wall, greater of the two, measured to back of future curb. Show the future curb on the plan and provide the applicable street perimeter yard setbacks. 21. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – Provide the square footage and the height of the proposed building within the footprint of the building. 22. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Clearly demonstrate that the requirements of TSM Section 7-01.4.1.A are met, At least one sidewalk is required to a project from each street on which the project has frontage, unless there is no vehicular access from a street because of a physical barrier, such as a drainageway or an unbroken security barrier (e.g., a wall or fence). 23. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Based on the wheel stop curbing shown on the plan it appears that a parking vehicle will be allowed to encroach into the required 4’-0” sidewalk. Clearly demonstrate that a parking vehicle does encroach into the required 4’-0” sidewalk. 24. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – For your information “TRUNCATED DOMES” as called out under Keynote 12, are not a requirement on site for this project. 25. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.W – If applicable show all proposed signs on the plan and provided a general note stating “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 |
| 11/01/2021 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 11/02/2021 | SBEASLE1 | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | email from: Howard Dutt to: CDRC Tue 11/2/2021 10:16 AM 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 |
| 11/03/2021 | SBEASLE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Reqs Change | (See documents in the Documents section of PRO, titled "TAA - Avigation Easement form, blank template" and "Tucson Airport Authority, review comments, 11.02.21") email from: Scott Robidoux <srobidoux@flytucson.com> to: CDRC Tue 11/2/2021 1:34 PM Attached is a copy of my comment letter on DP21-0229. I have included the applicant on this email so they can receive a copy of my comment letter and the TAA approved Avigation Easement document. Thank you, Scott Robidoux, C.M., Manager of Planning TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY 7250 South Tucson Boulevard, Suite 300 Tucson, AZ 85756 Phone 520-573-8100, Direct 520-573-4811 |
| 11/04/2021 | AWARNER1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department, Plans Coordination FROM: Anne Warner, RLA PDSD Landscape/Native Plant Preservation Section PROJECT: Office Building ACTIVITY NO: DP21-0229 Parcel: 129-12-101A Zoning: C1/2 Existing Use: vacant, truck storage Proposed Use: Office TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 4, 2021 DUE DATE: November 3, 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. Please provide all landscape calculations on the landscape plan, including required trees for the parking areas, Admin. Manual 2-10-4.2.A.2.c and landscape borders, UDC Technical Standards 2-10.4.2.f & g. 3. Please label the existing and future rights of way for Silverlake Rd and Park Ave. UDC 7.6.4.C.2.a. 4. The landscape border along Silverlake Rd. needs to continue the whole length of the parcel. Existing plants can be counted towards meeting this requirement. 5. Locate all existing plants in the r/w along Park Ave. and Silverlake Rd. and indicate if they are to remain. These plants can count towards the landscape border requirement. 6. Plant symbols do not reflect the correct size of the plants. 7. Per Admin. Manual 2-10-4.2.D, provide page/detail reference to civil drawings/details that show bike racks, walkways, and screening/retaining walls on landscape plans. See civil drawing is not sufficient. 8. Provide a maintenance schedule for the landscape and irrigation for this project. UDC 2-10-4.2.A.4., please be specific. 9. An irrigation plan and specifications are required per UDC Administration Manual 2-10.4.2.C and Technical Standards Manual Section 4-01.4.2, Irrigation Standards. 10. Identify location of water meter and POC on irrigation plan. 11. Indicate a cover on the backflow preventor through a note or detail. 12. A Commercial Rainwater Harvesting plan is required UDC Technical Standards Manual – Section 4-01.0.0. and Section 5-01.0.0 Landscaping and Screening. 13. Adherence to the Low Impact Development Standards outlined in Section 5 of the PCRFCD Design Standards for Stormwater Detention and Retention is required and shall work in conjunction with the Commercial Rainwater Harvesting design. https://webcms.pima.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/File/Government/Flood%20Control/Rules%20and%20Procedures/Stormwater%20Detention-Retention/dssdr-manual-board-version-201511.pdf 14. Grading, hydrology, and landscape plans must be integrated to make maximum use of site storm water runoff for supplemental on-site irrigation purposes. The landscape plan shall indicate use of all runoff, from individual catch basins around single trees to basins accepting flow from an entire vehicular use area or roof area. UDC 7.7.6.C.2. The landscape and grading plans must match. 15. Identify the point of drainage off roof areas, amount of flow, and disposition of flow. 16. Identify curb inlets to landscape areas. 17. Retention/detention basins should be designed naturally and organically, whenever practicable. 18. Modify details to show depressed landscape areas. 19. The parking area does not meet the intent of the UDC in terms of including trees in the parking lot to shade the asphalt. The intent is to provide as much shade on the asphalt as possible, and the requirement is 1 tree per 4 parking spaces; trees are expected to be placed within the parking area itself. Trees are to be distributed evenly throughout the parking area, UDC 7.6.4.1.B.1, UDC Technical Standards Manual 5-01-.3.2 and UDC 7.6.4.B.1.a. 20. Please add/call out soil moisture gauge/tensiometers and rain shut-off device on irrigation plans and details. UDC 4.2.A. 21. Provide a detail to show tree planting with root barrier adjacent to walkways. 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 |
| 11/16/2021 | JPEELDA1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Reqs Change | Fire department access lane shall be 20' wide per IFC 503.2.1 Distance to nearest hydrants shall be shown as the hose lays not the crow fly's. Plans show that TFD provided residual and static pressure. TFD does not provide data but Tucson Water. Plans show that the building is having fire sprinklers installed but does not show a new underground fire line |
| 11/17/2021 | SBEASLE1 | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Email from: David Stiffey To: CDRC Wed 11/17/2021 2:05 PM No comments |
| 12/29/2021 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Show how water harvesting is maximized. Water harvesting areas should be depressed 6 to 9 inches. 2. Keynote 23 for the area west of the office building seems misplaced. Please check this and all other keynotes for consistency. 3. Describe the surface treatment for the yard. 4. The drainage patterns don't match the existing or proposed grades. Please provide consistency in the plans. 5. Show SVTs for intersection of Silverlake Road and Park Avenue. All SVTs should be based on future ROW. 6. Provide a pedestrian connection to Park Avenue. 7. Show how solid waste and recycling will be stored and serviced. Provide the waste stream calculation of TS 8-01.8.0. Loren Makus loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov |