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 - DP21-0316
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/04/2022 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Show how building A will be connecting to the public sewer. Reference: Section 701.3, IPC 2018. 2. Provide cleanouts in the building sewer at intervals not exceeding 100 feet of developed pipe length. Reference Section 708.1.2, IPC 2018. |
| 01/10/2022 | JPEELDA1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Reqs Change | The 116,480 Sq ft building shall have a minimum of two fire hydrants. Please add a hydrant to the plans. If the buildings will have internal standpipes due to High-Piled storage the fire hydrant shall be located within 100' of the FDC. Plans do not show building height. If the building exceeds 30' at any point in the roof, the building shall be provided with fire department aerial access. Plans shall show the required fire department access points. Questions: Jennifer Peel-Davis Jennifer.Peel-Davis@Tucsonaz.gov 520-837-7033 |
| 01/13/2022 | SBEASLE1 | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Reqs Change | Email from: David.Stiffey@tucsonaz.gov Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 To: CDRC <CDRC@tucsonaz.gov> Subject: DP21-0316 1. Sheet G1.0, Key Note 02 17: Please make reference that sidewalk within the right of way is to be constructed per P.A.G. standard 200. 2. Sheet G1.0, show sidewalk width on the plan. 6 Ft. wide along Drexel Rd. 3. Sheet G1.0, Please note which type of curb access ramps are to be installed, per P.A.G. standard 207 4. Sheet G1.0, Please show curb radii on the plan. Minimum curb returns along Drexel Rd to be- 30 Ft. 5. Show new curb along Drexel Rd. per P.A.G. standard 209. 6. Please show future and existing Sight Visibility Triangles along Drexel Rd. 345 Ft. Near Side and 125 Ft Far Side. David Stiffey City of Tucson Transportation and Mobility |
| 01/17/2022 | SBEASLE1 | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Reqs Change | View the following in the "Documents" section of PRO: TEP letter first review, TEP facilities map first review, and TEP redline utility pages first review. |
| 01/25/2022 | PIMA COUNTY | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Review by Pima County. Contact Loren Makus at City of Tucson PDSD for questions about these comments. Drainage Report Comments: 1. The adjacent "DOCK-HI INDUSTRIAL" development (Chamberlain Group?) has significantly altered the historic drainage patterns entering the project site from the east, and the discharges could be different from what was shown on the tentative plat excerpts included in the report. Obtain the drainage report and plans for this development and discuss their findings in the report. Provide these reports and plans. Any third party drainage reports used in this project's drainage report must be incorporated into this project's drainage report and verified as accurately representing peak flow based on current standards; otherwise prepare an independent hydrologic analysis of offsite conditions. 2. The existing condition watershed delineation for watershed "SOUTH" cannot be used as the allowable outflow for developed conditions (excluding the critical basin 85% adjustment). The northwesterly area of this watershed is not draining to the existing culverts under Commerce Center Place. Revise the watershed delineation, and adjust the allowable outflows used for detention basin analyses. 3. Provide PCHydro analyses for the catchment area map included in the drainage report. There appears to be an issue with the watershed analyses. For example, RD-A north is shown to have a Q100 of 7.68 cfs, however a brief check of PCHydro calculations for this watershed is showing 9.6 cfs, or about 25% more than what is being reported. This increase could be interpreted as small for only this one small watershed, however the total increased flow into the detention basins could increase by 10-15 cfs if the same error was made on all of the watersheds. 4. Provide a culvert analysis of the 2'X8' CBC utilizing any tailwater condition created by the existing downstream culverts under Commerce Center Place. Discuss the headwater condition at the inlet and demonstrate no increases in water surface elevations on the adjacent property. 5. Some of the stage storage discharge tables from PCRoute are missing from the printouts in the report where runoff is routed through outlet structures. Provide additional printouts. Provide printouts of the stage-volume sheet of PCRoute. 6. Provide energy dissipation calculations for all storm drain outlets and culvert outlets, including the 2'X8' CBC. While the CBC capacity must be checked using tailwater conditions, the velocity protection should be checked conservatively as a free outfall. Velocities > 10 fps will require to be wire tied. HEC-14 procedures can be used for sizing energy dissipation. 7. Assess the inlet headwater condition for the existing culverts under Commerce Center Place, and use this headwater as a tailwater condition for the detention basin routing if applicable. 8. Provide overflow weir velocities for the basins or provide erosion protection on the plans. 9. Manholes are required at all junctions, bends larger than 10 degrees, and where pipe diameters change. Provide hydraulic analysis of the storm drain networks using pressure flow calculations, and include tailwater conditions and minor losses at all junction and bends. Check the addition of total flow in the network; it appears that the flow from CB 220 was not added? 10. Provide hydraulic analysis of the capacity of all catch basins and curb openings. 11. Revise all basins to show a maximum retention ponding of 9". Retention depth is defined as retained runoff in the basin from its lowest point to an outlet invert 9 inches above the bottom. Revise the Water Harvesting Area table in the report to show the provided volume is only for 9" depth. 12. Discuss the maintenance and inspection requirements for the stormwater conveyances and detention basins on the project site. Provide an inspection checklist. Construction Plans comments: 1. Construction note 9 is missing from sheet C2.4. Constriction notes are missing from sheet C1.6. Check all sheets for construction note callouts and revise as necessary. 2. Angle point for 2'X8' CBC has inverts labeled as 24"? Are there storm drain laterals at this location? Provide clarification. The proposed 2'X8' CBC does not provide easy maintenance access. Provide a junction structure at the bend for maintenance access. 3. Label all slopes on basins. Provide erosion protection slope treatment for all basin slopes steeper than 3:1. 4. Check plans for consistency between the report, grading plans and details. For example, the overflow weir for the northeast basin is modeled as 10' wide in report, but shown as 19' wide on sheet C1.1, and 20' wide on detail 5 of sheet 2.7. Revise plans to reflect the drainage report. 5. Provide cross sections of basin overflow weirs to show how they are graded to the top of the basins. 6. Provide detention basin security barriers for any basin with a Q100 water surface elevation deeper than 2 feet. 8. Show the thickness of the underside of the CBC on detail 2 on sheet 2.7 and label the clearance provided between the bottom of the CBC and the top of the 18" storm drain. Label the 18" storm drain pipe material. Clarify structural protection of the 18" storm drain. Label the Q100 and headwater elevation on the profile. 9. Manholes are required at all junctions, bends larger than 10 degrees, and where pipe diameters change. Revise plans. 10. Provide weir elevations on details on sheet C2.7. Show Q100 WSE. Check for discrepancies between the report's HWE and the details. For example, detail 4 on sheet C2.7 shows a water depth of 2 feet, which is accurate for the retention depth, however the 100-year water surface elevation is 2.3 feet per the report, and the freeboard should be revised accordingly. Provide cross section details for all of the basins. Show bottom and top elevation, weir erosion protection if necessary, and tailwater elevation if applicable. 11. Label the Q100 at all structures. Label all basins as private. Provide additional labels on the plans for the basins including the top elevation, Q100 water surface elevation, Q100 in, Q100 out, first flush retention volume, detention volume, and freeboard. Loren Makus lwmakus@tucsonaz.gov |
| 01/25/2022 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Completed | |
| 01/25/2022 | EHAMBLI1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | Reviewed and approved by Pima County Development Services. Contact Elisa.Hamblin@tucsonaz.gov with questions. |
| 01/26/2022 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Email from: COTDSDPermits To: Jennifer Kimura Wed 1/26/2022 8:45 AM REVIEW NOTICE Returned for Corrections: DP21-0316 DESCRIPTION: Site/Grading/Swppp - Drexel Commerce Center. New industrial park. Shell buildings and associated site work. 2730 E DREXEL 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 - Select for documents "PLANS" for quicker downloading of your documents on our end Thank you. Sharon Beasley, Building Permit Specialist City of Tucson, Planning and Development Services Email: COTDSDpermits@TucsonAz.gov |
| 12/02/2021 | SBEASLE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Passed | |
| 12/02/2021 | SBEASLE1 | COT NON-DSD | REVIEW | Approved | Email from: Bea Paulus To: CDRC Thu 12/2/2021 9:41 AM Approved. I do not see any conflicts for Sun Tran service. Thank you. Bea Paulus, Programs & Projects Manager Sun Tran 520-206-8826 bea.paulus@tucsonaz.gov |
| 12/02/2021 | SBEASLE1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Passed | |
| 12/02/2021 | SBEASLE1 | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Passed | Email from: <Addressing@pima.gov> To: CDRC Thu 12/2/2021 11:23 AM Please release Pima County Addressing from the review for this project. The applicant may apply for building numbers after the Development Plan is approved. Thank you Nicholas Jordan, Addressing Specialist Pima County Development Services Department 201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 724-9623 |
| 12/02/2021 | SBEASLE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 12/02/2021 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/22/2021 | SBEASLE1 | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | Email from: Howard Dutt <Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 To: CDRC Subject: Drexel Commerce Center, DP21-0316 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 |
| 12/24/2021 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Drexel Commerce Center – New Industrial Park Development Package (1st Review) DP21-0316 TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 24, 2021 DUE DATE: December 27, 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 November 23, 2022. 2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.2.4 – The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Remove all references to the Building Codes, i.e. occupancy, construction types, references to building code, etc. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2. COMMENT: 2-06.3.7 - A small, project-location map shall be provided in the upper right corner of the cover sheet. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.1 – Ensure that email addresses are provided for all registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.1 – Remove the “JURISDICTION” block from the plan. 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) in the title block on all sheets. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, DP21-0316, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 6. 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. 7. 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 on the location map. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4.C - Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled on the location map. 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 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – Provide a general note stating “EXISTING USE VACANT, PROPOSED USE GENERAL MANUFACTURING SUBJECT TO USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS, P-I - 4.9.5.C.2, .4, .5, .6, & .8 and 4.9.13.Q & I-1 - 4.9.5.C.2, .6, .7, & .8 and 4.9.13.Q”. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a – Provide a general note stating “THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA, UDC ARTICLE 5.4 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R) & .UDC ARTICLE 5.6 AIRPORT ENVIRONS ZONE (AEZ)”. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.d - When the proposed site is part of a larger site, the calculations encompass the entire site, whether existing or proposed. If the project is being phased, calculations must show that, at each phase, requirements are being met. 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. 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.B – Provide the recordation information for all existing easements shown on the plan. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.B – Per Tucson Airport Commerce Center Plat there is a “10’ STREET LANDSCAPE BORDER” easement that runs along Drexel & Commerce Center. Show this easement on the plan and provide the recordation information. 14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.C – For Drexel & Commerce Center provide the 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. 15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.F - All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. 16. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. 17. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Remove the + & - designation from all PAAL & access lanes widths from the plan. Per UDC Article 7.4.6.D.1, Figure 7.4.6-A & Table 7.4.6-1 there are minimum widths that area required. 18. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Fully dimension the back-up spur shown at the north end of the parking area directly south of BUILDING “B”, see UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4. 19. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Within the “PARKING SUMMARY” provide the total number required & provided for all vehicle & bicycle parking. 20. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.J – Show the future curb and sidewalk for Drexel Rd on the plan based on the MS&R Plan found at: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/plans/MSR.pdf. 21. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – As this site borders on a street designated as an Arterial on the COT MS&R Map this site is considered Developing Area for the purposes of street perimeter yard setbacks, see UDC Article 11.4.6 Definition of Established Area Setback. Based on a Zoning Administrators determination street perimeter yard for all streets, public or private, shall use the requirements of UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2 & Table 6.4.5.C-1 for setbacks when the site borders on a street designated on the MS&R Map. Show the correct street perimeter yard setbacks for both Drexel & Commerce Center. 22. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – Provide the height and specific use proposed within the footprint of the buildings. 23. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – As this site is located within the Airport Hazard District, UDC Article 5.6.11 for TIA provide a building height based on the mean sea level (MSL) elevations of the established NE end of runway 21. 24. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Per TSM Section 7-01.3.3.B all buildings must be connected with a continuous pedestrian circulation path that meets the accessible requirements. Clearly show the required connection between the two buildings and demonstrate on the plan that it meets the accessible requirements. 25. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.W – Provide a general note on the plan 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 |
| 12/24/2021 | SBEASLE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Reqs Change | (The comment letter can be viewed from the "Documents" section of PRO: "TAA, review comments, first submittal, 12.21.21") Email from: Scott Robidoux <srobidoux@flytucson.com> To: CDRC Cc: Jennifer K. Tue 12/21/2021 12:07 PM Attached is a copy of my comment letter on DP21-0316. I have included the applicant on this email so they may receive a copy of my comment letter, the TAA Avigation Easement document, and the Airport Disclosure Statement form. 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 |