Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP21-0338
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/11/2022 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Cabinets to Go Development Package (1st Review) DP21-0338 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 11, 2022 DUE DATE: January 14, 2022 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 December 12, 2022. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, DP21-0338, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 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 – As I-10 is a State & Interstate Route designated on the COT MS&R Map 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)”. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.a – The square footage listed under ZONING AND LAND USE NOTE 6 and within the footprint of the building lists 8,000 sq. ft. but when the square footage listed under ZONING AND LAND USE NOTE 5 and the vehicle parking calculation the total is 6,281 sq. ft. Clarify the difference. All the building square footage shall be accounted for the all applicable calculations. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b – Remove the lot coverage calculation as it is not applicable, see UDC TABLE 6.3-5.A: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE P-I, I-2, & I-2 ZONES. 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.H.5 – Provide a access lane width dimension from the northwest corner of the west to the curb. Minimum distance shall be 22’, 20’-0” two-way access lane, UDC Table 7.4.6-2 and a 2’-0” setback, UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.b. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Until comment 3 above is addressed vehicle parking requirements cannot be verified. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The required number of accessible parking spaces is not correct. Per 2018 IBC Chapter 11 Table 1106.0 1 to 25 parking spaces provided only requires 1 accessible space. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Sheet 4 Construction Note 1 “ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN DETAIL PER DETAIL B ON SHEET 08 MOUNTED IN TYPE B POST BARRICADE PER PAG STD. DTL. 106”, no accessible parking sign detail was found on sheet 8 or anywhere else in the plan set. Provide an accessible sign detail. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Until comment 3 above is addressed short- & long-term bicycle parking requirements cannot be verified. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Clearly show the long-term bicycle parking on the plan and provide a detail that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1 & .2 and 7.4.9.D are met. 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The provided number of short-term bicycle parking spaces is not correct. Per UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.d A single rack is designed and located to accommodate two bicycles therefore the number provided should be 4. 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – The street perimeter yard setbacks listed on sheet 1 and shown on the site plan are not correct. As I-10 is a State & Interstate Route designated on the COT MS&R Map the street perimeter yard setbacks are based on developing area setback, see UDC Article 11.4.6 definition of Established Area Setback. Per UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2 and Table 6.4.5.C-1 the street perimeter yard setback for I-10 frontage road is 21’ or the height of the proposed exterior building wall, greater of the two, measured from the back of curb, and Freeway Industrial Lp. is 21’ or the height of the proposed exterior building wall, greater of the two, measured from the outside edge of the nearest adjacent travel lane. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – Remove the reference to “10’ OR 3/4(H)” from DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE CALCULATIONS #4 as nowhere on UDC Table 6.3-5.A: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE P-I, I-2, & I-2 ZONES is 10’ or ¾(H) referenced. 14. 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 not 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 |
| 01/12/2022 | SBLOOD1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Development Package Comments: Sheet 1 1. Please clearly show the project location on Location Map. 2. Please provide name and contact information of firm or individual who prepared the geotechnical report. 3. Drainage Note #12: Missing note. Please revise note to read as "....., FLOWAGE, EROSION, OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY WATER, ......" per Administrative Manual (AM) Section 4.7.B.1 4. Please cross check and update Area of Disturbance in Development Package Calculations Note # 1 vs. Zoning and Land Use Note # 8. The called-out area of disturbances are not matched. 5. Waste Management Notes: Please provide waste stream calculation. Sheet 2 6. Please verify standard plan number and Local Agency name for Note # 6 of Sanitary Sewer Notes 7. Please verify Local Agency name for Note # 27 of Grading Plan Notes. Sheet 4 8. Please add construction note to curb access ramp near the southwest corner of the building (across the proposed dumpster) 9. Development Package Calculation #5 of sheet 1 states that all accessibility parking spaces are van accessible. The easternmost accessible space does not have an aisle on the passenger side. Please revise statement. 10. Dimension is overlapped with bicycle parking. Please relocate dimension from bicycle parking area. 11. Construction Note #6: Please provide standard plan drawing for curb ramp access or call out PAG st dtl. 12. Construction Note #1. There is no detail B on sheet 8. Please provide accessible parking detail. (Sheet 8 is Landscape sheet) 13. Please provide accessible parking sign location and detail. 14. Construction Note #7. There is no details C and D on sheet 8. Please provide Dumpster Detail. (Sheet 8 is Landscape sheet) 15. Construction keynotes should point to objects as needed. (ex. vertical curbs, bollards, etc.) Sheet 5 16. Please check TC and EP at curb across dumpster. Both TC and EP have same elevation 91.46. 17. Please verify slope of earthen swale north of Building 1 as it appears to be less than 0.3% recommended per Standard Manual For Drainage Design & Flood Plain Management in Tucson, AZ (Rev. July 1998), section 8.5.8 - Channel Slope. Address the issue of sediment build up in channel and how the channel will be maintained. 18. Please provide invert elevations for pipes at Basin North and Basin Island. 19. Basin information table: Please provide 100yr- WSEL. 20. Please clarify linework for handicap ramp. Tactical warning should extend full width of aisle. Provide spot elevations, TYP all ramps. 21. Provide roof drain discharge locations. It appears that the sidewalk and FFE are at the same elevation and rain may work its way to the doorways. 22. Adjust TC or EP near southeast door. Both are labeled elevation 92.50. 23. Provide spot elevations at corners of the northern patio area. 24. Indicate existing pavement and sawcut notes/lines. 25. For drainage along the east (other locations as needed), provide WSEL, provide spot elevations at toe and top of bank, and provide Q's. 26. Please provide slope for all curb ramps. Please provide elevation for curb ramp at van accessibility parking space. Sheet 6 27. Please revise typo call out "PAG" STD. DTL. 216 Type I for removal and replacement of pavement callout. 28. Please check for call out note location. The call out note for "Point of Connect to Public Water with new back flow prevent with cage" located at new curb ramp on south side of the proposed entrance. Drainage Report Comments: 1. Page 1 - Please note that recently adopted updates by the City have removed non-designated basins and any previously identified as non designated are now considered balanced. 2. General Comment- Please include a vicinity map. 3. Figure 2 - Please add contour labels. 4. Figure 2 - Please expand watershed analysis to determine the flow within the channel which continues upstream of the area delineated and use this value to evaluate the existing culvert and water surface within the channel adjacent to the site to establish a finished floor elevation as the flow within the channel would likely be considered regulatory with the added area and possibly overtop based on the limited freebaord mentioned on Page 2. 5. Figure 2 - Please show intended basin overflow locations. 6. Page 5 - Last paragraph is missing the letter "i" for "in compliance". 7. Culvert calculation - Note that Manning's value shown is 0.012, though a typical value for concrete is 0.013. 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 |
| 01/12/2022 | AWARNER1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/13/2022 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 01/24/2022 | JPEELDA1 | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/14/2022 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Email from: COTDSDPermits To: Erin Harris Mon 2/14/2022 10:36 AM REVIEW NOTICE Returned for Corrections: DP21-0338 DESCRIPTION: Site/Grading - Cabinets To Go, new building. 3231 N FREEWAY INDUSTRIAL LP 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 "PLANS" for documents 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 |
| 12/20/2021 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed |