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 - DP22-0116
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/16/2022 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/16/2022 | SBEASLE1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Passed | |
| 05/16/2022 | SBEASLE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Passed | |
| 05/16/2022 | SBEASLE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 05/19/2022 | SBLOOD1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Development Package Comments: Sheet 1 1. Please add a title to the abbreviations list for clarity. 2. Rename sheet A1.1 in the Sheet Index to "Architectural Site Plan" to match sheet. 3. Please provide emails for all design and development contacts. 4. Please add adjacent street names and recording information to the Key Map. 5. Please review and revise project site address listed in Title of Cover Sheet and in the Title Block. 6. Earthwork quantities listed on Cover Sheet do not match those listed on General Notes Sheet. Please revise. 7. Please provide SWPPP. 8. Please remove C2.1, A1.1, C3.1,... from Overview Map. 9. Please revise the location map to include the correct property area. 10. Please include parcel information for the western improvements that appear to be in a separate parcel. Written documentation from western owner will need to be provided. Sheet 2 11. Proposed zoning is listed as C-2 in the application. Please review and revise. 12. Revise gross site acreage to include decimal in the zoning and land use notes. 13. (AM 2-06.4.7) Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all sections applicable to the proposed uses. 14. There is not more than one lot within the development. Please remove Note #2 from COT Wastewater Management Notes. Additionally, this note is repeated in General Notes, Note #11. Please revise. 15. General Note #3 and COT Street and Road Notes #2 are the same. Please revise. 16. General Note #4 and COT Utility Note #1 are the same. Please revise. 17. General Note #5 states that on-site sanitary sewers will be public. General Note #10 and COT Wastewater Management Note #1 states that they will be private. Please revise accordingly. 18. General Note #9 and COT Wastewater Management Note #4 are the same. Please revise. 19. General Note #2 and COT Drainage Note #2 are the same. Please revise. 20. General Note #1 and COT Drainage Note #1 are the same. Please revise. Sheet 3 21. Headwall/rip-rap detail references two different standards for safety rail. Please revise. 22. Headwall/rip-rap detail references two different standards for trash rack and access barrier. Please revise. Sheet 6 23. Please revise spelling error in Demolition Note #3. 24. Proposed light poles are shown in the demolition plan. Please revise. Sheet 7 25. Please add the hatch that appears in the vacuum bays to legend. 26. Regarding keynote #13, light pole details not found within the Site Details. 27. Please provide detail or specification for directional signage. 28. Trash enclosure is not included in the site details. Revise keynote 10 to specify City Standard or add detail. 29. Civil is currently proposing several other locations for rolled curb. Please coordinate and revise. 30. Add height of structure within footprint of building. Sheet 8 31. Please clarify where the pavement sections switch from AC to concrete by adding an appropriate hatch. 32. Construction Note #4 reads 4". Please revise to 4'. 33. How does the edge of valley gutter and edge of curb and gutter function together at the ends of vacuum bays? Please provide more detail. 34. Add wheel stops to account for vehicle overhang while providing 4' clear space on the path of travel per UDC 7.4.6.H 35. Please correct keynote 12 near SDMH #2. 36. Misplaced keynote #24 next to correct keynote 24 at south end. Should this be 15a? Please revise. 37. Please expand on functionality of temporary basin in plans and in the drainage report. 38. Architectural plans do not provide more information on trash enclosure per keynote 18. Please coordinate and revise accordingly. 39. Landscape plans do not provide more information on the "landscape wall" per keynote 19. Please coordinate and revise accordingly. 40. Why does sewer cleanout frame need to be adjusted if it is proposed work? Additionally, COT and PC STD DTL 404 is for a Drip System Filter. Should this be RWRD STD DTL? Please revise keynote #13 and 14 as necessary. 41. Please specify or provide details for drive aisle entrances, typical. 42. Rip-rap behind wing wall intended to be 12" thickness per detail on Sheet C1.3, but Keynote 6 calls out 6" or 8" thickness. Please revise accordingly. 43. Please provide flap gate specifications in keynote 4. 44. Please clarify purpose of roll curbs at median noses. 45. SD profile #2 shows the pipe from MH#2 to MH#3 as 24". Please revise keynote accordingly. Also, the note references Profile #3 but there is not a Profile #3. 46. Keynotes 15a and 15b are the same. Please revise. Note that 15a is not called out in plan. 47. Please add Headwall Labels (ex HW#1) to plan. 48. Add height of structure within footprint of building, typical. 49. Please reference PAG details instead of COT/PC, and RWRD instead of WWM, typical. Sheet 9 50. Please provide additional grade and slope tags at ADA ramps to demonstrate compliance. 51. Width of median open space intended for rainwater harvesting appears to be approximately 5'. Please demonstrate that intended rainwater harvesting detail is applicable for this size area. 52. Please fix stray TC=69.39 tag label in the southeast pavement corner. Slope seems to be going the wrong way as well. Sheet 10 53. Section D not shown in plan. Please revise. 54. Call out basin WSELs in profile views, typical. Sheet 12 55. Architectural plan references civil drawings for FDC. Not seeing FDC in plan in civil drawings. Please revise. Sheet 13 56. Revise FG/EG profile labels to read "Proposed/Existing Grade @ CL of Pipe" 57. SCOs #9-12 don't appear in utility plan. Please revise. Sheet 14 58. Not seeing car overhang in plan. Appears to be shown as access to the trash enclosure. Please revise. 59. Salt finish concrete does not appear in plan. Sheet 17 60. Please add Title of Sheet somewhere in the titleblock. Sheet 18 61. Please provide more detail on the intended design of the site wall. Drainage Statement Comments: 1. Please Add Table of Contents List for Tables within report 2. Section 1.2 3rd paragraph - Please mention channel discharges directly to the Santa Cruz River; label existing channel in Figure 4 3. Section 1.2 - Please explain how offsite flows were "found to be 230cfs". Was this from an existing report, or calculated as part of this report? 4. Section 1.2 - Please note that the City considers non designated basins as balanced. Please add resource(s) used for critical/balance basin determination 5. Section 3 bullet 6 - Please spell out Army Corps of Engineers for first use before the abbreviation 6. Table in Section 4.1 and 5.1 - D.A. of 0.4 ac on Circle K property contr. 3cfs, sheet flowing east into side street; Please add peak flow to tables and revise cumulative calcs 7. Table in Section 4.1 and Section 5.1 - Please add title to table to differentiate from onsite existing peak flows table 8. Table in Section 4.1 - Hydro worksheet and table Q100 values do not match; Please review and revise table as necessary 9. Section 4.1 - Please state that Bowman reviewed the drainage area and hydrologic input parameters to verify the design flow is correct, or provide the delineation and calculation. It is not sufficient to blindly use flows from plans. Please provide drainage areas that have been confirmed in summary tables. 10. Section 5.1 - Please review formatting and capitalize Exhibit Names 11. General Comment - Please review spelling and formatting throughout document. 12. Table in Section 5.2 - There are discrepancies between calculation sheets and table, please verify and revise as necessary 13. Section 5.2 1st paragraph - Please add abbreviation BEHS after "..building erosion hazard setback.." 14. Section 5.2. - Please correct formatting for HEC-RAS. 15. Sectino 5.2 - Please discuss downstream conditions which may impact the analysis, including its outfall into the Santa Cruz River, and multiple culverts. 16. Section 5.2 - Please state the minimum finished floor elevation for buildings specifically, noting the minimum elevation required above the WSEL. 17. Section 7.1 First Flush table - Please Verify Total Area in summary table. 18. Section 7.1 First Flush Table - impervious area volume type; should be 2002 cf, please revise 19. Section 7.2 Det/Ret Table - Basin inflow includes O5 + P2 which is greater than 23.7. Please revise table and HEC-HMS basin analysis and results discussion as necessary. 20. Section 7.2 2nd Table - E1 existing Q100 does not match Figure 4; Please review and revise as necessary 21. Sectoin 8.0 1st paragraph - convey missing a 'v'; please update 22. Section 7.2 - Please state that the site is located within an designated basins, which is considered balanced by the city and the source of this determination. 23. Section 7.2 - Develoment Plans shows 2 basins (A&B) on sections. Please review and revise statement of only one combined basin as necessary. 24. Section 7.2 - Basin outlet should be lowered 0.05' to provide a maximum allowable 0.75' retention without having to provide infiltration testing. 25. Section 8.0 Table - Please add area for WS O3 using info from Circle K grading plan 26. Section 8.0 - Please mention sidewalk 1-cell scupper at curb return north of said scupper. 27. Section 8.0 4th paragraph -Please label all onsite and offsite scuppers/curb openings on plan sheets and discuss their impact to the proposed site development 28. Grate Inlet Discussion - Please explain if the calculations for grate sizing was performed using weir calculations or orifice flow. Based on the depths, Weir Calculations should be used. Please also include clogging factors in your calculation. 29. Storm drain discussion - Please revise discussion to match what is shown on the developmnet plan which is 18", 24" & 30". 30. Section 8.0 Last paragraph - Please update "routed" to "grouted" 31. Section 8 - Please include scupper apron sizing in table. 32. Section 8 - Please state rock sizing methodology. 33. Appendix A - Please include page 2&3 of soil map which have the legend/description for soil types 34. Appendix A General Comment - Please provide label exhibits consistent with the Table of Contents 35. Figure 4 Existing Peak Flows table - Please add areas from grading plan in Appendix G 36. Figure 4 - Cum area for O5 is 0.1+3.17=3.27ac; review and revise 37. Figure 4 - Please add 3 cfs from west half of Circle K property 38. Figure 4 - Hydro worksheet is 14.3 cfs for O5; Please revise and match Hydro worksheet 39. Figure 4 - Hydro worksheet is 8.5 cfs for E1; Please review and revise to match Hydro worksheet 40. Figure 4 - Please label existing culverts and sizes 41. combine coments into Figrue 4 - Please label all existing onsite and offsite drainage features with size; this includes existing curb cuts (4), existing scuppers (2), etc 42. Figure 4 - Please add symbol for all drainage areas 43. Figure 5 - Please add 3 cfs from west half of Circle K property 44. Figure 5 - Please revise total peak discharges shown based on previous comments regarding contributing peak flow rates. 45. Figure 5 - Please draw in boundary for P2 46. Figure 5 - Please label existing culverts and extend modeling downstream to ensure backwater impacts are accounted for 47. Figure 5/6 - Please label propsoed contours, provide flow arrows and label structures, including stormdrain inverts and slopes. 48. Figure 5 - Please depict 100-yr floodplain limits and label WSELs 49. Figure 5 - Please include E1 concentration Point. 50. Figure 6 - Please label 1-cell existing scupper north of other scupper at CP O3 51. Figure 6 - Please label curb opening at CP P2C 52. Figure 6 - Please label grated inlets 53. Appendix C - HEC-RAS model needs to be expanded downstream to account for potential backwater impacts by culverts located immediately downstream 54. APpendix C - Please provide HEC-RAS Summary Table 1 and profile 55. Cross section 346.84 does not contain the flow. Please expand cross section extents to show containment 56. APpendix E - Please provide channel freeboard calculations for HEC-RAS results and demonstrate the channel provide sufficient freeboard to the site. 57. Appendix D - Please Revise Formatting to ensure hydrographs are depicted on a single page. 58. Appendix E - Type II Scupper Calc - O3-100yr is 2 cfs therefore L=2.5 ft with clogging 1.5L=3.7 ft; update length provided for scupper configuration;Please update calc 59. Appendix E - Please provide hydraulic analysis for the basin outfall pipe as well, including channel WSELs as a boundary condition if necessary based on Overall Contributing Area per COT Drainage Maual. This may also impact the basin routing analysis and WSELS/Freeboard. 60. Appendix E - Storm drain profile - Please note the COT guidelines for storm drain design state crown/soffit of adjoining pipes must be set at same elevation; please review and revise design as necessary 61. Appendix E - Hydraulic design of Energy Dissipators reference needs a date added to ensure the latest equations are being used. Please state which reference is being used by each calculation. 62. Appendix E - grayed out apron, >60? 63. Appendix E Circle K Grading plan - not in existing peak flows table; please add and revise any cumulative peak flows This project was reviewed by a contract reviewer. If you have questions about these comments, contact Stephen Blood at Stephen.Blood@TucsonAz.gov or Loren Makus at Loren.Makus@TucsonAz.gov |
| 05/25/2022 | JPEELDA1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Reqs Change | Plans shall show existing fire hydrants and the hose lay to the furthest portion of the building from the hydrant. Provide the distance if the distance exceeds 400' you shall either install new fire hydrants that can meet your required demand of 2,000 GPM and or install a fire sprinkler system and show that you are within 600' of all portions of the building as the hose lays. IFC 2018, Chapter 5, Section 503.1.1 all portions of a facility shall be within 150' of the fire department access road. In this case all portions shall be within 150' of Valencia and or the new road to the south. Questions: Jennifer Peel-Davis Jennifer.Peel-Davis@tucsonaz.gov 520-837-7033 Fire Plans Examiner |
| 05/26/2022 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Superstar Car Wash Development Package (1st Review) DP22-0116 TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 26, 2022 DUE DATE: June 03, 2022 COMMENTS: Resubmit revised drawings and 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 May 05, 2023. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.1 – Provide the email addressed for the owner, architect & landscape architect listed on the cover sheet. 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, DP22-0116, rezoning case number, C9-21-19, and final plat case number S21-080, 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 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.1 – The zoning listed in the SITE DATA table sheet 7, O-3, is not correct and should be C-2. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.3 - The proposed zoning listed under ZONING AND LAND USE Note 2, Sheet 2, is not correct and should be C-2. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.3 – Provide the rezoning conditions for C9-21-19 on the plan. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – The proposed use listed under ZONING AND LAND USE Note 5 is not correct and should be listed as Automotive Washing – either Full Service or Self Service, clarify which one is proposed. Also Use Specific Standard 4.9.13.E should be listed in the note. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a – As Valencia Rd is designated as an Arterial Gateway on the COT MS&R map provide a general note on the cover sheet 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 5.5 GATEWAY CORRIFOR ZONE (GCR)” 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. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.B – Sheet 7 remove all references to “PARCEL ID: 13824101M” from the plan as once plat S21-080 is recorded new parcel numbers will be issued for each new parcel. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.F – The Zoning shown for the parcel to the south, C-2 is not correct and should be O-3. Provide the zoning for the parcels to the north of Valencia Rd. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Review UDC Articles 7.4.3, 7.4.4 and TABLE 7.4.4-1: MINIMUM NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLE SPACES REQUIRED and provide a correct calculation. Until comment #6 is addressed parking requirements cannot be verified. The reference to “SECTION 702 OF THE ZONING ORDINACE” needs to be removed from the calculation is it is not applicable. 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Until comment #6 is addressed Zoning cannot determine bicycle parking requirements. 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.L – Some type of access easement or agreement will be needed for the proposed access across the south end of the western parcel where the future food service is proposed. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – Provide the proposed height of the building and canopies within the footprint and provide the height of the canopies with in the footprint. 14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – As parking vehicles are allowed to overhang the proposed sidewalks along the west side of the building and north side of the parking area along the north side of the site, clearly demonstrate that with the 2’-6” overhang that the sidewalks are at least 4’-0” wide, per TSM Section 7-01.4.3.A. 15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.B A sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located. Clearly show the required sidewalk along the east side of the building. 16. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 17. 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 note stating the all signs require separate permit. 18. COMMENT: – Per John Beall, Rezoning Section, the DP should show future building / parcel area for the restaurant to the west - circulation - DP should include the note from the PDP "Alcoholic beverage sales will be limited to on-premise consumption only and will not be sold via the drive-through" 19. COMMENT: – Until final plat S21-080 is recorded Zoning cannot approve this DP. 20. COMMENT: - SITE DATA Table sheet 7, clarify what the “SCREENING HEIGHT: 50’ MAX” is in reference to. Per UDC Table 6.3-4.A: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE C-1, C-2, C-3, OCR-1, & OCR-2 ZONES, C-2 Zone the maximum allowed height is 40’ but rezoning condition 9 limits the height to 30’. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Nicholas Ross at Nicholas.Ross@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 |
| 06/02/2022 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Reduced pressure backflow prevention assemblies, not double check valves, are required to be installed directly after the water meter for buildings that have chemicals, cleaning agents, or other contaminants that may come in direct contact with water, as well as separately metered irrigation systems. Reference: Chapter XXVII, Article V, Section 27-72, the Tucson Code, http://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/water/docs/backflow-ordinance.pdf. 2. The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (MH#1, 2469.62') is less than 12" below the first floor elevation (2470.40'). Provide a backwater valve per Section 714.1, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson. 3. What is the purpose of the grease interceptor? A car washing facility is required to have an oil interceptor, not a grease interceptor. Reference: Section 1003.4, IPC 2018. 4. 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. Remove any notes relating to how the site utilities are to be constructed. 5. A separate permit is required for the installation of a private sewer collection system that includes new manholes. A review of the system design by the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality will be required prior to submission to the City of Tucson. Reference Title 18, R18-9-E302, 4.02 General Permit, Arizona Administrative Code. |
| 06/03/2022 | SBEASLE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Reqs Change | See letter in DOCUMENTS section of PRO: "Tucson Airport Authority, review comments, first submittal" |
| 06/09/2022 | 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: ACTIVITY NO: DP22-0016 Address: 1511 W Valencia Rd Zoning: Existing Use: previously graded vacant land Proposed Use: Car Wash TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 9, 2022 DUE DATE: June 3, 2022 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. General Note - UDC 2-10.4.1 Identification 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. 2. General Note - Ensure that Zoning and Engineering comments are addressed prior to landscape section approval. 3. 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. 4. Acacia stenopylla is not a canopy tree, which is required in parking areas to shade the aphalt to mitigate heat island effect. Please choose a more appropriate tree for these areas. 5. Please label the existing and future rights of way for all public streets, UDC 7.6.4.C.2.a. 6. Please indicate the installation of a private submeter if a separate irrigation meter is not being provided. UDC Technical Standards 4-01.6.1.A.1. 7. Please add a detail to show depressed landscape areas or indicate with notes. 8. Provide a detail to show tree planting with root barrier adjacent to walkways. 9. 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. Demonstrate how water harvesting is being maximized. 10. The grading plan and water harvesting plan do not meet the requirements of the water harvesting ordinance and technical standard. The plan doesn't show the effective use of run-off to supplement irrigation. a. The catchment areas must provide water to the infiltration areas. Revise the grading to direct runoff to the landscape infiltration areas to the maximum extent possible. b. Catchment areas in the water harvesting table can only count the areas that are directed to the landscape infiltration areas. c. Clearly show the areas in each catchment area and the areas of effective infiltration and water harvesting. All landscape areas should be included within infiltration areas. d. UDC section 7.6.6.C requires the use of all runoff to supplement irrigation. Show how this is attained. e. Provide a planting inventory or some other mechanism so we can confirm the canopy areas for each water harvesting infiltration area. Ensure all on-site landscape areas are accounted in the canopy area. f. Show rooftop drainage patterns and show how they are incorporated into the water harvesting calculations. g. Water harvesting areas should be depressed between 6 and 9 inches. These areas can be counted toward first flush retention requirements. 11. Identify curb inlets/splash pads to landscape areas on water harvesting or landscape plans. 16. Provide a maintenance schedule for the landscape and irrigation for this project. UDC 2-10-4.2.A.4., please be specific. 17. 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 COT edits - https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/codes/Detention_Retention_Manual_Tech_Standards_Amemdments.pdf 18. 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 7.6.6.C.2. The landscape, water harvesting, and grading plans must match. 12. The basin floor requires something other than bare dirt, hydroseed or rock larger than 4” is acceptable. 13. Please provide photos of the two trees that are low viability, or mitigate them. 14. Provide mitigation calculations on the NPP plan. UDC Table 7.7.5-1 22. The monitor is responsible for an assessment of the condition of the site’s plants one year after the final inspection has been performed on the site. The monitor shall visit the site and prepare a report on plant status, including general plant condition, the identification of plants under stress and the appropriate method to relieve the stress, and recommendations for replacement of plants that are dead or dying. Dead or dying plants must be replaced with the same size plant at a one-to-one ratio of like genus and species. Copies of the report must be submitted to the site owner/developer and to PDSD. The owner must respond to the plant needs as outlined in the status report within six months of report submittal or within a shorter period if required to improve the health of stressed plants and prevent plant loss. 23. Please identify the project monitor prior to any grading activities, UDC 7.7.5. On-monitoring of all aspects of site clearing, grading, plant protection, preservation, salvage, and mitigation must be provided during project construction at the expense of the developer for all residential development that is over five acres and for all commercial and industrial development that is over one acre . The monitoring must be performed by an individual who is qualified in arid lands native plant resource identification and protection as specified in UDC Section 7.7.4.D, Professional Expertise. The monitor must provide periodic progress reports to the developer outlining the status of work accomplished and any problems encountered. A copy of these reports must be submitted to the PDSD for the project file. 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 |
| 06/09/2022 | SBEASLE1 | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | Email from: Howard Dutt To: CDRC Thu 6/9/2022 8:15 AM No existing or proposed Tucson Parks and Recreation facilities are affected by this development. Howard Dutt, RLA Project Manager/Landscape Architect Parks and Recreation | City of Tucson Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov main 520.631.2030 |
| 07/01/2022 | SBEASLE1 | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | Approved. View in the DOCUMENTS section of PRO, documents titled, "Tucson Electric Power, letter of approval, 06.23.22", and "TEP Facilities Map, 06.23.22". |
| 08/09/2022 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Passed | |
| 08/09/2022 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Email from: Jay Gomes <jgomes@azdot.gov> To: CDRC 08/09/22, 8:39 am ADOT has no comments. James Gomes ADOT |
| 08/15/2022 | DSTIFFE1 | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 08/19/2022 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Email from: COTDSDPermits To: Leonardo O. cc: T. Varley, Leid REVIEW NOTICE Returned for Corrections: DP22-0116 Site/Grading/Swppp - Super Star Car Wash, automated with vacuum bays. 1511 W VALENCIA 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 - Reviews section - click on REVIEW DETAILS - Documents section - click on VIEW 2. Title your SECOND submittal documents accordingly, example: 2_Comment Response Letter 3. UPLOAD A RESUBMITTAL to Filedrop: - Comment Response Letter (your response to REQUIRES CHANGE comments) - Plan Set (all pages, full set, even if no changes were made) - Any other documents requested by review staff FILEDROP https://docs.tucsonaz.gov/Forms/tucsonpermitapp - "Existing Application" - "Permit Number" field: enter the number (and any notes for our staff) - Select "PLANS" for all documents Sharon Beasley, Certified Permit Technician City of Tucson, Planning & Development Services Dept. Email: COTDSDpermits@TucsonAz.gov (for development packages, land splits, Thursday Presubmittal meetings) Email: PDSDinquiries@TucsonAz.gov (for building permits) |
| 08/19/2022 | SBEASLE1 | PIMA COUNTY - ADDRESSING | PIMA COUNTY - ADDRESSING | Passed | email from: Nicholas Jordan To; CDRC 09/06/2022 Please remove Pima County Addressing from the review for this project. The project may use 1511 W Valencia RD. Thank you Nicholas Jordan Site Review Project Manager - Addressing Official Pima County Development Services Department 201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 724-9623 |