Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP22-0162
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/24/2022 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/11/2022 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 07/11/2022 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: 1625 S Euclid Ave Development Package (1st Review) DP22-0162 TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 11, 2022 DUE DATE: July 13, 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 June 12, 2023. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, DP22-0162, 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.4 – General Note 2 lists the proposed use a “Warehouse”. Warehouse is not a use classified in the UDC. Warehouse is typically called out as Commercial Storage. If commercial storage is one of the proposed uses review UDC TABLE 4.8-5: PERMITTED USES – INDUSTRIAL ZONES and provide the applicable use specific standards for a commercial storage use. Also, under the vehicle parking calculation and within the footprint of the building you list “INDUSTRIAL” as a use. Industrial is not a use but a use group. You also listed Marijuana Dispensary Offsite Cultivation Location as a use but this use is not shown within the footprint of the building or accounted for in the vehicle & bicycle parking calculation. Clarify exacting what the proposed use or uses are. Additional comments maybe forth coming. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.c – Provide a building expansion calculation on the plan. 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 – Provide the dimensioned width of paving and curb location for Euclid Ave. 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 – Per UDC Articles 7.4.3.E.2 the vehicle use area requirements and 7.6.2.B.1.b the landscaping requirements apply. That said clearly demonstrate on the plan that the vehicle use area around the existing building meets all requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6 and 7.6.4. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Until comment 2 is addressed vehicle parking requirements cannot be verified. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The vehicle parking space calculation shall include the total number required and provided and the number of van accessible spaces required and provided. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Provide a wheel stop location dimension on detail 1 & 2 sheet 5, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Until comment 2 is addressed loading area requirements cannot be verified. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Until comment 2 is addressed bicycle parking requirements cannot be verified. If a Marijuana Dispensary Offsite Cultivation Location use is proposed per UDC Table 7.4.8-1 Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, short-term bicycle parking is required. Clearly show the location on the site plan and provide a detail that demonstrate how the requirements of 7.4.9.B.1, B.2 and C are met. 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Detail 5 sheet 5 does not match what is shown on the site plan and does not demonstrate how the requirement of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1.e are met. 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – See comment 2 and if applicable revise the uses shown within the footprints. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Per TSM Section 7-01.2.B.2 the requirements of TSM Section 7 apply to the entire site. Clearly show that the existing pedestrian circulation meets the standards. 14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Based on aerial photos the sidewalk near the southwest corner of the “EXISTING WAREHOUSE BUILDING” is flush with pavement. Clearly demonstrate how the requirements of TSM Section 7-01.4.2 are met. 15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Sheet 3 along the north end of the vehicle parking area parking vehicles are allowed to overhang the proposed 4’ wide sidewalk called out under Keynote 3. Clearly demonstrate that a 4’-0” wide sidewalk is maintained when a vehicle overhangs the sidewalk. 16. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.D Sidewalks must connect all areas of the development. That said show the required sidewalk that connects the future building to the sidewalk at the north end of the proposed Industrial building. 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 all signage requires separate permits. 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 |
| 07/28/2022 | 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: 1625 S Euclid Ave ACTIVITY NO: DP22-0162 Address: 1625 S Euclid Ave Zoning: I-1 TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 28, 2022 DUE DATE: July 13, 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. 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. General Note - Ensure that Zoning and Engineering comments are addressed prior to landscape section approval. 1. FYI Only Engineer & LA comment - The table in the PCRFCD Manuel can be used in lieu of the Water Budget Table, the only thing that is missing is water demand for plants, which can be added. 2. Engineer Comment - Retention/detention basins should be designed naturally and organically, whenever practicable. Square and rectangles are not organic shapes. 3. The basin floor requires something other than bare dirt, hydroseed or rock larger than 4” is acceptable. 4. Please label the existing and future rights of way for all public streets, UDC 7.6.4.C.2.a. 5. Note the size of the water meter. Indicate that the water meter is for irrigation only. UDC Technical Standards 4-01.6.1.A.1. 6. A Landscape architect or other approved professional (not an engineer) must stamp the NPPO plans. 7. Show PIP trees on the landscape plan. 8. A landscape professional has to be the monitor. The NPP 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. 9. 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 |
| 08/03/2022 | SBLOOD1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Development Package Comments: Sheet 1 1. Add building height to General note #12. 2. Please provide an abbreviations list on the cover sheet. 3. Please provide additional information regarding future lot split line. Clarify if development plan is dependent on lot split and where the process is currently at. 4. Please clarify if proposed elevation in legend is pavement grade or top of curb. 5. Please provide Landscape Architect & Geotechnical Engineer name and contact information. Sheet 2 6. Please show chain link fence where keynote #2 is called out on the north and east side of the existing warehouse building. 7. Add existing overhead electrical line in keynotes. 8. Show location of existing power poles, typical. Sheet 3 9. Ensure accessible signs for parking stalls do not impede on sidewalk clearance. Show sign location outside of sidewalk limits. 10. Provide vertical curb type in keynote #17. 11. Please screen back existing site elements, typical all sheets. 12. Provide cross-section detail through pavement, landscape/basin to property line 13. Provide note or detail for proposed finish surface area between parking area and paved loading area. 14. Show a man gate with swing on plan view. 15. Please include note for sleeving under pavement for landscape utilities where required. 16. No proposed utilities shown for proposed building. Please show all proposed utility connections and provide invert/rim elevations, etc. 17. Please label existing drainage ways as applicable. 18. Wheel stops are required in northern parking stalls, similar to southern parking stalls as clearance space of 4' width is required for pedestrian access. 19. Please add sewer line type to legend. 20. Please show sidewalk hatch in front of future expansion building 21. Detention/retention basins are to be located within perimeter fencing surrounding project site boundaries per UDC 7.11.1.C. Existing fence cannot remain through the basin. Please revise. 22. Please clarify how existing chain link fence is to remain atop proposed curbing Sheet 4 23. Provide slope in trash enclosure. 24. Show grading extents. 25. Provide existing grades at curb tie-in. 26. Differentiate vehicular gate from existing fencing line type on plan. Show extents of existing fence removal as applicable. Provide additional detail on how existing fencing and proposed gate come together. 27. Provide slopes in parking area. 28. Provide grades at start and end of accessible stalls and walkways to ensure slope compliance. 29. Spot elevations to have a maximum of 100 ft. spacing. Add spot elevations as applicable. 30. Please clarify how vehicles using the loading area will be prevented from hitting the proposed building. 31. Provide additional grading information to demonstrate how FFE=46.0 transitions to existing contours (44.0), or show retaining walls. 32. Show how 6" curb transitions to sidewalk which is flush with curb. 33. Please clarify if proposed grades are pavement grades or top of curb grades. 34. Please show 100-yr ponding limits with WSEL for basins (note min. freeboard shall be 6 inches). Add volumes. 35. If driveway is to remain, call-out tie-in grades as existing 36. Add spot grades to top of slope (typical all basins). 37. Provide proposed grade contours. 38. Provide 4' minimum setback from property boundaries and other appurtenances (curbing) on basins per Design Standards for Stormwater Detention and Retention for Pima County. Sheet 5 39. Confirm proposed pavement section complies with Geotechnical report. Fire access requires a minimum of 4" AC. 40. Include post and foundations for handicap parking sign detail. 41. Provide section detail through retention basin. 42. Please provide more detail on intended weir construction. Sheet 11 43. Provide stabilized construction entrance at both access points of site. 44. Please include general note for public street sweeping/cleanup of construction activities. 45. Differentiate between silt fence and fiber roll. Drainage Report Comments: 1. Page 1 & Appendix A - Report text indicates Existing Conditions Watershed 2 is 1.90 acres, while Existing Conditions Map shows 1.8 acres. Please review and revise, as necessary. 2. Appendix A, Developed Conditions Map - Developed Conditions Map does not have flow arrows as mentioned in the text and is missing Watershed 1. Please revise to show flow arrows to indicate drainage patterns. 3. Appendix A, Developed Conditions Map - Roof Drain calculations are included but it is unclear what watershed is the discharge included in. Please review and revise. 4. Appendix A, Developed Conditions Map - Watershed Table in App A (Developed Conditions 2 of 2) shows areas and discharges not consistent with the report text. Please review and revise, as necessary. 5. Appendix A - How was surface area/detention area calculated for Basin 3? Please provide typical cross section or more detailed contours. 6. Appendix B - Weir Capacity Calculation Sheets do not match Grading plan included, specifically Length of Opening. Suggest label/keynotes on Developed Conditions Map to clarify locations. Please review and revise, as necessary. 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 |
| 08/08/2022 | JPEELDA1 | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/19/2022 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Email from: COTDSDPermits To: Jeffrey Stanley 08/19/2022 REVIEW NOTICE Returned for Corrections: DP22-0162 Site/Grading/Swppp - 1625 S. Euclid Avenue. New industrial building site. FEE BALANCE: $ 2,435.68 Please pay at a minimum, the REVIEW category fees. A payment is required before your next submittal. ONLINE PAYMENTS ** If the online amount doesn't match "Fee Balance" shown above, 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" 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) |