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: Requires Resubmit
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE REVIEW v.1
Permit Number - TD-DEV-0123-00111
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE REVIEW v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/20/2023 | NPPO | APPROVED | |||
| 04/05/2023 | CDRC Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 02/22/2023 | Commercial Plumbing | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. Show the routing and connection of the 1-1/4” domestic water line to the office and to each dwelling unit (i.e. keynote #11 not found on sheet DP-4). Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2018. 2. Provide a cleanout in the building sewer prior to entering the right-of-way. Reference: Pima County Standard Detail RWRD 401, 2015. 3. The maximum distance between cleanouts shall be 100-feet, measured along the developed pipe length from the upstream entrance of the cleanout. Reference: Section 708.1.1, IPC 2018. |
||
| 03/10/2023 | External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Good afternoon, Pima County Addressing is returning TD-DEV-0123-00111 La Sombra Del Mesquite Apartments for corrections. Please see the plan for comments. 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 SEE ATTACHMENTS |
||
| 02/21/2023 | Fire New Construction | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Fire sprinkler underground plans shall be submitted to and a permit obtained from TFD Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to and a permit obtained from TFD Fire alarm plans shall be submitted to and a permit obtained from TFD If a fire alarm is supplied off an owner's panel shall be provided Plans shall show the location of the FDC's, the F.D.C. shall be located on the street side in compliance with IFC 2018, Chapter 9, Section 912.2.1Fire sprinkler underground drawings shall also be displayed on the fire sheet. Section 503.2.5 Dead ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet (45 720 mm) in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. Questions: Jennifer Peel-Davis Tucson Fire Department Fire Plans Examiner Fire Inspector I, II and Fire Alarm Plans Examiner Jennifer.Peel-Davis@Tucsonaz.gov Desk: 520-837-7033 |
||
| 02/21/2023 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. Drainage Report: Provide a discussion/calculation showing you are meeting the first flush retention requirements described in the COT retention/detention manual. Please include tables 2.2 and 2.3 from that manual. Note: Current first flush calculation shown in PC-LID seems incorrect, ensure all impervious and disturbed area is accounted for 2. Waste enclosure should meet TSM 8-01: a. Bollards are required on both sides, spaced 1' from the wall, while still ensuring 10' interior width (B) b. Enclosures are to have gates with latches to prevent unauthorized access and to visually screen the . Gates are to be mounted to a post fastened and secured on the front face of the enclosure wall(s).(D) c. Concrete pad should slope a minimum 2% away from enclosure (G) 3. Show waste maneuverability: A 40X14' space is required in front of the enclosure, show waste vehicle backup is under the 80' maximum (TSM 8-01). Any turning radii must be 36' inner minimum 50' outer minimum 4. Provide a waste stream calculation compliant with TSM 8-01.8 (active requirement) and TC 15-10.1.E (passive requirement) 5. Show vehicle maneuverability in the northwest lot, with regard to backing out of the western most spaces without hitting the trash enclosure. Also, show the proposed back-up spur in the southern lot is at least 3' (UDC 7.4.6) 6. Minimum freeboard of det/ret basins is 6" from 100yr WSEL (ret/det manual 4.4.1) If an embankment is required, ensure it follows ret/det manual 4.10.1 7. Maximum retention depth in basins is 9" (.75') (unless a perc test is provided which shows adequate infiltration for higher depths). Ensure this is revised in plan set as well as drainage report calculations. Note: The current PC-LID calculation shows 1.5' of retention depth, but the proposed weir height gives a retention depth of 1.15' 8. Follow any landscaping comments regarding water harvesting maximization |
||
| 03/08/2023 | Site Landscape | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PROJECT: MELRIDGE APTS ACTIVITY NO. TD-DEV-0123-00111 ADDRESS/PARCEL: 991 W MELRIDGE ST/ 137-28-107B ZONING: R-2 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. COMMENTS: 1. Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0123-00111, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2-06.4.3 2. Please label all existing and future rights of way for W. Melridge St. 7.6.4.C.2.a 3. Show site visibility triangles on all plans. 4. Include a construction detail showing root barriers for plants located near sidewalks and parking lots. (see Detail 402 located here: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/tdot/landscape-architects) If you have any questions about these comments, I can be reached at Matthew.Carlton@tucsonaz.gov or 520-837-4988 |
||
| 02/21/2023 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: La Sombra Del Mesquite Apartments Development Package (1st Review) TD-DEV-0123-00111 TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 21, 2023 DUE DATE: February 25, 2023 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings 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 January 26, 2024. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0123-00111, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4.B – Identify all streets that abut this site 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 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.2 – Revise Permitting Note 2 to include the square footage of the site. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – Review UDC TABLE 4.8-2: PERMITTED USES - URBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, R-2 Zone, Multifamily Development, and provide the applicable Use Specific Standards in Permitting Note 4. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – Remove all references to “OFFICE” & “LEASING OFFICE (COMMERCIAL) as office use is not allowed in the R-2 zone unless it is government owned and operated only. A leasing office space as an accessory use to the multifamily use is allowed. If commercial office use is proposed a rezoning will be required. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - As Drexel Rd is designated as a collector 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) 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.a – Permitting Note 5 states that there is 685 SF of Office space but on sheet 2 the northern most building you call out “NEW OFFICE BLDG. ‘D’” and based on dimensions on the plan and the measurement capabilities of Bluebeam software this building appears to be over 2,000SF. Clarify what you are proposing. 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. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.C – Show the existing curb & sidewalk along Drexel and provide 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. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Fully dimension the back-up spur shown at the south end of the eastern vehicle use are, see UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – As a back-up spur is required at the end of a row of parking if no ingress or egress is provided at that end, UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4.a, Clearly demonstrate that the requirements met to the propose trash collection location. 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. The total number required is based strictly on the number of bedrooms in each unit. Required accessible parking spaces do not increase the number of required space but are included in the required number for the use. Until comment 5 above is addressed the total number of vehicle parking spaces cannot be verified. 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Provide the ratio use for the required vehicle parking, i.e. 1.5 space per 1 bedroom, 2 spaces per 2 bedroom etc. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Provide a short- & long-term bicycle parking space calculation that provides the ratio used, and the number of required and provided. 14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d Demonstrate on the plan or detail how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1.e are met. 15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.J – It does not appear that the curb & sidewalk along Drexel Rd are a future location based on the COT MS&R plan. Show the future curb & sidewalk location along Drexel and dimension their locations. 16. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – The street setbacks shown under Project Data for Drexel is not fully correct. Based on UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2 and Table 6.4.5.C-1 and based on the 24’ height shown the street perimeter yard setbacks for the south and west property line should be 24’ as measured to back of future curb for Drexel and curb for I-19. 17. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – The setback dimensions shown on sheet 2 for the north, I-19 and Drexel are not show correctly. Based on a wall height of 12’ the setback to the north property line is 10’-0”, Based on wall heights of 24’ the required street perimeter yard setback to 1-19 is 24’ as measured from the back of existing curb and the setback for Drexel based of a wall height of 24’ the required street perimeter yard setback is 24’ as measured from back of future curb. 18. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – There appears to be a discrepancy in the proposed heights. Under Project Data you list wall height of 25’ and within the footprint you show 24’. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Nicholas Martell at Nicholas.Martell@tucsonaz.gov. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
||
| 01/19/2023 | CDRC Application Completeness Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 02/08/2023 | CDRC Review Coordinator Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 04/05/2023 | External Reviewers - Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) | REVIEW COMPLETED | ADOT would like to provide you with the following links to our ROAD Portal, Existing R/W Plans Index, and I-19 Design Concept Report (DCR) to ensure you have up-to-date R/W info so you can verify that this project does not impact ADOT R/W, and so that you are aware of upcoming improvements to the corridor. ROAD Portal: https://road.azdot.gov/ Existing R/W Plans Index: https://azdot.gov/node/5598 I-19 DCR: https://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/completed-transportation-studies/interstate-19-san-xavier-road The I-19 DCR shows that this parcel (and more) will be necessary for construction of the new I-19 Drexel Traffic Interchange. There is currently no funding programmed for this Project, so the R/W process to obtain this R/W is not feasible at this time. |
||
| 02/21/2023 | External Reviewers - COT Parks & Recreation | REVIEW COMPLETED | TD-DEV-0123-00111 Tom Fisher CDRC Iliana Gonzales Hello CDRC team, On behalf of the City of Tucson Parks and Recreation Department, I have no comments on the above case. It does not impact any City parks or facilities. Tom Fisher Project Manager City of Tucson Parks and Recreation Department 900 S. Randolph Way Tucson, Arizona 85716 (520) 837-8037 |
||
| 02/08/2023 | External Reviewers - Pima Association of Governments | REVIEW COMPLETED | fyi, email sent per sop | ||
| 02/08/2023 | External Reviewers - Southwest Gas | REVIEW COMPLETED | fyi, email sent per sop | ||
| 02/08/2023 | External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) | REVIEW COMPLETED | fyi, email sent per sop | ||
| 02/08/2023 | External Reviewers - United States Postal Service (USPS) | REVIEW COMPLETED | fyi, email sent per sop | ||
| 01/20/2023 | OK to Submit - Engineering Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 01/20/2023 | OK to Submit - Landscape Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 01/27/2023 | OK to Submit - Zoning Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 03/01/2023 | ROW Engineering Review | REVIEW COMPLETED | TD-DEV-0123-00111 991 W. Melridge St. Comments: 1. Existing sidewalk may remain if it is within tolerance of current standards. 2. Tie-in to existing sidewalk per P.A.G. standard 203. (Match existing width.) 3. At sidewalk connection of the onsite circulation path to sidewalk in the ROW, an ADA landing is required. Landings shall be 60” X 60” and not to exceed a 2% cross slope in all directions. David Stiffey DTM Project Coordinator David.Stiffey@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 03/01/2023 | Traffic Engineering Review | REVIEW COMPLETED | TD-DEV-0123-00111 991 W. Melridge St. Comments: 1. Existing sidewalk may remain if it is within tolerance of current standards. 2. Tie-in to existing sidewalk per P.A.G. standard 203. (Match existing width.) 3. At sidewalk connection of the onsite circulation path to sidewalk in the ROW, an ADA landing is required. Landings shall be 60” X 60” and not to exceed a 2% cross slope in all directions. David Stiffey DTM Project Coordinator David.Stiffey@tucsonaz.gov |