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: In Review
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1
Permit Number - TD-DEV-0323-00166
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1
Review Status: In Review
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | CDRC Post Review | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | Site Engineering | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 09/18/2024 | Commercial Plumbing | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. Comment not resolved. Revise the site drawing to include the following existing utility information: a. The location and size of water lines and fire hydrants. b. The location and size of sanitary sewers, including the pipe diameter and the invert and rim elevations of all manholes and cleanouts; along with the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number. c. The first floor elevation for the building Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.1, IBC 2018. 2. Comment not addressed. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 714.1, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson. Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.1, IBC 2018. |
||
| 09/16/2024 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Belvedere Avenue Duplexes Development Package (2nd Review) TD-DEV-0323-00166 TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 16, 2024 DUE DATE: September 19, 2024 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 March 15, 2024. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. This comment was not addressed correctly. There are 3 sheets submitted and sheet 1 shows 1 of 2, sheet 2 shows 2 of 2 and sheet 3 shows 1 of 1. 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) within the title block. 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. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – Review UDC TABLE 4.8-2: PERMITTED USES - URBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONES and provide the applicable Use Specific Standards that apply to a multifamily development in the R-2 zone. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 3. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b – Provide a lot coverage calculation that meets the requirements of UDC Article 6.4.3 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. This comment was not addressed correctly. Based on Constructure Plan I-760, found at: https://maps-and-records.tucsonaz.gov/construction-plans/details/I-760, the distance from centerline of Belvedere to the east property line is 30’ not 30’ to curb as shown on the plan. Also, the distance from face of curb to the east property line is 6’ not 8’ from back of curb as shown on the plan. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.C - Provide the name, right-of-way width, dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks for Belvedere Ave. on the plan. 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. This comment was not addressed correctly. Clearly demonstrate that the requirements of ICC A117.1-2009 Section 502.5 are met. Demonstrate how someone in a wheelchair will gain access to the sidewalk from the accessible access aisle. Also the mounting height for the accessible sign is not correct. As this sign is located near a pedestrian way the mounting height should be 84”. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – As this is a non-residential site at least one of the vehicle parking spaces shall be a van accessible vehicle parking space, 2018 IBC Chapter 11 Table 1106.1 and Section 1106.5. Show the required space on the plan along with a detail that demonstrates that the requirements of ICC A117.1-2009 Section 502 are met. Also provided an accessible vehicle parking space sign detail. 6. This comment was not addressed correctly. Based on the “.5 PER BEDROOM” shown on the plan you have only addressed the required long-term bicycle parking no calculation was provided for the required short-term. Within the calculation show the number of proposed bedroom and provide the number of short- & long-term bicycle spaces required and provided. Also, not detail was provided for either the short- or long-term bicycle parking. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The bicycle parking space calculation is not correct and shall show the number of short- & long-term bicycle parking spaces required and provided. Also provide both a short- & long-term bicycle parking detail that clearly demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9 are met. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – Per UDC Article 6.3.3.C multifamily development is considered nonresidential for the purposes of determining dimensional standards. Per UDC TABLE 6.3-2.A the required perimeter yard setbacks to the north, south and west property line is 10’-0” or ¾ (H) = Height of the proposed exterior building wall. Based on the 21’-8” height provided on the plan the required perimeter yard setback from the proposed fourplex to the south and west property line is 16’-3”, proposed setback is 16’-0”. A Design Development Options (DDO) will need to be submitted and approved prior to approval of the DP. DDO application and requirements can be found at: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/forms/DDO_for_Setback_and_Height_UDC_8.11.20.pdf. If you have questions about the DDO application or process please contact Wyatt Berger at Wyatt.Berger@tucsonaz.gov or Georgia Pennington at Georgia.Pennington@tucsonaz.gov 8. Based on changes to the DP this comment was not fully addressed. Provide the height and square footage for the proposed sheds now shown on the plan. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – Provide the height of the proposed structures within the footprint. 9. This comment was not addressed correctly. The stripped area called out along the south property line under Keynote 12 is required to be a sidewalk that meets the requirements of TSM Sections 7-01.4.1.A, 7-01.4.2 & 7-01.4.3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Show the required sidewalk from the proposed dwelling units out to the street, TSM Section 7-01.4.1.A. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – A parking vehicles are allowed to overhang the stripped area called out along the south property line under Keynote 12, demonstrate that when a vehicle overhangs 2’-6” the minimum 4’-0” sidewalk width is maintained. 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 & detailed response letter. |
||
| 08/19/2024 | CDRC Application Completeness | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 09/03/2024 | ROW Engineering Review | REVIEW COMPLETED | DTM has no comments. |