Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Permit Number - TD-DEV-0723-00311
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/21/2023 | CDRC Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 09/06/2023 | Commercial Plumbing | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | sewer main. 2. Private sewers 8-inches and larger require manholes, not cleanouts. Reference: Section 708.1.2, IPC 2018. 3. The use of saddle-type fittings to connect to a private sewer is prohibited, use directional wye fittings to connect the building sewers to the sewer main (see keynote 5, C-6). Reference: Section 707.1 (6), IPC 2018 and Detail RWRD 401. 4. Compare the FFE for each existing building and compare it to the rim elevation of the new manhole (at keynote 4/C-1) and evaluate the need for backwater valves at the existing buildings per Section 714.1, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
||
| 09/21/2023 | External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | [EXTERNAL] RFC TD-DEV-0723-00311 Nicholas Jordan CDRC Good afternoon, Pima County Addressing is returning TD-DEV-0723-00311 for comments. Please see the attached plan and comment sheet. 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 |
||
| 08/16/2023 | Fire New Construction | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | -Indicate on the cover sheet that all buildings will have fire sprinklers. -Make note that sliding gates will have TFD knox key switch if electric or knox key box if manual sliding. -Include height of new 3 story building. If height exceeds 30', aerial apparatus access roads shall comply with IFC Section D105. john.vincent@tucsonaz.gov 5203495581 |
||
| 08/18/2023 | NPPO | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | See Landscape Comments. | ||
| 08/28/2023 | ROW Engineering Review | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | TD-DEV-0723-00311 (540 W PRINCE RD TUCSON, AZ 85705) Please resubmit revised drawings along with a detailed response letter which states how all comments were addressed. Comments: 1. AM 2-06.4.7.A.8.c - Provide a building area expansion calculation on the plan. 2. TSM 10-01.5.1, AM 2-06.4.9 – Please provide future and existing sight visibility triangles. Reference TSM 10-01.5.1 for instructions. 3. Many drawings in this development package indicate a southern property line that is in the ROW on Prince Rd. Please revise and provide a legend identifying property boundaries. 4. The 30’ Half ROW line appears to be an error. The existing ROW is ~85’, the existing Half ROW appears to be ~42.5’. Please clarify. 5. TSM 10-01.4.1.A.1.a - The new sidewalk in the ROW should be 6’ wide. 6. Page 9, note 5. Please reference P. A. G. Standard Detail 203 in place of COT STD DTL. 7. P. A. G. SD 207 - Tie-in from existing adjacent 5’ sidewalk to new 6’ sidewalk with a taper at the back of sidewalk. Tie-in per P.A.G. standard 203 labeled on plans. 8. P. A. G. SD 207, ICC 117.1 Sec 405.7 - Where adjoining sidewalk from the property ties to sidewalk along the ROW frontage, a 60” X 60” ADA landing is required with a maximum 2% cross slope. Please identify this landing with a callout note. 9. MS&R Plan Policy 2.A.5 & COTC 26-10 – Required vehicle, drainage, and landscape features cannot be located in the future right-of-way. Please confirm that none of the parking in the future ROW is required parking. 10. P. A. G. SD 206 – Please clarify if new driveway aprons are being proposed. If proposing driveway aprons, please add a note calling out P. A. G. SD 206. These details have an option for a wider apron on high speed streets such as Prince Rd. Please include a detail drawing showing dimensions and sidewalk location. 11. Sidewalk can be routed behind the driveway apron, if desired, for a gentler driveway slope. See examples in SDG 3-15. 12. P. A. G. SD 206, SDG 3-15 Concrete sidewalks that are crossed by driveways should be 6” thick. 13. Please include email addresses for the Architect and Civil Engineer on the cover sheet. Faffs Riederer Faffs.Riederer@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 08/22/2023 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. Provide the percolation test report to confirm the percolation time, ensure proper de-rating is used per ret/det manual 4.19 2. Provide the complete PC-HYDRO output for the hydrology (use the "Output" button, provide both pages). Ensure the basin provides volume for the entirety of the 100-yr volume per ret/det manual 4.19 3. Detention utilizing basins larger than .75' depressed or underground storage will require routing calculations, the equation presented for Vs is only sufficient for an inital guess. Based on the information shown, I would suggest using Pima County's PC-LID software to show detention attenuation through on-site depressed landscape basins, which may eliminate the need for underground storage. 4. Provide a calculation similar to tables 2.2 and 2.3 of the retention/detention manual to confirm first flush 5. Provide a detail of the dry-well and underground basin 6. Provide curb cuts into parking lot landscaping along flow path to maximize water harvesting 7. Show points of roof drainage, ensure roof drainage up to the 10-year storm is directed away from/under adjacent sidewalk through the use of gutters/scuppers 8. Provide a detail of the waste enclosure, ensure it meets standards per TSM 8-01 9. Provide a waste stream calculation compliant with TSM 8-01.8 10. Per recent clarification from ES, while recycling is not required, enclosure space for both solid waste and recycling is required in the form of at least 1 double enclosure or 2 single enclosures 11. Provide a phasing plan, show how all ret/det for each phases' drainage requirements is met at each phase 12. Per UDC 7.4.6, the parking spot adjacent to the waste enclosure must be 10' wide 13. Show pedestrian circulation from each building to the waste enclosure, as well as out to Prince Rd 14. Show width of the proposed sidewalk along Prince Rd, ensure it is 6' per TSM 10-01 15. Ensure any DTM comments regarding sidewalk placement are met 16. Show that all depressed water harvesting is depressed 6-9", not including the require 2" groundcover. Correct this in the Existing conditions section of the drainage report as well 17. Clarify number of drywells in drainage report 18. Show width of onsite proposed sidewalk, provide sidewalk between PAAL and any building (TSM 7-01) 19. Show a 1' setback from edge of building overhang to 24.5' PAAL 20. Underground Retention: As per the updated Detention/Retention manual, underground retention requires city engineer approval based on the following comments: a. Show how 150% of the required 100-yr detention volume is provided in the site drainage improvements. (50% can be provided on the surface so that issues regarding improper drainage can be observable) (Detention/Retention manual 4.13.1.4) b. Show how necessary first flush volume is retained and infiltrated into the surrounding soils and that the soil beneath the chamber will infiltrate in a reasonable amount of time through a geotechnical report (now), or an infiltration test completed (prior to final inspection) c. Ensure landscaping comments regarding rainwater harvesting are addressed. Water harvesting must be maximized. Onsite flow should be primarily directed towards landscaping through the use of grading and curb cuts/scuppers d. Include a note in the plan set requiring a maintenance schedule and process that follows the manufacturer's process on page 89 of the drainage report. Ensure this includes a plan for cleaning the outlet into the drainage channel e. Include an inspection and maintenance port into each chamber (Detention/Retention Manual 4.13.1.5) f. Show how flow will be safely discharged when the storage capacity is exceeded through use of an overflow outlet (Detention/Retention Manual 4.13.1.6) g. Process a covenant agreement for this project (including language for the dry well as well) (Detention/Retention Manual 4.13.1.7), a sample can be found at: https://webcms.pima.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/File/Government/Flood%20Control/Rules%20and%20Procedures/Stormwater%20Detention-Retention/dssdr-final-201406-appendix-g.pdf Ensure template language is modified for use within the city h. Provide a report from an engineer registered in Arizona showing adequacy of the load bearing capacity of the underlying soils, as well as providing appropriate building setbacks and design details associated with the structural integrity of the system and surrounding site features (Detention/Retention Manual 4.13.1.8) i. Apply for city engineering approval by emailing Stephen Blood stephen.blood@tucsonaz.gov. Please provide proof of addressing the comments 6a-6h in that email Scott Haseman scott.haseman@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 08/18/2023 | Site Landscape | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PROJECT: PRINCE MULTI-FAMILY ACTIVITY NO. TP-DEV-0723-00311 ADDRESS/PARCEL: 540 W PRINCE RD/106-05-0880 ZONING: O-3 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. Please resubmit revised drawings along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Landscape/NPPO Review Section comments are addressed. COMMENTS: 1. Ensure that Zoning, Engineering comments, and concerns are addressed prior to landscape section approval. 2. Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0723-00311, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2-06.4.3 3. Correct the contact phone number for the Landscape Architect on the project, the number listed is the engineer on the project. 4. Label sight visibility triangles and ROWs (existing and future) to all landscape plans. 5. Ensure that this is an irrigation only meter for the landscaping, if it is not please provide one. 6. Please include an NPPO waiver form in your resubmittal package. 7. Include landscape border calculations on your landscape plan. See email from Matthew Carlton. 8. Include any and all required landscape maintenance, installation, and irrigation notes, see email from Matthew Carlton. 9. Include a Commercial Rainwater Harvesting Plan. See email sent by Matthew Carlton. 10. Ensure the Grading Plan matches the Commercial Rainwater Harvesting Plan & the Landscape Plan. 11. Include spot elevations on the landscape plan for the water harvesting basins. 12. If using d.g at a 2” depth, ensure the rainwater harvesting basins are 8” in depth to account for the d.g. 13. Include directional arrows for all roofs on the commercial rainwater harvesting plan. 14. Show all curb cuts/downspouts/splash pads on the commercial rainwater harvesting plan. Please label the separate irrigation meter ‘irrigation only’. TSM 4-01.6.1.A.1. 15. Include a construction detail for trees planted near plazas/sidewalks/concrete paths for the trees planted near the stabilized dg paths. See Detail #402 here: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/tdot/landscape-architects 16. Include Detail 428 located here (https://www.tucsonaz.gov/Departments/Transportation-Mobility/Landscape/Landscape-Architects) in your submittal. 17. Show planting construction details with the planting areas depressed to meet the requirements for the CRWH Ordinance. If you have any questions about these comments, I can be reached at Matthew.Carlton@tucsonaz.gov or 520-837-4988 |
||
| 08/07/2023 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Prince Multifamily Development Package (1st Review) TD-DEV-0723-00311 TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 7, 2023 DUE DATE: September 1, 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 August 1, 2024. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.1 – Provide email addresses for the project team listed on sheet 1. 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.1 – Provide the name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site in the right half of the cover sheet. 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0723-00311, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4 - The project-location map to be located on the first sheet of the development package in the upper right corner, shall cover approximately one square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of three inch equals one mile, and provide the following information. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4.C - Provide the Section, township, and range label the section corners; and scale 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 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – The proposed use, “RESIDENTIAL” is not a use classified in the UDC but a Use Group. Review UDC TABLE 4.8-3: PERMITTED USES - OFFICE ZONES, O-3 Zone and provide a proposed use as classified in the UDC. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - As Prince Rd. is designated as an Arterial 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: 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b – Remove all references to lot coverage as it is not applicable in the O-3 Zone for a multifamily use, see UDC Table 6.3-3.A. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.c - Provide a building area 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. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.A – Based on the legal description “PULLMAN CITY LOT 7 EXC S15'” and current Assessor’s map the north/south property dimension is not correct and should be 257.7’. 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.C - Provide the following information for Prince Rd. dimensioned width of paving, curbs, and curb cuts. It does not appear that the 30’-0” half R/W is correct. Per Paving Plan I-821 current ½ R/W is 45’. 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. 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Clearly demonstrate that the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.a are met from the proposed 3 story building north to the PAAL. 14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Clearly demonstrate that the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.b are met from the proposed access lanes, on the east and west side of the site, to the wall called out under Paving Construction Note 9, sheet 9. 15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Clearly demonstrate that the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4 are met for the area south of the proposed sliding gates. 16. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Clearly demonstrate that a vehicle attempting to access the site can turn around on site without having to back out onto Prince is the gate will not open. All maneuvering must be on site. 17. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – It does not appear that the provided number of vehicle parking spaces is correct. The calculation show 32 provided but there appears to be 35 spaces on the plan. 18. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The vehicle parking spaces calculation shall include the number of required and provided accessible parking spaces to include van accessible spaces. 19. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Provide a detail for both a standard and accessible vehicle parking space on the plan. 20. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Based on the future right-of-way (ROW) line shown there are 3 vehicle parking spaces shown within the future ROW, these spaces may not count toward the required number of vehicle parking spaces. 21. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Per 2018 IBC Chapter 11, Table 1106.1 and the 32 spaces provided base on the parking calculation 2 accessible vehicle parking spaces are required, one being van accessible. Clearly shown the 2 required spaces on the plan. The ADA space shown located within the future ROW does not count toward the required number of accessible spaces. 22. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Provide a dimension from the wall called out under Paving Construction Note 9, sheet 9 to the vehicle parking space located along the north end of the site. At a minimum this distance must be 2’-6”, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3. 23. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Provide a bicycle parking spaces calculation that includes the number required & provided for both the short- & long-term bicycle parking. 24. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Provide a detail for both the short- & long-term bicycle parking that clearly demonstrates how all requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9 are met. 25. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.6 – In the description provided on the application you mention “Phase 1” & “Phase 2” but there are no phase lines or phase calculation provided on the plan. Clarify if phasing is proposed and if so clearly show it on the plan and provide all applicable phase calculations on the plan. 26. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.J – Show the future curb and sidewalk locations on the plan and provided dimensions. 27. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – Until the height for the proposed 3 story building is provided Zoning cannot determine if perimeter yard setbacks are maintained. Perimeter yard setbacks are based on a measurement from design grade to the highest point of the exterior wall UDC Article 6.4.5.B & Figure 6.4.5-A. 28. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – Provide the square footage, height and the specific use proposed within the footprint of all buildings, existing & proposed. 29. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Provide a sidewalk meeting the requirements of TSM Section 7-01.4.2 & .3 along the east, west and south side of the existing structures, TSM Section 7-01.4.1.B. 30. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.W - Provide a general note stating all signs require separate permits. 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. |
||
| 08/02/2023 | CDRC Application Completeness Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 08/03/2023 | CDRC Review Coordinator Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | Added external reviewers, sent emails and sent FYI emails per SOP. | ||
| 08/25/2023 | External Reviewers - Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) | REVIEW COMPLETED | [EXTERNAL] Re: DUE SEPTEMBER 8, 2023 / The proposed project is located on 540 West Prince Road Tucson, AZ 85705. The .95 acre site is currently zoned O-3. / TD-DEV-0723-00311 Jay Gomes <jgomes@azdot.gov> CDRC Good Afternoon, ADOT has no comments on this DEV. Thank you for the opportunity to review. |
||
| 08/03/2023 | External Reviewers - Pima Association of Governments | REVIEW COMPLETED | Sent FYI emails per SOP. | ||
| 08/03/2023 | External Reviewers - Southwest Gas | REVIEW COMPLETED | Sent FYI emails per SOP. | ||
| 08/03/2023 | External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) | REVIEW COMPLETED | Sent FYI emails per SOP. | ||
| 08/03/2023 | External Reviewers - United States Postal Service (USPS) | REVIEW COMPLETED | Sent FYI emails per SOP. | ||
| 08/02/2023 | OK to Submit - Landscape Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED |