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

Permit Number: TD-DEV-0723-00323
Parcel: 113061530

Review Status: Requires Resubmit

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1

Permit Number - TD-DEV-0723-00323
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
07/25/2023 NPPO APPROVED Water harvesting % is incorrect, it's 59%.
07/25/2023 Site Landscape APPROVED
09/12/2023 CDRC Post Review PENDING ASSIGNMENT
08/31/2023 Commercial Plumbing REQUIRES RESUBMIT The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (2390.27’) is less than 12” below the first floor elevation of each unit. Add a note stating that backwater valves will be required for each unit per Section 714.1, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson.
09/12/2023 External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing REQUIRES RESUBMIT [EXTERNAL] RFC TD-DEV-0723-00323

Nicholas Jordan
CDRC
Good afternoon,

Pima County Addressing is returning TD-DEV-0723-00323 for corrections. Please see the attached plan.

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
08/17/2023 Fire New Construction REQUIRES RESUBMIT -Existing hydrant (s) acceptable.
-Buildings (apartment R2 IBC/IFC) required to have fire sprinklers. Make change to plans. Include fire service fire lines to utility page.

john.vincent@tucsonaz.gov
5203495581
08/23/2023 ROW Engineering Review REQUIRES RESUBMIT TD-DEV-0723-00323 (1937 E FORT LOWELL RD TUCSON, AZ 85719)

Please resubmit revised drawings along with a detailed response letter which states how all comments were addressed.

Comments:
1. Presubmittal conference comment requiring 30’ curb return radiuses was an error. TSM 10-01.9.0 Allows curb return radius of 25’ on an arterial/PAAL corner. The more modern SDG recommends a smaller radius of 20’ for pedestrian comfort (SDG 5-10). If feasible for drainage, the best option for walkability is use of driveway apron rather than curb returns. See SDG 3-15 for design options. P. A. G. SD 206 provides an option for additional depressed curb on streets with a speed limit of 35mph or greater that would be a preferred choice here.
2. It looks like the trash enclosure is proposed to be built on public property. If the ROW is going to be purchased from the city, provide documentation on the next submittal.
3. TSM 10-01.4.1.A.1.a - The new sidewalk in the ROW should be 6’ wide.
4. SDG 2-26 – If curb returns are used, please explore moving the new sidewalk away from the back of curb to decrease pedestrian crossing distance across the development entrance. The sharpest allowable lateral transition in sidewalks is 1 lateral to 3 longitudinal. See P. A. G. SD 207 for an example.
5. P. A. G. SD 207 - Tie-in from existing adjacent 5’ sidewalk to new 6’ sidewalk with an extra taper at the back of sidewalk. Tie-in per P.A.G. standard 203 labeled on plans.
6. TSM 10-01.5.1 – Please provide sight visibility triangles. Reference TSM 10-01.5.1 for instructions.
7. SDG 3-14, 3 -15 – If using curb returns, where sidewalks cross driveways, the sidewalk should be dominant, maintaining the level, slope, and material of the sidewalk. See illustration in SDG for example.
8. SDG 3-16 - Concrete sidewalks across driveways should be built to no less than 6-inches in-depth to support traffic load and extend their life cycle.


Faffs Riederer
Faffs.Riederer@tucsonaz.gov

Abbreviations: City of Tucson Code (COTC), Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM), Technical Standards Manual (TSM), Street Design Guide (SDG), Pima Association of Governments Standard Details (P. A. G. SD), Access Management Guidelines (AMG), Major Streets and Routes Plan (MS&R).
08/29/2023 Site Engineering REQUIRES RESUBMIT 1. See zoning and traffic comments concerning the proposed trash enclosure in the alley. Also environmental services will need to be involved for permission as proposed.
2. Provide a complete pedestrian circulation path including out to the trash enclosure.
3. Both the Sewer Plan and Water Plan sheets need to have a note stating for reference only all utility work to be done per separate permit.
4. The drainage report narrative section 4.2 mentions a 9-foot curb opening provided on the east end of Metric Drive. For clarity, please label and dimension this curb cut on the site plan and/or the grading plan.
5. There seems to be some inconsistencies in the ponding depths in basins A, B, C, and D between the grading plan, the post development flow exhibit in the drainage report, and the rainwater harvesting plan exhibit. Revise as needed.
6. On the rain water harvesting plan the budget table is using ponding depths greater than the 9” from the drainage report and grading plan. Review and revise as needed.
7. On the rain water harvesting plan the budget table has a markup of the percent to total site annual landscape demand met using harvested water going from 108% to 59%. Please explain the markup and clarify if the numbers in the table are accurate.

Stephen Blood
(520) 837-4958
Stephen.blood@tucsonaz.gov
07/27/2023 Site Zoning REQUIRES RESUBMIT CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Wyatt Berger
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Richland Heights
Development Package (1st Review)
TD-DEV-0723-00323

TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 27, 2023

DUE DATE: August 27, 2023

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans 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, and the Technical Standards Manual (TSM).

Per UDC Section 3.3.3.G.5.c, 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 July 27, 2024.

1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Add the development package case number, TD-DEV-0723-00323, adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6 – Provide a general note stating “THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE CRITERIA FOR: UDC SECTION 5.4, MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R); AND UDC SECTION 5.5, GATEWAY CORRIDOR ZONE.”

3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.F – Notate the zoning district adjacent to the project and across Fort Lowell Road on Sheet C200.

4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Show within Detail 2 on Sheet C600 that the proposed wheel stop curbing is a minimum of two and one-half feet from the front of the parking space (UDC 7.4.6.H.3).

5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Per IBC Table 1106.1, based on the number of parking spaces required, two accessible motor vehicle parking spaces are also required for the proposed development. Show the location of the second required parking space in addition to the location of the required handicapped parking sign.

6. COMMENT: 2-06.H.9.5.a – Clarify the locations of the remaining required 28 motor vehicle parking spaces on Sheet C200.

7. COMMENT: 2-06.H.9.5.a – Per UDC Table 7.4.11-1, three motor vehicle parking spaces are required to be “EV Ready,” and six motor vehicle parking spaces are required to be “EV Capable.” One of these parking spaces shall also be accessible compliant (UDC 7.4.11.B.2). Demonstrate that all required EVSE meets the requirements of UDC 7.4.11 and UDC 7.4.12.

8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The proposed short-term bicycle parking facilities do not meet the requirements of UDC 7.4.9.B and .C. Demonstrate that the short-term bicycle parking facilities will comply with all of UDC 7.4.9.B. and .C. Provide a detail showing the short-term bicycle parking layout (see UDC Figure 7.4.9-C).

9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.I – If the rear alley right-of-way is anticipated to be abandoned and vacated, provide the recorded abandonment information with your resubmittal. If vacation has occurred, include the recording information.

10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – Provide the height of each unit within the footprint of each unit to demonstrate the setback requirements will be met. Per UDC Table 6.3.3-A, when a non-residential use is adjacent to a residential or nonresidential zone, the required side and rear perimeter yard setbacks are ten feet or ¾ the height of the proposed exterior building wall, whichever is greater, measured from each interior property line. Design Development Option (DDO) is required to reduce a side or rear perimeter yard setback.

11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Ensure a pedestrian circulation path connects to the bicycle parking area as well as to the trash enclosure (TSM 7-01.3.3.B).

12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Per Technical Standards Manual 7-01.4.1.F, sidewalks cannot be located between any motor vehicle parking space and the PAAL providing access to that space. A Technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) is required to allow a sidewalk to be situated between a parking space and a PAAL.

13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.T – Per Technical Standards Manual 8-01.5.4.A, containers shall not be stored on any public right-of-way. Moreover, access and maneuverability are proposed within the right-of-way. A TSMR is required to allow the proposed location, access, and maneuverability to remain as depicted on the development package drawings.

14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.V – Clarify whether mail will be collected through a gang mailbox or through each individual dwelling unit. Indicate the location of the gang mailbox, if proposed, to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian circulation, utilities, and landscaping.

15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.W – As two accessible parking spaces are required for the proposed development, show the location of the required handicapped parking sign to assure there are no conflicts with pedestrian circulation.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Wyatt.Berger@tucsonaz.gov or at (520) 837-4951.

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: A revised development package as well as a comment response letter. To resubmit, visit the Tucson Development Center Online at https://tdc-online.tucsonaz.gov/#/home. The instructions for resubmittal can be found at https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/website/Resubmittals.pdf.
07/21/2023 CDRC Application Completeness REVIEW COMPLETED
07/25/2023 CDRC Review Coordinator REVIEW COMPLETED Added external reviewers, sent emails and sent FYI emails per SOP.
07/25/2023 External Reviewers - Pima Association of Governments REVIEW COMPLETED Sent FYI emails per SOP.
07/25/2023 External Reviewers - Southwest Gas REVIEW COMPLETED Sent FYI emails per SOP.
07/25/2023 External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) REVIEW COMPLETED Sent FYI emails per SOP.
07/25/2023 External Reviewers - United States Postal Service (USPS) REVIEW COMPLETED Sent FYI emails per SOP.
07/24/2023 OK to Submit - Engineering REVIEW COMPLETED
07/24/2023 OK to Submit - Landscape REVIEW COMPLETED
07/24/2023 OK to Submit - Zoning REVIEW COMPLETED