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-0924-00246
Parcel: 10608002C

Address:
835 W PRINCE RD

Review Status: Requires Resubmit

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1

Permit Number - TD-DEV-0924-00246
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/14/2024 Commercial Plumbing APPROVED
10/24/2024 CDRC Post Review PENDING ASSIGNMENT
10/21/2024 External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing REQUIRES RESUBMIT Pima County Addressing is returning TD-DEV-0924-00246 for corrections. See the attached report for comments.



Nicholas Jordan

Site Review Project Manager II – Addressing Official

Pima County Development Services Department

201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor

Tucson, AZ 85701

(520) 724-9623
10/15/2024 Fire New Construction REQUIRES RESUBMIT -Add Fire Dept No Parking signs per IFC 503.3 amendment. See amendment for sign details. Add to turnaround located on SE side.
john.vincent@tucsonaz.gov
5203495581
10/18/2024 NPPO REQUIRES RESUBMIT The NPPO looks good. I will approve it once comment number 5 on the Site Landscape comments is satisfied.

Thank you.
Chad Keller, RLA
chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov
10/15/2024 Site Engineering REQUIRES RESUBMIT 1. Provide the slope of the waste enclosure slab and apron and ensure a minimum of 1% and 2%, respectively, in accordance with TSM 8.
2. Detail 12 on Sheet C6.1 states "compact to min. 95% compaction rate within basin limits" - this is not acceptable and contradicts 7.3.1 of the drainage report which states "the basin will rely on the in-situ soils to infiltrate the flow within the required drain time". The basin shall retain infiltration capacity. Remove this note and state "compaction within basin limits to be minimized".
3. The plan set cover sheet states that the area of disturbance is 1.59ac, but only 1.38ac are analyzed in the drainage report. Please clarify.
4. Tables 11 and 12 and Figure 17 in the drainage report use elevations that do not match the elevations for the basin and WSE on sheet C4.0 of the plan set. Please use the correct elevations in HEC-HMS or provide a table that shows the conversion.
5. The conclusion of the drainage report does not provide a summary table that shows how critical basin detention requirements have been met. Please provide a summary table that includes a % reduction in peak flow rates for the 2, 10, and 100-year storm events.
6. Please provide the offsite drainage area map showing the delineated areas with topographic data.
7. Appendix B of the drainage report contains a link that does not work. Please provide the hydraulic calculations in PDF format.
8. It is not clear how the total 100yr peak inflow is 15.1cfs when the 100-yr on-site inflow is 11.1cfs and the 100-yr off-site inflow is 15.1cfs. It is not clear why the 100-yr off-site inflow is 15.1cfs when OFF-1 Q100 is 2.1cfs and OFF-2 Q100 is 18.3cfs. It is not clear how the detention basin is only attenuating the peak flow rate by 0.1cfs. To clarify this, please provide the FLO2D hydrographs mentioned in 7.3.2 of the drainage report, provide a narrative in the response letter to this comment, and any additional figures necessary to clearly show how these values have been determined. Provide the HEC-HMS inputs for the basin dimensions.

Mike Ortiz
michael.ortiz@tucsonaz.gov
10/18/2024 Site Landscape REQUIRES RESUBMIT CDRC TRANSMITTAL
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
REVIEWER: CHAD KELLER, RLA
PDSD SITE LANDSCAPE/NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SECTION

PROJECT: NEW MULTI FAMILY AND CLINIC WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, LANDSCAPE AND DRAINAGE.
ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-0924-00246
ADDRESS: 835 W PRINCE RD
ZONING: R-2 RESIDENCE ZONE
LAND USE: MULTIFAMILY

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.

SITE LANDSCAPE/NPPO SECTION COMMENTS:

1. Ensure that Zoning and Engineering comments are addressed prior to landscape section approval.

2. Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0924-00246, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2-06.4.3

3. Clearly show and label the project property line on all landscape plans in the plan set.

4. DTM approval is required for all planting and irrigation in the ROW prior to the approval of the development package. Reach out to David Marhefka (david.marhefka@tucsonaz.gov) if necessary for this project. Or adjust the Lantana planted within the ROW so that they are located within the property boundaries.

5. Update the plant quantities with proposed nursery plant numbers and NPP (TOS) numbers within the planting schedule.

6. Add a general note to the CRWHP that references the civil grading plan and civil details for construction of basins, curb cuts, elevations and slopes, etc.

7. WHIA 3 and Subwatershed 3 are providing most of the percentage needed to meet the Commercial Rainwater Harvesting Ordinance. Add a note that WHIA 1 and WHIA 2 are rainfall only basins, as they are receiving no additional rainwater drainage from the surrounding site areas.

8. Provide the required number of trees in the parking area (1 tree per 4 parking spaces). There are 55 parking spaces provided, requiring a total of 14 trees. My count has the required trees provided at 12.5 trees, including the Live Oak at the southeast corner of the building and counting 50 percent of the trees in the south landscape border. Adding 2 more shade trees to the south landscape border within 10 feet of the parking spaces, along with moving some of the current proposed trees closer to the parking area will meet this standard. See 7.6.4.B.1.(2) Fifty percent of the trees required for landscape borders located within ten feet of the paved portion(s) of a vehicular use area may be counted towards both the minimum parking lot canopy tree standard and the landscape border canopy tree standard.

9. Please label irrigation meter as “irrigation only”. See TSM 4-01.6.0

10. A rainwater harvesting basin schematic detail is not a requirement but adding it to CRWHP would be a nice addition for construction clarity. If you would like to add the detail and need an example, please reach out and I will send a copy of the schematic for reference.

If you have any questions about these comments, I can be reached at chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov
10/11/2024 Site Zoning REQUIRES RESUBMIT CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Wyatt Berger
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Sequoia Apartments and Clinic
Development Package (1st Review)
TD-DEV-0924-00246

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 11, 2024

DUE DATE: October 16, 2024

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. The one-year expiration date is October 11, 2025.

1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0924-00246, adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.3 – The site is subject to rezoning case C9-76-19. Provide the rezoning case number in the lower right corner of each sheet and list the applicable rezoning conditions on the cover sheet, if any.

3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – State the use-specific standards that apply to the proposed Medical Service – Outpatient (excluding blood donor centers) use on the cover sheet. Refer to UDC Table 4.8-4 and UDC Section 4.9 to determine the applicable use-specific standards.

4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.C – Include the full width, recordation data, and type and dimensioned width of paving of all rights-of-way adjacent to the site.

5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.E – Sequence number 20233480254 indicates that Pima County Tax Parcel Number 106-08-002C has been split into a 5.24-acre site. The development package drawings show a “new property line” at the western edge of the development. Clarify whether future land division is proposed. A land split application may be required for any further division of land.

6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.F – Show all zoning boundaries clearly defined on the development package drawings. Ensure the zoning classification across adjacent rights-of-way are also represented.

7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.F – The zoning classification listed to the south is incorrect and should be corrected to C-2.

8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Label the radius of the PAAL intersection where refuse collection is located. Per UDC 7.4.6.E.1.a, a minimum unobstructed radius of 18 feet is required where an access lane or PAAL designated as a fire lane or is used to access refuse and/or recycling collection intersections another access lane or PAAL.

9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Demonstrate that the back-up spur at the northeast corner of the site has a minimum radius and depth of three feet (UDC 7.4.6.F.4.c). An additional back-up spur is required at the southwest corner of the site.

10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – The cover sheet indicates a Parking Design Modification Request (PDMR) will be pursued to eliminate four motor vehicle parking spaces from being provided. If the request is approved, provide a statement on the cover sheet that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the approved PDMR, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any.

11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Demonstrate how the proposed bicycle parking facilities comply with UDC 7.4.9.B.1.e. Outdoor bicycle parking areas must be lighted so that they are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent sidewalks, parking lots, or buildings during hours of use.

12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Demonstrate how the short-term bicycle parking required for the Medical Service use complies with UDC 7.4.9.C.2.a. Short-term bicycle parking must be within 50 feet of each public entrance to a building as measured along the most direct pedestrian access route.

13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Clarify the location of the two long-term bicycle parking spaces required for the Medical Service use. Ensure these spaces comply with UDC 7.4.9.B and .D.

14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.I – The Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan indicates Prince Road has a proposed right-of-way width of 120 feet. Show the total future right-of-way width on the development package drawings.

15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.L – The new public utility easement may need to be recorded prior to approval of TD-DEV-0924-00246. Once recorded, provide the recordation information to the development package drawings.

16. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – Dimension the setbacks between the east lot lines and the proposed shade structures. Additionally, depending on the location of the R-2 zoning boundary, the minimum required setback may need to be corrected to 10 feet or ¾ the height of the exterior building wall or post, whichever is greater (UDC Table 6.3-4.A).

17. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – Label the height and square footage of the proposed shade structures denoted as Keynote 14 on Sheet C3.0.

18. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.S – As a future right-of-way line is drawn on the development package drawings, indicate the future sidewalk, curb, and curb cut locations.

19. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.U – If applicable, graphically demonstrate compliance with the conditions of rezoning case number C9-76-19.

20. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.V – Clarify the location of mail service on the site. If gang mailboxes are proposed, label their locations to assure there are no conflicts with other site requirements.

21. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.W – The locations of the proposed accessible parking signage shown on Sheet C3.0 do not correspond with Detail 3 on Sheet C6.0.

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/sharedassets/public/v/1/pdsd/documents/tdc-faq/new-pdfs/revisions-and-resubmittals.pdf.
09/09/2024 CDRC Application Completeness REVIEW COMPLETED
09/19/2024 CDRC Review Coordinator REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC added Addressing, ADOT, TEP PAG, USPS, SWG to the workflow. Review request email sent t Addressing, ADOT, and TEP. FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG
09/25/2024 External Reviewers - Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) REVIEW COMPLETED Good Afternoon,

ADOT has no comments on this DEV.

Thank you for the opportunity to review.
09/19/2024 External Reviewers - Pima Association of Governments REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required.
09/19/2024 External Reviewers - Southwest Gas REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required.
10/24/2024 External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) REVIEW COMPLETED October 23, 2024
WO#T128767
City of Tucson
Planning and Development Services
Attn: CDRC Admin Team
Dear CDRC Admin Team
Subject: Dev Package for Sequoia Apartments
TD-DEV-0924-00246
Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed and approved the development
plan submitted 9/19/2024. There are existing facilities within the development which are
depicted upon the plans; however, there do not appear to be any apparent conflicts at
this time. Further, there is a blanket easement (Book 1056 pg 493) over the project.
Developer should work with Land Department if any new easements are needed to
serve the development and to release the blanket easement over the development
area.
Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the
existing facilities. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer.
To apply for electric service, please call the New Construction department at (520) 918-
8300. Please submit a final set of plans including approved site, electric load, paving
off-site improvements and irrigation plans. If available, include a PDF version of the
plans.
If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Should you
have any easement questions, please contact our Land Resources Department,
LandReviews@tep.com.
Should you have any technical questions, please contact the area designer,
Fred Quintero
(520) Quintero, Fred
fquintero@tep.com
Sincerely,
Design Admins
Design Admins
Tucson Electric Power
09/19/2024 External Reviewers - United States Postal Service (USPS) REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required.
09/17/2024 OK to Submit - Engineering REVIEW COMPLETED
09/18/2024 OK to Submit - Zoning REVIEW COMPLETED
09/27/2024 ROW Engineering Review REVIEW COMPLETED DTM has no comments.