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 NEW v.2
Permit Number - TD-DEV-0924-00263
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/18/2025 | Commercial Plumbing | APPROVED | |||
| 03/05/2025 | Design Review | APPROVED | |||
| 02/21/2025 | NPPO | APPROVED | |||
| 02/21/2025 | Site Landscape | APPROVED | |||
| 04/19/2025 | CDRC Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 04/19/2025 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. Provide details showing ADA access to all amenities including half basketball court. 2. It appears that APN 12218046A was included in the lot combination. Please resubmit showing these structures and their integration with the new site proposals. 3. Resubmit with waste stream calculations including newly added residential units. 4. resubmit drainage statement to include this new area. Joshua Garcia joshua.garcia@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 02/21/2025 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Pima Street Multi-Family Development Package (2nd Review) TD-DEV-0924-00263 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 21, 2025 DUE DATE: February 21, 2025 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 October 1, 2025. 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. 1. This easement will need to be abandoned prior to approval of the DP. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.B – Show the 20’-0” Ingress/Egress Easement that runs along the north property line of parcel 122-18-046B on the plan. It appears that proposed development is within this easement. Either the proposed development will need to be removed from the easement, or the easement will need to be abandoned. 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. 2. Until the lot combo is approved Zoning cannot approve this DP. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.A – As this site is made up of four (4) parcels, 122-18-0490, 122-18-0500, 122-18-0470, & 122-18-046B, a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Assessor’s Consolidation Request Form, found at: https://www.asr.pima.gov/Forms?tab=Misc, with the next submittal. 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The vehicle parking space calculation shows 30 spaces provided but only 29 are provided on the plan. 4. This comment does not appear to have been addressed correctly. Per UDC Article 7.4.5.F.6.b the motor vehicle parking requirement may be reduced by one space for every four non-required canopy trees provided in the vehicular use area. Per sheet L-1 TREE CALCULATIONS for Parking the required number of trees shows 8 and the proposed number shows 8. According to the landscape plan no additional trees have been provided in the vehicle use area. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Clarify what the proposed reduction list is as UDC Article 7.4.5.E.7.1 does not exist. 5. This comment was not addressed. No light pole is identified on the plan or detail. 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 for the short-term bicycle parking. 6. The comment was not fully addressed. Add “as measured from the existing or future property line as determined by the adopted Major Streets and Routes Plan, whichever is greater”, UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2.a. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – The street perimeter yard setback listed under Development Package Calculation #3 is not correct. Review UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2.a and provide the correct street perimeter yard setback. 7. This comment was not addressed correctly. Your reference to UDC Figure 6.4.4-B is not correct and deals only with measuring allowed building height. UDC Article 6.4.5.B.1 states “at the wall’s highest point” or top of parapet. Based on a wall height of 27’ the required setback 10’-3”. Also, the provided elevations do not provide dimensions from design grade as required, UDC Figure 6.4.5-A. If dimensions to design grade are not provided Zoning will add 6” to the heights provided to determine required perimeter yard setbacks. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – Per UDC Article 8.7.3.K.1 1. Perimeter yards along FLD project site boundaries are required in accordance the site ’s underlying zone as provided in Section 6.3.4, Dimensional Standards and Exceptions Tables. Perimeter yard setbacks are based on a wall height measurement from design grade to the highest point of the exterior wall UDC Article 6.4.5.B & Figure 6.4.5-A. Based on the parapet height of 27’ the required perimeter yard setback is 20’-3”. It does not appear that the perimeter yard setbacks are met along the north, south and east property lines. Provide building elevations with the next submittal so that perimeter yard setback requirements can be verified. A Design Development Options may be required. Additional comments 8. This comment was not addressed correctly. The future calculation shows 20 units which is not correct. Density does not round up as this would allow for a nonconforming development. COMMENT: The density calculation shall take into account the future right-of -way requirements. Review UDC Article 5.4.5.D. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.L – As development, basketball court & amenity area, is shown on the adjacent property some type of recorded easement, agreement will be required 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – The development, basketball court & amenity area, is shown on the adjacent property appears to be eliminating vehicle use area. A separate development package will be required for this adjacent site that clearly demonstrates how the vehicle use area will work. This separate DP must be approvable prior to approving shits DP. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Nicholas Martell at Nicholas.Martell@tucsonaz.gov. 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. |