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-1024-00280
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/09/2024 | Traffic Engineering Review | APPROVED | Traffic Engineering has no further comments on this develpment. | ||
| 12/06/2024 | Transportation Landscape Review | APPROVED | |||
| 01/14/2025 | CDRC Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 11/27/2024 | Commercial Plumbing | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Identify the lots that will require the installation of a backwater valve. Reference: Section 714.1, IPC 2018. | ||
| 01/07/2025 | Design Review | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | An Architectural Variation Plan and Privacy Mitigation Plan in accordance with UDC Section 8.3.7.M.1.d and 8.3.7.M.2.b shall be provided on the next submittal. | ||
| 01/14/2025 | External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Report Date: 01/13/2025 Description : Addressing review of TD-DEV-1024-00280 TP for Enclaves at Tumamoc Address : , , , Record Type : Addressing Document Filename : SUB1-_TP v2 Reviewer Contact Information: Corrections in the following table need to be applied before a plan is approved Review Report - Resubmittal Requested Application Number: P25AD00026 Comment ID Comment Date Corrections Needed Page Ref Reviewer : Department Review Comments DSD Addressing 13 01/13/252025 Yes 1 Nicholas Jordan : DSD Addressing Update the street names to the approved name list. 8 01/13/252025 Yes 9 Nicholas Jordan : DSD Addressing W Anklam RD 9 01/13/252025 Yes 9 Nicholas Jordan : DSD Addressing W Saint Marys RD 10 01/13/252025 Yes 9 Nicholas Jordan : DSD Addressing N Street B 11 01/13/252025 Yes 10 Nicholas Jordan : DSD Addressing N (North) 12 01/13/252025 Yes 10 Nicholas Jordan : DSD Addressing W Anklam RD General Comments Pima County Public Works 201 N. Stone Ave. Tucson, AZ 85701 If you have any questions please call 520- 724-6490 for an appointment to discuss this notice. If following discussions with staff you still disagree with the below listed deficiencies, you may appeal to the Building Official in accordance with Pima County Code 15.04.060 by submitting the form posted on our web site with payment of appeal fee prior to permit application expiration. Disputes about the interpretation of the Zoning Code may be appealed to a Pima County Board of Adjustment under A.R.S. § 11 -816 and P.C.C. § 18.93.060. Please submit all plans, calculations and specifications to us electronically via the Digital Projects page in the online portal. Re-Submittal Procedures Please submit all documents using Citizen Access at permits.pima.gov (i.e. plans, drawings, calculations, quantities, exhibits, photographs, letters, etc.). 1. Please go to permits.pima.gov and login to your account to access review comments and resubmit. 2. If you have questions or need clarification regarding comments, please contact the reviewer. 3. Provide a response to each correction comment. 4. To resubmit, upload revised full plan set. Should the resubmittal not completely address this request for corrections, the application maybe denied requiring a new application and payment all applicable review fees in accordance withA.R.S. § 11-1605. |
||
| 11/07/2024 | External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Greetings, We would like to inform you that Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has conducted a review of your submitted project plan. At this time, we are unable to grant approval. TEP is in the process of developing a revised Preliminary Electrical Design for this project. A final construction drawing will be prepared following your approval of the preliminary design and upon receipt of the approved plat. It is important to note that, as indicated in the Preliminary Construction Drawing, easements for TEP facilities must be clearly outlined on the plat in order to obtain our approval. These easements are required for TEP facilities and must be properly documented on the final subdivision plat; otherwise, they will need to be secured through a separate instrument. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We appreciate your cooperation. Respectfully, Tucson Electric Power Co. Land Resources Department |
||
| 12/03/2024 | Fire New Construction | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | -Could not locate the new fire hydrants. john.vincent@tucsonaz.gov 5203495581 |
||
| 12/12/2024 | Floodplain Administration Review | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1) UDC 5.5: The Silvercroft Wash is a designated ERZ watercourse and although the riparian floodplain is also marked as “Disturbed Watercourses (Sparsh Vegetation)” ERZ code shall apply, except where the Floodplain Ordinance (higher standard code) takes precedence. Typically, the proposed L-shaped bank protection proposed at the north portion of the project would not be allowed per ERZ code. In this case, there has been embankment failure along the inside curve of the wash along Saint Mary’s Road and temporary fill has been placed by the City maintenance crew until funding can be generated to perform permanent embankment protection. The watercourse was City field engineering inspected 27NOV24 and the existing embankment along this watercourse was found in need of embankment repair / reconstruction. Due to safety-related erosion hazards, the Floodplain Ordinance may be considered as the higher authority over the ERZ code, for this particular site and conditions, per the Floodplain Administrator and therefore both reconstruction and extension of the wash embankment may be considered by the City of Tucson Floodplain Administration for the entire stretch of this Wash if the developer provides bank protection for both sides of the wash (may exclude some portions of existing embankment as deemed acceptable by a geotechnical engineer and by the City Floodplain Administrator). Additional tree planting (as discussed with City DTM & PDSD Landscape Architect and Developer) would be required to address ERZ mitigation related disturbance. 2) Tech Stnd Sec 4-04.7.6: Delineate EHS setback for both sides of watercourse for the existing and proposed conditions on the grading plan (proposed) and drainage report (both existing and proposed conditions). 3) Tech Stnd Sec 4-04.6: Please provide design for any proposed embankment improvements for gunite or other public drainageway embankment protection with consideration for EHS, scour, and geotechnical recommendations for slope stability for gunite for the soils at the site. 4) Tech Stnd Sec 4-04.2.3.1.2.F.1: Provide copy of CWA Section 404 AJD from USACE in report or appendix as needed (may fall under nationwide). 5) Tech Stnd Sec 4-04.14.9.5.3: Explain whether the 100-year WSEL is below low chord of existing bridge and how much freeboard is provided and add a depiction in report detailing FB dimensions. Explain in the report that the 500-year event is expected to overtop bridge. Also provide information regarding bridge condition. 6) Tech Stnd Sec 4-03: The City of Tucson does not want retention to be located next to bank protection to avoid pore water pressure onto public drainageway embankment structure. If proposing embankment protection, waiver for some or all of basin requirements will be considered, since the Silvercroft Wash is a tributary to the Santa Cruz River and falls under criteria for direct discharge unless there is issue with time of concentration, other hydrologic issues, or other adverse impacts. Provide engineering justification in drainage report. |
||
| 12/06/2024 | NPPO | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Please see Site Landscape review comments. Thank you. Chad Keller, RLA chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 12/10/2024 | ROW Engineering Review | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 5' Sidewalk required along Camino Santiago. ADA Ramps required at street intersections. Sidewalk width on arterials/collectors should be 6'. PIA required for offsite improvements. See https://www.tucsonaz.gov/Departments/Transportation-Mobility/Private-Improvement-Agreement/Private-Improvement-Agreement-Guidelines for more PIA information. Apply for PIA under sub records. | ||
| 12/03/2024 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | General Site Engineering Review (excludes work in Silvercroft Wash): 1. There are several retaining walls noted as “designed by others” but the design of these retaining walls is critical to the functionality of the site with the current proposed grading plan with terracing across the site. Please provide retaining wall specifications that will be followed as a baseline design. Please add "by separate permit" to the keynote for the retaining walls. 2. Show cross slopes on sidewalks or add a note that specifies the cross slopes will not exceed 2% max. 3. Handrails are required around Basins 1, 3, and 10 where slopes exceed 4:1. Per DSSDR 4.11.1.1, Basins designed for 100-year water depths of more than 2 feet and with side slopes steeper than 4:1 shall have a security barrier at all locations where side slopes are steeper than 4:1. 4. The meandering DG path must be treated for ADA compliance. Please provide specifications for the treatment. 5. Common Areas “C-1” and “C-2” are within Silvercroft Wash which can experience significant flash flooding. It appears that the other common areas on the site satisfy the requirement for functional open space. Please remove the open space designation within Silvercroft Wash. Provide signage regarding the flash flood threat. 6. The following comments apply to the drainage report: a. Table 3 has slightly different values for B6 Q10 and Q100 than what was calculated in the worksheets. The values shown are 2.7cfs and 4.5cfs but should read 2.8cfs and 4.7cfs, respectively. Please revise. b. Table 4 has the top and bottom elevation switched for all of the basins except B1. Please review and revise. c. It is not clear how the total existing 100-year peak flow rate for the overall project site of 83cfs was calculated. Please provide the calculations that results in 83cfs. Provide an existing conditions onsite watershed map. d. It is not clear how the total proposed 100-year peak flow rate of 59cfs was calculated. The summation of the Q100 values exiting the site in the proposed condition, as stated in Table 5, is 70.9cfs. Please provide the calculations that result in 59cfs. e. It is not clear how the Q100 In values were computed for detention basin routing. Provide calculations for these 10 values. Mike Ortiz michael.ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 12/06/2024 | Site Landscape | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | TRANSMITTAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT REVIEWER: CHAD KELLER, RLA PDSD SITE LANDSCAPE/NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SECTION PROJECT: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE FOR AN FLD SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF 129 RESIDENTIAL LOTS & COMMON AREAS "A" (PRIVATE STREETS), "B-1" THRU "B-4" (FUNCTIONAL OPEN SPACE, DRAINAGE, UTILITIES, LANDSCAPE) & "C-1" THRU "C-4" (OPEN SPACE, UTILITIES) ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-1024-00280 ADDRESS: 1802 W SAINT MARYS RD ZONING: O-3 OFFICE ZONE LAND USE: FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) 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. The new multiuse path along N Camino Santiago is in the ROW and will need to be reviewed for protected native plants to complete the work. DTM review and approval is required for NPPO items within the ROW. Please contact David Marhefka for approval. David.Marhefka@tucsonaz.gov 2. The NPPO is sufficient within the project limits. Prior to final approval of the NPPO for this project, DTM landscape comments with regard to the multiuse path may require additional inventory to be completed for the overall NPPO for the project. 3. Coordinate all landscape amenities proposed within functional open space drainage areas with the civil grading plans. IE: ramadas, shade structures, play areas, benches, picnic tables, etc. All line work for amenities and contouring to accommodate the amenity location should be coordinated between the civil and landscape plans. 4. Provide detailing for all proposed amenities within the landscape package, IE: shade structures, picnic tables, benches, etc., connection to concrete pad and any other specifications needed to complete the work. 5. Label the project property lines on all planting and irrigation sheets. 6. Show all irrigation sleeves for irrigation lines crossing hardscape. Some sleeves are missing that cross sidewalks. This is a larger scale project; a separate sleeving plan may be helpful for the contractor. 7. Provide a detail for a multi-trunk tree planting with no stakes and add a note to the detail about the removal of the nursery stake. 8. Site Zoning, Site Engineering and Transportation Landscape comments will need to be addressed prior to Site Landscape/NPPO approval. 9. Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-1024-00280, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2-06.4.3 If you have any questions about these comments, I can be reached at chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 12/04/2024 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Enclaves at Tumamoc – Lots 1 -129 Development Package (1st Review) TD-DEV-1024-00280 TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 11, 2023 DUE DATE: May 11, 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 October 31, 2025. 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.2.D – The page number on sheets 26 – 29 are not correct. 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-1024-00280, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 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 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a – Clearly demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Article 5.3.6 are met. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 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. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.F - All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.4 – As the street cross sections do not meet the requirements of TSM Section 10 a TSMR will need to be approved prior to approval of this tentative plat. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – The street perimeter yard setback listed for St. Marys is incorrect. Review UDC Article 5.3.5.A and provide the correct setback. Also as remove the reference to Anklam from the street setbacks as this site does not border on Anklam. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – Detail L sheet 2 shows a 3’ setback on the left side house and also a 3.33’ benefit and use easement. The house may not be placed with in the easement. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – The building height listed is incorrect. Review UDC Article 5.3.5.A.3 and provide the correct allowed height. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Clearly demonstrate that there is an accessible route that connects all buildings to the accessible parking spaces and the pedestrian circulation located within the bordering street right-of-way pedestrian circulation. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.V – Indicated the location of the proposed gang mailboxes to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements 2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS) 2-06.5.3 Additional Information The following are required in addition to the requirements of the tentative plat or site plan, whichever is applicable: 11. COMMENT: -06.5.3.B – Demonstrate how this site meets the requirements to allow the Maximum Density option. 12. COMMENT: 2-06.5.3.E.1 – Identify on the tentative plat the lots that must provide architectural variation; COMMENT: 2-06.5.3.F.1 – Identify on the tentative plat the lots that must provide privacy mitigation. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.5.3.G.2 - Provide two copies of the protective covenants or common use agreements for any shared areas being established by easements over individually-owned property. Additional comments: 14. COMMENT: - Keynote 16 references details D, H, I AND J on sheet 12 but there are no details on sheet 12. 15. COMMENT: - Provide a general note on the cover sheet stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE INCLUSIVE HOME ORDINANCE - CITY OF TUCSON ORDINANCE 10463.” If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Zone1.desk@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. |
||
| 12/05/2024 | TSMR/PDMR - Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. The pedestrian circulation path doesn't seem to be complete throughout the development. 2. After discussions with zoning we feel a meeting would be appropriate between city staff and the developers to discuss the proposed street widths and overall subdivision design. Stephen Blood (520) 837-4958 Stephen.blood@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 12/10/2024 | TSMR/PDMR - Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | See Engineering comments | ||
| 11/01/2024 | CDRC Application Completeness Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 11/06/2024 | CDRC Review Coordinator Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC added Addressing and TEP. PAG, USPS, SWG to the workflow. Review request email sent to Addressing and TEP. FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. | ||
| 11/06/2024 | External Reviewers - Pima Association of Governments | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 11/06/2024 | External Reviewers - Southwest Gas | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 11/06/2024 | External Reviewers - United States Postal Service (USPS) | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 12/06/2024 | Historic | REVIEW COMPLETED | Outside HPZ and National Historic District. No code mandated historic review. Contact Michael.Taku@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 11/01/2024 | OK to Submit - Engineering Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 11/26/2024 | ROW Review | REVIEW COMPLETED |