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-1123-00470
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/20/2024 | NPPO | APPROVED | |||
| 09/20/2024 | CDRC Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 09/17/2024 | Commercial Plumbing | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. The Material Schedule on sheet W-1 calls for CPVC pipe and fittings to be used for constructing the private sewer. CPVC is not included in Table 702.1, IPC 2018 as an approved material. Provide justification for this material selection. Reference: Section 104.11, IBC 2018. 2. Private sewers 8-inches and larger require manholes. Show the location of the manholes on the plans. 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. Reference: Section 707.1 (6), IPC 2018 and Detail RWRD 401. 4. Clarify the location of the private 8” sewer. On sheet C-2 it is located North of the water service line but on sheet S-1it is located South of the water service line. Verify that the path of the private sewer does not have structures built over it. 5. Provide the rim elevation of the first-floor elevations of the four buildings and compare them to the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 714.1, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson. 6. Clarify the design of the water service to the site. A 6” water line extends from the 12” public water main on Park Av nearly to the eastern property line. Five water meters, a backflow preventor, and a fire hydrant are served by the 6” water line. A note calls out a “sleeve under pavement concrete (3” diameter PVC Sch.40)” and points to the 6” water service line; how does that work? Reference Section 107.2.1, IBC 2018. |
||
| 09/19/2024 | External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Good afternoon, Pima County Addressing is returning TD-DEV-1123-00470 for corrections. Please see the attached plan 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 |
||
| 09/16/2024 | Fire New Construction | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | -Modify sprinkler note on sheet C1 and C2. Fire sprinkler note currently states "N/A." IFC and IBC 903.2.8 require fire sprinklers. Correct note stating fire sprinklers will be installed. john.vincent@tucsonaz.gov 5203495581 |
||
| 09/05/2024 | ROW Engineering Review | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | TD-DEV-1123-00470 • 5845 S PARK AV 1. Reference PAG Standard Details for proposed improvements within the public ROW. 2. Call out placement of concrete vertical curb, with curb terminal sections, along the property frontage of Alvord Rd. Additionally, indicate that the sidewalk will be set back from curb a minimum of 3ft. 3. Provide a note indicating that all work within the public rights-of-way will require a right-of-way use permit. 4. Depict the proposed curb access ramps at the Park Av entrance as shown on PAG SD 207 Type 2 Directional. The access ramps are set back 3ft from back of curb. 5. Clearly label new and existing sidewalk. If you have any questions, please contact Richard Leigh at 520-403-0970 or email richard.leigh@tucsonaz.gov. |
||
| 09/18/2024 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. There are several discrepancies with the drainage report. a) First flush retention was not addressed. b) The developed conditions assume 60% impervious cover, but the site plan appears to have a higher impervious cover than this. Justify this value or use a value of 75%. See comment 2. c) Table 1, Table 2, and the calculation sheet for offsite peak flow rate show an area of 43.4 (or 43.3) acres, but Figures 2 and 3 show 4.34 acres. Please fix this inconsistency. d) The routing calculation sheets all say "Page 2". One page is upside down. The calculations end just after the peak storage volume and do not show the routing until the basin drains. The input hydrograph is not stated. e) The report does not provide the attenuated peak flow rate for the 2, 10, or 100 year storm events. f) It is unclear how the basin achieves hydromodification. Section 3.1 describes an outlet pipe, but no information about the pipe or any other orifices/weirs is provided. It is unclear where the outlet pipe would discharge. g) The report does not explain what happens to the offsite flows in the developed condition. h) The text in the report is difficult to read as the characters are not in straight line. Please retype the report. 2. The site coverage and lot coverage calculations are not clear. Explain why the site coverage was determined using 60% of the lot gross area. Explain where the value of 7,314 sf comes from in the lot coverage calculations. See zoning comment - provide square footage for all buildings. Include all paved areas including sidewalks in the coverage calculations. 3. There is a curb proposed in front of the double waste enclosure. The enclosure must have full access for collection vehicles. 4. Only 1 roof downspout is shown on building 3. No other buildings show any roof downspouts. Please show all roof downspouts and scuppers on the plans. 5. The ADA parking space dimensions on the plans do not match the details provided. The spaces on the plans measure 8ft wide and the clear space measures 4.5ft wide. Please revise to match the detail. 6. The SWPPP does not show erosion control around the perimeter of the site, and the concrete washout shown is not of sufficient size. There also appears to be a sediment basin proposed in the detention basin. In order to maintain infiltration capacity within the basin, sediment shall not be allowed to accumulate in the basin. 7. There appear to be several structures in the detention basin, some of which say "FEE 37.66". Please explain these structures. 8. Please provide details for water harvesting curb cuts/outlets and clearly show all of them on the plans. 9. Provide waste stream calculations per TSM Section 8 and justify the proposed dumpsters/containers. The plans appear to show the use of APCs for some of the waste/recycling which requires approval from Environmental Services. Mike Ortiz michael.ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 09/20/2024 | Site Landscape | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | CDRC TRANSMITTAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT REVIEWER: CHAD KELLER, RLA PDSD SITE LANDSCAPE/NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SECTION PROJECT: MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-1123-00470 ADDRESS: 5845 S PARK AV ZONING: O-3 OFFICE 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-1123-00470, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2-06.4.3 3. Add sight visibility triangles and Label them on all landscape plans. Also label existing and future ROWs on all landscape plans. 4. A NPPO Waiver has been provided with this submittal. All the specifications for plant preservation, mitigation, etc. should be removed from the landscape notes sheet L-2. 5. Provide standalone irrigation plan as well as standalone irrigation details. The current planting/irrigation plan is difficult to read. See UDC Administration Manual 2-10.4.2.C and Technical Standards Manual Section 4-01.4.2, Irrigation Standards. 6. Irrigation sleeves are called out as a solid line on the irrigation/planting plan legend. The sleeves should be a different line type than the irrigation laterals for clarity/legibility. 7. The pop-up sprinkler detail is not needed for this type of landscape application. These are for turf applications and there are no callouts to turf areas on the planting/irrigation plan. Remove the detail for clarity. 8. Provide standalone planting plan as well as standalone planting details. The current planting/irrigation plan is difficult to read. 9. There are technically 5 street landscape borders. Two separated by a driveway along Park, and three separated by a driveway and a sidewalk along Alvord. Identify the borders and the calculations separately in your landscape border calculations on sheet L-1. 10. This is multifamily land use, and it is adjacent to residential on the east. It appears that you have accounted for the required trees in this border, but the calculations are not shown on the sheet for reference. Add the calculations for review. 11. City of Tucson Standard planting and irrigation details can be found here: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/Departments/Transportation-Mobility/Landscape/Landscape-Architects. For your reference/use in completing your landscape development package. 12. Include a construction detail showing root barriers for trees located near hardscape areas. See Detail 402 located here: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/Departments/Transportation-Mobility/Landscape/Landscape-Architects 13. Provide the required number of trees in the parking area (1 tree per 4 parking spaces). Per the landscape sheet the number of provided parking spaces is 45 not including the two ADA spaces. This number of parking spaces will require 12 trees. Update the tree planting in parking area calculations and add the additional trees to the parking areas on the planting plan. 14. The grading plan does show storm water basins. A Commercial Rainwater Harvesting plan is required per UDC Technical Standards Manual – Section 4-01.3.0. and Section 5-01.0.0 Landscaping and Screening. Adherence to the Low Impact Development Standards outlined in Section 5 of the PCRFCD Design Standards. The Landscape Plan should match the Commercial Rainwater Harvesting Plan as well as the Grading Plan. The landscape plan should also have spot elevations in the detention/retention areas as well as in all water harvesting infiltration areas on the Landscape Plan. Maximize the rainwater harvesting across the site into the landscape areas, including but not limited to the street landscape borders as well as the tree wells for the required trees for the parking lot. The Commercial Rainwater Harvesting Plan must utilize the Site Water Budget. See TSM 4-01.0.0 Exhibit A. The Site Water Budget is how the Water Department tracks the irrigation water use on-site, not first flush retention volume charts. If a copy of the spreadsheet is needed for addition to your plans, then reach out and I will email a copy for your use. 15. Please label irrigation meter as “irrigation only”. See TSM 4-01.6.0 16. Include a construction detail showing root barriers for trees located near hardscape areas. See Detail 402 located here: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/Departments/Transportation-Mobility/Landscape/Landscape-Architects 17. A rainwater harvesting basin schematic detail is not a requirement but adding it to Commercial Rainwater Harvesting Plan 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 couple of versions of the schematic for reference. 18. If a set of approved landscape plans are needed for reference to help with the layout of your full set of landscape plans, then please reach out and I will send some examples. If you have any questions about these comments, I can be reached at chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 09/13/2024 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Wyatt Berger Lead Planner PROJECT: Salazar Development Development Package (1st Review) TD-DEV-1123-00470 TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 13, 2024 DUE DATE: September 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 September 13, 2025. 1. 2-06.2.4 – Remove the floor and elevation plans from the development package drawings as these plans will be reviewed with the required building permit submittals. 2. 2-06.3.5 – Remove the “DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE PDSD APPROVAL” stamp on all sheets as CDRC staff will be generating its own stamp at approval. 3. 2-06.3.10 – Provide a legend on the cover sheet that shows and describes all symbols used within the drawings. 4. 2-06.3.12 – Remove sheets A-1 and A-2 from the index of sheets on the cover sheet. 5. 2-06.4.1 – Ensure the name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the property owner, the developer of the project, the registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents are provided on the right half of the cover sheet. 6. 2-06.4.2.B – The legal description on the cover sheet is incorrect. “EXC W10’ &” is duplicated and the legal description should be corrected to “LOS RANCHITOS NUMBER 6 LOT 235 EXC W10’ & EXC S150’ W180’ & EXC JTD 6031-72.” 7. 2-06.4.2.D – Add the page number and the total number of pages (i.e., sheet xx of xx) within the title block on all sheets. 8. 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-1123-00470, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 9. 2-06.4.7.A.2 – The Pima County Assessor’s Office indicates a gross site area of 57,788 square feet (1.32 acres); however, the cover sheet indicates a gross site area of 54,960 square feet (1.26 acres). Clarify this discrepancy in site area. 10. 2-06.4.7.A.5 – The cover sheet and site plan state 30 duplexes are proposed, which amounts to 60 dwelling units. Per UDC Table 6.3-3.A, the maximum permitted residential density in the O-3 zone is 22 dwellings per acre. Clearly state the number of dwelling units proposed for the project. 11. 2-06.4.7.A.6 – Add a note on the cover sheet stating, “THE PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE CRITERIA OF UDC SEC 5.4, MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE.” 12. 2-064.7.8 – Provide the floor area of each proposed building on the cover sheet. Further, correct the lot coverage calculation by combining the area of all buildings and vehicular use areas on the site. Remove the building area calculations on the cover sheet referencing an existing building, new kitchen, new porch, and new smoking patio. 13. 2-06.4.8.B – Ensure all easements are labeled and dimensioned on the site plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of any existing easements should be stated. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided. 14. 2-06.4.8.C – Indicate the widths of the existing sidewalks along Park Avenue and Alvord Road. 15. 2-06.4.9.H.5 – The widths of the accessible parking spaces and access aisles on the site plan do not match what is provided within the parking detail on Sheet C-4. 16. 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Per the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design Advisory Section 502.3.4, wheelchair lifts typically are installed on the passenger side of vans. Where a van and cars share an access aisle, consider locating the van space so that the access aisle is on the passenger side of the van space. Zoning requests that the proposed van accessible parking space comply with the above advisory comment. 17. 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Clearly demonstrate how the access aisles associated with the accessible parking spaces connect with on-site pedestrian circulation. 18. 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Parking spaces 29 through 32 appear to be parallel parking spaces and do not meet the minimum dimension requirements of UDC 7.4.6.D.2.c. 19. 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Provide back-up spurs at all ends of rows of parking where no ingress or egress is provided. The spurs must be a minimum of three feet in depth and radius with a wheel barrier to prevent encroachment onto any unsurfaced area (UDC 7.4.6.F.4). 20. 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Ensure that the parking space detail shows a minimum dimension of 2’-6” as measured from the front of the parking space to the wheel stops (UDC 7.4.6.H.3). 21. 2-06.4.9.5.a – Until an accurate number of proposed residential units is provided, Zoning cannot confirm whether the project meets the minimum required number of motor vehicle parking spaces. Review UDC Table 7.4.4-1 to determine the required number of parking spaces. Parking is calculated by the number of bedrooms proposed and not by the number of duplexes. 22. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Until an accurate number of proposed residential units is provided, Zoning cannot confirm whether the project meets the minimum required number of short- and long-term bicycle parking spaces. Review UDC Table 7.4.8-1 to determine the required number of short- and long-term bicycle parking spaces. All bicycle parking spaces shall meet the design criteria of UDC 7.4.9. 23. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – The cover sheet indicates that all proposed long-term bicycle parking will be provided within individual units. However, Keynote 32 on the site plan references an outdoor bicycle locker. Clarify the locations of all long-term bicycle parking spaces. 24. 2-06.4.9.O – Review UDC 6.4.5.C.2 and state the correct street perimeter yard requirements. The minimum required setback from Park Avenue is ten feet as measured from the future property line as determined by the adopted Major Streets and Routes Plan (UDC 6.4.5.C.2.a). Additionally, the minimum required setback from Alvord Road is 20 as measured from the street property line (UDC 6.4.5.C.2.b). 25. 2-06.4.9.Q – Provide the square footage and building height proposed within the footprints of all buildings on the site plan. 26. 2-06.4.9.R – Clearly label and dimension all on-site pedestrian circulation paths on the site plan as it is difficult to decipher the locations of these paths. 27. 2-06.4.9.R – Keynote 2 on the site plan appears to indicate short-term bicycle parking in the middle of the sidewalk along the east lot line and blocks on-site pedestrian circulation. 28. 2-06.4.9.R – The proposed on-site pedestrian circulation path does not appear to connect with the sidewalk along Alvord Road (TSM 7-01.3.3.A). 29. 2-06.4.9.S – Clearly label and fully dimension the proposed sidewalks along Park Avenue and Alvord Road. 30. 2-06.4.9.U – Remove all land use compatibility notes on the cover sheet as these notes are affiliated with expired rezoning case C9-14-06 and ultimately do not apply to the project. 31. 2-06.4.9.V – Clarify the location of mail service for the project. If a gang mailbox is proposed, indicate its location to ensure there are no conflicts with pedestrian circulation, utilities, and landscaping. 32. 2-06.4.9.W - Indicate the locations of the accessible parking signs to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. 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. |
||
| 08/16/2024 | CDRC Application Completeness Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 08/20/2024 | CDRC Review Coordinator Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC added TAA, Addressing and TEP PAG, USPS, SWG to the workflow. Review request email sent to TAA, Addressing and TEP. FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG | ||
| 08/20/2024 | External Reviewers - Pima Association of Governments | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 08/20/2024 | External Reviewers - Southwest Gas | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 09/13/2024 | External Reviewers - Tucson Airport Authority | REVIEW COMPLETED | September 13, 2024 Planning and Development Services City of Tucson 201 North Stone Avenue Tucson, AZ. 85701 RE: TD-DEV-1123-00470, Development Package for new Multi Family / 5845 S Park Av, Tucson, AZ 85706, Received August 20, 2024 To whom this may concern, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on TD-DEV-1123-00470, the development plan for a new multifamily use 5845 South Park Avenue. This development is located in the S.W. quarter of the N.W. quarter of Section 7, Township 15S, Range 14E, of the Gila and Salt River Meridian. The development site occupies parcel numbers 140-25-061A, covers approximately 1.26 ± acres, and is zoned as Office Zone 3 (O-3). The nearest major roadway intersection is East Alvord Road and South Park Avenue, approximately 285 feet to the southwest of the subject development. This site does lie within the Tucson International Airport avigation easement requirements and public disclosure area, FAA traffic pattern airspace, and FAA Part 77 airspace. The Tucson Airport Authority approves the proposed project and is not requiring a resubmittal. Although this project does not propose a change in plan designation or zoning the Tucson Airport Authority highly recommends the applicant add the following notes into the general notes of the revised development plan. This project is located approximately 0.75 miles north of Tucson International Airport and is within FAA traffic pattern airspace, an area which would be subject to aircraft overflight and noise due to being in close proximity to Tucson International Airport. The proposed notes would provide a means of assuring that future owners and tenants of the property are aware they are in proximity an airport and further assures the continued right of the City of Tucson, Tucson Airport Authority, and all persons lawfully utilizing the Tucson International Airport the right to utilize the airspace above or near the property. This would be accomplished through the property owner recording the Avigation Easement and providing the Airport Disclosure Statement to the new residents of all residential uses. The Tucson Airport Authority believes the proposed note helps to support the City of Tucson Airport Environs Overlay Zone and supports Plan Tucson – Regional and Global Positioning policy 4 (RG-4). 1. "That prior to the City's approval of the proposed development, the property owner must record the Avigation Easement that discloses the existence and operational characteristics of the Tucson International Airport to future owners or tenants of the property and further conveys the right to the public to lawfully use the airspace above the property. The Avigation Easement shall be recorded in a manner with the Pima County recorder which shall document it as having title liability. The content of such documents shall be according to the form and instructions provided.” The current property owner or person authorized to sign on behalf of the current property owner must complete, sign, and record the Avigation Easement. Please record the Avigation Easement with the Pima County Recorder’s Office. Then send a complete copy of the recorded easement document to Tucson Airport Authority by either email (send to srobidoux@flytucson.com) or to the mailing address provided below. Scott Robidoux Manager of Planning Tucson Airport Authority 7250 South Tucson Blvd, Suite 300 Tucson, AZ 85756” 2. Applicable to residential uses only “The property owner/developer/applicant must provide the Airport Disclosure Statement form, at time of sale, to the new property owners with all new unit purchases. In the event the development of any residential uses does not involve the sale of new units but is instead offering rental residential units to the public, the new tenant of the rental unit must be provided a copy of the Airport Disclosure Statement form. The intent of the Airport Disclosure Statement form is to educate and notify the new residents that they are living near an airport. The content of such documents shall be according to the form and instructions provided.” The property owner (for itself or its tenants) shall forward a signed copy of the Airport Disclosure Statement form to the Tucson Airport Authority within ten (10) days of signature, using the Scott Robidoux mailing address provided above. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding this comment letter. I can be reached by email at srobidoux@flytucson.com or by telephone at 520- 573-4811. Respectfully, Scott Robidoux, C.M. Manager of Planning cc file |
||
| 09/20/2024 | External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) | REVIEW COMPLETED | September 20, 2024 WO#T125789 City of Tucson Planning and Development Services Attn: CDRC Admin Team Dear CDRC Admin Team Subject: Salazar Development TD-DEV-1123-00470 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted 8/20/2024. There are existing facilities within the development which are not depicted upon the plan. There are conflicts with poles on the property which will require relocation. 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, Martin Salazar (520) 305-6713 msalazar@tep.com Sincerely, Design Admins Design Admins Tucson Electric Power |
||
| 08/20/2024 | External Reviewers - United States Postal Service (USPS) | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. |