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.1
Permit Number - TD-DEV-1124-00311
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/31/2024 | NPPO | APPROVED | |||
| 01/29/2025 | CDRC Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 12/30/2024 | Commercial Plumbing | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. Tucson Water limits a 3/4” meter to a maximum demand of 30 GPM; the stated water demand is 33 GPM. Provide a letter from Tucson Water confirming that the use of a 3/4” water meter will be allowed for this project. 2. The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (9858-45, 2342.03) is less than 12” below the proposed first floor elevation (2343.00). Provide a backwater valve per Section 714.1, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson |
||
| 12/17/2024 | ROW Engineering Review | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | TD-DEV-1124-00311 • 216 E YAVAPAI RD 1. Per Sec. 10-01.3.3 of the Technical Standards Manual, a pedestrian circulation path, as specified in Sec. 10-01.4.0, shall be provided along the entire street frontage of the development. A driveway apron per PAG SD 206 will have to be provided. 2. Per Sec. 10-01.4.1.a of the Technical Standards Manual, the minimum with of width of the sidewalk along the street frontage is 5 ft. Additionally, the proposed sidewalk shall be setback a minimum of 3 ft. from back of curb and call out applicable PAG SD. If you have any questions, please contact Richard Leigh at richard.leigh@tucsonaz.gov. |
||
| 01/02/2025 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. Provide the waste stream calculations on the plan set. 2. Include a detail for the trash enclosure and or a note referencing TSM section 8-01 figure 3B. 3. The use of APCs for multi-family development requires prior approval from ES, see TSM section 8-01.4. 4. Show on the plans where the APCs will be stored and screened. 5. Per UDC 7.4.6.F.4 - for the back-up spur shown provide the 3' dimension beyond the 6" curb to ensure it is not encroaching into the pedestrian circulation path. 6. Both Basin "B" and "D" encroach into the right-of-way, provide approval from DTM of this proposal. Stephen Blood (520) 837-4958 Stephen.blood@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 12/31/2024 | Site Landscape | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | CDRC TRANSMITTAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT REVIEWER: CHAD KELLER, RLA SITE LANDSCAPE/NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SECTION PROJECT: FOUR TOWNHOUSE UNITS AND CARPORT ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-1124-00311 ADDRESS: 216 E YAVAPAI RD ZONING: R-3 RESIDENCE ZONE LAND USE: MULTIFAMILY/COMMERCIAL 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 of the Site Landscape/NPPO Section review comments have been addressed. SITE LANDSCAPE/NPPO SECTION COMMENTS: 1. Multifamily land use adjacent to residential land use requires interior landscape border trees. See UDC 7.6.4, Table 7.6.4-1: Landscape Border and Screening Standards. If a reduction in the required interior landscape border screening is the intent, then a variance will need to be applied for. West and east of the townhomes there is currently space available for the required trees, but the area with the paver sidewalk that is property line adjacent does not meet the requirements for the interior landscape border. 2. The street landscape border has limited space. DTM has commented that 5’ of the ROW can be used for the landscape border if they supply a letter of approval. The tree location is currently in conflict with the dumpster and the landscape border is taking up more than 5’ of the ROW. Revise as necessary. If looking for a reduction in the requirement for the street landscape border, a variance will need to be pursued. 3. The Commercial Rainwater Harvesting Plan looks good and makes sense. Suggestions for organization of the plan for easier review. The water harvesting infiltration area (WHIA) is the basin only. Label the WHIA basins individually along with an additional label for the corresponding subwatershed or total catchment area draining into the WHIA. For example, WHIA-1 shows the roof top subwatershed/catchment labeled the same as the basin (WHIA-1) and the subwatershed/catchment area should have a unique but correlating name/label “SW-1”, “CA-1” or something along those lines. This will organize the information so that it is simpler to reference between the plan and the summary table. 4. Label the riprap spillway on the plan view and refer to the detail on sheet L101. 5. Add a bold general note that refers to the civil grading plan for all drainage and basin construction including slopes, spot elevation, contouring, curb cuts, downspouts, splash pads, etc. 6. Remove the reference to ¾” (minus) size rock under the General Landscape Notes, letter T. Contractors are misinterpreting the (minus) callout on projects. Labeling the rock as screened should be clear enough for correct material installation. 7. Would Ebony and Cascalote be considered multi-trunk trees? If so, can a detail be added that shows a multi-trunk tree with no stakes and a note to remove the nursery stake? There have been many instances out on project sites that the staking for multi-trunk trees are being staked in a way that is detrimental to the tree’s establishment and overall health. 8. The point of connection requires an irrigation only meter. Add the meter to the plan. 9. Add emitter distribution tubing layout for shrub detail. 10. Prior to Site Landscape Development Package approval, please make sure Site Zoning and Site Engineering comments are addressed. 11. Label the property line on all sides of the project and on all plan sheets in the set. 12. It appears that the pedestrian circulation sidewalk may be encroaching on the property line in the northwest corner of the project. Verify and adjust as necessary. If you have any questions about these comments, I can be reached at chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov or at 520.837.4923 |
||
| 01/06/2025 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: 216 E. Yavapai Rd – Four Townhome Units Development Package (1st Review) TD-DEV-1124-00311 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 6, 2025 DUE DATE: December 27, 2024 COMMENTS: 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 December 04, 2025. 2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.2.4 – Remove all references to building codes from the plans and remove all sheets that are building related permit documents. The DP review is for site related reviews only, i.e. Site, Grading, Landscape, ets. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2. COMMENT: 2-06.3.2 – All mapped data shall be drawn at an engineering scale having no more than 50 feet to the inch. Sheet A001 is not drawn at an engineering scale. 3. COMMENT: 2-06.3.12 – An index of all sheets in the development package shall be provided on the first sheet. 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.1 - The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided on the right half of the cover sheet. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.2.B - A brief legal description shall be provided within the title block on all sheets. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.2.D - The page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx) shall be provided on all sheets. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-1124-00311, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4 - The project-location map to be located on the first sheet of the development package in the upper right corner, shall cover approximately one square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of three inch equals one mile, and provide the following information. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4.A – 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4.B - Identify major streets and regional watercourses within the square mile area and all streets that abut the subject property on the location map. The vicinity map provided is not readable. 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4.C – Label the section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale on the location map. 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 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.2 - List as a general note the gross area of the site by square footage and acreage. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses. The plans and applicable reference “Townhomes”. Townhomes are not a use as classified per the UDC. It appears that you are proposing a multifamily use as individual properties and not proposed for each townhomes. If individual parcels are proposed than this DP will need to be withdrawn and resubmitted as a Tentative/Final plat. This review will be based on a multifamily use. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.a - Floor area for each building. 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. 15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.E – It appears that a land split was done sometime around 2003. Zoning was not able to find PDSD approved documents for this land split. Provide approved documentation. 16. 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. 17. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Provide a vehicle parking space calculation that shows the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The physical disable shall include the number of van accessible required and provided. 18. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Provide a standard, parallel and accessible vehicle parking space detail. 19. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The two (2) northern most 19.6’ parallel vehicle parking spaces are required to be 23’ long, UDC Article 7.4.6.D.2.c. 20. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5. d – Provide a short- & long-term bicycle parking space calculation that shows number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided. 21. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Provide a detail for the required short- & long-term bicycle parking That meets all requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9. 22. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – Provide the proposed height within the footprint of the building on the DP. 23. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Sheet A0001 appears to show a 3’-0” walkway along the north side of the building and along the west property line. The 3rd sheet appears to show similar walkways but the walkway along the west property line appears to be less than the 3’-0” shown on sheet A001. The plans should match. The proposed 3’-0” walkway width does not meet the requirements of TSM Sectio n7-01.4.3.A. A Technical Standards Modification must be approved prior to approval of this DP. 24. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Clearly demonstrate that the requirements of TSM Sections 7-01.4.3.C, .D & .E are meet. 25. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.V – Demonstrate how mail delivery will be addressed. 26. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.W – Provide a note on the plan stating that all signage requires separate permits. Additional Comments: 27. COMMENT: Provide a residential density calculation on the plan that meets the requirements of UDC Article 6.4.7. 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. |
||
| 11/27/2024 | CDRC Application Completeness Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | TSMR/PDMR is required to be submitted after one review cycle has been completed. | ||
| 12/09/2024 | CDRC Review Coordinator Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC added ADOT, Addressing, and TEP PAG, USPS, SWG to the workflow. Review request email sent to ADOT, Addressing, and TEP. FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. | ||
| 12/10/2024 | 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. |
||
| 12/09/2024 | External Reviewers - Pima Association of Governments | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 01/29/2025 | External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing | REVIEW COMPLETED | Good morning, Pima County Addressing approves TD-DEV-1124-00311. |
||
| 12/09/2024 | External Reviewers - Southwest Gas | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 12/31/2024 | External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) | REVIEW COMPLETED | Hello, Thank you for the opportunity to review plans for TD-DEV-1124-00311. Tucson Electric Power (TEP) has no objections, and no conflicts are to be expected. Please reach out with any questions. Thank you, Sabrina Kyles Right of Way Agent II 520-891-2004 sabrina.Kyles@tep.com |
||
| 12/09/2024 | External Reviewers - United States Postal Service (USPS) | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 12/27/2024 | Fire New Construction | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 12/09/2024 | OK to Submit - Engineering Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 12/05/2024 | OK to Submit - Zoning Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 12/19/2024 | Transportation Landscape Review | REVIEW COMPLETED | comments on plans | ||
| 12/24/2024 | TSMR/PDMR - Engineering | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 01/03/2025 | TSMR/PDMR - Zoning | REVIEW COMPLETED |