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: In Review
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.3
Permit Number - TD-DEV-1223-00472
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.3
Review Status: In Review
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/17/2024 | NPPO | APPROVED | |||
| 12/17/2024 | Zoning Modifications - DDO | APPROVED | |||
| N/A | CDRC Post Review | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | External Reviewers - Tucson Airport Authority | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 12/09/2024 | Commercial Plumbing | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | The sewer manhole information shown on sheet C1 is incorrect. The upstream manhole is 5596-32 (approximately 2420’ rim elevation), the downstream manhole is 5596-31 (2414.90 ?), and the FFE can’t be much higher than the 2419’ contour shown on the site plan on sheet S1. Verify the elevations and determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 714.1, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson. | ||
| 12/11/2024 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. Please provide approval from Environmental Services for the proposed waste collection scenario. Contact Andy Vera at andy.vera@tucsonaz.gov. Mike Ortiz michael.ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 12/17/2024 | Site Landscape | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | CDRC TRANSMITTAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT REVIEWER: CHAD KELLER, RLA SITE LANDSCAPE/NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SECTION PROJECT: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE FOR MULTIFAMILY TRIPLEX BUILDING ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-1223-00472 ADDRESS: 502 S FREMONT AV ZONING: R-3 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 of the Site Landscape/NPPO Section review comments have been addressed. SITE LANDSCAPE/NPPO SECTION COMMENTS: 1. Prior to Site Landscape Development Package approval, please make sure Site Zoning and Site Engineering comments are addressed. 2. Instead of COT/County recommended plant list, use the Arizona Department of Water Resources Drought Tolerant Plant List (ADWR) as stated in the UDC landscape and screening code. 3. Melampodium Leucanthum (Blackfoot Daisy) is not found on the ADWR Drought Tolerant Plant List as a groundcover. Attached is a link to the ADWR Plant List for this project, and all projects submitted with the City of Tucson moving forward. https://www.azwater.gov/sites/default/files/media/5MPTucsonLWUPL_Final.pdf 4. General plant comment: Double check all species of plants and make sure that they are on the ADWR plant list provided in the link above. If a cultivar of one of the species is used in place of a more common variety, it may not be acceptable. 5. If proposing screen walls as part of the street landscape border, then the wall would be required to be at the rear of the street landscape border, as a backdrop for the trees, shrubs, accents and other plant material. Currently the CMU walls are blocking the vegetative landscape border. Place the wall at the back of the landscape border. Multifamily along MS&R or non MS&R do not require a wall. 6. Is the 2-inch red mulch indicated on the plans an organic mulch? Due to our heavy monsoon rains and potential flooding, 2-inch depth of 1-inch screened rock or 2-inch depth of desert cobble is a more sustainable choice for all landscape areas and other disturbed areas. Update keynotes and general notes on all plans to reflect one of these types of rock. 7. The tree planting detail appears to have the root barrier drafted, call out the root barrier and its dimensions for contractor clarity (depth and width). Minimum 12-inch depth. 8. Some keynote number callouts are conflicting with other linework and hatches. Move the numbered keynotes to white space so that they are easy to find and read. 9. On all plans, make all background layers 50% transparent, or medium gray so that the information that is pertinent to the plan is easier to read. IE: All hardscape outlines, hatches, building outlines, riprap, utility lines, etc. should be a shade of gray as to not conflict with notes, irrigation lines/equipment, planting symbols, and any other information that needs to be legible for the contractor to read the plans during construction. 10. Per the previous reviewer’s comment: A Commercial Rainwater Harvesting Plan is required. The set of plans does not include this plan and required plant water use spreadsheet. Provide the spreadsheet and indicate on the plans the Water Harvest Infiltration Areas (WHIA’s) and Subwatershed areas. Depict contours, flow lines and spot elevation in the depressed planting rainwater harvesting areas on the rainwater harvesting plan and the planting plan that match the civil grading layout and information. An outline of the WHIA with a hatch is an effective way to depict the depressed basin areas. Clearly call out the depressed landscape areas with leader callouts and or keynotes and add a schematic detail that shows basin side slopes, depth of rock, depth of basin and plant placement within the basin. If an example of this type of detail is needed for the plans, then please reach out and I will supply a copy. 11. The south interior landscape border is shown at 6-feet. Interior landscape borders are required to be 10-feet in width. Did Site Zoning provide a minimum setback of 6-feet? If not, then the required 10-foot interior landscape border must be provided. 12. Revisit the plant list / legend quantities for all plants on the plant list. Example: The Rio Bravo Sage count on the plan is 14 and the legend calls out 9. Update so that all quantities on the plan match all quantities in the legend. 13. The emitter number per plant type belongs on the irrigation plan for consistency and clarity for the contractor. Move the emitter quantities per plant type to the irrigation plan. If you have any questions about these comments, I can be reached at chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov or at 520.837.4923 |
||
| 11/26/2024 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Fernando Garcia PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: Multifamily Development 502 S Fremont Av, Tucson, AZ 85719 Development Package (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 26, 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. 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 November 9, 2025. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) COMMENT: Final Site Zoning approval is contingent upon approval of the requested Design Development Option (DDO) for reduced setbacks. Once the DDO decision is rendered and the appeal period has closed, please upload a copy of your DDO decision letter, and alert the reviewer by email of the resubmittal. Contact Fernando Garcia at fernando.garcia2@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 11/08/2024 | CDRC Review Coordinator | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 11/14/2024 | ROW Engineering Review | REVIEW COMPLETED | Comments Addressed in prior review have been address in new plans |