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: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D10-0034
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/08/2011 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/15/2011 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Add a total on sheet 18 for the "oasis area" on the site. LUC 3.7.2.2 |
| 03/15/2011 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | AUDREY FARENGA ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 740-6800 FAX #: 623-5411 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: D10-0034 THE DISTRICT/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: March 15, 2011 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses. |
| 03/15/2011 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D10-0034 The District: Development Package 3/15/11 () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment (X) Other - Elevations CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: University Area Plan, West University Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: None COMMENTS DUE BY: 03/23/2011 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: () No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment () Proposal Complies with Rezoning (Special Exception) Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies (X) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: Comments 1. Please clearly label height dimensions for step-back design for the 5th Street elevation of the proposed development (Sheet 22 of 29), calling out at the appropriate interval the total height of the step-back. 2. Sheet 18 does not provide for Shade Calculations as found on the sheet that was submitted with the MDR (L1.2). Please correct and provide this information. 3. Please include a total calculation for the step-back distance from 5th Street, i.e. to face of three story building; to face of ¾ story building; and to the 4/5 story building. 4. Please provide 8" x 11" colored elevations. And where appropriate label heights and setbacks with the other requested information already provided on the elevations. 5. Development Plan approval contingent upon an approved MDR for the project 6. Provide striped crossing from sidewalk along Herbert at the parking Garage across to parcel 117-04-2860, which has a breezeway through its site to Fourth Avenue, lining up with the crossing of Fourth Ave. The IID calls out for connectivity to adjoining properties. The previous submittal and MDR submittal identified the crossing on the site plan and the pedestrian accessible route plan. 7. Please include General Note on Sheet 1 that applicant will submit an acoustical study with the building plan demonstrating sound mitigation for outdoor recreation area. |
| 03/16/2011 | FRODRIG2 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Date Case Number Project Address March 16, 2011 D10-0034 N. 5Th Avenue THE DISTRICT Student Housing Development Plan Comments: The proposed N.5Th Avenue, The District Student Housing Development, Case No.D10-0034. Does not meet the minimum standard requirements for Environmental Services. However, based on the accepted standard modification submitted for this development the proposed plans are approved for Environmental Services, Solid Waste and Recycle collection Standard 6-01. With the following condition. A note must be added to the Development Plans stating: The Owner will be responsible for moving the Solid Waste and Recycle containers to the designated location on the days of services, and the containers returned to their approved storage location within the garage facility. Environmental Services Department Development Plan Review Reviewer: Tony Teran Office Phone (520) 837-3706 E-mail: Tony.Teran @tucsonaz.gov |
| 03/17/2011 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT 201 NORTH STONE AVENUE TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207 JACKSON JENKINS PH: (520) 740-6500 DIRECTOR FAX: (520) 620-0135 March 16, 2011 To: Tri Miller, PE Rick Engineering Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department __________________________ Prepared by: Tom Porter, Sr CEA PCRWRD Checked by: _____ Subject: The District 550 North 5th Avenue Dev. Plan – 2nd Submittal D10-0034 The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project. The following comments are offered for your use: Show the rim elevations for all of the proposed manholes. Show the length/ slope and size of pipe for all of the proposed public sewer pipe segments. This office will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the third (3rd ) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $39.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. cc: Chad Amateau, P.E., PCRWRD Kristin Greene, PE, DLU Manager DLU Project folder |
| 03/17/2011 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/22/2011 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: D10-0034 The District - Group Dwelling (Student Housing) Development Plan under the development package process TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 22, 2011 DUE DATE: March 23, 2011 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is February 2, 2012. *** Zoning comments for the development plan are based on the submitted documents. Additional comments will forthcoming if a new design of the site is submitted for review. The plans submitted for the MDR and the development plan should be consistent. 2. List the MDR case number MDR-10-03 and fill in the MDR approval or effective date in general note 6 on sheet 1. Also include the activity number (Permits Plus) for the MDR application which is T10SA00423. Previous Comment #2, DS 2-01.3.3 and DS 2-01.3.7.A.8- This project will have to have approval through and MDR review and approval process. Additional process applications may be required such as a DSMR. If so please list the case numbers in the lower right corner of all the plan sheets. List as a general note (general note 5) the case number and date of approval and any conditions of those approvals. Also list the related final plat case number S11-006 in the lower right corner of all plan sheets. Revise general note 6 to include a statement that this site is subject to compliance with LUC section 2.8.12 (Downtown Greater Infill Incentive District (sub-district). General note 6 could change with regards to the MDR list based on the full review and additional deficiencies if applicable. 3. The west boundary distance and bearing should not include the dedicated area for the street. The drawing should be specific with the subdivision (Block) boundary and the dedicated roadway. The dedicated area for the roadway should be labeled with the distance and bearing. Revise as required. Previous Comment #5, DS 2-01.3.7.C.3.a - Provide site boundary/subdivision perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system. If the alternate version of the site is to be constructed revise the final plat and development plan sheets and zoning data/site calculations accordingly. Additional comments will be forthcoming. 4. A hold will be placed on issuance of permits for construction that affects the area of the easement until such time as the easement has been abandoned. Previous Comment #7, DS 2-01.3.7.C.8.B - Clarify if the perpetual utility easement under buildings 1, 2 and 3 is to be abandoned. If the easement is not to be abandoned and approval to construct over the easement must be obtained from all utility companies that have an interest in the easement. 5. See comment 3 which is related to this development standard. I acknowledge the response and the overall distance and bearing for the current configuration should be maintained but the additional info related to the area to be dedicated should also be included as noted as such. Previous Comment #8, DS 2-01.3.9.A - Draw in proposed lot lines with distance bearings. Per the development plan it appears that the east west driveway is proposed to be dedicated as right of way for a roadway. If this is the intent, revise the distance and bearings for the new property lines adjacent to the new roadway. Revise the line work to make it clear where the new lot lines will be. 6. See related comment #2. Previous Comment #15, Zoning acknowledges that an application for MDRs for the following are to be requested; Perimeter Yard Building Setbacks, Floor Area Ratio, Landscape Borders, Increase in Building Height, and for Zero Loading Zones. 7. The following items have been noted, please address as required. a. All parallel parking spaces must be 23 feet in length. Not all the parallel parking spaces on student way are 23 feet each. Also revise detail K on sheet 12. Revise as required b. Add keynote 6 to all class two bicycle parking facility locations. c. Zoning denied the request to eliminate the sidewalk along the north side of Student Way. Draw, label, and dimension the width of the street sidewalk. Add access ramps as required at the northeast corner of Student Way 5. Key note #4 needs to be revised to correctly state the dimensions of the parallel parking spaces and the angled parking based on the actual proposed angle. The spaces proposed and noted with the key note are not standard 8.5 x 18 spaces. Previous Comment #16, Additional comments may be forthcoming based on the revisions and possible MDR conditions. 8. It is clear that there are outstanding comments that affect the grading plan. Zoning cannot approve the grading plan until all the necessary changes that are made to the DP are also made to the grading plan. Previous Comment #17, Zoning has no comments on the grading plan on this review. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D10-0034dp2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 03/23/2011 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 03/23/2011, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: The District D10-0034, T14S, R13E, SECTION 12 RECEIVED: Development Plan Package and Drainage Report on March 09, 2011 The subject project has been reviewed. The Drainage Report is acceptable and it is hereby approved. The Development Package is still missing some information that is required for a full approval. Address the following comments and provide all required information in the next submittal: General/Grading Notes: 1. Complete the missing information in General Notes # 5 and #6 on Sheet 1 of 21. Additionally, provide the approved DSMR number in the Title Block. Base Layer: 2. The parcel lines on the Development Package Plan should match the proposed parcel lines on the approved and recorded Final Plat. (D.S. 2-01.3.8.A and D.S. 2-01.3.9.A). Revise the Development Package accordingly. 3. The angled parking on Fifth Avenue is partly in the public right of way and partly within the subject private parcel. This issue will be resolved and accepted once the DSMR is approved. 4. Provide written verification that 6th Street public right of way 45' width is acceptable by TDOT. 5. Provide written verification that the proposed release of the "Public Use Easement for Parking and Sidewalk" is acceptable by TDOT. 6. Provide written verification that the proposed dedication of Student Way is acceptable by TDOT. 7. Provide written concurrence from all impacted utilities that have onsite utility easements proposed to be released and replaced during or after construction. SWPPP: 8. Include a copy of the authorization certificate received from ADEQ (Part III.D.3). If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package |
| 03/24/2011 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approv-Cond | March 24, 2011 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D10-0034 PROJECT NAME: 5th Ave Student Housing PROJECT ADDRESS: 550 N 4th Avenue PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering recommends a conditional approval of the Development Plan; the following condition can be addressed prior to the approval of the PIA plans. 1. The property line along 5th Avenue cannot fall through the proposed angled parking spaces. The property line needs to be vacated or abandoned so that the parking spaces fall completely within or outside of the public right of way. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-6730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 03/25/2011 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES March 25, 2011 Tri Miller Rick Engineering Co., Inc. 3945 E. Fort Lowell Rd. # 111 Tucson, Arizona 85712 Subject: D10-0034 THE DISTRICT Development Package Dear Tri: Your submittal of February 3, 2011 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and 8 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 8 Copies Revised Development Package (Landscape, Planning, Env Svcs, Wastewater, Zoning, Engineering, Traffic, PDSD) 2 Copies 8 x 11 Color Elevations (Planning, PDSD) 2 Copies Authorization certificate from ADEQ (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Documents requested by Engineering Comments 4, 5, 6, & 7. (Engineering, PDSD) 1 Check Made out to "Pima County Treasurer" for $39.00 (Wastewater) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4893. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/ Via fax: (520) 322-6956 |