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: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP12-0186
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/19/2012 | PGEHLEN1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/19/2012 | PGEHLEN1 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | Solid Waste and Recycle storage for residential and retail are addressed on sheet C3.0 Site Plan. Handling and service are addressed on sheet G1.0 Cover Sheet in Permitting notes. This project is approved for Solid Waste and Recycle. Jeff Drumm, P.E. Environmental Manager City of Tucson Environmental Services 520-837-3713 |
| 10/22/2012 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/22/2012 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 10/25/2012 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: The HUB at Tucson Development Package (1st Review) DP12-0186 TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 31, 2012 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 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. Per Main Gate District UOD Section B-2.d. design review is required. Provide documentation that this review has been completed. The following comments are based on Development Standard 2-01.0: 2. D.S. 2-01.3.3 Provide the development package number, DP12-0186 adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 3. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.b Revise the Open Space calculation to show the open space requirements for the Non-residential: 15% per Main Gate UOD Section C-3 Development Standards, Table 1. 4. D.S. 2-01.3.8.B All existing easement shown to be abandoned will need to abandoned prior to approval of this development package. 5. D.S. 2-01.3.8.C Provide the following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: recordation data. 6. D.S. 2-01.3.9.E Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combination Request form for combining the existing parcels with you next submittal. The combination will need to be completed prior to approval of this development package. 7. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 The vehicle and bicycle parking calculations reference "OCCUPANCY". Occupancy is a building code reference not a Land Use Code (LUC) or UOD reference. Revise vehicle and bicycle calculations to reflect a use based on the applicable LUC or UOD. 8. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a It appears that compact vehicle parking spaces are proposed show the percentage proposed in the vehicle parking space calculation. 9. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.c Per LUC Section 3.4.4.2.A.4 the proposed loading space may not be accessed from the street. A Board of Adjustment for Variance may be required. 10. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.c Show hoe the requirements of LUC Section 3.4.4.2.D The access route to a loading area shall have an overhead clearance of fifteen (15) feet, are met. 11. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d The provided plan does not show the location for the Long & Short term bicycle parking, only a large bicycle storage area. Clarify where the Long & Short Term bicycle parking spaces are located. 12. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Per LUC Section 3.3.9.3.A Short-term bicycle parking must be provided in racks per Sec. 3.3.9.2.B or lockers per Sec. 3.3.9.4.B.5. This requirement is not show anywhere on the plan. 13. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Show the location for the proposed "BICYCLE SPARE" storage area. 14. There appears to be architectural features proposed within the right-of-way (ROW). These features will need to be approved by the Department of Transportation and any required permits, licenses or easements will need to be obtained. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ DP12-0186 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package. |
| 10/26/2012 | LEERAY HANLY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/30/2012 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Landscape elements proposed in right-of-way or MS&R areas must be approved by the City Engineer or designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect for specific requirements. LUC 3.7.2.3 2) Irrigation systems shall be fitted with irrigation controllers and shall be capable of monitoring and responding to plant water needs (smart controller) through the use of soil moisture gauges, tensiometers, weather stations and/or evapotranspiration data. The irrigation technology chosen should be capable of preventing the irrigation system from running if sufficient soil moisture is present to support the vegetation. All systems shall include rain shut-off devices. DS 10-03.5.2 3) Revise General Note 6 on sht. L1.2 as necessary. 4) Provide calculations and a shade study to document the proposal to provide shade for 70% of pedestrian areas. MGD Design Standard |
| 10/30/2012 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | Planning Comments October 30, 2012 Denied - Resubmittal Required 1. copy of DRC Report 2. Calculations for open space (see open space Section C-10) with emphasis on usable open space. |
| 10/31/2012 | 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: DP12-0186 THE HUB AT TUCSON/DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE DATE: October 31, 2012 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. 1.) Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar or bond paper of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses. |
| 10/31/2012 | GARY WITTWER | COT NON-DSD | TDOT | Approved | Landscape and Irrigation - NO Comments |
| 11/01/2012 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 11/01/2012 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 11/02/2012 | PGEHLEN1 | DESIGN EXAMINER | REVIEW | Denied | Rick Gonzalez, Architect 3004 E Adams Street, Tucson, Arizona 85716 520.207.2521 520.850.7401(cell)/520.260.5669 (cell) DESIGN PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS & MODIFICATIONS REPORT LETTER PROJECT: COT CDRC DP12-0186 November 2, 2012 THE HUB AT TUCSON 1011 NORTH TYNDALL AVENUE MAIN GATE DISTRICT/AREA 1 OVERLAY REVIEW This project has been selected for review by Rick Gonzalez, Architect (RGA), a contracted Design Professional for the City of Tucson (COT). RGA has conducted a Main Gate District (MGD) Urban Overlay District (UOD) report #1 for compliance with the MGD zoning option on behalf of the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD) Director, Ernie Duarte, and Planning Administrator (PA), Jim Mazzocco. This letter contains recommendations and modifications to be addressed by written responses indicating any actions taken. In order to facilitate a shorter 2nd review, provide all indicated responses and revisions to the plans. Please return revised plans and response letter to the COT PDSD in accordance with their submittal requirements. To avoid delays, ensure that all responses are made and are complete, and have been coordinated on all applicable details and note sheets. When the plans are found to be in accordance with the MGD UOD recommendations and modifications listed below, RGA will forward a letter of recommendation of compliance to the COT PDSD Director and PA. The DRC shall make the final decision on the project’s compliance with MGD design requirements in this Area 1 development (B-2.d.6). The applicant shall include the Design Professional’s communication in the development package (B-2.d.5). *1ST REVIEW COMMENTS: * *C-19 Design Standards: * *ZONING AXION - SHEET 2 OF 17* Compliance with the design standards contained in this Section C-19 shall be determined by Design review for projects developed under the MGD zoning option that are three stories or greater or adjacent to Speedway Boulevard or Euclid Avenue shall be conducted by the Main Gate District Design Review Committee (DRC). *The DRC will perform a subsequent review separate from this CDRC Design Professional Review.* * * C-19.b. All area lights, including streetlights and parking area lights shall be full cut-off fixtures. *Revise Building Façade Note 7 to include street and parking area lights.* C-19.d. Building materials should be chosen for their tactile effects and used in a contrasting manner: e.g., rough surfaces against smooth, vertical patterns against horizontal, etc. Please add a note to this effect onto the plan. C-19.e. Building materials should be chosen for integral colors and their visual and physical permanence in the Sonoran Desert. *Please add a note to this effect onto the plan.* C-19.f. Building materials should be selected with the idea of localizing the architectural effect and ambiance in a method coherent with the neighborhood. *Provide contextual evidence showing how this will be achieved. * C-19.h. Building materials used at the lower floors adjacent to the street frontage should respond to the character of the pedestrian environment through such qualities as scale, texture, color and detail. *Provide pedestrian level views including references to defining elements compatible with the surrounding historic forms, features, and detailing, but clearly differentiated from the earlier forms. Maintain this at the lower two stories of the building corresponding to the size and scale of historic buildings nearby. Avoid duplicating the exact form, material, detailing, and style of the historical references in the new building so that the new work respects the historic nature without imitating an earlier style or period of architecture.* C-19.i. Combinations of materials should reinforce architectural scaling requirements. *Reference comment C-19.h above.* C-19.j. The use of color should be compatible with the historic traditions of the University of Arizona, City of Tucson, and adjacent historic neighborhoods. Accent colors should be used consistently throughout the building: in signage, architectural features, lighting, window frames, doors and accent walls. *Reference comment C-19.h above.* C-19.k. Colors and materials that reflect glare should not be used in large quantities. *Provide color indications and reflectivity data to show how reflectivity will be limited.* C-19.l. Architectural elements such as balconies, outdoor stairs, ornaments and surface detail shall be used to enhance the architectural style of the building. *Indicate how you would use ornaments and surface detailing.* C-19.m. Architectural elements should take into consideration appropriateness of use, scale, proportion, color and texture. *Again, reference comment C-19.h above, particularly in regard to the lower two stories.* C-19.n. Architectural details shall be carefully integrated in the concept design of the building. *Indicate how you would use ornaments and surface detailing.* C-19.q. A single plane of street-facing facade may not exceed 20 feet without architectural detail. *Detail how this will be achieved using pedestrian level renderings and/or elevations.* C-19.s. No more than three consecutive street-facing façade areas should use the same color paint or method of articulation. *No change in street front articulation or variation has been delineated on the plans. Please provide more information to indicate intent of compliance.* C-19.t. Articulate building facades at entrances and between retail spaces to create areas of exterior patio and engagement. *No change at entries or variation in storefront façades have been delineated on the plans. Please provide more information to indicate intent of compliance.* C-19.u. Any building over 85’ long must be articulated in order to appear as a series of buildings no longer than 85’ each along the front property line. *This building does not appear to provide the appearance of a ‘series of buildings’.* *Please revise the plans to show how this MGD requirement could be met.* C-19.ab. Storefronts shall provide canopies or awnings for shade and color and material variation. Canopies may be used as a design element and may incorporate signage. *Please indicate color and material variation on said storefront canopies.* C-19.ad. Each building shall have a clearly identifiable “front door” area facing each major street fronting the façade. *Indicate how this is achieved from Tyndall.* D-1 Area 1 Composition. Area 1 is a special area of the Main gate District. It is comprised of three sub-areas, namely the Speedway Sub-area, the Euclid Sub-area, and the Tyndall Sub-area. The individual properties of the sub-areas have special requirements. *This project includes two lots, (520A and 5240), located in the MGD Area 1 Tyndall Sub-area (D-4), and will be required to address comments relative to the MGD Ordinance as indicated below:* D-4 Tyndall Sub-area is comprised of lots with the following tax codes: (i the northern lots 115-04-502A (502A), 115-04-500A (500A), 115-04-498A (498A), 115-04-4990 (4990), (ii) the central lots - 115-04-5090 (5090), 115-04-5140 (5140), and (iii) the southern lots - 115-04-5240 (5240) and 115-04-520A (520A). *This project includes two lots, (520A and 5240), located in the MGD Area 1 Tyndall Sub-area.* D-4.a Building Heights. Building Heights shall apply to the lots as following: (i 502A, 500A, 498A, and 4990 not to exceed four stories or 56’; (ii) 5090 and 5140 not to exceed six stories or 84’; and (iii) 5240 and 520A not to exceed 130’.* While the proposed building height does not exceed the allowable 130’, it is suggested that the addition of a stronger parapet element would visually terminate the top of the building height, as in the spirit of Louie Sullivan, effectively not make it feel as though it extends continuously upward.* D-4.b Special Bulk Reduction Plan. The Design Review Committee may approve a special bulk reduction plan using step backs and other criteria for buildings along the west side of Tyndall Avenue. There will be a finding to assure the historic buildings to the west are considered in the design. Bulk reduction on the other sides of the building may be less than is required in Section C-17, and the provisions of Section C-18.g should be taken into consideration in the plan. However, the corner of First Street and Tyndall Avenue should be designed using urban design best practices for pedestrian-oriented street corners. *Consider comments suggested in Paragraph C-19.h above relative to lower levels, but also consider treatment of higher levels that will be visually accessible from the surrounding neighborhoods. Further, add renderings of the streetscape experience and the pedestrian level as you come toward the building and from WUN. Provide drawings indicating enhancement of the Tyndall and 1st corner (eg., curb extensions, building corner treatment, outdoor activity, etc.). Color renderings and elevations with connecting thumb-nail photos or sketches of relative complimentary elements or features is an effective way of conveying respect toward the adjacent Contributing Properties.* D-5 Design Review Committee Role. The Design Review Committee shall review Area 1 projects for compliance with Section D and the MGD zoning options in compliance with Section B-2.d. The DRC may add special conditions to an approval to assure compliance with the intent of the MGD. *The DRC will perform a subsequent review separate from this CDRC Design Professional Review. Comments received by the DRC, relative to the MGD, will be taken into consideration by this reviewer.* D-6 Conflicting Requirements. In the case of a conflict with other parts of the MGD development document and Area 1 requirements, the requirements of Section D shall apply. END OF 1ST CDRC REVIEW, DESIGN PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS |
| 11/02/2012 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | November 2, 2012 DP12-0168 The Hub at Tucson Please address the following: 1. Correct the cut and fill quantities and their total as listed on Sheet C1.0. The table indicates a net import but the cut quantity is larger than the fill. 2. Clarify whether easements will be required for the TEP and Tucson Water facilities serving the project. If easements are required, provide recordation information. 3. Consider providing water harvesting for the planters. LUC 3.7.4.3.B Loren Makus, EIT Senior Engineering Associate |
| 11/05/2012 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT 201 NORTH STONE AVENUE TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207 JACKSON JENKINS PH: (520) 740-6500 DIRECTOR FAX: (520) 620-0135 October 4, 2012 To: JOHN GRENIER, P.E. GRENIER ENGINEERING INC. Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6719), Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department Subject: THE HUB AT TUCSON Development Plan - 1st submittal DP12-0186 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: 1. Obtain a letter from the PCRWRD's Development Liaison Unit, written within the past year, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at: http://www.pima.gov/wwm/developer.htm#permits The development plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. 2. Sheet 1: Fill in the blanks for Permitting Note # 17. 3. Sheet 10: Include on plan the rim elevations for the proposed public manholes. 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 second(2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $100.00 (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. Ref. A. Development Plan Checklist Requirements - Chapter 18.71 of the Pima County Code - Section J http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/2006/DP_Requirements2Aug04.pdf Ref. C - Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapters 5 & 9 (R18-5-205) http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_18/18-05.htm and (R-18-9-E301) http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_18/18-09.htm Ref. D - PCRWRD Procedures, Preliminary Sewer Layout Requirements, 1984 (revised April 1988) http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/procedures.pdf Ref. E - PCRWRD Design Standards for Public Sewerage Facilities, 1983 (revised April 1988) http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/design_standards.pdf Ref. F - City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Details http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/all_det.pdf Ref. G - Pima County Code of Ordinances, Title 13 - Public Services, Division II - Sewers http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientID=16119&stateID=3&statename=Arizona Ref. H - City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Specifications for Public Improvements, 2003 Edition http://dot.pima.gov/transeng/stdspecsdet/standardspecs2003.pdf Ref. I - PCRWRD Engineering Directives http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/directives/ |
| 11/05/2012 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | This review has been completed. Revisions are required. |
| 11/05/2012 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#256127 November 2, 2012 Grenier Engineering Inc Attn: John Grenier 5524 E 4th St Tucson, Arizona 85711 Dear Mr. Grenier: SUBJECT: The Hub of Tucson DP12-0186 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted October 23, 2012. It appears that there are conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. " Poles on the west side of Tyndall and poles on the east side of the alley west of Tyndall, will have to be relocated. 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. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Mr. Richard Harrington New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Support Specialist Design/Build Enclosures cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/28/2012 | PGEHLEN1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |