Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP12-0237
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/02/2013 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Blacklidge Development, Units 1 -13 - 1218 E. Blacklidge Drive. Development Package (1st Review) DP12-0237 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 2, 2013 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. The following comments are based on Development Standard 2-01.0: 1. D.S. 2-01.3.3 Provide the development package number, DP12-0237 adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Per LUC Section 3.3.6.4.B.2 A motor vehicle off-street parking space shall have a minimum width of ten (10) feet when the side(s) of the parking space abuts a vertical barrier over six (6) inches in height, other than a vertical support for a carport. That said demonstrate on the plan how the northern most vehicle parking spaces meets this requirement when the proposed rolling gate is open. Also show how this requirement is met for the vehicle parking space directly north of unit #1. 3. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Sheet 6, "PARKING SPACE DETAIL", the dimension for the location of the wheel stop does not meet the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.6.8.C. 4. D.S. 2-01.3.9.O BUILDING HEIGHT SECTION, Sheet 3, shows a 15.38' MIN SETBACK to the 2nd floor. Based on a 19'-1" height x 0.75 the minimum setback would be 14.31'. 5. D.S. 2-01.3.9.O Provide a 2nd floor perimeter yard setback dimension on the site plan. 6. D.S. 2-01.3.9.O The proposed porches shown on Units 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 to not meet the minimum perimeter yard setback. Based on development designator "K", perimeter yard indicator "BB", adjacent to R-2 zoned property the minimum perimeter yard setback is 10.0', proposed perimeter yard setback is 4.5'. A Design Development Option (DDO) will be required to be approved prior to approval of the development package. If this DDO is approved provide the DDO Sections stamped development package drawings along with the DDO Number, Date of Approval, What was Approved, and any Conditions of Approval on the plan. 7. Once the above comments have been addressed Zoning is willing to provide and over-the-counter review, call or email to schedule an appointment. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov. Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ DP12-0237 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package. |
| 01/07/2013 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | 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 January 4, 2013 To: ERIN HARRIS, P.E. STAR CONSULTING 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: BLACKLIDGE DEVELOPMENT, UNITS 1-13 Development Plan - 1st submittal DP12-0237 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: The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department hereby approves the above referenced submittal of the development plan. |
| 01/07/2013 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Interior Landscape Borders are required along site boundaries of multifamily land uses adjacent to residential zoned properties LUC 3.7.2-I. 2. One (1) canopy tree must be provided for every thirty-three (33) linear feet of landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4. 3. Provide 5' wall to screen adjacent residential zoned property from vehicle use area LUC 3.7.2-I. 4. Ensure that all the Zoning and Engineering comments are addressed and all the appropriate revisions are made to the site, grading and landscape plans. 5. Additional comments may apply. |
| 01/08/2013 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 01/10/2013 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 01/16/2013, SUBJECT: Blacklidge Development, Units 1-13 DP12-0237, T13S, R14E, SECTION 31 RECEIVED: Development Package on December 19, 2012 The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the drainage report and on the Development Package where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: The drainage report is lacking a lot of information concerning the proposed drainage scheme and facilities and their design calculations. Additionally, a geotechnical report shall address slope protection and stabilization and onsite soil type(s) and their infiltration rate(s) in order to determine how to design the required runoff retention basin(s). The following comments are more specific: 1. Provide an offsite runoff watershed map and investigate if Blacklidge Drive runoff impacts the site. Provide Hydrologic Data Sheets for all offsite runoffs. 2. Since the parcel is located within the floodplain, provide an encroachment analysis to verify that water surface elevation will not increase one tenth of a foot or more as a result of the proposed development. 3. Verify if the development will have an all weather access. 4. It is anticipated that, in a non-designated watershed, where runoff detention is not required, the amount of offsite runoff entering the site from the south might increase in the future. Provide discussion concerning this issue and revise the acceptance point design if necessary. 5. According to Section 10.9.1.8 of the City of Tucson Drainage Manual, a manhole is required every 200 feet for pipes that are 30 inch or less in diameter. Since the proposed pipes are only 12" in diameter, it is recommended to install a cleanout in the middle of the 245 foot length of the pipes, to facilitate their maintenance. 6. According to Section 10.9.1.1 of the City of Tucson Drainage Manual, the runoff velocity within the pipes should be at least 3 feet per second to minimize sedimentation. Provide information in the report that verifies acceptable velocities within the pipes. 7. Address, in the report, drainage facilities maintenance requirement and responsibility and specify that the inspection shall be performed by a registered civil engineer annually and/or after every major storm. Additionally, provide a drainage facilities maintenance checklist to facilitate the required maintenance. 8. Explain in the text the building roof drainage direction and explain if sidewalk scuppers will be required. Provide the scuppers design calculations if proposed. 9. Provide the hydraulic capacity calculations for the driveway between the proposed buildings. Show on the drainage exhibits the locations of the cross sections. Cover Sheet: 1. Complete the DDO numbers information (D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.6.a). EVERY PAGE OF PACKAGE: 1. Provide the DP12-0237 case number as required by D.S. 2-01.3.3. BASE LAYER SHEET COMMENTS: 1. Provide the tie between the basis of bearing and one of the corners of the parcel (D.S. 2-01.3.8.A). 2. All existing onsite easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements onsite will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in 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 (D.S. 2-01.3.8.B). Provide a recent Title Report. 3. All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private (D.S. 2-01.3.9.L). Permitting/General Notes: 1. Add a drainage facilities maintenance note. 2. It appears that Grading Note #29 is the continuation of Grading Note #28. Revise as necessary. 3. Revise all references to "Development Services Department" and "DSD" to "Planning and Development Services Department" and "PDSD". 4. Add the following general notes: a. The contractor is not permitted to make an autonomous decision to carry out construction field changes without prior written approval from the Engineer of Record and the City of Tucson Development Services Department. b. Revise Grading Note #46 to read as follows: "CALL FOR SWPPP INSPECTION AND PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS. FOR A PDSD ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS, CALL IVR (740-6970), OR SCHEDULE WITH A CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE AT THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT DSD ENGINEERING AT 791-5550 EXTENSION 2101, OR SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS ONLINE AT: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/inspections". c. A copy of the approved Grading Plan, Grading Permit, and any Geotechnical Reports shall be kept at the site at all times, until final grading approval. d. Any revision to the Grading Plan MAY require a re-submittal of a revised grading plan for review. Contact PDSD Engineering at 791-5550 to discuss changes in grading design. e. If grading construction is expected to last longer than the expiration date of the grading permit, contact PDSD to renew/extend the Grading Permit. If Final Grading Inspection has not been completed before the Grading Permit expires, and the permit has not been renewed, additional fees and reviews may be required. f. Contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100 for any questions regarding any right-of-way permit requirements. g. As-builts and letters of completion for basin and overall project are required. h. The Engineer of Record shall submit a statement of conformance to as-built plan and the specifications. i. The permitee shall notify the PDSD when the grading operation is ready for final grading inspection. Final grading approval shall not be given until all work, including installation of all drainage facilities and their permanent protective devices, and all erosion control measures have been completed in accordance with the approved grading plan and grading permit, and any required reports have been submitted. Site Plan: 1. Note on the plan that the entire parcel is impacted by the 100-year floodplain and the proposed buildings finished floor elevations will be at least one foot above the flood elevation (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.1). 2. It appears that the garbage truck will need to back up more the 40 feet, which is the maximum allowed back up distance. Revise the trash enclosure location to comply with the requirements of D.S. 6-01.4.1.C. 3. According to D.S. 3-01.2.7.B. There should be at least two foot space between the back of curb and the sidewalk for fire hydrants, signs, etc. If a space can not be provided, the sidewalk width shall be 5 feet to provide, among other thing, proper protection for pedestrians. Revise as necessary. 4. All proposed work in the public right of way will require a right of way excavation permit or a Private Improvement Agreement. Contact Richard Leigh of Transportation Department Permit and Codes at 791-5100 for additional information. 5. Revise the Development Plan Package according to the Drainage Report revisions. Landscape Plan: 1. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not obstruct visibility within the sight visibility triangles. Grading Plan: 1. Provide spot elevations along the center line of the driveway/PAAL (D.S. 2-01.3.9.M). 2. The PAAL width should be measured from the gutter line; not from the top of curbs. Clarify this requirement on the appropriate details. 3. According to D.S. 11-01.9.0, the minimum cut or fill setback shall be 2' from the parcel line. Verify compliance with this requirement especially in Detail C/4. 4. It is not clear if the slope shown on Detail C/4 is proposed to be protected. Clarify (D.S. 2-01.3.9.M). If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package and drainage report |
| 01/14/2013 | 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: DP12-0237 BLACKLIDGE DEVELOPMENT/DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE DATE: January 14, 2013 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 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. |
| 01/15/2013 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET 3 OF 9 1. At the van accessible parking space: a. 1 of every six accessible parking spaces is to be a "Van Accessible" space. Please identify this one as such. b. As per ICC A171.1, Section 502.4.1, "Access aisles shall adjoin an accessible route" not replace an accessible route. Please provide a separate accessible route next to the accessible parking aisle. 2. All accessible route slopes are to complt with ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% max running slope and 2% max cross slopes. Please confirm and note accordingly. a. This also applies to the marked crossing. SHEET 5 OF 9 3. Please detail the West end of the marked crossing shown in the Short Term bike Parking detail. Please show all required dimensions, slopes, ramps, landings and turn arounds as per ICC A177.1, Section 405. END OF REVIEW |
| 01/17/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/17/2013 | KBROUIL1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The access shall be posted as a Fire Lane with no parking signs per City Standards. |
| 01/23/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/25/2013 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | WR#257966 January 24, 2013 Star Consulting of Arizona, Inc. Attn: Erin Harris 5405 E. Placita Hayuco Tucson, Arizona 85718 Dear Ms. Harris: SUBJECT: Blacklidge Development Units 1-13 DP12-0237 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted December 21, 2012. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. 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 (OH 204) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Should you have any technical questions, please contact the area Designer, Jennifer Crawford, at (520) 917-8708. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Specialist Design/Build lm Enc. cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) J. Crawford, Tucson Electric Power |
| 01/25/2013 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | This review has been completed. Revisions are required. Two rolled sets of the plan must be included with the resubmittal. |
| 12/21/2012 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 12/21/2012 | CPIERCE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/22/2013 | AROMERO4 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/22/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |