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 - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Permit Number - DP13-0027
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/17/2013 | SPOWELL1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/20/2013 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Denied | Office of the Pima County Assessor 115 N. Church Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85701 BILL STAPLES ASSESSOR TO: CDRC Office Subdivision Review City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559) FROM: Ada Griffin GIS Cartographer Pima County Assessor's Office DATE: 05/20/13 RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding DP13-0027 2ND TENATIVE PLAT FOR 1ST ADAMS CONDOMINIUMS HOMES * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements. ___X___ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements. COMMENTS: ADJACENT SUBDIVISIONS SHOULD BE NAMED, WITH MAP AND PLAT IN THE APPROPRIATE AREAS AROUND THE SUBDIVISION NOTE: THE ASSESSOR'S CURRENT INVOLVEMENT IN PROCESSING ITS MANUAL MAPS TO DIGITAL FORMAT IS EXPEDITED GREATLY BY EXCHANGE OF DIGITAL DATA. IN THE COURSE OF RECORDING THIS SUBDIVISION YOUR ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING THIS OFFICE WITH AN AUTOCAD COPY WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU FOR ANY DIGITAL DATA PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED. |
| 05/23/2013 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | MICHELENE NOWAK ADDRESSING REVIEW/PIMA CO DEV SERVICES PH #: 721-9512 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: MICHELENE NOWAK, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: DP 13-0027/1ST ADAMS CONDOMINIUM HOMES-2ND REVIEW DATE: May 23, 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. 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. 2.) All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. ***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files when submitted with your final plat Mylar. These CAD files can be submitted through Pima County Addressing. The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County's Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.*** |
| 05/29/2013 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/04/2013 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 5, 2013 SUBJECT: 1st Adams Condominium Homes Development/Tentative Plan Package- 2nd Engineering TO: Oracle Engineering Attn: Peter Salonga, PE LOCATION: 701 E Adams Street; T14S R14E Sec06 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP13-0027 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN: 1) Completed. 2) Completed. 3) Completed. 4) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.C: Acknowledged that the area has been enclosed and labeled as Common Area "A." The Final Plat will require CC&Rs for all areas that area shared and have a common maintenance agreement. 5) Completed. 6) Completed. 7) Completed. 8) Completed. 9) Completed. 10) New: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.2: Due to the revised development plan document and the new water harvesting area a new Drainage Statement is required with a discussion on the overall drainage scheme. 11) Completed. 12) Completed. 13) New: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Clarify on the development plan document the sidewalk dimensions. Per Section 1 on Sheet 1 the width is dimensioned at 4-feet however per the plan view the dimension is 3-feet, clarify. 14) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Provide approval for the proposed refuse collection location. Per TSM Sec.8-01.5.3.G specifically figure 1 this type of collection requires prior approval from ES. Acknowledged that all dimensions have been shown, however ES approval of the plan set is still required. 15) Completed. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package and Drainage Statement that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 06/11/2013 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS ARE PRESENTED IN ALL CAPS PAGE C1 1. OK 2. Please add detail numbers to the title blocks of all the details so note 8 will have meaning. PLEASE REFERENCE NOTE 8 TO THE TWO RAMPS THAT SHOULD BE LOCATED AT THE SOUTH END OF UNITS 1 AND 4. IS THERE A RAMP NOT BEING SHOWN AT THE SOUTH END OF UNIT 4? 3. Delete note 11 for marked crossings in the public right of way. Reference COT DOT accessible standards. NOTE 11 REFERENCES TO ICC A 117.1. DOT DOES NOT USE ICC A117.1 FOR ACCESSIBILITY. PLEASE REFERENCE DOT REQUIREMENTS FOR DETECTABLE WARNINGS. 4. At detail 3, the reference note for accessible parking signage to sheet C2 does not compute. There is no such detail on this sheet. Please provide a large scale accessible parking sign detail and include "Van Accessible" signage. THE "VAN ACCESSIBLE" SIGN IS NOT SHOWN ON THE LARGE SCALE SIGN DETAIL. 5. OK 6. Insure compliance with the Inclusive Home Design Ordinance. NON RESPONSIVE END OF REVIEW |
| 06/12/2013 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | P&DS TRANSMITTAL FROM: Michael St.Paul, Planning Technician PROJECT: DP13-0027 (2nd review) 701 East Adams Street Multi-family O-3 (Condominiums) TRANSMITTAL: June 12, 2013 COMMENTS: Please attach a response letter with the next submittal, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code (Section 8.4.1), the Administrative Manual (Section 2-06). See Technical Manual Section 7 for pedestrian access. See UDC Section 8.4.2 for and AM 2-07 for condominium subdivision and final plat requirements. Also see UDC Section 7.4.9 for bicycle parking design requirements. 1) This site is located in the O-3 zone (UDC 4.7.15). Multi-family residential is a permitted use in this zone (UDC Section 4.8.5 &Table 4.8-3). 2) Provide a final plat for the condominium subdivision (UDC Section 8.4.2 and AM Section 2-07). 3) Completed. 4) Provide the subdivision case number in the lower-right corner of each sheet (AM 2-06.4.7.A.7). 5) Provide a fully dimensioned bicycle parking detail for the short-term bicycle parking (AM 2-06.4.9.H.5.d). See UDC Section 7.4.9 for bicycle parking design requirements. 6) Completed. 7) Provided. 8) The required setback to the north and east property lines is the greater of ten (10) feet or three-quarters the height of each vertical plain (UDC Table 6.3-3.A). Provide the dimension from the buildings' second floor to the north property line. The height measured for setbacks is measured from the ground to each wall's highest point of the building (UDC Section 6.4.5.B.1 & Fig 6.4.5-A). Provide the height of each exterior wall. The measurements provided were from finished-floor not design grad. Provide more complete and the correct dimensions on the elevation drawings and match the references on the site plan. The Section 1 elevations do not match the architectural drawings. 9) There are three building height references on the site plan (Sheet C-1). Building heights, and the measurement of each wall's height for setbacks, are not the same. The measurement for building height is from design grade to the highest point of the flat roof in this instance (UDC Section 6.4.4 & Fig 6.4.4-A). (See the previous comment for setback height measurements.) Provide the building height on the site plan (the 22' ?). The allowed building height is correct. We do not use an average building height. 10) Provide the location for the gang mailboxes on the site plan (AM 2-06.4.9.V). Be certain that the mailboxes are accessible and that there are no conflicts with other requirements on the site. The mailboxes have been placed in the ROW in the site plan. A ROW permit shall be required. 11) No signage (AM 2-06.4.9.W)? No response letter was provided. There are no further comments at this time. |
| 06/13/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | This project is approved by Environmental Service for solid waste and recycle storage and service based on revised drawings. Jeff Drumm, P.E. Environmental Manager City of Tucson Environmental Services 520-837-3713 |
| 06/13/2013 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. The following items must be resubmitted: 1) Two rolled sets of the plans 2) A disk containing all items submitted 3) All items requested by review staff 4) All items needed to approved this plan. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/18/2013 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 06/18/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |