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

Permit Number: DP14-0145
Parcel: 115045090

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - DP14-0145
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/15/2014 CPIERCE1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
09/15/2014 GARY WITTWER COT NON-DSD TDOT Approv-Cond PIA required
09/16/2014 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Approved
09/16/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
09/17/2014 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Approved
09/17/2014 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Reqs Change 1. SCALE DOES NOT MATCH DIMENSION ON SHEET C1.0
2. OK
3. PLEASE PLEASE PUT HIGH RISE NOTE ON SHEET G1.0 AND PUT PROPER CONSTRUCTION TYPE FOR A HIGH RISE
4. NOTE 3 ON G1.0?
5. PLEASE PUT CORRECT ADDRESS ON SHEETS 1021 OR 1023?
09/17/2014 FDILLON1 DESIGN EXAMINER REVIEW Reqs Change 9-17-14 - HUB II Development Package has several inconsistent items with the PDSD and Main Gate DRC approved final Design Package 8-26-14.

1. Sheet 2/11 (axonometric diagram) notes aluminum railings with a glass divider. Call-outs on the approved design plans specify aluminum railings with perforated metal screens (note #18, pgs. 5,7,9,11.

2. The 8-18-14 approved design plans provide landscaping plans and plant materials schedule for the 2nd floor podium (pgs. 19, 20) and a Landscaping pool deck plan (pg. 21). Development plans must provide missing items that correlate with the 8-18-14 DRC approved Design Package.
09/17/2014 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: The HUB at Tucson Phase II
Development Package (2nd Review)
DP14-0145

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 17, 2014

DUE DATE: September 22, 2014

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM).

The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above

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 August 27, 2015.

SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS)
Section

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.1.1 PURPOSE
This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews.

The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property.

This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes.

2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY
This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review.

2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided.
The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application:

2-06.2.1 Application Form
A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee;

2-06.2.2 Development Package
A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein;

2-06.2.3 Related Reviews
In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the;

2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews
The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and,

2-06.2.5 Fees
Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule.

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.7 - General Notes
The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable.

2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes

2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide:

2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions
The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided.

2-06.4.8.B - All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site 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.

1. As no building plan has been submitted zoning cannot tie the abandonment of the easements to the building plan. Until a building permit as been started zoning cannot conditionally approve the development package. COMMENT: There are a couple of easements shown to be abandoned. These easements will need to be abandoned prior to approval of the development package.

2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development
The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes.

2-06.4.9.A - Draw in all proposed lot lines with approximate distances and measurements.

2. As no building plan has been submitted zoning cannot tie the lot combination to the building plan. Until a building permit as been started zoning cannot conditionally approve the development package. COMMENT: As this site is comprised of two (2) parcel a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request form with your next submittal.

2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided.
3. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide a fully dimensioned detail for the short and long term bicycle parking shown on sheet A100. It appears that the proposed design will deviate from the design requirements and will need to be reviewed and approved by the PDSD Director. Contact Frank Dillon, 837-6957, for requirements of the review. COMMENT: Provide a detail for the proposed short term bicycle parking shown on sheet A100.

2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown.

2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the square footage and the height of each commercial, industrial, or business structure and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building(s).

4. Restated. COMMENT: There appears to be some type of awning shown near the north end of the east side of the proposed structure, provide the height of this structure on the plan. It also appears that this awning encroaches into the right-of-way along Tyndall Avenue, a temporary revolable easement is required. Contact COT Real Estate Office.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package, approved Pima County Combo request form.
.
09/18/2014 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Approved
09/19/2014 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approv-Cond From TDOT
Zelin Canchola

Project - The HUB At Tucson Phase II DP14-0145

Add additional note to plan:

Private Improvement Plan (PIA) plan will include;

Catch basin to be reconstructed in kind after building is complete.


Alley pavement to be reconstructed at existing grades after building construction is complete.

Alle pavement to be reconstructed at previous existing grades after building is complete.
09/22/2014 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) Two rolled sets of the plans
2) A disk containing all items submitted.
3) Items requested by review staff
4) All items needed to approve these plans
09/22/2014 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change The second submittal of the Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal:

1. Add a general note to the cover sheet stating “Facility personnel shall be responsible for positioning the solid waste and recycling containers at the edge of the loading dock on the days of solid waste and recycling service collection, and shall roll the containers out clearly into the loading dock when the service vehicle arrives and shall roll the containers back into their storage area inside the building after servicing”.

2. In order to allow rolling container service, the path for the container must be relatively flat at around 0.2% slope. The containers path would not be allowed on the 2% slopes of the pavers and then the 0.5 ft. drop of the wedge curb into the loading zone. Revise the loading area to show an adequate rolling path for the containers. Also, the paver surface is not allowed for the path of the rolling containers. This surface must be smooth to allow ease of rolling.

3. The metal containers cannot be serviced from the side as they are front loading. A minimum 14’ x 40’ clear area in front of the service vehicle is required per TSM 8-01.5.3.B for safe access to the containers. Revise the loading dock to provide the 14’ width needed to service the containers. Also, there must be a minimum of 25 ft. vertical clearance for servicing the containers in the loading dock area.

If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net.



From: Patricia Gehlen [mailto:Patricia.Gehlen@tucsonaz.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 8:23 AM
To: kperry@perryengineering.net; Andrew Connor; Frank Dillon; Kenneth Brouillette; Loren Makus; Robert Sherry; Ronald Brown; Steve Shields; Zelin Canchola
Cc: Chris Leighton; Ernie Duarte; Jim Vogelsberg
Subject: Fwd: DP14-0145/The Hub II
Importance: High



This plan is back in for a 5 day turn around. Due 9/22 by 5pm.



Plans are currently in my office but will move to the shelf shortly.



The link is the same and there are several hard copies of the plans.



Trish

>>> Patricia Gehlen 8/28/2014 9:13 AM >>>

Morning All-



The above listed plan has been submitted and will be a five day review. The due date for this review is Thursday September 4th at 5pm.



I did get several copies of the plans so there are plenty to go around. The plans, documents and review card are on the table in my office. Please take what plans and documents you need but leave the yellow card so it is available for people to sign.



The plans and documents are also available electronically at the following link



http://www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO/Command?mode=permit&firstTime=true&number_key=dp14-0145&command=InitialProcess



The plans submitted currently show a 15 foot wide alley along the west side of the building with no indication if the alley is one way or two way.



The property owners to the west have requested a meeting to discuss drainage as soon as we have completed the first review.



I will be setting up a meeting this morning for early next week with various review staff so we can discuss our comments, be consistent in our review comments and prepare to meet with the neighbors.



Please let me know if I can be of any assistance with this review.



Have a nice weekend.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
10/03/2014 FERNE RODRIGUEZ OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed