Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: DP15-0044
Parcel: 117131760

Address:
201 S STONE AV

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP15-0044
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
03/17/2015 CPIERCE1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
03/17/2015 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
03/19/2015 KBROUIL1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
03/31/2015 FDILLON1 DESIGN EXAMINER REVIEW Denied Requires Design Package Submittal and review
04/06/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Stone Avenue Homes
Development Package (1st Review)
DP15-0044

TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 8, 2015

DUE DATE: April 10, 2015

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with a detailed 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 March 12, 2016.

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.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

1) COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP15-0044, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

2) COMMENT: As this project is located within the Downtown infill incentive district (IID) Core provide the IID case number adjacent to the title block on each sheet. Contact Carolyn Laurie for IID review requirements.

2-06.4.4 - The project-location map to be located on the first sheet of the development package in the upper right corner, shall cover approximately one square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of three inch equals one mile, and provide the following information.

3) COMMENT: It does not appear that the location map covers a one square mile area.

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.5 - On residential projects, list the total number of units/lots proposed.

4) COMMENT: Provide a general note stating the total number of units proposed.

2-06.4.7.A.6 - If a plan or plat is prepared in conjunction with other applications or overlays or the parcel being developed is subject to conditions of an application processed previously, additional information must be added to the plan. Such applications and overlays include, but are not limited to: annexations; rezonings; special exceptions; Board of Adjustment variances; Design Development Options; Technical Standard Modification Request; overlays (Airport Environs Zone, Environmental Resource Zone, Gateway Corridor Zone, Hillside Development Zone, Historic Preservation Zone, Major Streets and Routes, Rio Nuevo District, Scenic Corridor Zone, WASH); Modification of Development Regulations through the Downtown Area Infill Incentive District or Rio Nuevo District; Downtown Heritage Incentive Zone; or, Design Review Board. Provide the following information on the plan.

2-06.4.7.A.6.a - List additional applications and overlays, by case number (if applicable), in lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note provide the type of application processed or overlays applicable, a statement that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the additional application or overlay, the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any.

5) COMMENT: Once the applicable overlay reviews have been determined and completed provide the case number (if applicable), in lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note provide the type of application processed or overlays applicable, a statement that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the additional application or overlay, the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any.

6) COMMENT: Sheet 2 top left corner lists a MDR case number and conditions that do not appear to be correct, clarify.

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

2-06.4.7.A.8.a - Floor area for each building;

7) COMMENT: As a general note provide the floor area for each building.

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.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.

8) COMMENT: A lot combination is required prior to approval of this development package. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request form with your next submittal.

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.H.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC.

9) COMMENT: It appears that you are proposing one-way access lanes but it is not clear. Until clarified access lane and parking area access lane (PAAL) width requirements cannot be verified.

10) COMMENT: Until the parking space location is clarified, see comment 14, PAAL width requirements cannot be verified.

11) COMMENT: It appears that access will be provided to this site from Stone Avenue. The proposed gated access will need to be approved by COT Transportation.

2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC.

12) COMMENT: There are two vehicle parking space calculations shown on sheet 1, one shows 34 spaces provided and one shows 35, which is correct. Also there should only be one calculation, pick one.

13) COMMENT: Based on the vehicle parking space calculations utilizing UDC Section 5.12.5.B.6 there are 25 vehicle parking spaces provided on site. It does not appear that there are any provided on site, clarify.

2-06.4.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual.

14) COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.3.3.B The areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings. That said there does not appear to be an on site pedestrian connection from the western most building to the three buildings along the east side of the project.
15) COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.4.3.A All sidewalks must be a minimum of four feet wide and installed to avoid any obstruction which decreases the minimum width to less than four feet. That said the interior pedestrian ways shown under keynote 24 do not meet the width requirement.


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.
04/08/2015 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change The PAAL/Drive from Stone Avenue is not wide enough for two way travel. Indicate travel direction.
04/09/2015 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Reqs Change April 9, 2015
ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP15-0044
PROJECT NAME: Stone Avenue Homes
PROJECT ADDRESS: 201 S Stone Avenue
PROJECT REVIEWER: Zelin Canchola TDOT

Resubmittal Required. TDOT does not recommend approval of the Development plan. therefore a revised Plan is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the plat. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed.


1. Show and label as to size SVTs (sight visibility triangles along Corral Street)

2. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-4259 for permit information. Note required on plan.

3. List the name, ROW width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks. (DS 2-05.2.2.D)

4. The access points should be 25' radius curb returns. (DS 3-01.0 figure 6) according to development standards but given type of driveway entrance, width, and one way, it can be a standard apron. No stamped concrete in the ROW. The standard concrete is preferred due to ADA recommendations.

5. Show existing driveways for the adjoining properties and dimension the distance they are separated.

6. Show / note existing driveway to be closed and replaced with curb and sidewalk

7. Plan shows fence in Right of Way. No wall or fence will be approved within ROW

8. Remove note and one way sign along Corral Street concerning one way until actually becoming a one way.

9. Sidewalk within ROW to be 6 feet and minimum 2 feet of buffer between cur and sidewalk.

10. Tucson City Code Chapter 25 Section 38 requires a minimum driveway separation of 20'.

11. Back up spur will be required for gate


If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520 837 6659 or zelin.canchola@tucsonaz.gov
04/10/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Verify that the separation of building sewer pipes and the water service pipes complies with the requirements of Section 603.2, IPC 2012.
2. The minimum slope for a 3" to 6" building sewer is 1/8" per foot. An 8" building sewer can have a slope of 1/16" per foot (approximately 0.5%) but an 8" building sewer requires manholes instead of cleanouts. The first manhole shall be located within 200 feet of the junction of the building drain and the building sewer. Subsequent manholes shall be spaced not more than 400 feet apart and at each change in direction. Reference: Sections 704.1 and 708.3.2, IPC 2012.
3. The rim elevation of the proposed private sanitary manhole (2389.75') is less than 12" below the first floor elevation of building 1 (2390.45'). Provide backwater valve for building 1 per Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.
4. The total flow for the private sewage collection system for this project is in excess of 3000 gallons per day (11 one-bedroom apartments at 200 GPD plus 7 2-bedroom apartments at 300 GPD equals 4300 GPD). The design for the system must be submitted to the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality for their approval prior to obtaining a permit for constructing the sewage collection system from the City of Tucson. Reference A. R. S. 49-104 (B) (13).
04/10/2015 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
04/10/2015 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

Identification and Descriptive Data

All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan.

The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet:
1. Legal description and address of site;
2. Cross-reference to:
a. Rezoning case;
b. Subdivision case;
c. Board of Adjustment case;
d. Design Development Option case;
e. Development Review Board (DRB) case; and/or,
f. Any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site.

Include any conditions imposed if necessary


5.12.5. DOWNTOWN CORE SUBDISTRICT (DCS)

Shade
a. Except as provided below, shade shall be provided for at least 50% of all sidewalks and pedestrian access paths as measured at 2:00 p.m. on June 21 when the sun is 82 degrees above the horizon. Shade may be provided by trees, arcades, canopies, or shade structures. The use of plantings and shade structures in the City right-of-way is permitted to meet this standard. The shade provided by a building may serve to meet. Provide shade calculation for interior sidewalks and pedestrian access.

Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.

Additional comments may apply.
04/10/2015 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services Department and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal:
1. Provide centralized collection service access within the site per TSM 8-01.5.1.A. with enclosures for both front loading refuse and recycling metal containers per the figures in TSM Section 8.
2. Revise General Note #19 to reflect the waste stream calculation associated with the front load metal containers. The use of 18 or 25 APCs will not be allowed per TSM 8-01.4.0.D and G. Revise the total number of residences in the note from 25 to 18 so that it agrees with other notes and calculations such as that for parking and density. Also, revise the area used in the calculation to be the gross square footage instead of net livable. The calculations in Section 8 are based upon data from Fairfax County Virginia which uses building gross square footage.
3. Show the service vehicle drive path thru the site, and that it can safely maneuver through the site and service the enclosures with the required clearances per TSM 8-01.5.3.E. Show the one way direction of the roadway.
4. An adequate and safe ingress/egress is required for the service vehicle per TSM 8.01-5.3.C. Per the traffic engineering comment, show the site visibility triangle on Corral Street.
5. Add a general note per TSM 8-01.5.1.D regarding who will be responsible for the management and maintenance of the solid waste collection services and storage areas.
There may be additional comments once the refuse and recycling enclosures and service vehicle site access is shown on the plans. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net.
04/10/2015 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Please provide accessible parking spaces as required by the 2012 IBC, Section 1106.2:
"1106.2 Groups R-2 and R-3.
At least 2 percent, but not less than one, of each type of parking space provided for occupancies in Groups R-2 and R-3, which are required to have Accessible, Type A or Type B dwelling or sleeping units, shall be accessible. Where parking is provided within or beneath a building, accessible parking spaces shall also be provided within or beneath the building."
2. Revise the parking analysis on sheet 1 to reflect the required number of accessible parking spaces as determined by comment 1 above.
END OF REVIEW
04/13/2015 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) All items requested by review staff
4) All items needed to approve this plan

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
05/28/2015 KROBLES1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed