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 - RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - DP15-0044
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
05/29/2015 KROBLES1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
06/01/2015 KBROUIL1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Approv-Cond FIRE LANE SIGNS REQUIRED
06/01/2015 FDILLON1 DESIGN EXAMINER REVIEW Reqs Change Requires Design Package Submittal and review. FD
06/15/2015 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 (2nd Review)
DP15-0044

TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 16, 2015

DUE DATE: June 25, 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) This comment was not addressed. Zoning acknowledges your response. 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.

2-06.4.7 - 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.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.

2) This comment was not addressed. Zoning acknowledges your response. 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.

3) This comment was not addressed. Zoning acknowledges your response. 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.b - Percentage and area in square feet of building and accessory building coverage;

4) COMMENT: The proposed 85% lot coverage exceeds the allowed lot coverage of 80%, see UDC TABLE 6.3-4.A: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE C-1, C-2, C-3, OCR-1, & OCR-2 ZONES

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.

2-06.4.9 - 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.

5) COMMENT: As 90 degree parking, within the garages, is proposed the minimum PAAL width is 24", see UDC Table 7.4.6-1.

6) COMMENT: Provide a PAAL width dimension for the PAALs located between building 1 & 3 and 4 & 6. Minimum PAAL width is 24", see UDC Table 7.4.6-1.

7) COMMENT: It appears that gated access will be provided to this site from McCormick Street. The proposed gated access will need to be approved by COT Transportation.

8) COMMENT: Provide a back-up spur at the east end of the PAALS located between building 1 & 3 and 4 & 6. See UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4.

9) COMMENT: It appears that the entrance off of McCormick Street is narrower than the rest of the PAAL, provide a width dimension on the plan.

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.

10) COMMENT: Vehicle parking spaces Required 45, Provided on site 38, Provided off site 12 for a total provided of 50.

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.

11) COMMENT: Per UDC Article 5.12.10.B.4 Bicycle parking shall be provided when motor vehicle parking is provided. That said the short term bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. Based on 25 bedrooms the required number of short term bicycle parking spaces should be 3. An IID parking plan, Section 5.12.8.E is required to reduce the number of bicycle parking spaces.

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.

12) 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.

13) 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.

Additional comments;
14) COMMENT: It appears the acquisition of the two southern parcels, 117-13-1790 & 117-13-1800, may have reduced the vehicle parking for the Bring Funeral Home. Provide a copy of the last approved site plan and demonstrate that the remaining vehicle parking meets code or that the applicable process has been approved to reduce the required parking.

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.
06/17/2015 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Approved
06/19/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change Private sewer collection systems that include manholes (or lift stations) are required to be reviewed by the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality even if the total daily sewage flow is less than 3,000 gallons per day. [Initial comment: 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).]
06/22/2015 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.

Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.
06/22/2015 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Reqs Change June 23, 2015
ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP15-0044
PROJECT NAME: Stone Avenue homes
PROJECT ADDRESS: 201 S Stone avenue
PROJECT REVIEWER: Zelin Canchola TDOT

Resubmittal Required: TDOT requires the following items must be revised or added to the development plan for approval. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed.

1. Revise note # 34 on page 2 of 10 (paving and grading notes) change 791-5100 to 791-4259

2. The access points shall have 18 feet radius curb returns.

3. Sidewalk width is unclear. 10-01.2.0 2.7 Sidewalk areas minimum width between curb and sidewalk is 2 feet.

4. 10-01.40 4.1 a 1a a minimum of 6 feet along a collector and arterial street is required.

5. Ramp type will be required for right of way permit.


If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520 837 6659 or zelin.canchola@tucsonaz.gov
06/22/2015 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
06/24/2015 SSHIELD1 ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Stone Avenue Homes
Accessibility Review - On Site Only
Development Package (1st Review)
DP15-0044

TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 24, 2015

DUE DATE: June 25, 2015

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

1) Remove the detectable warnings from the on-site ramps as they are only required at passenger transit platforms and curb ramps in the public right-of-way per IBC Section 1109.10.

2) As all units are called out as either type "A" or "B" on the "UNIT KEY" sheet 6, provide additional information for the required accessible routes from the public way to each unit. See IBC 107.2.1, 1106 & 1107.
06/25/2015 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
06/25/2015 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services Dept. and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal.
1. If the entrance from McCormick Street is gated, move the placements of the APCs so that the southernmost APC is at least 30 ft. from the gate. This would allow the service vehicle to completely pull into the property and the gate to close while servicing the first and southernmost APC. Provide three feet of space between each APC per TSM Section 8, figure 8.
2. Eliminate the parallel parking space on Corral Street between Stone and the PAAL exit so the service vehicle can safely exit the site and make the turn onto Corral Street.
If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
08/19/2015 KROBLES1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed