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: SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP16-0010
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/02/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (2423.50') is higher than the first floor elevation (2422.03'). Provide a note on the plans requiring the installation of a backwater valve. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 02/10/2016 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1) UDC 7.6.5.C.2. Screens along a street frontage must be located on the development side of the street landscape border so that they do not obstruct the view of the street landscape border from the street. Revise the plans to locate any proposed screen walls behind the street landscape border. 2) A change to the screening will necessitate a new review for the affected landscape borders. UDC 7.6.4.C.2 |
| 02/11/2016 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | Exception |
| 02/22/2016 | KEN BROUILLETTE | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/24/2016 | SSHIELD1 | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See Zoning Comments |
| 02/24/2016 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Remove the MS&R notation from 1st Avenue. This is a local street in this area. 2. Show the future right of way location for Euclid Avenue. The MS&R plan shows a future width of 120 feet. 3. Add the MS&R notation on Euclid Avenue. |
| 02/24/2016 | SSHIELD1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 02/24/2016 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 742 E. Lee Street Development Package (1st Review) DP16-0010 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 24, 2016 DUE DATE: February 25, 2016 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. 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 January 26, 2017. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 1. 2-06.4.7.A.8.c - Provide a building area expansion calculation on the plan. 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. 2-06.4.9.F - Provide the zoning for the parcels across Euclid, Lee & 1st Avenue. Based on the provided last approved site plan there have been modifications to the vehicle use and parking areas the following comments apply; 3. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Provide a PAAL width dimension for the PAAL located to the southwest of the eastern most building between the proposed wall and the bollards. Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.b Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches. That said show the 2' setback to the bollard and wall and the minimum 20' access lane. 4. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Provide a PAAL width dimension for the PAAL located to the southwest of the eastern most building between the proposed wall and the vehicle parking spaces. Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.b Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches. That said show the 2' setback to the wall and the required 24' PAAL. 5. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Provide vehicle parking space "B" & "C" dimensions for all vehicle parking spaces. 6. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Per UDC 7.4.6.H.1 Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. That said some type of barrier is required for all the parking shown. 7. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Provide a detail for the proposed and/or existing accessible ramps shown on the plan that demonstrates how the requirements of IBC Chapter 11 and ICC A117.1-2009 are met. 8. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - It appears that the accessible vehicle parking space signs encroach into the minimum 18'-0" vehicle parking space depth. 9. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - It does not appear that the vehicle parking space calculation is correct. Based on the provided last approved site plan there were 56 efficiency apartments and 1 one bedroom and the managers apartment for a total of 58 units. Your plan only shows 56 units but does not specify number of bedrooms in each unit or the size. Clarify the difference in number of units and provide the size, and number of bedrooms per unit in your calculation. 10. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Provide a detail for the relocated short term bicycle parking that meets the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B & .C 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 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/03/2016 | AROMERO4 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |