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: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - DP16-0144
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/07/2016 | PGEHLEN1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/07/2016 | CLAURIE1 | DESIGN PROFESSIONAL | REVIEW | Denied | Denied until IID major review process is complete. |
| 10/10/2016 | CHRIS POIRIER | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | Good Afternoon Derek, DP16-0144 7th Av Commons is Approved by Pima County Addressing. The unit numbers for the address 58 E 5th St will be issued once the Development Package has been approved by the City of Tucson. Please find the attached Approved Project Notification form. To ensure timely addressing of this project, please submit the completed, attached, form and the Approved or Recorded plans to addressing@pima.gov. Addresses will be available on our website, http://web1.pima.gov/WebSearch?search=address, within approximately 5 business days after receipt of the required documentation. Please email any questions to addressing@pima.gov. Thank you, Robin Freiman Addressing Specialist Pima County Development Services Department 201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 724-7570 |
| 10/10/2016 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Principal Planner PROJECT: 7th Avenue Commons Development Package (1st Review) DP16-0144 TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 10, 2016 DUE DATE: October 21, 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). 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 22, 2017. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. The IID case number provided is not correct and should be T16SA00150. 2-06.4.3 - As you will be using the Downtown Area Infill Incentive District (IID) for this plan provide the IID case number adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2. This comment was not addressed. 2-06.4.2.B - Identify all streets that abut the subject property on the location map. 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 3. This comment was not addressed. The development package cannot be approved until the IID is completed. 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - Provide a general note stating the IID case number, date of approval, what has been modified, if applicable conditions of approval 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 4. It does not appear that the open space calculation is correct. Based on a site area of 52102 the required open space should be 10420. 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Per UDC Table 5.12-SSS-3 provide an open space calculation on the plan. Clearly demonstrate on the plan how the open space requirements are met. 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. 5. This comment was not addressed. 2-06.4.9.A - As the main site is made up of three (3) parcels, 117-04-214A, 117-04-214D & 117-04-214F, a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combination Request from with your next submittal. 6. This comment was not addressed. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Per UDC Table 5.12-DLS-5 Specific Requirement 6 At corner lots, vehicular access points may not be located on a primary street. That said the vehicle access proposed off of Stone is not allowed. 7. This comment was not addressed. Per UDC Table 5.12-DLS-5 the ratio that should be provided on the plan is one (1) space per dwelling unit 91/DU). That said the required number of vehicle parking spaces shown on the plan is not correct. Based on the ratio provided above the required number should 50. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Provide a vehicle parking space calculation that includes the number of spaces required, ratio used. 8. This comment was not addressed. Clarify why the vehicle parking calc still includes the 26 spaces shown in the ROW.2-06.4.9.H.5.a - The provided number of vehicle parking spaces may not include the vehicle parking spaces located in the right-of-way. 9. The mounting height shown for the accessible sign is not correct and should be shown as 7'-0". 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Provide a detail for the required accessible parking space sign. 10. The provided number of short term bicycle parking spaces is not correct. Per UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.d A single rack is designed and located to accommodate two bicycles. That said 9 racks would support 18 bicycles. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Provide a short and long term bicycle parking calculation on the plan. This calculation should include the number required, provided and the ratio used. 11. The dimensions shown on detail 5 sheet 20 are not correct. The dimension should be shown from the edge of the rack not center. Also demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1.e are met. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Provide a short term bicycle parking space detail the clearly demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1, .2 and .C are met. Additional Comments 1. 2-06.4.8.A - Provide the distance and bearings for the new property boundary shown on the plan. 2. 2-06.4.9.R - There is a sidewalk shown near the southeast corner of the site. This sidewalk crosses on to the adjacent property owned by the City of Tucson. This property is part of the Downtown Links Road project. Contact Joe Chase City of Tucson Department of Transportation, (520) 837-6619, to coordinate the location of this sidewalk. 3. 2-06.4.9.R - There is a ramp shown near the northeast corner of the site, provide a detail for this ramp that demonstrates how the requirements of ICC A117.1-2009 Sections 302,405 & 505 are met. 4. 2-06.4.9.R - Provide sidewalk width dimensions around the proposed mailbox. 5. 2-06.4.9.R - Sheet 4 parking garage there is a line indicating the accessible path that runs through a vehicle parking space. 6. The submitted plans have whiteout on them. Zoning will not be able to approve plans with whiteout on them. 7. Remove all clouds and deltas from the plan. 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. |
| 10/14/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | A Reduced Pressure Principle Detector Assembly (RPDA, ASSE 1047) is less restrictive than a reduced Pressure Principle Assembly (RPA, ASSE 1013) and cannot be used in an application for which an RPA is required. Use Standard detail SD-1802 instead of SD-1804. (see detail at: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/water/docs/Revised_Standard_Specifications_Backflow.pdf.) [Initial comment: Reduced pressure backflow prevention assemblies (not double check detector assemblies) are required at the water meter for buildings that have three or more stories or are greater than 34-feet in height as measured from the service level and for properties with more than one water meter connected. Reference: Chapter XXVII, Article V, Section 27-72, the Tucson Code, http://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/water/docs/backflow-ordinance.pdf] |
| 10/19/2016 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Reqs Change | October 18, 2016 ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP16-0144 PROJECT NAME: 7th Ave Commons PROJECT ADDRESS: 58 e 5th Street PROJECT REVIEWER: Zelin Canchola TDOT Resubmittal Required. A revised Plan is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the plan. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 1. Add new pedestrian ramp to South West corner where Echols Ave. connects to 5th Street. 2. Provide sight visibility triangles at any new driveways and at Nichols Ave where it connects to 5th Street. Technical Standard Manual (TSM) 10-01.5 3. As noted in PDSD Engineering comments "The IID doesn't allow access to or from the project along Stone Avenue and the maximum driveway width is 24 feet (UDC 5.12.11.) Revise the plans to meet these requirements". Any questions concerning this requirement contact PDSD. 4. Standard sidewalk shall be 5 feet. Revise all sidewalks to 5 feet. (TSM) 10-01.4 4.1 Sidewalk specs. 6. A right of way permit from TDOT permits and codes will be required at tme of construction Call 520 791 4259 for information. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520 837 6659 or zelin.canchola@tucsonaz.gov |
| 10/20/2016 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | HC SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See Zoning comments |
| 10/20/2016 | 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. (General comment, pertaining to plan contents) UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 5: OVERLAY ZONES 5.12.8. GENERAL IID ZONING OPTION DESIGN STANDARDS An IID Plan under the IID zoning option design standards must demonstrate compliance with the following: A. Streetscape Design 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. Include Shade Study on 24-inch by 36-inch sheet(s); and include with plan set for approval. The use of plantings and shade structures in the City right-of-way is permitted to meet this standard with the approval of the Transportation Department. The shade provided by a building may serve to meet this standard. Provide permission to use the ROW for landscape purposes. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply |
| 10/21/2016 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. The change from standard solid waste containers to a compactor system will require review by Environmental Services. Environmental Services will be included in the next review cycle. 2. The response to Engineering comment 10 indicates the use of hex call out 12. Hex call out 12 is not in the list on sheet 2 and is not used on plan sheet 4. Clarify the specific standard detail and standard specification for the proposed material in Echols Avenue. Also the notes for the alternate material are not consistent between sheets 4 and 13. 3. As previously commented, the IID doesn't allow access to the project from Stone Avenue. (UDC 5.12.11.) Revise the plans to meet these requirements. 4. The legend on sheet 8 shows extruded concrete header. Clarify in the plans that extruded curb or header will not be used in the right-of-way. |
| 10/27/2016 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. |
| 10/27/2016 | GARY WITTWER | COT NON-DSD | TDOT | Needs Review |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/27/2016 | PGEHLEN1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |