Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - DP16-0191
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/22/2017 | ARUIZ1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/28/2017 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera for Steve Shields - Principal Planner PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: Senior Housing for TMM Family Services Development Package (2nd Review) DP16-0191 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 28, 2017 DUE DATE: March 22, 2017 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. 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 November 2, 2017. 1. Follow Up to Previous Comment 2: To answer your question about the 3 by 5 block, when the standards were created way back, we used to stamp the plans with a PDSD stamp for signatures. The block was requested specifically for that stamp. Obviously with the technology we now have digital stamps in 3 formats for download by the Professional to use. Unfortunately the standards have not been updated to reflect some of the changes that have been made. Remove the 3 x 5 blocks as you have already provided the signature blocks on the sheets. The PDSD signature stamp was not included on Sheet 7 of 9. Add the signature stamp to sheet 7. 2-06.3.5 - A three-inch by five-inch space shall be reserved in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for an approval stamp. PREVIOUS COMMENT 2: Add the PDSD stamp to all plan sheets in the lower right corner next to the title block. 2. Follow Up To Previous Comment 4: The contour interval was not labeled on the Grading plan sheet. 2-06.3.8 - The north arrow, contour interval, and scale as applicable to each sheet should be placed together in the upper right corner of each sheet. PREVIOUS COMMENT 4: Add the north arrow along side the location map and include the contour interval on the appropriate site sheet (grading). 3. Follow up to Previous Comment 11: List the administrative address, 3131 E Lee Street next to the title block of all plan sheets. Also the DP case number was not listed on sheet 7 of 9. List the DP16-0191 case number next to the title block of sheet 7. 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. PREVIOUS COMMENT 11: List the administrative address of the development site. The only address that can be verified is 3131 E Lee Street. List the administrative address next to the title block of all plan sheets. Provide the development package case number, DP16-0191, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 4. Follow Up To Previous Comment 29: Short Term Bicycle facilities are for non-residents and must be accessible to all visitors. Placing short term facilities within the building does not provide accessibility to the facilities. Provide the information as requested by the previous comment. (A Board of Adjustment variance would be required if the short term facilities are placed in the units or to eliminate the required facilities.) 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. PREVIOUS COMMENT 29: Include a bicycle parking calculation for the short and long term facilities. Short term facilities may not be placed inside the apartments. Add fully dimensioned detail drawings of the short term facilities. Refer to UDC section 7.4.9 for design criteria. 5. Follow Up To Previous Comment 37: Correct the typo in keynote 11 on sheet 2, Label the height of the van accessible sign to 7' feet from the small sign as noted in the redline on sheet 1. PREVIOUS COMMENT 37: Review the key notes on sheet two and three. Some of the keynote symbols include a leader line either pointing to the wrong item, the item can not be verified, or the keynote symbol is missing. If you have any questions about this transmittal, Contact David Rivera on Tuesday or Wednesday at (520) 837-4957 or by email David.Rivera@tucsonaz.gov or contact Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 03/01/2017 | DAVID RIVERA | HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/07/2017 | KLEE1 | PIMA COUNTY - ADDRESSING | PIMA COUNTY - ADDRESSING | Approved | DP16-0191 3131 E Lee St / 2nd Submittal is Approved by Pima County Addressing. Please see the addresses that will be issued for this project in the attached pdf. Thank you, Robin Freiman Addressing Official Pima County Development Services Department 201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 724-7570 Description: Description: cid:image001.png@01CE70DF.60625CC0 |
| 03/14/2017 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Per previous comment 15 and AM 2-06.4.9L please dimension and provide recordation information for the proposed drainage easement required by paving and grading note 25 on sheet C-1. |
| 03/16/2017 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. |
| 03/17/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (2454.96') is higher than the first floor elevations of the proposed duplexes (2454.0 and 2454.5'). Provide a note on the plans requiring the installation of a backwater valve when future plumbing activities take place. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 03/20/2017 | KLEE1 | 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) All approved documents submitted previously 3) A disk containing all items submitted 4) All items requested by review staff 5) All items needed to approve these plans |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/04/2017 | MMENDIB1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |